Turn on thread page Beta

Only pay (tax) for what you vote for. Only those who contribute can vote. #Simple watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    yeah but I will vote for enoch, what then?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Uh yeh, something like this is going to be impossible to administer in reality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If you can only vote if you pay, then the more you pay the more votes you should get.

    What about the consequences of voting for a negative? If you vote to ban abortion, do you have to pay to look after unwanted children?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    What you are suggesting is not democracy, but rather a pure social contract
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    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')
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    You don't pay for nhs, tuition fees or any of those stuff. You pay taxes. TAXES. Not health care

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    I guess it would depend on the measures utilised to survey political opinion amongst constituents .. polling .. free vote on Syria .. it was a disaster
    In what sense a disaster? I firmly support any/all efforts made by political representatives to better learn of, recognise, understand, and integrate community sentiments into their political activities – where consistent with pragmatic pluralism; we ought to support related local debating, lobbying, and voting, and understand that elitism/'the Westminster bubble' needs to remain in check every bit as much as knee-jerk populism

    Corbyn was a response to third way politics. It bred massive disenchantment
    Indeed, hence the ‘pendular motion’ of which I spake. Corbyn, and to a lesser extend Milliband, represent a rejection of ‘soulless’ and ‘out of touch’ Blairism – a move backward (retrograde), towards Socialism. When pitched against individual-centric neoconservativism (resulting in gross economic inequality) this reversion to a regressive political dichotomy is what I term retropolitik

    2. I doubt any representative politician would have the ability to remain impartial. Omission and bias creeps in
    Indeed, but this is not to say that we cannot design institutions that enshrine enhanced objectivity/engender politics orchestrated 'in the national interest'

    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
    The BBC should simply be a mirror onto the world – completely free of any ideology other than truth (albeit operating within the confines of the law). The problem regarding its politicisation lies primarily in its cultural makeup + military intel’ assets placed within it e.g. it is subject to liberal elitism and interference on the part of domestic political actors and their transnational corporatist/international (US x [Israel + Saudi]) political puppeteers

    I loathe the organisation
    I pity those responsible.* Most know not what they do, or why they do it – as you will know. If half of them knew the game they’re playing (this extends to the ‘liberal’ media/political classes in general) then I feel sure that many would question their actions – there is humanity, as well as ignorance, in these people

    co-operation breeds apathy
    Arriving at a consensus position need not involve cooperation – the objective is to listen, learn, think/re-think, propose, and convince.* Left and right wing voters, and ideological manifestations such as residual grass-roots Labour and Conservative movements, need not necessarily cooperate themselves

    there must be broad agreement across a range of core values
    Agreement is sought concerning policy positions, not values referred to in arriving at said positions necessarily. To take The 2010 Coalition as an example, the mildly pro-austerity policy position settled upon achieved consensus not because Liberals believe in the ideology of a small state nor because the Tories believe that the state should only be shrunk when it has clearly become so large as to be totally fiscally unsustainable

    I don't believe in environmental sustainability (as far as it relates to climate change)
    An intelligent, socially responsible, and far-thinking pragmatic pluralistic political leader will bear your feelings in mind but also refer to the overwhelming weight of related scientific evidence and opine, and then resolve to adopt the policy position most likely to achieve sustainable consensus among constituents; in the long term, this group will be (have been) convinced of the proposition that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect such that resultant climate change (at current, never mind future, levels of economic activity in a carbon intensive economic system) may interfere with ecosystem services such that there shall most likely be grave socio-environmental consequences, affecting us all)

    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
    "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" ~ Winston Churchill

    I know I disagree vehemently with the centre ground position on 'social values.'
    1) Third Way politics shouldn’t really be conflated with centrism, philosophically speaking (although they are typically one and the same thing, in practice). Third Way is a varying synthesis of left/right wing points of view, whereas centrism tends towards balance/meeting in the middle

    2) The only core social values that necessarily come into Fourth Way pragmatic pluralism are the affirmation of political diversity and the spirit of consensus building within the broader democratic ideal

    I'm veering towards libertarianism
    Libertarianism is a fine abstract principle, and something to aspire to, for sure, but it will remain socially unsustainable (a la rioting/revolts relating to economic/cultural disparity) and tends towards economic inefficiency (a la erosion of disposable income [consumption]/savings [investment] of consumer classes) until we have: A) Suitably robust institutions to guard against the above; B) A population (principally including public servants/wealth generators) with moral compasses akin to those of Jesus Christ

    I also doubt that any political representative is capable of maintaining enough impartiality to represent dissenting viewpoints
    A Fourth Way pragmatic pluralist is not concerned with representing dissenting viewpoints but, rather, arriving at a point of view most likely to (eventually) achieve (sustainable) consensus. The idea is to service the long term interests of the population, rather than pandering to traditionalist/reformist proclivities that frequently present an obstacle to sustainable human progress

    the electorate, more often than not, is incapable of offering an informed opinion
    This is why I favour a paternalistic (‘sustainability’) slant on the pluralist political schema and do not advocate direct democracy (except on select, appropriate constitutional matters)

    It's particularly evident when I argue against identity politics and in favour of individual liberty
    Identity politics is an inexorable part of ‘human nature’ (as per article B re: my contention as to the sustainability of Libertarian systems in the real world)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 14, 2015
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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