snowychap Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I'm reading your post as your way of saying "yes, you were right and I was wrong" -You're very much misreading my post, then.I don't think either you or I were or are 'right' and I don't really think that should be the point of discussing possible political ideas.I think you were and still are wrong for describing the idea of a Basic Income as 'daft' (for whichever reason you decide at whichever time - that you thought it would have to be set at £14k each (as per your few seconds of thinking about it two years ago) or because you claimed it would cost £280bn extra and then that its gross cost was the thing that should be discussed rather than the net cost and so on - but, it would appear to me, mainly because you took against it from the get go, i.e. from that initial post).I think I was wrong for a couple of things, amongst them:assuming that the Green party policy was pretty much the same as the CIT idea - it would appear that it was not;assuming that the CIT figures in the leaflet I referred to were their latest costings and the results of their latest analysis (I'm not too worried that they weren't because I'm glad that the people who are pushing this idea the most, i.e. the CIT, are continuing to look at it, accept that there may be flaws with a practical implementation especially in terms of a transition (mainly as a result of the complexity of the current benefits/tax credits system) and are trying to amend and adapt it to iron out those failings);worrying that the idea may be shelved as any sort of concept worthy of consideration - if someone who took your dismissive stance initially can be convinced to discuss it (albeit if that discussion was mainly an attempt to prove to yourself that this initial reaction was correct), look for articles about it and read a little bit more (thus giving it more consideration than those few seconds) then I think there's a chance to progress with discussion of it on a much wider platform.Going back to something I said when the subject originally came up (I'm not saying that it's necessarily practical or that it would be an easy thing to implement but I don't think it's a bonkers idea and I think it is an idea worth looking at) and one of my earlier responses in this exchange (I'm not really arguing for the green party policy...What I'm railing against...is the dismissive nature of some people's reaction to the idea), what I'd like people to do is talk about and investigate political ideas (especially new ones or ones that aren't the same the hackneyed stuff we largely get which at best tinkers slightly around the edges and at worst is peddled for a specific ideological reason). We have, to an extent, done this. Even if they were stubbornly taken steps, they were steps in the right direction.As far as the greens go, I couldn't really care much as to how they do electorally as I'm neither a supporter of that party or plan to vote for them (i'll grant I did cheer when Lucas won her seat as I quite like her and thought it might be interesting to have someone a little different in the Commons especially as Dr Taylor was on his way out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2015 I'm reading your post as your way of saying "yes, you were right and I was wrong" - You're very much misreading my post, then. I don't think either you or I were or are 'right' and I don't really think that should be the point of discussing possible political ideas. I think you were and still are wrong for describing the idea of a Basic Income as 'daft' (for whichever reason you decide at whichever time - that you thought it would have to be set at £14k each (as per your few seconds of thinking about it two years ago) or because you claimed it would cost £280bn extra and then that its gross cost was the thing that should be discussed rather than the net cost and so on - but, it would appear to me, mainly because you took against it from the get go, i.e. from that initial post). I think I was wrong for a couple of things, amongst them: assuming that the Green party policy was pretty much the same as the CIT idea - it would appear that it was not; assuming that the CIT figures in the leaflet I referred to were their latest costings and the results of their latest analysis (I'm not too worried that they weren't because I'm glad that the people who are pushing this idea the most, i.e. the CIT, are continuing to look at it, accept that there may be flaws with a practical implementation especially in terms of a transition (mainly as a result of the complexity of the current benefits/tax credits system) and are trying to amend and adapt it to iron out those failings); That's exactly why it's so daft.- the same reason I gave 2 years ago and you linked but didn't quote - which was Because if it's enough to live on (what, say 14K per person), and everyone gets it, then I don't see how it's remotely affordable, or realistic, Snowy. If as the Greens said the CI was to replace all other benefits - this is how it was to be funded to not have a monstrous net cost, then it's (as the CIT people said, even at a fraction of the amount anyone might need annually), "impossible.. to implement and needs to be replaced". People have moaned now, about the tories limiting benefits to £23 or 26 k a year - saying some folk need more than that. So a univeral 70 odd quid a week is not going to be enough, whether it costs the nation 150 billion, 170 billion or 280 billion - the figures are all from other people (2 of them from you) not ones I made up. I thought 2 years ago, and think now that it's not a workable policy. There's nothing that you, PMS, the greens or the CIT or anywhere else I've looked that demonstrates otherwise. The idea is appealing at first glance, but the conflict between needing to give people enough that they can survive on a universal income payment alone, (replacing all the current benefits) and everyone getting this universal amount is just....daftness. If it is changed from universal income to a means tested and targetted payment - losing the universality, then that problem can be addresed. But it's then not "universal" it's a different (and far better) policy. There is also little real point in giving people who have no need for it any kind of benefit payment, especially in straightened times. Universal benefit citizens income doesn't add up. It's not a credible policy and the numbers don't work. The people who came up with the green version even confess so. The options they propose to change it take away universality/ everyone gets the same. And frankly, it really doesn't take more than a few minutes to consider it and see the massive flaw in it. it's one policy where when even the people who basically came up with it admit it's wrong, I think there is a "right and "wrong" on this subject. Edit - though I do commend and agree with your desire to have these kinds of ideas explored and discussed and analysed. I'm not sure that I accept I've been unfairly dismissive of this particular policy of the Green's, maybe it's a differnece in the way of lookign at things - maybe I look at it as detaield by them, see it won't work and so say "that's not a good party political policy" and you look at it and go "might need some tweaks but it's a welcome different type of thinking"? So I'm looking at it as a party's policy, and you're looking at it as a general idea for exploration - i.e. our contexts are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I've officially lost the will to live after reading the last three pages! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) It's not a credible policy and the numbers don't work Proposal: Everyone is taxed at 150% of their earnings. Criticism: Those numbers aren't credible and don't work. Conclusion: Taxation is 'daft'. The people who came up with the green version even confess so. I think you're conflating two lots of people. The CIT didn't come up with the 'green version', they came up with their own idea and the Greens have based their policy on that idea. The CIT have said that the idea on which the Greens based their policy has problems (which they apparently highlighted in a paper from last September in conjunction with the IESR) and they've tried to look at amending and adapting this to ameliorate these issues. The CIT bloke (to whom you keep on returning) said in their newsletter (and that paper, I think) that the scheme as then would be impossible for a government to implement, and we ought to look for an alternative. There are two things here: firstly, omitting 'a government' changes the meaning a little in that it suggests that it couldn't be done at all rather than it couldn't be done for mostly political reasons; secondly, by looking for an alternative, he means that they've got to look at amending and adapting the scheme not that they've got to look for a completely different idea. He then goes on to two proposed options (neither of which seem like the best solution so I hope they spend more time looking at models and further ideas of how to sort out the issues with the original idea). The options they propose to change it take away universality/ everyone gets the same. No they don't. Edit: Anyway, as we're getting on Risso's nerves, I doubt there's any point in discussing it further. So, to bring the thread back on topic: Tories are arses. Edited January 29, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2015 I've officially lost the will to live after reading the last three pages! So have snowy and I - and we wrote them! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2015 So, to bring the thread back on topic: Tories are arses. Amen Brother snowy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Perhaps people could start a new topic if they want to talk exclusively about the Green Party's policies? None of this has anything to do with the main topic. As per the guidelines here. "Please stay on topic. Please search to see if a topic already exists (and use it) before starting a new thread. When starting a new topic, please make sure the title reflects the subject accurately" edit: written before the outbreak of common sense! Edited January 29, 2015 by Risso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 So, to bring the thread back on topic: Tories are arses. I don't think I've ever been so glad to read something in my life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2015 Perhaps people could start a new topic if they want to talk exclusively about the Green Party's policies? None of this has anything to do with the main topic. edit: written before the outbreak of common sense! Yeah, fair comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Perhaps people could start a new topic if they want to talk exclusively about the Green Party's policies? None of this has anything to do with the main topic. As per the guidelines here. "Please stay on topic. Please search to see if a topic already exists (and use it) before starting a new thread. When starting a new topic, please make sure the title reflects the subject accurately" edit: written before the outbreak of common sense! Isn't that a UKIP policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 edit: written before the outbreak of common sense! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Edit - though I do commend and agree with your desire to have these kinds of ideas explored and discussed and analysed. I'm not sure that I accept I've been unfairly dismissive of this particular policy of the Green's, maybe it's a differnece in the way of lookign at things - maybe I look at it as detaield by them, see it won't work and so say "that's not a good party political policy" and you look at it and go "might need some tweaks but it's a welcome different type of thinking"? So I'm looking at it as a party's policy, and you're looking at it as a general idea for exploration - i.e. our contexts are different.I think that's probably a fair appraisal, Mr. B. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Perhaps people could start a new topic if they want to talk exclusively about the Green Party's policies? and lo, the Phunnay Green Nutters thread did begin... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I think Boris Johnson is asking for us to get bombed with his latest comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I think Boris Johnson is asking for us to get bombed with his latest comments At least Prince Charles has promised not to go France so he can't be caught saying Je suis Charlie! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 30, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2015 I think Boris Johnson is asking for us to get bombed with his latest comments At least Prince Charles has promised not to go France so he can't be caught saying Je suis Charlie! Plus it wouldn't go down well on his application for the vacant King of Saudi Arabia gig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 An £80 million contract to run cancer scans for the NHS has been given to a private health firm with a Tory MP on their board, despite a rival NHS consortium allegedly offering to carry out the work for £7 million less. More nest feathering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 it's secretive lobbying practices which are completely destroying any "democracy" this government has. The most important law we need is full **** transparency in legislation and who is funding whom. They're so utterly disingenuous and shady. The TTIP is a case in point: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/secrets-ttip-corporations-not-citizens-transatlantic-trade-deal This week hundreds of protesters against TTIP have descended on the European parliament. They are quite rightly concerned about the threat that this treaty poses to the British government’s ability to conduct its affairs in their interests. On a range of issues, from food safety standards and animal welfare to public services and financial regulation, there are deep concerns that the harmonisation of standards across the Atlantic really means a reduction of standards on both sides. But how are we to know for certain? All discussions about TTIP have been hypothetical, since the negotiations are taking place in secret. In order to read even brief notes of what has been discussed I have to be reminded of my duties not to undertake espionage for foreign powers. Repeated complaints about secrecy from my fellow Green members have resulted in our being admitted to the restricted reading room but we are still not able to share what we discover there with our constituents or with journalists. What we do know is that 92% of those involved in the consultations have been corporate lobbyists. Of the 560 lobby encounters that the commission had, 520 were with business lobbyists and only 26 (4.6%) were with public interest groups. This means that, for every encounter with a trade union or consumer group, there were 20 with companies and industry federations. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 TTIP, with it's proposal for co-writing of legislation by business and government, now what possibly could go wrong with that? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Businesses are getting involved with this trade deal?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts