Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by robinson999)
    well i could lie and say yes :o: sadly no , welcome to the fun world of trying to read my typing, it is shocking and well gets me in trouble, mainly due to laziness that i don't read over it again, and years of poor state schooling, plus i do a science degree we don't essay that need to make sense :p:
    Well if it makes you feel better I have found all your other posts easy to understand. I just assumed what with the time it was likely you were drunk but fair enough :o:. My own tiredness probably doesn't help :p:

    I personally don't want any religious leaders to be paid for, full stop. Total waste of money IMO.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Well if it makes you feel better I have found all your other posts easy to understand. I just assumed what with the time it was likely you were drunk but fair enough :o:. My own tiredness probably doesn't help :p:

    I personally don't want any religious leaders to be paid for, full stop. Total waste of money IMO.
    maybe :ninja:

    i agree they are a bit of a waste off money, i was more wondering if other pay, because it is unfair to turn round to say the pope gets it all for free but you will have to pay, well i am chatting ****

    i am really indifferent about it all
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by robinson999)
    maybe :ninja:

    i agree they are a bit of a waste off money, i was more wondering if other pay, because it is unfair to turn round to say the pope gets it all for free but you will have to pay, well i am chatting ****

    i am really indifferent about it all
    Fair enough. I'm not sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I'm not sure if it got passed on by Adorno or Cardozo who I PM'd, but it if did, then I wonder if you've read the post regarding a bill on localism & tax reform, and on gaining cross-party consensus in writing it. Any opinions from any Labour members, objections or thoughts on turning it into a bill? If they have forgotten to pass it on, just say and I'll post a copy up here as I'm interested to hear what all parties make of it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Hi, I'm not sure if it got passed on by Adorno or Cardozo who I PM'd, but it if did, then I wonder if you've read the post regarding a bill on localism & tax reform, and on gaining cross-party consensus in writing it. Any opinions from any Labour members, objections or thoughts on turning it into a bill? If they have forgotten to pass it on, just say and I'll post a copy up here as I'm interested to hear what all parties make of it.
    If you could point directly at the post it'd be appreciated, though I'm not an MP and relatively novice in the labour party so my opinion will purely be for the debate in all probability
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    If you could point directly at the post it'd be appreciated, though I'm not an MP and relatively novice in the labour party so my opinion will purely be for the debate in all probability
    He has posted it a couple of days ago in the UKIP thread mate, assuming you wish to have a look. You could paste it to here or something should you wish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    If you could point directly at the post it'd be appreciated, though I'm not an MP and relatively novice in the labour party so my opinion will purely be for the debate in all probability
    Apologies, I'll link to it rather than re-post. It's at the link below, for reading.

    Clicky clicky.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not that it matters much given the content but revealling the contents of PMs in open forums without the expressed permission of the parties involved isn't allowed by the rules. As it is, I'm being honest. I don't like the proposals - I think it's pretty anglo-centric (no surprise there) and will penalise communities that are not especially affluent - as with all Libertarian proposals!
    First and foremost, apologies for putting PM content up in an open forum, it was a genuine slip.

    As for the proposale being anglo-centric, I make no apologies for that, because there is logic to it. The point it to push powers down to smaller blocks of population. The national parliaments of Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland all have jurisdiction over a smaller population than London. To push tax raising powers further down would be impractical. Thus, it would split England into regions of similar population size to the other three member state, as well as pushing relevant powers to Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland that they do not currently have that would be pushed down. It is not that I have negated the other parts of the UK, but rather the problem isn't there to be fixed in those areas.

    As for penalising communities that are not affluent, I realise this was a criticism of a previous bill I wrote, which was a rather crude version of localism. This is especially why I've put in the central government aspect of funding to poorer regions, to ensure that those areas that are less well off do not fall behind and are not negatively affected by this. I presume you don't think this is sufficient - from the fact that you think it will hurt less affluent regions - but why not?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    As for the proposale being anglo-centric, I make no apologies for that, because there is logic to it. The point it to push powers down to smaller blocks of population. The national parliaments of Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland all have jurisdiction over a smaller population than London. To push tax raising powers further down would be impractical. Thus, it would split England into regions of similar population size to the other three member state, as well as pushing relevant powers to Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland that they do not currently have that would be pushed down. It is not that I have negated the other parts of the UK, but rather the problem isn't there to be fixed in those areas.
    I really despise this argument, that because Wales (for example) has a population less than that of London it doesn't deserve things. It has a population greater than self-governing members of the European Union so I'm not sure that's really very fair. We have four nations and one city-state in this country and to denounce three parts of it simply because London is bigger is pretty narrow.

