Only pay (tax) for what you vote for. Only those who contribute can vote. #Simple
Thoughts?
Surely, if you vote for free tuition, you should assume sole responsibility (alongside other voters) for paying for free tuition? Likewise, if Tory voters vote for tuition fees, they should pay for them. Tories wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Labour voters, Labour voters wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Tory voters.
If you don't contribute tax then, well, sorry. What have you done to advance civilisation? You don't get a vote. A notable exception to this rule includes people with disabilities (actual physical disabilities which prevent them from working).
Surely, if you vote for the NHS, while others may accept private healthcare, you should pay for the NHS? Surely, if you want to amass £300bn of PFI debt, it should be the responsibility of the voters who voted in-favour of that policy to pay it back (Labour voters)?
Now that Tory voters no longer use the NHS, we'd have to divide up the asset value of holdings, as well as all tangible assets (if Labour wants to retain ownership). Labour voters would owe Tory voters all of their previous contributions (as well as gains made in the value of those holdings since the date of purchase). Once repaid, they have the NHS, and sole access to it. Good luck propping it up without Tory contributions, mind you.
Surely, if you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live in predominantly multicultural areas, or around multiculturalism at its worst (otherwise your vote is either null and void, or you have to move, or invite more Syrians to live on your street).
Maybe we could divide the country up: Tory pot (plenty of cash, continual surplus) and Labour pot (plenty of PFI, continual deficit)?
We could have cards: Tory card and Labour card.
The latter will get you into faith-based secondary schools with teachings on homophobia and Sharia law (it's 'diversity'!), access to 'free money' as and when you need it, free healthcare in a run-down NHS devoid of contributions from Tory voters, and the right to live in a workplace whereby outcomes are strictly monitored. Feelings would be the national religion in L-UK. Celebrities would be the primary tax contributors (though how long this would last, after their self-interest is exposed for what it is, who knows.
The latter would get you access to swanky hotels, first-class education, private healthcare without any of the queues, and establishments which abide by a strict 'Russell Brand and Owen Jones are not permitted to enter' policy - all tax contributions would go towards furthering individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism (not Labour corporatism). Secularism would be the spirit of the day, as well as genuine - not manufactured - tolerance of individual liberty in C-UK.
Works for me. Now, who wants to set-up the petition?
Surely, if you vote for free tuition, you should assume sole responsibility (alongside other voters) for paying for free tuition? Likewise, if Tory voters vote for tuition fees, they should pay for them. Tories wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Labour voters, Labour voters wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Tory voters.
If you don't contribute tax then, well, sorry. What have you done to advance civilisation? You don't get a vote. A notable exception to this rule includes people with disabilities (actual physical disabilities which prevent them from working).
Surely, if you vote for the NHS, while others may accept private healthcare, you should pay for the NHS? Surely, if you want to amass £300bn of PFI debt, it should be the responsibility of the voters who voted in-favour of that policy to pay it back (Labour voters)?
Now that Tory voters no longer use the NHS, we'd have to divide up the asset value of holdings, as well as all tangible assets (if Labour wants to retain ownership). Labour voters would owe Tory voters all of their previous contributions (as well as gains made in the value of those holdings since the date of purchase). Once repaid, they have the NHS, and sole access to it. Good luck propping it up without Tory contributions, mind you.
Surely, if you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live in predominantly multicultural areas, or around multiculturalism at its worst (otherwise your vote is either null and void, or you have to move, or invite more Syrians to live on your street).
Maybe we could divide the country up: Tory pot (plenty of cash, continual surplus) and Labour pot (plenty of PFI, continual deficit)?
We could have cards: Tory card and Labour card.
The latter will get you into faith-based secondary schools with teachings on homophobia and Sharia law (it's 'diversity'!), access to 'free money' as and when you need it, free healthcare in a run-down NHS devoid of contributions from Tory voters, and the right to live in a workplace whereby outcomes are strictly monitored. Feelings would be the national religion in L-UK. Celebrities would be the primary tax contributors (though how long this would last, after their self-interest is exposed for what it is, who knows.
