The logical place for a genuine protest vote ?

[gypster]

Watching the ''Chancellors '' debate the other night only one contribution really stood out for me. In George Osbournes closing address he stated, '' with all due respect to Vince, the Lib/Dems are not going to form the next government'' This struck me as not only very patronising to Mr Cable but wholly insulting to the British electorate. How do we shake this established and cosy arrangement up? I have never voted Lib/Dem but I realise it is the only serious place to lodge a protest vote. However, how do we ensure it's not a wasted vote? Is there anyone out there who can lead a genuine revolt against the 2 main parties? The established Lib/Dem politicians are in the main viewed as no different to the Tories or Labour, we need a independent and popular voice who can galvanize the average voter behind the Lib/Dems. Any ideas anyone?

[Midas]

Watching the ''Chancellors '' debate the other night only one contribution really stood out for me. In George Osbournes closing address he stated, '' with all due respect to Vince, the Lib/Dems are not going to form the next government'' This struck me as not only very patronising to Mr Cable but wholly insulting to the British electorate. How do we shake this established and cosy arrangement up? I have never voted Lib/Dem but I realise it is the only serious place to lodge a protest vote. However, how do we ensure it's not a wasted vote? Is there anyone out there who can lead a genuine revolt against the 2 main parties? The established Lib/Dem politicians are in the main viewed as no different to the Tories or Labour, we need a independent and popular voice who can galvanize the average voter behind the Lib/Dems. Any ideas anyone?

Hi Gypster, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended “Welcome” message in the “Rules and Guidelines” section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here, listed as “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce yourself, which you can do here, or tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates

[Barry]

Watching the ''Chancellors '' debate the other night only one contribution really stood out for me. In George Osbournes closing address he stated, '' with all due respect to Vince, the Lib/Dems are not going to form the next government'' This struck me as not only very patronising to Mr Cable but wholly insulting to the British electorate. How do we shake this established and cosy arrangement up? I have never voted Lib/Dem but I realise it is the only serious place to lodge a protest vote. However, how do we ensure it's not a wasted vote? Is there anyone out there who can lead a genuine revolt against the 2 main parties? The established Lib/Dem politicians are in the main viewed as no different to the Tories or Labour, we need a independent and popular voice who can galvanize the average voter behind the Lib/Dems. Any ideas anyone?

Hi gypster and welcome,
It may be patronising, but barring a miracle, the LibDems will not be forming the next government, the Tories are likely to be doing that.
This really brings up the topic of every vote counting, as it does with a good Proportional Representation system, but no sitting government will push for this.
This is because the first past the post is a self propagating system, although it is very unfair to the individual voter, and to the electorate as a whole.

[DougieG]

I think that this pretty much sums up the state of affairs: Labservative | Homepage

I'll be voting Lib Dem - the Tories and Labour are both pathetic now, we know full well that whichever gets it will be branded a failure and kicked out again in 10 years' time. If you're so convinced that Labour or the Tories will get it, why the hell vote for them? Think about it. If you secretly prefer the Lib Dems to either, then there's no point voting for the Labservatives, because you're damn well convinced they'll get it with or without your vote. Therefore, your vote is entirely irrelevant to them. So if you are so convinced that your vote doesn't matter, you may as well throw it away on your preferred party, and make a proper protest vote than voting for a party you don't like just for the sake of backing the winners...

[DTE]

I would argue that 'most likely' we will have a hung parliament actually Bazza. In which case, the Lib Dems will at least have a part to play in the new government. Vince the Cable for chancellor? Certainly worth a shot. They've got my vote.

Voting reform, a fairer tax system and greater transparency in all areas of government. Whats not to love?

As an added bonus, they are not the tories

[Midas]

Voting reform, a fairer tax system and greater transparency in all areas of government. Whats not to love?

Do you seriously believe that the Lib Dems would be any different to either the Tories or Labour if they did get into power, and their pre-election promises would actually be worth anything, any more than similar promises made by any other party?

I can see the attraction in using them simply for very last minute tactical voting to help break any possible hung parliament, but as a political force themselves I just can't see it; it would be like changing to a weaker version of Labour.

[DougieG]

Do you seriously believe that the Lib Dems would be any different to either the Tories or Labour if they did get into power, and their pre-election promises would actually be worth anything, any more than similar promises made by any other party?

I can see the attraction in using them simply for very last minute tactical voting to help break any possible hung parliament, but as a political force themselves I just can't see it; it would be like changing to a weaker version of Labour.

Yes, they would be different. Clegg and Cable are fundamentally good men, untainted by actual government. On the other hand, Cameron is a slimy untrustworthy git with no understanding of anything beyond his background and Brown is an impotent wreck with a history of complicity in creating a police state. The Lib Dems are actually different, they have had to become different to survive. I have no doubt that they would install a proper voting system and really get the country working, rather than just screwing it up again like the Tories or Labour will eventually whoever wins. On a personal note, too, they recognise the absurdity of high tuition fees and while the other two parties are campaigning for students to finish university with around £50,000+ of debt, the Lib Dems are the only ones to recognise how idiotic this is.

