There is a specific definition of fuel poverty
It doesn't need you to use pejorative quote marks.
We need to sort it properly, not go back to some rosy eyed view of the past.
There's also water poverty where your water charges are a significant (20% or so +) of your residual income after housing and other living costs. The water companies address this with social tariffs which in one way or another give significant discounts. The conditions and level of help though are a postcode lottery mish mash depending on your supply and waste providers' conditions.
I did not dispute that some households find it hard to manage: the point is that simply accepting that fuel costs are excessive (whether > 10% of income or any other measure) is meaningless unless the reasonable indoor temperature desired is also taken into consideration.
Recommended temperature for the elderly is about 70 F, but my wife and I set our heating to maintain about 64 F and dress so as to still be warm enough. I could turn it up, increase the gas bill and claim poverty, but what you pejoratively describe as my "rosy eyed view of the past" (I don't suppose you remember the bad winter of 1947, power cuts and rationing) conditioned me to living within my means.
Edited by galileo on 19/11/2017 at 16:39
|
|
I came home from the hospital to a prefab. My eldest brother says I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
At the age of three we moved to a two bedroom terraced cottage, three children in one bedroom. Outside toilet but that was what most people had.
I have enjoyed much better standards thanks to opportunities I had because of student grants.
As others have said, material expectations are much higher. The inequalities in our society are disgraceful. Sadly people like my father have been exploited because of their pride and acceptance of an unjust society.
The country is run to benefit the few, not the many.
|
I came home from the hospital to a prefab. My eldest brother says I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
At the age of three we moved to a two bedroom terraced cottage, three children in one bedroom. Outside toilet but that was what most people had.
I have enjoyed much better standards thanks to opportunities I had because of student grants.
As others have said, material expectations are much higher. The inequalities in our society are disgraceful. Sadly people like my father have been exploited because of their pride and acceptance of an unjust society.
The country is run to benefit the few, not the many.
I suggest that successive Governments have contributed to many injustices and inequalities in society by their policies. A prime example as highlighted on today's news is that British Gas claim they cut reduce the average bill by £200 per year (20%) if 'green' energy subsidies etc were not taken from them instead of from direct taxation.
Given the state of national finances this is a non-starter. People's expectations have been repeatedly raised by Government by headline policy statements (mostly intended to encourage supprt at elections) for which the finance was not available unless they found a magic money tree.
The NHS is clearly struggling, yet when a childless couple are denied a third course of IVF treatment, the media scream that this is unfair and should be provided for them. When founded, the NHS was intended to treat illness and injury, but is now expected to provide any procedure at all free of charge, a recipe for a bottomless money pit.
Defence spending is quite inadequate, roads are overloaded and many crumbling, housing, Police, you name it, it is being starved of cash while we think of giving the EU 60bn to walk away.
No Politician will tell the truth for fear of losing votes, promises yes, fulfilment no.
I find it deeply depressing, as I don't see the current lot or the Opposition getting a grip and improving things much.
|
|
|
|
(I don't suppose you remember the bad winter of 1947, power cuts and rationing) conditioned me to living within my means.
If 70 F is the recommended temp then it should be based on that - just because you and your wife are happier with less than than then not everyone will be ok with that and often people will fee the cold more than others. As an example if you have bad artritis your joints can seize up more when it's colder to you need more warmth to ease the joints and the associated pain and discomfort.
|
|
Part of the problem is peoples perception of 'poverty'. It means no Sky TV for some no food for others. Take the emotive language out and dig beneath the surface and it is both compicated and simple at the same time. Complicated in the way people see their circumstances and simple as in finding a way to cope. Some people are much better organised and make the best of things, some cannot or will not do the same. The only solution is try to ensure that everyone has enough to achieve a certain standard. If they don't or can't then that is the individuals problem. If they don't, then tough if they can't then help to organise should be there without the DWP finger wagging and 'computer says no' attitude. Where we used to live there were 'social mentors' who did a marvellous job getting people engaged in everyday life. Once the aura or fear of dealing with people and officials was removed they were able to cope well. Basically, if the resource is there it is then down to how it is managed.