The latter would get you access to swanky hotels, first-class education, private healthcare without any of the queues, and establishments which abide by a strict 'Russell Brand and Owen Jones are not permitted to enter' policy - all tax contributions would go towards furthering individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism (not Labour corporatism). Secularism would be the spirit of the day, as well as genuine - not manufactured - tolerance of individual liberty in C-UK.
Works for me. Now, who wants to set-up the petition?
See Wolheim's paradox on democracy and its solutions - it is an interesting read.
What you are suggesting is not democracy, but rather a pure social contract.
What you are suggesting is not democracy, but rather a pure social contract.
yeah but I will vote for enoch, what then?
How is this bureaucracy which figures out who someone voted for, rations services and enforces the rationing being funded? I presume no one will be voting for the massive money drain of bureaucracy this will be.
Do we pay for the admin costs of this making this system work if we vote against it?
If yes, then the system is a sham and will be torn apart. If no, we probably can't afford to pay for the system. #simple
If yes, then the system is a sham and will be torn apart. If no, we probably can't afford to pay for the system. #simple
Original post by Foo.mp3
Also sounds like separatism to me. I can relate to his disgruntlement but personally tend toward Fourth Way pragmatic pluralism; we must have faith that:
A) There will be sufficient appetite for it among the general public (that is, once we've escaped the pendular motion of Third Way politics vs. retropolitik)
B) Lessons will be learnt regarding the inadequacies of standard socio-economic models of 'success' ('wealth creation' et. [pseudo-]progressivist obsessiveness) and related vote/donor-buying 'policy' vs. true economic (inc. debt, BoP), social (inc. integration, equality, dignity) and environmental sustainability
A) There will be sufficient appetite for it among the general public (that is, once we've escaped the pendular motion of Third Way politics vs. retropolitik)
B) Lessons will be learnt regarding the inadequacies of standard socio-economic models of 'success' ('wealth creation' et. [pseudo-]progressivist obsessiveness) and related vote/donor-buying 'policy' vs. true economic (inc. debt, BoP), social (inc. integration, equality, dignity) and environmental sustainability
I can't see much appetite for direct democracy (if that is what you're advocating - it's what I understand as 'the fourth way'). Voter turnouts, particular among the young and at by-elections, are still paltry. Pus, direct democracy would just result in ridiculous polices like 1,000% pay increases for teachers or hospitals every 2 miles.
I think we need to focus on making our existing political system far more representative of public opinion. Placing the process of decision making in the hands of the electorate, however, is a recipe for disaster.
Original post by Foo.mp3
The Fourth Way is a system of political bargaining in which political representatives propose/support positions they deem most likely to gain consensus within their constituency (recognising a diverse range of political perspectives in arriving at this position) ~ direct democracy once-removed, if you will
If we incorporate the pragmatic pluralist addendum about sustainability then logic dictates a degree of forward-thinking paternalism (in ensuring that the sustainability criterion is met), which may act as something of a safeguard against (rash/myopic) populism
At the governmental level the task, in my view, then becomes to advance policy/motions most likely to achieve the most sustainable broad parliamentary consensus - in turn somewhat pitched also at achieving proxy-electoral consensus, as above (direct democracy, twice removed)
This would help enable us to neatly sidestep the problems of whipping vs. free votes, the unhealthy influence of special interest groups, and 'two party states' vs. political disarray/inertia under PR/coalition governments, as there would be no need for political parties with ideological forces operating purely at the grass roots level and MPs reverting to being public servants (as opposed to corporatist/unionist stooges) a la voices of the people
If we incorporate the pragmatic pluralist addendum about sustainability then logic dictates a degree of forward-thinking paternalism (in ensuring that the sustainability criterion is met), which may act as something of a safeguard against (rash/myopic) populism
At the governmental level the task, in my view, then becomes to advance policy/motions most likely to achieve the most sustainable broad parliamentary consensus - in turn somewhat pitched also at achieving proxy-electoral consensus, as above (direct democracy, twice removed)
This would help enable us to neatly sidestep the problems of whipping vs. free votes, the unhealthy influence of special interest groups, and 'two party states' vs. political disarray/inertia under PR/coalition governments, as there would be no need for political parties with ideological forces operating purely at the grass roots level and MPs reverting to being public servants (as opposed to corporatist/unionist stooges) a la voices of the people
1. I guess it would depend on the measures utilised to survey political opinion amongst constituents. For a more recent example we could look towards Jeremy Corbyn and his attempts to poll Labour Party members on whether to offer a free vote on Syria, and corresponding action to take in Syria. It was a disaster, and was used merely to cajole cabinet members into supporting his position.