[Opinionated]

Yes, they would be different. Clegg and Cable are fundamentally good men, untainted by actual government. On the other hand, Cameron is a slimy untrustworthy git with no understanding of anything beyond his background and Brown is an impotent wreck with a history of complicity in creating a police state. The Lib Dems are actually different, they have had to become different to survive. I have no doubt that they would install a proper voting system and really get the country working, rather than just screwing it up again like the Tories or Labour will eventually whoever wins. On a personal note, too, they recognise the absurdity of high tuition fees and while the other two parties are campaigning for students to finish university with around £50,000+ of debt, the Lib Dems are the only ones to recognise how idiotic this is.

In the very least they can't be any worse can they? Generally speaking when I've been in a constituency with a Lib Dem MP (previous abode and uni) they have been very visible in the local community and approachable etc. which is a sign in my opinion of people who are grounded enough not to lose touch too much with their constituents as a party.

[Major Sinic]

It does really depend on who you want to protest against! Our real protest should be against an incumbent government which has consistently shown itself to be corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and wholly lacking in any integrity over the last thirteen years, and as a result has been the economic architect of the worst recession since the war. Consequently the only worthwhile protest vote is, of course, a vote for the Tories, primarily because it is the only one that is not a wasted vote. A vote for the LibDems, UKIP, BNP, Greens etc are all wasted votes. You might as well write across your voting paper 'None of the above candidates because not one of them could run a corner shop'.

The majority of the electorate see little difference between the integrity of any of the three main parties which includes at the bottom, the LibDems. They were proportionately as guilty as the Tories, and both were not far behind the corruption of Labour, in last years expenses scandal. We now learn that UKIP and the BNP are at the very least as corrupt, unprincipled and self-serving as any of the other three.

Personal attacks on Cameron and Osborne might make the attacker feel better, but they are invariably inaccurate attacks based solely on class, and the politics of envy, rather than substance. Cameron and Osborne despite, or perhaps because of, privileged backgrounds, are intelligent, informed, well educated, well balanced individuals, who are considerably more in tune with the bulk of the electorate, and the problems facing the common man, than Brown, Mandelson, Balls et al have ever been.

Clegg is of course ideologically a Conservative, although with little more ability than a sober Kennedy, hence the uneasy relationship he has with the elderly, petulent and rather more left wing Vince Cable, whilst the predatory but charmless and limited Huhne circles, awaiting his chance. Put the leadership core of the Liberal Democrats under the pressure of any real political or economic responsibility, and watch the seeming unity crumble.

Anyway far be it from me to try and dissuade all these well-meaning Liberal Democrats from wasting their votes, many of whom would have preferred to have voted Labour, but understandably can't bring themselves to do so. Never has the old saying 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' been more true than it will be in this election.

[Opinionated]

It does really depend on who you want to protest against! Our real protest should be against an incumbent government which has consistently shown itself to be corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and wholly lacking in any integrity over the last thirteen years, and as a result has been the economic architect of the worst recession since the war. Consequently the only worthwhile protest vote is, of course, a vote for the Tories, primarily because it is the only one that is not a wasted vote. A vote for the LibDems, UKIP, BNP, Greens etc are all wasted votes. You might as well write across your voting paper 'None of the above candidates because not one of them could run a corner shop'.

Exactly what was said in 1923 (just before Ramsay Mac proved there was a third option) and the attitude that will prevent the much needed change to our electoral system. I don't blame you, you are after all a Conservative and therefore naturally drawn to conserving the status quo, but I have to say it was only this time last year Major was all over the tv taking credit for the economic boom we were about to lose.
I'd actually fundamentally disagree with your assessment, for the first time in at least forty years, this year is the year when a vote for a minority party may not be wasted, this is the year where every vote will count even if all it does is diminish the popular vote for whichever party scrapes in, it will ultimately make their next term one in which they will have to be more responsive to the public if they have any desire to govern beyond a few years.

The majority of the electorate see little difference between the integrity of any of the three main parties which includes at the bottom, the LibDems. They were proportionately as guilty as the Tories, and both were not far behind the corruption of Labour, in last years expenses scandal. We now learn that UKIP and the BNP are at the very least as corrupt, unprincipled and self-serving as any of the other three.

Yes that's unfortunate, however this is where the Lib Dems come into their own, as the Conservatives and Labour have been battling it out at Westminster, the Lib Dems have been getting active at local community level, taking on local causes ("save our hospital"," build a bus lane now") and NIMBY campaigns and getting photographed with the likes of Joanna Lumley and a group of Gurkhas. Will this be enough to bridge the trust gap? It might just..

attacks on Cameron and Osborne might make the attacker feel better, but they are invariably inaccurate attacks based solely on class, and the politics of envy, rather than substance. Cameron and Osborne despite, or perhaps because of, privileged backgrounds, are intelligent, informed, well educated, well balanced individuals, who are considerably more in tune with the bulk of the electorate, and the problems facing the common man, than Brown, Mandelson, Balls et al have ever been.