I can understand the rosy glow of nostalgia. I was born in the 40's and grew up in the 50's and 60's. Life was a bit harder then but a lot simpler too. That experience left me with an ability to cope with scarce resources and a feeling that you can do something if you really want to. As well as the usual basics of self discipline, respect for elders, table manners, social graces and a clear sense of right and wrong. Not to be dismissed because they are considered old fashioned these days.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Concrete, you have perhaps summed up my thoughts more elegantly than I managed, thank you!
I may originally have sounded as if I had escaped from Monty Python's "Four Yorkshiremen", sketch, but then, I am a Yorkshireman.
Edited by galileo on 21/11/2017 at 12:58
|
|
I did draft a reply to this thread last night, then realised it sounded like a party political broadcast from what should have been, and may once have been many years ago, the Conservative party, so deleted it.
I cannot form a reply to the state of the nation which doesn't make me sound like a hanging judge, so best keep schtum because as i've found elsewhere anyone who doesn't agree with the new post truth enlightenment heaping the blame for all ills on the rich or brexit or xenophobes (fortunately the R word has been rightly overegged and is now almost a badge of honour) will come to regret speaking out.
The country is heading into a dark place, and it's going broke, we are fast heading to the next stage, the £2trillion national debt with no sign of the defecit slowing up and our failed leaders prepared to borrow some stupendous figure to bribe the EU into letting us buy more of their goods than they do ours, you could not make it up.
I wonder just how far the indoctrination of children will go in the coming years, will we see them 'shopping' their parents for not believing in the new think?, Khymer Rouge/National Socialist style, am i exaggerating, i hope i am but i fear i am not...what lunatic dreamed up the current gender fluid cobblers, or university safe spaces, and how quickly such rubbish has become the only view allowed.
I believe that unless the party currently masquerading as the conservative party has the nous to put Jacob Rees-Mogg up, either elected immediately as leader or as Home Sec or preferably Chancellor during this period (and main negotiator with the EU over withdrawl) with the intention of having him as leader into the next general election, then we shall see another term or several of labour's new left wing in number 10, leading probably to reversal of Brexit resulting in the irreversible end of our sovereign nation.
Edited by gordonbennet on 21/11/2017 at 15:35
|
|
Well a wide ranging brief there GB. For now I prefer to let the 'kids in the nursery' we call Parliament just get on and shout and scream at each other. There is always a readjustment of the political scene every 10 to 15 years, go with the flow for now.
Galileo, I got it straight away. Probably had much the same upbringing I suspect. Things are a lot better now for people in general, no bad thing either.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid, though I have great regard for GB based on his postings on the forum, I cannot take seriously the view that Jacob Rees-Mogg is fit for anything other than a laughing-stock and if he represented the Conservative Party in a major role I believe the party would sink without trace in a general election.
GB might well say that reinforces his point that the country is going to the dogs, of course.
My problem with GB's view is that he seems to think that there is an extreme right-left polarisation in British society - on the one hand the rabid, rampant left-wing socialism he views with distaste, and on the other, the extreme reactionary right wing represented by Rees-Mogg, which he sees as some kind of acceptable corrective.
Fortunately, we don't have to choose either.
Edited by FP on 21/11/2017 at 17:23
|
I'm afraid, though I have great regard for GB based on his postings on the forum, I cannot take seriously the view that Jacob Rees-Mogg is fit for anything other than a laughing-stock and if he represented the Conservative Party in a major role I believe the party would sink without trace in a general election.
GB might well say that reinforces his point that the country is going to the dogs, of course.
My problem with GB's view is that he seems to think that there is an extreme right-left polarisation in British society - on the one hand the rabid, rampant left-wing socialism he views with distaste, and on the other, the extreme reactionary right wing represented by Rees-Mogg, which he sees as some kind of acceptable corrective.
Fortunately, we don't have to choose either.
Can you imagine Mrs Thatcher letting the EU gang blackmail her as the present PM does?
I agree with GB and second his opinion of Jacob R-M as having clear ideas and the courage to stick to them, the rest are spineless and change policy daily.
|
|
|
I'm afraid, though I have great regard for GB based on his postings on the forum, I cannot take seriously the view that Jacob Rees-Mogg is fit for anything other than a laughing-stock and if he represented the Conservative Party in a major role I believe the party would sink without trace in a general election.
GB might well say that reinforces his point that the country is going to the dogs, of course.