Then again, look at why Corbyn was nominated in the first place - read The Guardian comment sections; day after day, week after week, it's the same thing. Corbyn was a response to third way politics. It bred massive disenchantment.
2. I doubt any representative politician would have the ability to remain impartial. Omission and bias creeps in, as it does with the BBC. The BBC, in its desire to present views in an impartial or balanced manner, has adopted a de facto 'progressive' stance on all cultural issues, and a de facto neo-liberal stance on economic issues. Really, it is third way. All other standpoints are omitted, or narrated away. I loathe the organisation. I doubt I'd feel any different in relation to a pluralist MP. I would also argue that co-operation breeds apathy. There's no more oft cited complaint about politics than 'nothing ever changes'; this despite years of engineering on Labour's party to create a more conjoined political agenda.
3. Even at this stage we've got a point of disagreement and I'm guessing, in the spirit of pluralism, there must be broad agreement across a range of core values - what those are I don't know - for this type of model to operate efficiently? I don't believe in environmental sustainability (as far as it relates to climate change), largely because I don't believe global warming (or its modern iteration, climate change) is a problem - I don't fully deny its existence, however I definitely deny the problem is of the extremity articulated by the anti-carbon jihad. As do many right-wingers. As far as I'm concerned, CO2 is an essential gas.
The third way was a disaster. It's left Blair's reputation in tatters (in the UK at least). This, for me, is indicative of what happens when you try to create a functional political model from polar opposite viewpoints. Most left-wingers deem him a traitor and a 'Tory', most right-wingers despise him for mass immigration.
Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read enough about the fourth way, but I know I disagree vehemently with the centre ground position on 'social values.' I'm veering towards libertarianism, and I'll never, ever find alignment with socialists. I also doubt that any political representative is capable of maintaining enough impartiality to represent dissenting viewpoints.
Finally, as much as I believe in their right to individual liberty, the electorate, more often than not, is incapable of offering an informed opinion. It's particularly evident when I argue against identity politics and in favour of individual liberty, only to be shut-down by casual, naive accusations of one type or another.
(edited 8 years ago)
How do you determine what somebody voted for. Additionally, if you only pay for what you vote for, and can onky vote if you pay, in about 80 years there will onky be a handful of voyers as there is no way to get your first vote, unless there is a voluntary payment to get the first vote. And thst setting up a petition, troll much, or just a bit silly?
Original post by TheCitizenAct
Thoughts?
Surely, if you vote for free tuition, you should assume sole responsibility (alongside other voters) for paying for free tuition? Likewise, if Tory voters vote for tuition fees, they should pay for them. Tories wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Labour voters, Labour voters wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Tory voters.
If you don't contribute tax then, well, sorry. What have you done to advance civilisation? You don't get a vote. A notable exception to this rule includes people with disabilities (actual physical disabilities which prevent them from working).
Surely, if you vote for the NHS, while others may accept private healthcare, you should pay for the NHS? Surely, if you want to amass £300bn of PFI debt, it should be the responsibility of the voters who voted in-favour of that policy to pay it back (Labour voters)?
Now that Tory voters no longer use the NHS, we'd have to divide up the asset value of holdings, as well as all tangible assets (if Labour wants to retain ownership). Labour voters would owe Tory voters all of their previous contributions (as well as gains made in the value of those holdings since the date of purchase). Once repaid, they have the NHS, and sole access to it. Good luck propping it up without Tory contributions, mind you.
Surely, if you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live in predominantly multicultural areas, or around multiculturalism at its worst (otherwise your vote is either null and void, or you have to move, or invite more Syrians to live on your street).