I have to disagree there, lets have a look at the common man's life for a second; worried about whether he'll be in the next round of redundancies and if so should he pay off his mortgage or re-train with his small pay off (either man even have a mortgage on his second or third home?), whether their wife's job will be enough to keep them for a while without it leading to them seeing less of each other and making those marital cracks wider, or about the stress placed on little Jenny and Johnny by the pointless SATs they are about to take. I know that half of Labour are absolutely no closer to the realities of most people's lives but at least a handful of them were there once upon a time, even if it was in childhood.

Clegg is of course ideologically a Conservative, although with little more ability than a sober Kennedy, hence the uneasy relationship he has with the elderly, petulent and rather more left wing Vince Cable, whilst the predatory but charmless and limited Huhne circles, awaiting his chance. Put the leadership core of the Liberal Democrats under the pressure of any real political or economic responsibility, and watch the seeming unity crumble.

There's been enough unity there to mean they have effectively been the only opposition for the last fourteen years! That will ultimately be the Tories' downfall, they forgot how important the job of opposition is and they just look like an extension of Nu Lab.

Anyway far be it from me to try and dissuade all these well-meaning Liberal Democrats from wasting their votes, many of whom would have preferred to have voted Labour, but understandably can't bring themselves to do so. Never has the old saying 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' been more true than it will be in this election.

Absolutely and if I were Brown or Cameron now I'd be inviting Mr and Mrs Clegg (sorry Mr Clegg and Ms. Durantez - gotta love that idea a wife who'll keep out of the spot light) to dinner - a lot! He won't be Prime Minister but he will be "Kingmaker".

[Major Sinic]

Exactly what was said in 1923 (just before Ramsay Mac proved there was a third option) and the attitude that will prevent the much needed change to our electoral system. I don't blame you, you are after all a Conservative and therefore naturally drawn to conserving the status quo, but I have to say it was only this time last year Major was all over the tv taking credit for the economic boom we were about to lose.
I'd actually fundamentally disagree with your assessment, for the first time in at least forty years, this year is the year when a vote for a minority party may not be wasted, this is the year where every vote will count even if all it does is diminish the popular vote for whichever party scrapes in, it will ultimately make their next term one in which they will have to be more responsive to the public if they have any desire to govern beyond a few years.
Yes that's unfortunate, however this is where the Lib Dems come into their own, as the Conservatives and Labour have been battling it out at Westminster, the Lib Dems have been getting active at local community level, taking on local causes ("save our hospital"," build a bus lane now") and NIMBY campaigns and getting photographed with the likes of Joanna Lumley and a group of Gurkhas. Will this be enough to bridge the trust gap? It might just..


I have to disagree there, lets have a look at the common man's life for a second; worried about whether he'll be in the next round of redundancies and if so should he pay off his mortgage or re-train with his small pay off (either man even have a mortgage on his second or third home?), whether their wife's job will be enough to keep them for a while without it leading to them seeing less of each other and making those marital cracks wider, or about the stress placed on little Jenny and Johnny by the pointless SATs they are about to take. I know that half of Labour are absolutely no closer to the realities of most people's lives but at least a handful of them were there once upon a time, even if it was in childhood.

There's been enough unity there to mean they have effectively been the only opposition for the last fourteen years! That will ultimately be the Tories' downfall, they forgot how important the job of opposition is and they just look like an extension of Nu Lab.
Absolutely and if I were Brown or Cameron now I'd be inviting Mr and Mrs Clegg (sorry Mr Clegg and Ms. Durantez - gotta love that idea a wife who'll keep out of the spot light) to dinner - a lot! He won't be Prime Minister but he will be "Kingmaker".

Much of what you say is rational and feasible, based on your own political viewpoint. However much of your political judgment is driven from a social basis, whereas mine is driven primarily from an economic position. I maintain that there is only room for social reform and improvement once the economic fundamentals have been adressed.

Whilst accepting that the result of the election is still too close to call, I do not see a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as even a remote possibility, whereas I do see a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats as the probable outcome, should the Conservatives fail to achieve an overall majority. To me the retention in power of the present government in any form, whether power sharing or not, is the worst possible outcome. You will therefore understand why I consider a vote for the Conservatives to be the only logical protest vote against the present incumbents, since a vote for the LibDems, however well meaning they may be, can only contribute to a 'partial' Labour victory.

Unlike many Tories and Labour supporters, I do struggle with the lack of democracy inherent in our parliamentary system, and would in principle support the introduction of a proportional voting system, which encouraged consensus politics. However I do feel the benefits to be derived from this happening under a Labour/LibDem coalition would be massively outstripped by the economic disaster which would result from such a combination.

I do not wish to see the UK's credit rating downgraded, a further considerable increase in our debt burden, the resulting massive increase in our interest obligations, the assumption of economic control by the EC and IMF all of which I see as inevitable with a Labour or Labour controlled administration. Make no mistake that this would result in a secondary, substantial second dip recession with even greater unemployment and hardship to 'the common man' than the austerity measures which would be implemented by the Tories.

