Round 2...

[smokingboot]

So much better than Round 1.

Sky production values were a vast improvement on those of ITV. I must defer to steve_c's comments on my last entry, when he challenged my words about nobody benefiting...he was quite right. The country's talking, people are interested. Hopefully this will be reflected in the turn out. If the libdems do well, it may well indicate a time for constitutional reform. A powerful time for British politics, and not just another election...

In the Hammer Horror story that is the British Election 2010, Nick is our hero, square jawed, clear eyed, a little disingenuous perhaps? I felt my first real ripple of disapproval for him when, as an example of why we should stay in the European Union, he quoted the co-operation of European police forces to bust a paedophile ring. Uh, right, so we couldn't do that without being part of the EU? It's like invoking the nazis. I'm pro-Europe to a greater extent, but that way of justifying it was a very cheap ploy. It made me sad to see him use it. Having said that, it was my only real demerit against him.

Cameron burst out of his bubblewrap, a determined escapee from Vincent Price's House of Wax and tried to talk like a human being. I'm going to go a bit wild here and say he nearly succeeded. I applaud his basic attempt at animation, particularly when it came to defence, which I think was his strongest moment. But having listened to him, it is clear that he is just too right wing for me.

And then...the cabinet of Dr Polidori rattled. The wind howled outside the Arnolfini. A raven cawed and the cabinet door creaked open. And Gordo emerged.

Do not think I detest Brown with the special loathing I keep for Galloway, or Baroness Davros herself. I just don't like him very much, and I have finally worked out why; he keeps trying to be the authoritiiii. the elder statesman, the one with gravitas, the nation's daddy. Well, I don't need another daddy thanks, one's quite enough. At least mine would occasionally give me pocket money. As for the moment when Gordo described his rivals as reminding him of his two boys squabbling at bathtime, the audience liked it, but suddenly all I could see were Clegg and Cameron fighting naked in a bath, and Gordo sitting beside them stroking the towels and perusing their pale bodies, that terrible smile on his face.

What a peculiar election this is.

Comments

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I have heard both these arguments put forward before. I'm not sure how I feel about PR, but it seems obvious that a country in which the least popular party could end up the most powerful in parliament is no democracy, and a society in which a third of the voting populace is ignored will be neither stable nor happy.

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

One problem that PR seems to generate is the loss of the local MP. In a system where MP`s are elected on a 'one MP per x votes nationally' basis local MP`s cannot exist.
PR also encourages small parties by giving them seats, now while I have nothing against the Monster Raving Looney Party, I find the idea of the BNP getting seats in Parliament disconcerting...
The problem is that as Sir Winston Churchill said 'democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

It depends what sort of PR you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

In all probability any electoral system will have it's weaknesses and flaws - democracies (whatever their type) tend to be very poor at handling problems that need long term solutions/planning and are unpopular but essential whatever system is in use (Dictatorships and Monarchies are the best for those sorts of things) - but if you want to have a democracy it does at least need to have a system where individual votes count to some degree.

I would personally like to see it go a lot further than PR and include a shake up of how politics is funded, amongst other issues, and maybe even a massive re-think of how democracy works. There certainly needs to be a lot less ability for wealth and or big business interests to influence government. It's government for the people, not for big business and the rich.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

True, but who pays for this government for the people? Who pays for the NHS, the benefits system, the roads?

Re state funding for political parties, I think it's a fine idea if it can be done, because paymasters, be they big business or big unions, have agendas.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

In the end its our taxes that pay for things - and this brings to mind 'no taxation without representation'. Most of this nation have not been actually represented by governments that have gained massive overall seat majorities on a minority popular vote. Which is why we need PR desperately.