My problem with GB's view is that he seems to think that there is an extreme right-left polarisation in British society - on the one hand the rabid, rampant left-wing socialism he views with distaste, and on the other, the extreme reactionary right wing represented by Rees-Mogg, which he sees as some kind of acceptable corrective.
Fortunately, we don't have to choose either.
Perhaps, though I don't think (and also a very large proportion of the electorate too) don't want Blairism or Cameronism and all the selfish behaviour and sloganism/tokenism which went with that, never mind what's currently on offer from any of the politicial parties.
Trouble is, is that most people are either too caught up in their own lives or do not want the 'hassle' of putting themselves on a pedestal/above the parapet (i.e. doing the honourable thing for the needs of the nation, even if, in the short term at least, it isn't in ours) and getting personally involved in politics - most people vote (if at all) once every few years and think that putting a cross in a box and leaving everything to people they don't really know much about before voting them in will magically solve all our ills.
You'd think, given events over the last 100+ years that we'd eventually learn our lesson and do what is right, not what is easiest just for our own short-termist, selfish needs and damn everyone else because they couldn't care less about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the problem is peoples perception of 'poverty'. It means no Sky TV for some no food for others. Take the emotive language out and dig beneath the surface and it is both compicated and simple at the same time. Complicated in the way people see their circumstances and simple as in finding a way to cope. Some people are much better organised and make the best of things, some cannot or will not do the same. The only solution is try to ensure that everyone has enough to achieve a certain standard. If they don't or can't then that is the individuals problem. If they don't, then tough if they can't then help to organise should be there without the DWP finger wagging and 'computer says no' attitude. Where we used to live there were 'social mentors' who did a marvellous job getting people engaged in everyday life. Once the aura or fear of dealing with people and officials was removed they were able to cope well. Basically, if the resource is there it is then down to how it is managed.
I can understand the rosy glow of nostalgia. I was born in the 40's and grew up in the 50's and 60's. Life was a bit harder then but a lot simpler too. That experience left me with an ability to cope with scarce resources and a feeling that you can do something if you really want to. As well as the usual basics of self discipline, respect for elders, table manners, social graces and a clear sense of right and wrong. Not to be dismissed because they are considered old fashioned these days.
Cheers Concrete
Excellent response, Concrete. Your words sound like something my parents would say, who by coincidence are similar in age to yourself. From what they and my grandparent told me about those times (especially during and the decade after WWII), most people were glad just to have got through it alive, and so, despite much hardship, made the best of their circumstances, utilising community help (community spirit and helping eachother these days is getting harder and harder to come by, in my experience) to help improve their lives, which was passed on to other people and the generation that followed.
Sadly a lot of that message got lost it seems, from the late 1960s onwards.
|
|
Thank you Andy. I admire some of the modern generation, they do things differently as they would. My father sometimes did not approve of some of my activities, that is the way generation gaps work. My own children are very sensible, never been in trouble with the law and are all round decent polite people doing the best they can, as are the vast majority I hasten to add. Some things are timeless like respect, manners self discipline and will stand anyone in good stead at any time. Nice to see they are still recognised and appreciated.
As for politics: well a whole different kettle of fish now. I agree about the short termism, it really gets my goat. The polarisation seems to be at its extreme at present too. However I am old enough to remember that the political agenda and attitude takes a seismic shift every 15 years or so. Quite normal and healthy mostly. The only trouble is I don't want to be taken back to the 70's by the Corbynistas of this world. The past is only a useful guide to the future, not a template for success. I would support social policies to improve the lives of most people but also I would wish for a strong economy to pay for it. It seems the two are incompatible.
Come the hour comes the man/woman hopefully. Come the revolution!!!!!!
Cheers Concrete
|
|
So much of the inequality, whence this thread started, comes not so much from politicians not caring, but from their sheer incompetence.
A major problem besetting all politicians is that they don't get any training. OK, I would say that, wouldn't I, given that my career was as a trainer: but it's true that in most other professions, by the time we get to the stage of making important decisions, we have either spent several years qualifying or have many years of experience in our jobs - or both. The problem is compounded by the tendency for people who go into politics being the type whose mouths naturally get into gear before their brains - our Foreign Secretary being a prime example.