[Janus]

Is that so?

[pauli007001]

Is that so?

I dunno but i Love the signature Pic, it is Sir Arthur mounted on Copenhagen addressing the thin red line at waterloo is it not?

[Janus]

I dunno but i Love the signature Pic, it is Sir Arthur mounted on Copenhagen addressing the thin red line at waterloo is it not?

Thank you,pauli!
Yes, that is Arthur Wellesley, the Iron Duke, Duke of Wellington who ironically was born in Dublin the same year as Napoleon Buonaparte of 1769. The horse tried to kick its owner after the Battle was won but I suppose that The Duke was too tired too care and had more important things to worry about like catching up with the defeated but fleeing Napoleon the next day, as Arthur was not lazy and wasted no time in doing so.
I chose it as my signature portrait because it represents what I believe in for Britain: victory, hope and good kismet (which is almost like karma but not quite, an Arabic word which I was taught was the word Viscount Nelson used to encourage Captain Hardy to fight on but according to records it was actually 'Kiss me' that he said to Hardy, obviously just a sign of affection). These are what are needed to carry on the fight for the socialist dream which the Workers Union were so endeared to during Thatcher Hour when so many jobs were being lost in the name of capitalism and even Liberal could not do much to prevent the onslaught of Maggie's Financially Adept War Machine. Maggie survived the rhetorics of reason unmoved until succeeded by the likes of The Hague and The Strumpet Major, thru Howard and now Dithering Dave to crown 'em!

[JAMC]

Whats not to love?

There are a couple of policies I don't like;

• Replacing council tax with a local income tax.
  It's not fair on those that have been frozen out of the housing market.
• Agree to join the Euro in principle.
  I know Labour want to join in principle, but we all knew they didn't have the balls to go through with it - the LD's sencerity however I'm not so sure about.
• Road pricing
  Unless they're proposing to abolish road tax too (I'm not sure they are) this would just make my blood boil.

Nevertheless I think the things above would not form part of any coalition deal and we need the electoral reform and written constitution badly enough to justify the cross in the box - and I plan to do so on the 6th.

[JAMC]

Unlike many Tories and Labour supporters, I do struggle with the lack of democracy inherent in our parliamentary system, and would in principle support the introduction of a proportional voting system, which encouraged consensus politics. However I do feel the benefits to be derived from this happening under a Labour/LibDem coalition would be massively outstripped by the economic disaster which would result from such a combination.

I fundamentally disagree. Yes, economic catastrophe may well be the result of a Lib-Lab coalition, but the opportunity for electoral reform cannot be missed. We've been lumbered with the same basic system of representation since the days of Cromwell, with only the scope of those allowed to participate being widened every-so-often. Economic catastrophes however, occur naturally and far more frequently (serious ones probably once in a generation) and are always followed by recovery.

It is I think time that we recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that this country is goverened and the way that the will of the people is carried out by those supposed to represent them. We cannot be short-sighted in putting short term financial stability over the long-term health of our (albeit imperfect) democracy.

[Janus]

I fundamentally disagree. Yes, economic catastrophe may well be the result of a Lib-Lab coalition, but the opportunity for electoral reform cannot be missed. We've been lumbered with the same basic system of representation since the days of Cromwell, with only the scope of those allowed to participate being widened every-so-often. Economic catastrophes however, occur naturally and far more frequently (serious ones probably once in a generation) and are always followed by recovery.

It is I think time that we recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that this country is goverened and the way that the will of the people is carried out by those supposed to represent them. We cannot be short-sighted in putting short term financial stability over the long-term health of our (albeit imperfect) democracy.

Call me a Cynic, but is not the idea of proportional representation a Major cop-out for those who don't know who they actually support or want to vote for?
As for short-term thinking, Gordon Brown indeed technically tried to engineer a short-term recovery for Britain, but his farsightedness was that had he not done so we would not have had a chance to recover at all. Immediate relief is sometimes necessary for the patient; if he dies while waiting for better medics to arrive then they are useless in the long run. Public spending is as much to blame as Gordon Brown, anyway. The show must go on, as they say!

[ryoden]

I think it depends on the results of previous election voting in your ward. For instance in my ward Labour have a comfortable majority of 25% to their nearest opponent the conservatives, the liberals are about 7% behind the conservatives and everyone else is on 3%. It would also depend on whether you really want to get the current administration out of power at any cost. In my case unless there is a massive swing away from labour to the conservatives or and even bigger swing from both Labour and conservatives to the Liberals or an unbelieveable swing from all main parties to a fringe party, Labour are going to win. So I am left with the option of voting for who I want to win even if they have no real chance of winning or voting for the part most likely to benefit from a swing in my ward, which in my case is conservative.

Alternatively I can gamble and hope for a hung parliament and vote for someone I actually believe in, although that would be hard since I tend to believe that anyone who seeks power shouldnt really be allowed to wield it, but that aside I don't know any of the candidates, none of them take the time to visit you or your area in my experience so I just get a picture and some propaganda or I vote based on the party line (whichever i dislike the least).