    As for penalising communities that are not affluent, I realise this was a criticism of a previous bill I wrote, which was a rather crude version of localism. This is especially why I've put in the central government aspect of funding to poorer regions, to ensure that those areas that are less well off do not fall behind and are not negatively affected by this. I presume you don't think this is sufficient - from the fact that you think it will hurt less affluent regions - but why not?
    Because your minimum will often be the maximum for many areas and thus those that are most affluent and therefore able to bring in more money for services will push ahead leaving the less affluent regions further and further behind. This is always the danger with the ultra-localism of the neo-liberal Right. It considers that minimums are a sufficient cup of tea for Leftists but I'm afraid it isn't. Less affluent regions often need far more spending than affluent ones. They need more money spent on business aid, healthcare, education, family support, and so forth. Throwing all of that onto local government would be a disaster for those caught up in those less affluent regions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    I really despise this argument, that because Wales (for example) has a population less than that of London it doesn't deserve things. It has a population greater than self-governing members of the European Union so I'm not sure that's really very fair. We have four nations and one city-state in this country and to denounce three parts of it simply because London is bigger is pretty narrow.
    It is not to denounce them, but rather to push taxation and spending powers to blocs of population that are as small as possible while big enough to command some fiscal clout (such as being able to raise money on bond markets). There is a balance between these two things, and England at ~50 million is too big, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland are approximately the right size and to split them up further (just as to split England up into regions that are too small) would be impractical.

    Because your minimum will often be the maximum for many areas and thus those that are most affluent and therefore able to bring in more money for services will push ahead leaving the less affluent regions further and further behind. This is always the danger with the ultra-localism of the neo-liberal Right. It considers that minimums are a sufficient cup of tea for Leftists but I'm afraid it isn't. Less affluent regions often need far more spending than affluent ones. They need more money spent on business aid, healthcare, education, family support, and so forth. Throwing all of that onto local government would be a disaster for those caught up in those less affluent regions.
    There are national minimums in service provision, but in terms of the bugdet I imagine that current spending to local government minus tax reciepts from that region would be a good place to start with the top-up. It wouldn't put them in a worse position than they currently have with regards funding, and the need for extra spending on such things is already taken into account with current funding. It should naturally be subject to review every x years based on regional development, changing demographics and so forth, but don't assume it will be at a bare minimum level.

    The bill doesn't propose to change overall tax or spending levels, so there's no reason that less affluent areas will end up with less funding. It is just that they will have more flexibility to encourage business into that area, provide services in a different manner or indeed raise taxes to protect services if that is the wishes of the electorate. Indeed, many parts of the country might just have done that in the present environment instead of the widespread spending cuts.

    Not to mention that welfare spending remains centralised, so a major part (note not the only part) of extra spending required in less affluent regions would remain centralised.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Not to mention that welfare spending remains centralised, so a major part (note not the only part) of extra spending required in less affluent regions would remain centralised.
    What welfare spending? Your party got rid of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    What welfare spending? Your party got rid of it.
    It's not gotten rid off, it's just not restricted to any group of circumstance. Also technically it was a PMB rather than a party bill, but nonetheless.

    In saying that, I did forget that, but the point remains of poorer regions not having to deal with extra welfare spending, be that because means-tested welfare doesn't exist or because it's centralised (or both, as the case is).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    encourage business into that area.
    That's a libertarian euphemism for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Regions are better off not being able to whore themselves off to rich folk, as it is both a morally bankrupt thing to do, and it will entrench and expand wealth inequality further still.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eoin0x)
    That's a libertarian euphemism for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Regions are better off not being able to whore themselves off to rich folk, as it is both a morally bankrupt thing to do, and it will entrench and expand wealth inequality further still.
    Right yeah, because businesses that provide employment are a real downer for the poor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Right yeah, because businesses that provide employment are a real downer for the poor.
    You're right - we must encourage those lovely, benevolent businesses to come to the UK. Whatever the cost - be it social or monetary - we must whore ourselves off to the big businessmen.

    What we really need is to escape the de-humanising free-market and recover the ideal of full employment, realised up until the 1980s when thatcher, lovely girl that she was, cut taxes to attract business to the country! Residual unemployment of 1 million, at a strike!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eoin0x)
    You're right - we must encourage those lovely, benevolent businesses to come to the UK. Whatever the cost - be it social or monetary - we must whore ourselves off to the big businessmen.

    What we really need is to escape the de-humanising free-market and recover the ideal of full employment, realised up until the 1980s when thatcher, lovely girl that she was, cut taxes to attract business to the country! Residual unemployment of 1 million, at a strike!
    When Thatcher came to power, the unemployment rate was ~6%, when she left it was ~7%. We've since been lower than 6% unemployment, so the ideal of full employment never really existed, unless it existed as recently as 2007.

    Unemployment in Thatcher's era was largely from ending subsidies to many industries and selling off inefficient state monopolies (of course they shed unnecessary jobs when they had to look after the balance sheet themselves).

    It's funny how you don't think businesses are what brings wealth to a region. Why is it that the South East and London are so much more affluent than the North-East? Perhaps it's to do with the amount of economic activity, ability to get jobs and so forth. Guess what drives them, business.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    The hour grows late for those of you with heart enough to sally forth in the name of independence, to end the European arrogation of our liberty and smite their ruin across the land of our fathers. One day, just one sweet day, you shall know what it is to be alive as you emerge - resplendent - from the burning remnants of the ephemeral tyranny we were once too meek to abhor. Take this, friends, as promulgation that that day is this day, that that fight is our fight and by god we shall win it, or we shall know - even for a short time - what it's like to fight for the freedom that is every mans right!

    In conclusion:

    I'm posting this in places to remind people you still need to get back to me if you wish to have any input in the statement, or even to ally yourself with it. If not then you fail at life.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Out of curiosity, which candidate for RL Labour leader has the support of TSR Labour members?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm warming to Ed Balls personally.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an Ed Miliband supporter.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.