Maybe we could divide the country up: Tory pot (plenty of cash, continual surplus) and Labour pot (plenty of PFI, continual deficit)?
We could have cards: Tory card and Labour card.
The latter will get you into faith-based secondary schools with teachings on homophobia and Sharia law (it's 'diversity'!), access to 'free money' as and when you need it, free healthcare in a run-down NHS devoid of contributions from Tory voters, and the right to live in a workplace whereby outcomes are strictly monitored. Feelings would be the national religion in L-UK. Celebrities would be the primary tax contributors (though how long this would last, after their self-interest is exposed for what it is, who knows.
The latter would get you access to swanky hotels, first-class education, private healthcare without any of the queues, and establishments which abide by a strict 'Russell Brand and Owen Jones are not permitted to enter' policy - all tax contributions would go towards furthering individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism (not Labour corporatism). Secularism would be the spirit of the day, as well as genuine - not manufactured - tolerance of individual liberty in C-UK.
Works for me. Now, who wants to set-up the petition?
Surely, if you vote for free tuition, you should assume sole responsibility (alongside other voters) for paying for free tuition? Likewise, if Tory voters vote for tuition fees, they should pay for them. Tories wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Labour voters, Labour voters wouldn't contribute towards the tuition fees of Tory voters.
If you don't contribute tax then, well, sorry. What have you done to advance civilisation? You don't get a vote. A notable exception to this rule includes people with disabilities (actual physical disabilities which prevent them from working).
Surely, if you vote for the NHS, while others may accept private healthcare, you should pay for the NHS? Surely, if you want to amass £300bn of PFI debt, it should be the responsibility of the voters who voted in-favour of that policy to pay it back (Labour voters)?
Now that Tory voters no longer use the NHS, we'd have to divide up the asset value of holdings, as well as all tangible assets (if Labour wants to retain ownership). Labour voters would owe Tory voters all of their previous contributions (as well as gains made in the value of those holdings since the date of purchase). Once repaid, they have the NHS, and sole access to it. Good luck propping it up without Tory contributions, mind you.
Surely, if you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live in predominantly multicultural areas, or around multiculturalism at its worst (otherwise your vote is either null and void, or you have to move, or invite more Syrians to live on your street).
Maybe we could divide the country up: Tory pot (plenty of cash, continual surplus) and Labour pot (plenty of PFI, continual deficit)?
We could have cards: Tory card and Labour card.
The latter will get you into faith-based secondary schools with teachings on homophobia and Sharia law (it's 'diversity'!), access to 'free money' as and when you need it, free healthcare in a run-down NHS devoid of contributions from Tory voters, and the right to live in a workplace whereby outcomes are strictly monitored. Feelings would be the national religion in L-UK. Celebrities would be the primary tax contributors (though how long this would last, after their self-interest is exposed for what it is, who knows.
The latter would get you access to swanky hotels, first-class education, private healthcare without any of the queues, and establishments which abide by a strict 'Russell Brand and Owen Jones are not permitted to enter' policy - all tax contributions would go towards furthering individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism (not Labour corporatism). Secularism would be the spirit of the day, as well as genuine - not manufactured - tolerance of individual liberty in C-UK.
Works for me. Now, who wants to set-up the petition?
You don't pay for nhs, tuition fees or any of those stuff. You pay taxes. TAXES. Not health care
Posted from TSR Mobile
Disabled ex serviceman who can't work as a result of losing a limb in service for his country: pays no tax, no vote.
Diversity and climate change officer at the local council, earns £120k a year and pays high rate of tax. Gets a vote.
Diversity and climate change officer at the local council, earns £120k a year and pays high rate of tax. Gets a vote.
TL;DR of OP: I vote conservative and think I am superior. I wish I could make this aspect of my life more of my identity to show off to those Labour proles.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Petition to STOP student loans going down
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- LNAT essay review
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Mature BA Student 50+
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Have polls work the same way that they do on showthread 2
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Should nurses be paid more?
- TSR Community Awards 2023: Member of the Year Award - VOTING NOW CLOSED
- how many people here smoke?
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