So to sum up if my ward was a bit more balanced and it was possible with a smaller swing that my chosen party candidate would get in then then I would vote for them, otherwise I would go for tactical voting. I might be tempted to risk voting Liberal but they are to pro Europe for my tastes, so it will probably be Conservative even though I am not convinced by their spewings either since I have to do my best to terminate Labour's grip on power.

I noticed that Labour are getting desperate now by offering to consider a referendum on changing to proportional voting. Oh yeah, really? Would that be like when Blair offered a referrendum on regarding the EU back in 2005? If it is then I put as much faith in this promise as the last one.

[DTE]

There are a couple of policies I don't like;

• Replacing council tax with a local income tax.
  It's not fair on those that have been frozen out of the housing market.
• Agree to join the Euro in principle.
  I know Labour want to join in principle, but we all knew they didn't have the balls to go through with it - the LD's sencerity however I'm not so sure about.
• Road pricing
  Unless they're proposing to abolish road tax too (I'm not sure they are) this would just make my blood boil.

Nevertheless I think the things above would not form part of any coalition deal and we need the electoral reform and written constitution badly enough to justify the cross in the box - and I plan to do so on the 6th.

Yeah good points. Europe is a major sticking point for me when it comes to the Lib Dems but for similar reasons to yours I am willing to overlook that (at least for the time being) in exchange for the prospect of serious electoral reform. Written consitituion wouldn't exactly go amiss either, although formulating the thing could take generations

[Midas]

There are a couple of policies I don't like;

• Replacing council tax with a local income tax.
  It's not fair on those that have been frozen out of the housing market.

OK, a bit off-topic I know, but a local income tax is far fairer than council tax. Everyone uses the local services which council tax funds, not just the householders who have to pay it; effectively everyone else is freeloading off them. If you want fairness, everyone should pay.

[Barry]

OK, a bit off-topic I know, but a local income tax is far fairer than council tax. Everyone uses the local services which council tax funds, not just the householders who have to pay it; effectively everyone else is freeloading off them. If you want fairness, everyone should pay.

But, with a local income tax, everyone would not pay, would they Midas?
Only those people earning money would pay.

[Midas]

But, with a local income tax, everyone would not pay, would they Midas?
Only those people earning money would pay.

That depends on what you mean by 'earning money'; even those on benefits 'earn' in the sense they have an income. In practice of course a local income tax would be much harder to implement than a local sales tax or VAT, and that would get round the problem in one step as everyone has to spend. Maggie had the right idea with a poll tax, the only thing is she went about it in the wrong way, but that's easy to say in hindsight.

[Janus]

Maggie introduced poll tax in the late 80s was it? but it would have benefited only those who were already comfortably off. Granted, it was those who did well at school and got a good job that she favoured and encouraged, but her schemes had always been to support the rich and make their lives better whilst denying the existence of rights to the breadliners and below-level "earners" (incl. those on benefits who would have but could not get a job). The YTS schemes catered for those, of course, which in my opinion were more like Occupational Therapy workshops, but if it got them trained and into real, paid jobs, all well and good. Stats and figures will tell the story on that one.
The North and NorthWest suffered particularly badly, and Southerners had more prospects businesswise, for example, which is why everyone wanted to move South for better (paid) jobs than in the North. I believe Scotland was hit badly at some point. No, I'm not talking 'bout the recent recession, but Thatcher Hour when it started its wheels in the 80s rolling for the Tories to come. Our starting-point shall be Falklands-era '82. That Chere had some good points. Was it not she who first wanted businesses and banks regulated, paving the way for the Labour socialist philosophy to come?
Labour's new reforms include higher taxing for the toplevel 5% earners only in the UK. This is fair, as those people who are in well-paid jobs are accorded better privileges such as credit plans, insurance plans and reclamation of extortionate interest from banks, and this is all under a Labour Government, not during Thatcher Night.
Those on Jobseekers Allowance don't get as much as those off sick, or on longterm sickness benefits, which are indeed a bottleneck economically as they slew off taxpayers' money and encourage people to go/remain on the sick as invalid, but Gordon's plans a year ago were to reverse this trend and get a million unemployed people/"benefit-fringers" into work.
Income Tax is to be taxed according to your means, and Labour have the fairest policy on this as they focus only heavily taxing the top 5%. Income Tax is either Income Tax or something else entirely, which is why Maggie introduced/spoke of introducing Poll Tax. I think it was mainly the Left under Kinnock who opposed this and won, although everyone agreed it shouldn't go ahead.

Please go see The Labour Party Manifesto 2010 at www.labour.org.uk/ for all this and equal ops for smaller businesses, too!

[Midas]

Maggie introduced poll tax in the late 80s was it? but it would have benefited only those who were already comfortably off.

And there was me thinking that Labour was supposedly all in favour of fairness and equality! But silly me, of course that only works when it's making those with more money fund those who haven't, not in ensuring that everyone pays for what they use.

Please go see The Labour Party Manifesto 2010 at www.labour.org.uk/ for all this and equal ops for smaller businesses, too!