At every election or reshuffle, ministers are appointed who have no knowledge of the work of their department, unless they have shadowed it in opposition (e.g. David Blunkett or George Osborne, who whatever you think of their politics did at least know what they were doing). Look at the latest one - Penny Mordaunt, who may well be successful and does have some experience in defence.....but oh no, she goes to DFID and someone with no experience of defence whatsoever is promoted from chief whip to defence for all the wrong reasons.
I know Theresa May (she is a regular churchgoer in the village where I used to be organist). I'm sure that she was genuine in her intentions, on the very first day of her prime ministership, to do more for people who struggle to make ends meet. But I'm not at all sure that she or her ministers have it in them to bring the improvement about.
The Conservatives' policies may be more realistic than Labour's current idealism. But they aren't doing much to convince the younger generation in particular that they even care. My four children (aged 32-42) are all centrists like me - but all voted Labour this year as they simply couldn't stand what they saw as the Tory attitude.
Edited by Avant on 22/11/2017 at 22:47
|
|
The whole point is it doesn't matter which of the two main parties you vote for, one isn't the Conservative party of patriotism frugality self reliance low taxation and encouraging entrepreneurs, the other ins't the Labour party of the working person nor is it the party of blue collar patriots either that it once was.
Neither of the current parties are fit for purpose, whatever monopoly money borrowed in the name of our children to fritter away, more from the fabled money tree is promised by the other side.
We've had the one party state with two teams, red and blue, vying for your vote, it hardly mattering what convictions you hold because their goal posts shift so frequently its almost impossible for a natural Con or natural Lab voter to know which of the two holds his views any more, the answer being neither in most cases.
My wife and i stopped voting this year, that's the first time since 1975 when i voted NO to the Common Market con that i haven't voted.
The reason being there was no one to vote for, UKIP proved itself rudderless without Farage who vanished just when he was needed most.
Yes we could have gone and defaced the ballot slip but in all honesty they weren't even worth the time of day doing that, if you walk into a shop and they have nothing worth buying you don't buy anything and walk out again..
I shall no longer bother to vote until either the tory party dies as it so richly deserves to do and we'll see what emerges from the ashes, or they finally rediscover some Conservatism, must have been a shock at number 10 when some genuine Consevatives in the form of the DUP walked in :-).
I can no longer vote against something, which is what UK politics has become over the last few decades, we don't vote FOR anything any more...i was pleased to vote for leaving the EU because it was a positive vote, i will no longer vote for the least worse option of the unelectable, i will only vote again when i can vote FOR something or someone worth the time.
|
|
...i was pleased to vote for leaving the EU because it was a positive vote
Yes I did, though I`m not so sure many are as positive about it now, especialy as negotiations are not going too well, but as a politician you mentioned said, Farage should be lead negotiator (not that it will happen of course)
|
Yes I did, though I`m not so sure many are as positive about it now, especialy as negotiations are not going too well, but as a politician you mentioned said, Farage should be lead negotiator (not that it will happen of course)
That IMHO is part of the plan the remainers (well represented on both front benches, and in the cabinet, especially by the current PM) are currently pursuing, make it costly enough and long winded enough that their chums in the MSM , especially C4 and the state broadcaster can chip away at national confidence.
I think though they may be surprised if they were stupid enough to call another referendum, whilst those with the loudest voices are still preaching woe, the silent majority who voted out have grown more determined than ever, and even many remainers have agreed that democracy must be respected so get on with it already.
Their laughable pie in the sky hopes that enough oldies will die off or be persuaded by their snowflake spoiled grandchildren to balance the next vote in their favour would IMO be massively dashed, more's the point the British when they've been poked enough don't just lie down quietly and take it, the Germans who rule the EU's piggy bank more than anyone else should remember this.
Each act of submission, almost bribery, here have more money, by our leaders angers millions and enlightens hundreds of thousands more each time to the fact that a good proportion of those supposed to be leading this country could be called fifth columnists acting in the interests of an enemy, if not worse.
Farage wouldn't be the right man i suspect, too much long bred animosity there in the corridors of the EU, Rees-Mogg would be the man i would have chosen to represent our country and allowed him to choose his own team.
However that didn't and isn't going to happen, we'll just have to see how far they dare go, or how long it takes before the British Lion's patience snaps.
|
|
my suggestion is to not to let politics interfere in running public organistaion teaching, NHS, Police, as politicians dont have a inking to what consequences their policies do.