A general party fund from taxes is one funding approach - another would be to just level the playing field completely and ask why should any party have or need huge amounts of money anyway? Just make it illegal for any political party to accept funds from anything other than individual membership fees and set membership fees at a flat rate. The result would be poorer parties but also less money for them to spend on ad agencies and spin. It would also create a level playing field.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

In the end its our taxes that pay for things Exactly. And we don't get money without business, so, while we have to curb the rise of Corporationations, we can't forget that business makes jobs makes money makes taxes makes services. I find this all a bit horrible, and would love a kinder alternative, but until we have some, we have to find a balance that doesn't chase off our money makers, or exploit our most vulnerable.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

We don't get the money with business at the moment either alas - unless you are in the top 10% income bracket of the nation (who avoid paying as much tax as they can). The harsh reality is that the only way business have been able to sustain profits has been through the average consumer going into debt - largely because in real terms peoples incomes have hardly kept pace with inflation and in many instances have been lower, more people are now in poorly paid temp/part time work and we have all been facing massive increases in our bills for essentials like food and utility bills. This has largely been happening so those on the rich list can maximise their own profit at everyone else's expense.

We are, quite simply, being made poorer in real terms and this, while it has not impacted the tax situation much (since we legally have to pay tax) is leading to a drop in spending which in turn negatively impacts the economy and leads smaller businesses to collapse which then creates unemployment that does affect tax revenue.

I hope that argument makes sense - it's not an easy one to express succinctly.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Peter, I'm not sure about this...the top 10% income bracket of the nation (who avoid paying as much tax as they can

As opposed to the benefits bounty babymaker?

The harsh reality is that the only way business have been able to sustain profits has been through the average consumer going into debt

I don't understand this. So, the retailer on the corner who keeps his shop open all hours and charges extra for the convenience is somehow responsible for his neighbour's inability to pay their mortgage?

Largely because in real terms peoples incomes have hardly kept pace with inflation and in many instances have been lower,

Yes, I understand that people have been on wage freezes and worse but I don't see how this has resulted in more people [are] now in poorly paid temp/part time work.I don't see how the two correlate.

And we have all been facing massive increases in our bills for essentials like food and utility bills. This has largely been happening so those on the rich list can maximise their own profit at everyone else's expense.

Certainly there are companies out there whose behaviour has been deplorable - witness the utility price spikes. And certainly I would prefer not to shop at, say, Tescos. Now, suppose Tescos goes under. How many jobs are lost? Where's the benefit in that?

Bear in mind, I am a bit of a financial idiot. You have probably made a great argument I am too obtuse to understand!

Divisions into Evil Rich (grasping, greedy, without conscience) and Evil Poor (lazy, stupid, without conscience) will not help the situation. We must stop punishing people for their circumstances,good or bad, because those who feel resented will not be constructive members of our society. Either they'll turn into threats on the street, or they'll f**k off to a far away beach and take their money with them. Neither is useful.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

The amount lost to the nation through benefit fraud is considerably smaller than that lost by Tax avoidance.

No- my point was that economic activity has been sustained largely via debt (part of the reason we had a recession) and that this debt has been considerably exasperated by dramatic rises in the cost of essentials by big business, not by small business. The cost of food and utilities in particular.

The increase in people in poorly paid/temp/part time work has been a major result of the recession. People have moved en mass from stable full time employment into these lately.

I work as a temp for Tescos - their actual prices (and profits) in real terms have been surging upwards. You are paying for this. The wages of Tesco employees are not increasing in kind unless they are at the top and/or share holders.

Its not strictly an evil/rich issue since some rich people do put back into the economy - but actually lot of others activity takes money out of it,and especially out of the public sector and into the private.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

I agree about punishing people because of their circumstances being a bad thing btw - my point with tax is that just that many people seek ways to avoid paying it when they can afford to and get away with it, when people too poor to hire clever accounts end up paying the full whack - so in a sense poor but honest people end up subsiding people with a greater ability to pay. Which I think is a bit unfair.

I think my argument is probably a bit obtuse btw - its certainly not a run of the mill straight obvious cause and effect one, but is trying to take into account various factors that inter-relate, just not always not directly. I could of course just be completely wide of the mark and being an idiot.