|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Honesty in politics
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.
How?
You usually get a version of the trickle down theory, don't you? That is, cut taxes for the rich, so that they get richer, and then they will invest wisely and entrepreneurially in Britain, so that the poor will get jobs. Hurrah! Happiness, happiness, a penis.
David Cameron made two main comments about tax in his recent conference speech: a raising of the tax threshold, so those on the lowest incomes don't pay any income tax at all; and a shifting of the 40% tax band to help those who Ed Miliband would call the 'squeezed middle'.
Doesn't really tally with 'tax cuts for the rich' to me.
Any increase in the threshold will mean that those on higher incomes pay less tax, usually by paying tax at a lower rate on a greater part of their income. The usual way to avoid that is by imposing a balancing loss of the tax-free allowance for those on higher incomes, in the way that the additional allowance for older people is withdrawn as their income increases.
I think that's what meant by tax cuts benefitting the rich. Better pay would be beneficial on two grounds: lower welfare payments and greater spending power which would be an economic stimulus.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Enoch said:"The Conservatives depend on and appeal to middle class voters who think they will be better off with a Conservative government. In the same way, Labour depends on and appeals to organised and unionised labour who thinks they will be better off with a Labour government."
While this has certainly been true in the past, I'm not so sure now. The parties see corporate interests/the market as being what will make people better off in a sort of trickle down economics.
In fact, both are economically of the right and socially of the left. Both parties have a tradition of working class support, and continue to claim to represent a broadened form of this constituency. This is where a lot of the 'dishonesty' lies, trading on an appeal of how things where, rather than how they are.
Example: when Cadbury's were taken over by multi-national Kraft. It wasn't seen by the workers as a good thing: the evidence being factories were closed, jobs lost etc. At the time, there was hand-wringing from the government but Peter Mandelson said that what was important was that Britain had a 'benign business climate'. The interests of big business trumped those of the workers (whose interests are considered ultimately to be served by Thatcherite freeing up the markets). What's 'dishonest' is that this seems incompatible with claiming to be the party of the workers. The clothes no longer fit.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's right. Labour adopted neo-liberal policies, and now kind of fake being left of centre. They're not really. We have the choice of 4 neo-liberal parties now - whoop de whoop.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I've heard people accusing UKIP of saying what voters want to hear. How is this different from the other parties?
Perhaps people believe that UKIP will try to deliver their promises, in the same way as they have believed that the other parties would, but been disappointed.
If dishonesty is all part of the game everyone plays, it's the most convincing liars who will be voted in every time. It's no good trying to discredit the others with smears. Who will believe those already proved to be liars, except those who want to think that what's being said is the truth?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But UKIP themselves are being very coy about their full policies. Some of them seem to be saying that the NHS should be run by businessmen, some of them seem anti-gay marriage, and so on.
But Farage at the moment is able to grin and say very little about a full manifesto. I wonder if he will be able to maintain this next year.
I suppose he is hoping that being anti-EU and anti-immigrant will swing it for UKIP, and people won't be bothered about the fine print. This may be true of course.
Ironically, I noticed that Carswell made some explicit points against any racist policies, so I wonder if that points to certain tensions there.
[ 12. October 2014, 13:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
AFAIK the racist accusations are part of the mud-slinging. Another aspect of the dishonesty? Who can we trust? Wanting to carefully manage immigration isn't the same thing as being racist.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
AFAIK the racist accusations are part of the mud-slinging. Another aspect of the dishonesty? Who can we trust? Wanting to carefully manage immigration isn't the same thing as being racist.
But isn't asking 'would you want to live next door to Romanians?' racist? In my last place, I lived next to French, Lebanese, and Somalian neighbours, and we all got on fine.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It could be that those voting for the ones telling lies are still naive enough to think that they are being told the truth. I wonder whether there should be a legal method of accountability, so that the promises made become a contract, rather than having to put up with the usual 'You can vote us out next time if you're not happy' old hat. When all who stand tell lies, how is anyone supposed to know what they will get if they vote? No wonder so many don't bother.
Because Parliament is Sovereign, and if one Parliament put that contract system in place, another could remove it. You get a vote and the right to free speech. That's it. And quite right too in my view.
We are a representative democracy in the UK and we elect people to represent us. [...]
Parliament isn't sovereign: a Victorian bigot woke up one day and said it was, and for some reason, English courts went along with it. Scotland's never bought it, and with EU membership, parliamentary sovereignty's undergone contortions that put the Meereenese Knot to shame.
Reality keeps disproving the claim that a parliament can't bind its successors. Does anyone believe that Westminster could revoke Irish, Indian, Canadian or Australian independence? Likewise, does anyone believe that the House of Lords could reassert its veto power?
This weird belief, invented out of nothing, enforced by the courts, does a lot to explain the sense of entitlement and superiority that plagues Westminster.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