Yawn, more fiction......

[JAMC]

Call me a Cynic, but is not the idea of proportional representation a Major cop-out for those who don't know who they actually support or want to vote for?

How so?

What if the party I wish to support stands no chance of gaining a single seat in a first-past-the-post system, but still polls maybe 5% of the national vote? Should they not be entitled to 5% of the seats in the national executive? Otherwise who is representing my views? The Tory I voted against?

As for short-term thinking, Gordon Brown indeed technically tried to engineer a short-term recovery for Britain, but his farsightedness was that had he not done so we would not have had a chance to recover at all. Immediate relief is sometimes necessary for the patient; if he dies while waiting for better medics to arrive then they are useless in the long run. Public spending is as much to blame as Gordon Brown, anyway. The show must go on, as they say!

This is all well and good as long as it's not used as a stalling tactic to delay the implementation of badly needed changes. Sometimes you just have to act - unfortunately boldness is not a characteristic the British tend to display except in times of true adversity.

[JAMC]

OK, a bit off-topic I know, but a local income tax is far fairer than council tax. Everyone uses the local services which council tax funds, not just the householders who have to pay it;

You are correct that everyone is ultimately a user of the services provided, but we cannot overlook the fact that all the individual users don't have an equal stake (legally speaking) in the community those services are consumed by. For that reason I maintain that while there are severe restrictions on the supply of land for housing and dwellings generally it is fairer to place the burden of paying for services on those individuals that own their property rather than make that transition harder for those that aspire to home ownership but are frozen out of the market.

effectively everyone else is freeloading off them. If you want fairness, everyone should pay.

Well hold on - there are two main scenarios for those that don't pay currently;
1. Relatives (children, elderly parents etc...) living in the homeowner's household. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks it's fair to make these groups cough up.
2. Rented accomodation in which the landlord is liable; The cost is usually passed on to the tennant(s) anyway in rent so they're notionally paying already.

I remain skeptical that implementing a local income tax while the above circumstances remain is an improvement in the overall level of fairness.

[JAMC]

Maggie had the right idea with a poll tax, the only thing is she went about it in the wrong way, but that's easy to say in hindsight.

It is extremely easy to say in hindsight - but no less incorrect.

It matters not whether that idea is sold with a smile or a scowl - it's still fundamentally unegalitarian.

[Midas]

You are correct that everyone is ultimately a user of the services provided, but we cannot overlook the fact that all the individual users don't have an equal stake (legally speaking) in the community those services are consumed by. For that reason I maintain that while there are severe restrictions on the supply of land for housing and dwellings generally it is fairer to place the burden of paying for services on those individuals that own their property rather than make that transition harder for those that aspire to home ownership but are frozen out of the market.

I don't follow your logic. Firstly when you analyse what council tax actually funds, householders use very little more of those services than non-householders, and secondly, I'm at a loss to see what the connection with land for housing has to do with this; if anything and there is this availability shortage, according to your logic, surely those people who are burdened by the consequential higher prices should actually pay less, not more.

Well hold on - there are two main scenarios for those that don't pay currently;
1. Relatives (children, elderly parents etc...) living in the homeowner's household. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks it's fair to make these groups cough up.

Firstly children; they still use local services in exactly the same way that you or I do, but since it's their parents who pay for all the everyday items they use, they can really be disregarded. Secondly, as far as the elderly are concerned, why should they be exempt from having to pay? Again they use as many locally funded services as the rest of us.

2. Rented accomodation in which the landlord is liable; The cost is usually passed on to the tennant(s) anyway in rent so they're notionally paying already.

The only time a landlord is liable for council tax is when the property stands empty or he's listed as the occupier. In all other cases rented accommodation is treated in exactly the same way as owner-occupied, the main listed occupier, i.e., the person named in the tenancy agreement, has to pay, and any cohabitees are effectively freeloaders.

[JAMC]

I don't follow your logic. Firstly when you analyse what council tax actually funds, householders use very little more of those services than non-householders, and secondly, I'm at a loss to see what the connection with land for housing has to do with this; if anything and there is this availability shortage, according to your logic, surely those people who are burdened by the consequential higher prices should actually pay less, not more.

It is the old socialist question of equality of outcome over equality of usage. My basic point is this;

• Assume home-ownership is an aspiration of all.
• Assume income is primarily a means to achieving that aspiration.
• Assume those that are frozen out of the housing market currently by high prices are worse off than those that already own their homes - not primarily in monetary terms, but in terms of assets, security, independence, and 'buy-in' to the community in which they live.
• Weigh up the qualitative benefits listed above enjoyed by home owners against the current council tax burden.

The truth of the matter is that there is a dividing line drawn through our society between the landed and the landless. I fail to see how transferring a greater burden of tax onto the landless makes things fairer in the slightest.

I would, in a situation in which everyone were genuinely able to secure a home of their own, be inclined to revisit this issue and consider a local income tax based on ability to pay to fund local services - but not while the premium on land makes it virtually impossible for today's 20 and 30-somethings put down roots by their own efforts. Fix that first, then we'll talk.

Firstly children; they still use local services in exactly the same way that you or I do, but since it's their parents who pay for all the everyday items they use, they can really be disregarded. Secondly, as far as the elderly are concerned, why should they be exempt from having to pay? Again they use as many locally funded services as the rest of us.

Because it flies in the face of the contract between the generations. When the elderly reach a point in life when they are (like the children in our example) dependent on the current working generation to provide for them, it makes no sense to extract a "fair" share (by headcount) from them as they are no longer deriving an income of their own through gainful employment. any income they do receive (i.e. pension) isn't generated by their own efforts, but a proportion of the efforts of the current working generation being set aside to take care of them (be that by state redistribution or family structure). If you want to collect the necessary revenue to pay for local services, it makes no sense to target contributions from individuals that aren't economically active (children, the elderly), as any income you do derive from them can ultimately be traced back to the activities of the generation in the middle.

The only time a landlord is liable for council tax is when the property stands empty or he's listed as the occupier. In all other cases rented accommodation is treated in exactly the same way as owner-occupied, the main listed occupier, i.e., the person named in the tenancy agreement, has to pay, and any cohabitees are effectively freeloaders.

To maintain consistency with my previous suggestions, I would question whether there's a case to change this arrangement to ensure that the burden falls on the owner, not the occupier.

[Midas]

It is the old socialist question of equality of outcome over equality of usage. My basic point is this;

[ ... ]

Not wishing to seem as though I'm dismissing any of your points by snipping rather heavily, although to be honest I can't see any of your arguments holding water, but I just can't get beyond the simple fact that all those who use local authority funded services should have to pay for them, not simply rely of householders to pay for everyone. Although I don't know under what government, or when, council tax was first introduced in its present form, it would appear to be another typical socialist type tax where those presumed to have more money because they own property are required to fund those who don't, regardless of usage of the services the tax is applied to. As far as I, and many others, are concerned it's grossly unfair and needs to be totally reviewed, period.

[JAMC]

Not wishing to seem as though I'm dismissing any of your points by snipping rather heavily, although to be honest I can't see any of your arguments holding water, but I just can't get beyond the simple fact that all those who use local authority funded services should have to pay for them, not simply rely of householders to pay for everyone.

Even if a local income tax were to be applied, it would resemble the national income tax in the sense that it would have progressive bandings and a lower earnings limit beneath which it would not apply. In practice some that use the services would pay for them, but not everyone that uses them.

You can never reach a point in which the people that use the services are exclusively the ones that pay for them, as you will always have a situation where some of the people that need the services cannot afford to pay for them out of their own pocket.

Although I don't know under what government, or when, council tax was first introduced in its present form

John Major in 1993, replacing the disasterous poll tax. Although the rates that predated the poll tax existed in some form or other back into Elizabethan times.

it would appear to be another typical socialist type tax where those presumed to have more money because they own property are required to fund those who don't

It isn't a presumption of homeowner wealth that leads me to believe that the fairest outcome is for the burden of local tax to remain on homeowners - it is the qualitative benefits outlined in the previous post enjoyed by the landed that are unavailable to the landless. There are other (qualitative) considerations to be factored into the equation as well as monetary.

regardless of usage of the services the tax is applied to. As far as I, and many others, are concerned it's grossly unfair and needs to be totally reviewed, period.

What then would you put forward as a fairer alternative?

[Midas]

Even if a local income tax were to be applied, it would resemble the national income tax in the sense that it would have progressive bandings and a lower earnings limit beneath which it would not apply. In practice some that use the services would pay for them, but not everyone that uses them.

It wouldn't necessarily, that depends on how it was structured, but as I've already said, a local sales tax is a fairer way of implementing this. OK, I agree, not everyone uses all the services; I for instance have never called out the local fire service so I could easily say I shouldn't pay for them, but given that we do have local authority services for the benefit of everyone, whether used or not, I just cannot see why everyone who uses them or has the potential to use them, shouldn't contribute towards them, not just householders.

You can never reach a point in which the people that use the services are exclusively the ones that pay for them, as you will always have a situation where some of the people that need the services cannot afford to pay for them out of their own pocket.

Indeed, as I pointed out above, but to expand on this and going back to your example of children, if a local tax was to follow the rules for VAT, virtually everything for children would be exempt anyway, as would be the basic essentials of life like food, so people on low incomes or benefits would largely be exempt for the time they weren't spending much other than on those essentials.

John Major in 1993, replacing the disasterous poll tax. Although the rates that predated the poll tax existed in some form or other back into Elizabethan times.

Thanks, although it was really just a renaming of 'rates' to 'council tax', little else.

It isn't a presumption of homeowner wealth that leads me to believe that the fairest outcome is for the burden of local tax to remain on homeowners - it is the qualitative benefits outlined in the previous post enjoyed by the landed that are unavailable to the landless. There are other (qualitative) considerations to be factored into the equation as well as monetary.

I still completely fail to see how and why this has got anything to do with the matter.

What then would you put forward as a fairer alternative?

As I said, a local sales tax which mirrored VAT, which in itself gives effective tax relief for children's items and basic essentials like food. That way kids and those on benefits or very low incomes would be largely exempt whilst those who earned more and spent more would pay more. I would have thought that would solve all the issues.

[JAMC]

It wouldn't necessarily, that depends on how it was structured, but as I've already said, a local sales tax is a fairer way of implementing this. OK, I agree, not everyone uses all the services; I for instance have never called out the local fire service so I could easily say I shouldn't pay for them, but given that we do have local authority services for the benefit of everyone, whether used or not, I just cannot see why everyone who uses them or has the potential to use them, shouldn't contribute towards them, not just householders.

Indeed, as I pointed out above, but to expand on this and going back to your example of children, if a local tax was to follow the rules for VAT, virtually everything for children would be exempt anyway, as would be the basic essentials of life like food, so people on low incomes or benefits would largely be exempt for the time they weren't spending much other than on those essentials.

There is potentially an issue with geographical variation is there not? If I know I can get the same item (assuming it's valuable enough to justify this) in the district next door at 2% less tax than I would in my own borough, is there not a danger of competative advantage being gleaned by the boroughs that are prepared to offer awful services to their own residents in order to operate the lowest possible rate for commercial reasons? When you're tied to a council tax banding by owning a property within the domain of the local council, it's far more difficult to avoid paying into the pot.

Thanks, although it was really just a renaming of 'rates' to 'council tax', little else.

Yep.

I still completely fail to see how and why this has got anything to do with the matter.

It matters because I'm trying to weigh up whats fair to everyone. Its grossly unfair on those without their own homes that the prices have been artificially inflated by market manipulation and priced them out of home ownership altogether. It's also unfair that homeowners should subsidise others for the use of services that are in reality used by all.

What was it you say about socialism? It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries...? Well, there you have it. My first concern would be to address both injustuces, but assuming that housing isn't going to return to 3.5x income price levels in the forseeable future, I would prefer to keep the council tax on the grounds that both injustices nullify eachother.

[Midas]

There is potentially an issue with geographical variation is there not? If I know I can get the same item (assuming it's valuable enough to justify this) in the district next door at 2% less tax than I would in my own borough, is there not a danger of competative advantage being gleaned by the boroughs that are prepared to offer awful services to their own residents in order to operate the lowest possible rate for commercial reasons? When you're tied to a council tax banding by owning a property within the domain of the local council, it's far more difficult to avoid paying into the pot.

If there is a variance of the rate of tax between authorities, yes, you're right, but I'm pretty sure that there'll be some relatively easy way of averaging out tax rates so this problem doesn't arise; off the top of my head 'poor' towns receiving more and 'rich' towns receiving less, adjusted by way of some formula based on average income perhaps. In theory that would resolve the problem, enabling a consistent rate of local tax.

It matters because I'm trying to weigh up whats fair to everyone. Its grossly unfair on those without their own homes that the prices have been artificially inflated by market manipulation and priced them out of home ownership altogether. It's also unfair that homeowners should subsidise others for the use of services that are in reality used by all.

What was it you say about socialism? It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries...? Well, there you have it. My first concern would be to address both injustuces, but assuming that housing isn't going to return to 3.5x income price levels in the forseeable future, I would prefer to keep the council tax on the grounds that both injustices nullify eachother.

The trouble here is that you're trying to balance two different injustices, one connected with market value which is determined to an extent by a combination of perceived value and by supply and demand, the other artificially created by successive government choosing to tax selectively. Two wrongs don't make a right, and as you rightly point out, whilst the former can't really be changed, the latter can.

[JAMC]

If there is a variance of the rate of tax between authorities, yes, you're right, but I'm pretty sure that there'll be some relatively easy way of averaging out tax rates so this problem doesn't arise; off the top of my head 'poor' towns receiving more and 'rich' towns receiving less, adjusted by way of some formula based on average income perhaps. In theory that would resolve the problem, enabling a consistent rate of local tax.

The issue deserves closer examination, perhaps in a thread specifically about the question of funding local authorities.

The trouble here is that you're trying to balance two different injustices, one connected with market value which is determined to an extent by a combination of perceived value and by supply and demand, the other artificially created by successive government choosing to tax selectively. Two wrongs don't make a right, and as you rightly point out, whilst the former can't really be changed, the latter can.

Firstly I would claim that both injustices ultimately have their roots in government choices - the former resulting from a combination of choking planning laws and sale of council homes - both driven by government policy. The latter more obviously so, but then it's a far simpler and more immediate issue.

I don't think it's as simple as two wrongs making a right - these two issues are intrinsically connected. It's not like saying "Sorry you can't afford to buy a house in the area you grew up in, I'll make you exempt from capital gains tax by way of compensation". The two issues in question; a) where you live and b) how to fund the local services you consume whilst living there are inescapably linked by geographical proximity. To treat these issues in isolation is likely to ire up the blood in the communities where this fault line already exists.