There has to be another party that will support the views of the public more realisticly, both labour and conservative are both sides of the silver spoon for politicians.
politicians need to move in the present times both houses of parliament need to be modernised.
Taxation especially tax avoidence should be declared illegal, and the inland revenue should pursue more heavily the collection of taxes.
am sure that the amount of tax collection will improve finances, and the 'austerity' policies be discarded.
|
my suggestion is to not to let politics interfere in running public organistaion teaching, NHS, Police, as politicians dont have a inking to what consequences their policies do.
There has to be another party that will support the views of the public more realisticly, both labour and conservative are both sides of the silver spoon for politicians.
politicians need to move in the present times both houses of parliament need to be modernised.
Taxation especially tax avoidence should be declared illegal, and the inland revenue should pursue more heavily the collection of taxes.
am sure that the amount of tax collection will improve finances, and the 'austerity' policies be discarded.
Sorry sajid, but your viewpoint is naive at best, and very misguided in my view.
a) For politics to be 'taken out' of Public services, then you have to remove the Labour-supporting unions and many of the people who (supposedly) work in that sector. Many (and I've witnessed this first hand working as an engineering consultant alongside them) actively work against policies, not because they aren't any good, but because the party (i.e. 'not Labour') in power isn't who they want - they are using OUR services to rail against politicians.
At present, to remove these people is unrealistic, as they have permeated EVERY level of the sector, especially in the NHS, local government and education (which is why so many people under 35 voted for Labour last time, and naively believe that hard-line socialism and marxism of Corbyn's lot is a good thing).
b) Political parties don't represent the views of the public - they represent themselves and their own views. Most people reluctantly vote for a 'party' at elections, despite their local MP or councillor being either an idiot, a nasty bit of work or completely unknown to them. Because the vast majority of MPS reside in 'safe seats', they are under relatively little incentive to do either a good job or what is the right thing to do for either the country or local electorate, especially when they get so many perks of the job even when they do relatively little to deserve them. As such, they are either controlled by the party (because they want a plum job and/or power etc) or very loose cannons to do as they please.
At present, I don't believe ANY political party today speaks to any reasonable degree for most people, but of course, it doesn't help that the country is divided and many people would (lazily) rather other people solve our problems rather than lift a finger to help or even bother to make any decent effort to find the root cause of them, rather than believe crude and often inaccurate/deceitful reporting (especially via social media and related gossip dressed up us facts).
c) Parliament needs to be modernised - yes - as part of my job, I worked on a few projects there to help do so, but as has been reported, much of the site and its facilities are so old/in such a bad state that essentially much of the site would need to be completely gutted and refurbished (including major building repairs [Big Ben is the LEAST of their worries]). Estimates have put this cost to be, depending upon whether it is partially occupied (i.e. used) during the work, between £3Bn and £10Bn. Given our parlous finances, that is NOT a small sum, and our selfish and egotistical MPs do not want to give up their offices etc for some 'lesser' site for 10-15 years because they think the public will ask the question why they need such an expensive, ornate building to do their work in.
As regards the way parliament is run (procedures etc), then it does need modernising, but only where doing so adds value. Ironically, much of the 'antiquated' things that go on there actually draw in the tourists. What would be better is to have a clear out of the House of Lords to reduce the numbers down to under 500, preferably less, and similarly for the Commons (which was promised but not delivered) - our parliament has way too many politicians and former politicians who are there doing very little and not really representing anyone but their own greedy interests.
d) Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal. You maybe avoiding tax yourself (quite legally) by saving money in an ISA, or putting some of your earnings in a pension so you salary before tax is reduced to below the 40% tax threshold (again, quite legal). DOn't confuse one with the other, just because rich (and savvy) people use accountants to take advantage of poorly written (because its complex and poorly thought out [mainly for political reasons and haste]) laws. Many people complain that rich people (and firms) 'get away' with paying 'less' taxes because they can afford fancy accountants and lawyers, but the reality is that its the politicians and civil servants fault for drafting bad laws and rules.
Because taxes are so complex, its very easy for experts to get round them, and it gets more and more expensive to administer and police (why the Treasury officials love that - more business their way). The book of taxes needs to simplified GREATLY (again, something that was [on many occasions] promised but never delivered - each time the 'Sir Humphreys' get to the politicians who are more concerned with cementing their positions and climbing the ladder than carrying out policies to reduce waste and increase efficiency and productiveness).
As has also been said many times, making taxes simple should also go hand in hand with reducing them. In every country that has reduced taxation, government revenues have gone UP. This makes a mockery of the Left's arguments (perhaps people should read actual history books, not just Twitter etc), especially those currently at the top of the Labour party. Then less money and people would NEED to be spent on policing taxation, because they wouldn't try and avoid it so much (which is what happens when it is high and unwisely spent [as happens every time the Left are in power, and sadly, more generally these days).
----
You sound like someone who would gladly vote for Mr Corbyn and his cohorts, given they are advocating vastly higher taxes on the rich and companies. Sadly, the country would not survive it, as is currently shown in his favourite socialist/Marxist nation, Venezuela. Is THAT what you really want?
|
|
Andy, agree 100%, admirably summed up!
|
|
hi andy, thanks for your detailed analysis, i like to calrify a few points
1. Parliament to be modernised, i meant scrap the first past the post and replace it with proportianal representation, politicians to be responsible for mistake made promises broken, i.e similar to the sales of goods act.
I agree that a much stronger form of democracy would be to involve local people and they be informed of choices offered and the power to decide, a house of representatives would be ideal, The lords could be reduced to being a upper house made up of people with experience.
2. Power to be devolved away centrally to local councils, ie councils to set up their own spending, collect taxes, any decisons made to be consulted by voters by the use of electronic media, twitter etc
3. Nationally Government to be responsible for security, foreign policy, Trade. and amending creating laws.
There is no central position in todays political system either postion are extreme, and no am not a fan of corbynism promising the earth or the tories, who lack compassion both are same on either face of the coin.
The introduction of universal credit merging different benfits to one, is a good idea in theory they should also offer universal debit, merging all the tax to one.
The govt can reduce its spending by scrapping waste, Hs2, reducing perks of MPs, reducing the numbers in the house of lords to under 400.
|
hi andy, thanks for your detailed analysis, i like to calrify a few points
1. Parliament to be modernised, i meant scrap the first past the post and replace it with proportianal representation, politicians to be responsible for mistake made promises broken, i.e similar to the sales of goods act.
I agree that a much stronger form of democracy would be to involve local people and they be informed of choices offered and the power to decide, a house of representatives would be ideal, The lords could be reduced to being a upper house made up of people with experience.
2. Power to be devolved away centrally to local councils, ie councils to set up their own spending, collect taxes, any decisons made to be consulted by voters by the use of electronic media, twitter etc
3. Nationally Government to be responsible for security, foreign policy, Trade. and amending creating laws.
There is no central position in todays political system either postion are extreme, and no am not a fan of corbynism promising the earth or the tories, who lack compassion both are same on either face of the coin.
The introduction of universal credit merging different benfits to one, is a good idea in theory they should also offer universal debit, merging all the tax to one.
The govt can reduce its spending by scrapping waste, Hs2, reducing perks of MPs, reducing the numbers in the house of lords to under 400.
My responses:
1 and 2. PR is a waste, as it doesn't produce better MPs, nor does it 'represent' people's opinions more, but compromise candidates when people vote against, rather than for a candidate. Using 'party lists', as happens in EU elections, rather than a direct link to the voters in a constituency, is also a very bad idea as it further encourages sychophancy in politicians towards those in charge in their parties (to enable them to be on the 'list', never being voted in by anyone. Some versions also puts power into the ahnds of extermist political parties, as is happening in Europe. PR was resoundingly rejected for parliamentary elections in the referendum in 2011.
Better to work to get better quality MPs who are independent thinkers, but fair and who have long ties to an area, not parachuted in or picked because of what they are in a politically-correct way.
We need to be careful to have 'consequences' for politicians who make mistakes/do wrong (deliberate or not) - if the law isn't good enough, then it needs to be changed, but censoring them because we don't 'like' what they do (as opposed to voting them out at the next election) or 'recalling them' (for another election often just encourages hardling activists to stir up false accusations and politically-correct (and worse, as we're seeing at the moment) complaints just to turf out people because they shout loudest, especially on social media formats like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, which, in my view are not representative of the people (and their views), and, I believe, debases all forms of rational discussion.
We see this now where people (innocent before proven guilty) are hounded out of positions across the board because of negative publicity and to satisfy the whims of a snowflake millenial generation that doesn't like debate or questions, let alone free speech.
I agree that power needs to be decentralised, but only if that is accompanied by people's willingness to get involved in politics far more than now - my generation (born in the 1970s) and older need to understand that being involved in their community and politics can't just begin and end with a cross on a ballot every few years (plus, maybe, a snotty letter to a national newspaper demanding 'something' must be done), expecting politicians to have all the answers and to not lift a finger to help; for those under 40 they need to grow up (not all, I'm generalising here), grow some backbone, take personal responsibility (financially, physically and ethically) within the real world and not expect everything is given to them free (or easily), ditch the snowflake attitude and be REAL adults. Given their current attitude, I'd strongly recommend the voting age be increased to 21, and the age that you can become any representative (councillor or MP) to 25 and 30 respectively.
We need better and more local involvement in politics to avoid the dogmatic approach taken by the Hard Left (in this country) and Hard Right (in Europe) to local politics to 'gain a foothold' at national level (as I believe Momentum are doing now) or to use it to bring down governments by wildly overspending and wasting money, as the former GLC under Ken Livingstone and the current shadow Chancellor did in the 1970s and 80s (that council's debt was the same as many 'Third World' nations).
3. Quite right - central government does too much of what it shouldn't need to do, to the detriment of what it should be (like security and trade). Accountability, as previously discussed, at local level as far as possible, is best, but ONLY if power doesn't just end up in the same crop of local politicians' and activists hands as is now the case for other local services. It would just be swapping one lot of idiots/power-hungry despots for another.
Unfortunately the good MPs on all sides at present tend to be those with the least influence and power, because they think for themselves, mean what they say, but are persuadable to change their minds if faced with new information/cogent arguments (something Mr Corbyn and Co definitely are not capable of). Those in power (i.e. in their parties) often fear these people and keep them at arms length, because they often make them look foolish, greedy or naive and are obvious rivals.
Some go as far to deliberately invite them into positions that either box them into making unpopular descisions on behalf of those above, but who will take the rap when it goes wrong, or that they are blocked at every juncture and are forced to resign, never to be seen in office/high level positions again.
We need to get away from 'left, centrist' and 'right' in politics - we need to think about every aspect of policy in terms of what works and what doesn't - the UC is a good example of what could work if done better - it was squeezed by George Osborne and continued by the current (Mr) bean counter in charge of the purse strings, plus, of course, the Civil Service are dead against it (if run properly) as it would mean thousands of job losses in positions dealing with the huge number of current benefits.
Same goes for having far less and flatter taxes (NI is stupid - it hasn't covered pension and health costs for over 40 years), which would reduce bureaucracy and encourage investment by both people and firms (including providing for our retirement and taking charge of our own health), including from abroad.
Definitely agree with the last point, and would go further by reducing the number of MPs to 500. HS2 is a waste of time and money - people can use video conferencing or just leave their office to go to London a bit earlier (all HS2 would do is encourage more people to work in London and live further and further away, putting more pressure on already full public transport in the SE and encouraging money away from the Midlands and North of England towards London. better to spend money on upgrading existing transport links to remove pinch points, increase capacity and to revitalise areas (including tax encouragement) of former indutsrialised NE, NW and Midlands as well as the SW which relies too heavily on tourism. People need to have a good options to live and near to where they work.
Lots more that could be done. Sorry to go off topic so much, but hey...
Fuel poverty can be reduced, it just needs some joined up thinking by good, honest people. Now where did I put that Genie and bottle....
|
|
Goodness, what a depressing thread! Written mainly, I guess, by OAPs like me who, frankly, have never had it so good. If you want to feel more optimistic about things I suggest you read 'The better angels of our nature' by Steven Pinker.
Most houses have central heating now. Living rooms have wall to wall carpets (which the wealthier have often abandoned for underfloor heating). Households are smaller than they ever have been - lodgers are no longer necessary to supplement income, and people can afford to separate or divorce. Single motherhood is a widespread career option. Immigrants from poorer countries feel wealthy, existing warmly on our subsistence benefits, often with no need to work if they have many children. Divorced couples often end up in a house/flat each. The occasional death from hypothermia is usually from self neglect rather than any shortage of funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
