Jump to content

Let's Crowdsource a new manifesto

Recommended Posts

No he/she hasn't! They've lessened it. By doubling what the person at the bottom gets and keeping static the peeople in the top 1%.

 

The difference between £10,000 and £100,000 is £90,000

The difference between £19,900 and £199,000 is £179,100.

 

What makes you think that a gap of £179,100 is less than a gap of £99,000?

 

You have raised the median income - slightly - but have increased the gap between rich and poor.

 

In 2009, if you were earning less than £118,027 you were below the top 1%, so - using mjscuba's figures - somebody earning £100,000 a year would have been entitled to the 99% pay rise

Edited by Rupert_Baehr
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Education - Quality for all. No private schools, then, for starters, the politicians would be more interested in raising the standards and putting investment in to state schools, instead of being disinterested as they have no 'stake'.

 

How would removing private education improve state schools? (Do you have any plans to impose other restrictions on how people spend their money?)

 

State Education is funded by taxes. Most parents pay taxes. Under the present system, some parents pay taxes and have their children educated by the state. Other parents pay those same taxes but choose to pay a second time to have their children educated. If all children go to state schools the amount of money each school gets per child is likely to decrease. - Unless of course the taxpayers pay more.

 

In the late 1960s, the Labour party tried to abolish private schools (other than for their own children, of course;))

 

They didn't manage to do that, but they did manage to abolish the 11+, scrapped most of the grammar schools and denied educational opportunities to those whose parents weren't able to afford to pay for their children to be educated in schools which offered more academic challenge.

 

If the government was to decline to make special provision for those children who had learning difficulties and who achieve less than they might in a mainstream class, there would be an outcry. The government makes no provision for children at the other end of the scale - who also have special educational needs - but nothing is said about that.

 

Some private schools are better than some state schools - and then again, there are state schools which out-perform private schools.

 

I've seen plenty of comments (on this forum and elsewhere) about how 'The education system is failing our children. That may be so - but let's not forget that in the UK, Education is a 3-way joint venture between the school staff, the parents and the children.

 

There are , no doubt, some schools with poor leadership and poor-quality teachers, but that isn't necessarily confined to state schools. If any school (state or private) has any poor-quality staff members, then surely it's up to the governors to get rid of those people?

 

Given that funding for state schools is provided by a capitation fee - so much for each pupil - and given that the qualification requirements for teachers are the same throughout England and Wales, if a school, or a number of schools in an area is under-performing, is it necessarily the teachers - who have the same qualifications as other teachers elsewhere - who are failing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to work on an internet forum.

 

Maybe a different kind of website could be used where people suggest policies & they're voted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament online? - The buggers seem to spend very little time there, so perhaps that would be an alternative?

 

I grew up in a very small community - about 1500 people. We had real democracy - and it worked, because the community was small enough for everybody's voice to be heard.

 

The government system was 'the States of Deliberation' - a group of elected legislators - headed by a President (also elected) - who had a casting vote (which was traditionally used in favour of the status quo [or whatever other group was in the top 10 at the time ;)]

 

The legislators came up with their 'cunning plan' which was published. A week or so later, those legislators appeared before the people at a 'People's meeting', argued their case and were sometimes beaten down. The legislators were aware that they were expected to serve the people (not the other way around) and if they got it wrong, they were fired. It worked.

 

Then we had massive immigration. The immigrants took over and screwed it up.

 

Bloody Englishmen!:hihi::hihi:

 

But things which change can change twice ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between £10,000 and £100,000 is £90,000

The difference between £19,900 and £199,000 is £179,100.

 

What makes you think that a gap of £179,100 is less than a gap of £99,000?

 

You have raised the median income - slightly - but have increased the gap between rich and poor.

 

In 2009, if you were earning less than £118,027 you were below the top 1%, so - using mjscuba's figures - somebody earning £100,000 a year would have been entitled to the 99% pay rise

 

The gap between the bottom 1% the top 1% be lessened, would it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that - under mj.scuba'S original proposal, the top 1% would've bee topped, they wouldn't exist.

 

Considering the survivors, the gap prior to the pay raise would've been £99,000.

 

After the pay raise, the gap would be £179,100.

 

£179,100 is not less than £99,000, so no, you have not reduced the gap between rich and poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that - under mj.scuba'S original proposal, the top 1% would've bee topped, they wouldn't exist.

 

Considering the survivors, the gap prior to the pay raise would've been £99,000.

 

After the pay raise, the gap would be £179,100.

 

£179,100 is not less than £99,000, so no, you have not reduced the gap between rich and poor.

 

Don't know how I missed the 'sent to the gallows' bit!

 

I suppose, in that case, it would depend on how the deceased 1%'s assets were shared also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK you come up with a new manifesto, who is going to adopt it ?

 

And if anyone does how will you make them stick to it ?

 

After all once a politician has your vote nothing you do or say until they need your vote again makes a bean of difference.

 

So why do you think anyone will adopt your manifesto ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.