buctootim

You make the grand sweeping statement of "Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power". I say "whats your alternative?". I was expecting something radical, not simple fine tinkering with the mechanics of "elected dictatorship". 1. To remove MPs mid term in a way which furthers democracy instead of sabotaging it would be difficult, but not impossible. Whats your proposal? 2. Its sounds like you are advocating some kind of PR, which I agree with. However the electorate recently rejected one change - I cant see the issue coming up for debate again for another 10 years or so. Anyway you can argue swing voters have a moderating influence on politics. Two camps of people who will never agree with each other and wont change their mind is a recipe for civil war, or at least a perpetual dictatorship of the 51% over the 49%. 3. Referendums are no more democratic than elections without a balanced media.

Thats an impressive CB line up. Its not surprising Fonte has found it hard to break into the team. Carvalho is 36 now though so he has a good chance going forward.

Thats an impressive list. Training during the international breaks must be a miserable affair for those few not called up.

This is the page to register for online purchases. https://tickets.saintsfc.co.uk/PagesPublic/Profile/Registration.aspx

and your fully worked up, proven elsewhere, alternative is....

Of course they dont, thats why we have elections. Its an imperfect system but better than the alternatives.

Good post and one I largely agree with. I also think Osbourne has learned and improved in his time in office. Cameron, not so much. My pet idea is to build a lot of large high end detached houses across Britain for slightly less than current market price. This would have several benefits amongst them: stimulating the economy since building is labour intensive and uses primarily UK produced materials; take the heat out of house prices making housing more affordable; and would create a cascade whereby one house built would benefit several families as people traded up.

I agree. Philip Green is a good example of exploiting loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying. He does it by having majority ownership of Arcadia vested in his wife who is officially resident in Monaco whilst he is just a paid employee...In such cases Revenue and Customs should be able to go to court to make a judgement on deliberate avoidance and have the court make a levy based on turnover/ income / sales generated in the UK. As to waste, how much is really waste and how much is thinking you don't agree with an area of expenditure so its 'wasted'? The billions genuinely wasted on aircraft carriers, and IT systems for healthcare are primarily down to politicians constantly changing their minds and the spec - not procurement staff in public services.

But that is conflating two separate points. One is legitimate complaint about the ability of the executive to go to war without even parliamentary vote in some cases, the other is about the cost, which is very much the junior issue in the greater scheme of things.

"I shouldn't pay because I don't like the choice of wars". "I shouldn't pay because I think MPs are lazy". "I shouldn't pay because I've worked hard for my high paid job - and I shouldn't have paid when I was young and low paid either". They are all variants of not wanting to pull your weight - the kind of freeloading you nod and tut about when its someone else. Go live a year in a country without an effective tax system - you'll be able to live tax free, especially in rural areas. Such government as there is will be funded by corruption. Obviously you wont have an independent police force, there will be some kind of village kangaroo court or militia instead so you might have to change your values / religion / sexual orientation / politics etc to those of the majority. There will no enforceable property rights either so someone who fancies it will take your house. The roads will be dirt tracks, the electricity mostly absent and you'll be surrounded by people who have never been to school and have no hope or prospects - but Im sure you and your family will safe. Life will be so much better. Yeah I know - you never meant there should be no tax system, this is a facile point and all you wanted was to cut out the waste and not spend on the things you dont like. Democracy is too cumbersome. Some kind of opt in system perhaps? everyone gets to choose where their money goes and how much to pay. What could go wrong? Do you know why London, Paris, New York etc are full of rich Russians? Its not because of lower tax, tax is lower in Russia - especially if you know the right people. Rich foreigners come to the west because of a safe regulated banking system, a land registry which cant be manipulated, an effective police force, independent courts, universal education which contributes to relatively low levels of crime, good hospitals wherever they happen to be instead of just in the capital city; and a high quality public realm (that means maintained parks and not being surrounded by lots of very poor people making them feel bad).

This is the one that strikes me most. Admittedly its US, I cant find the UK data, but incomes for 80% of the population have practically stagnated for 35 years whilst the small minority power ahead.

Another example of inefficiency!

You only have to look at the relative costs of private education and healthcare in societies where the state doesnt provide an adequate level of care to see the nonsense in that. The biggest creator of inefficiency in the NHS has been the creation of the internal market. The shortest school terms are in private schools.

I agree its a question of degree. The current minimum wage is a bit tokenistic but its better than the nothing which preceded it. It would be intersting to see credible research into the impact on the labour market of the minimum wage at £10 and £12ph. At those levels you would really start to create an incentive for work and decreasing both poverty and benefits claims. Im not sure that anyone is proposing a return to the punitive, and to my mind slightly immoral 'supertax' rates. I'd be happy with a top income tax rate of 45 or 50% but with far fewer ways of sheltering. The problem in general is not the taxation rates, but the whole tax avoidance industry that has grown up to enable those with money to opt out of paying whilst those poor souls with no assets and on basic PAYE end up paying more. If somebody on £30,000pa puts £5,000 into their pension they will get £1,000 tax relief. If somebody on £100,000pa does the same they will get £2,000 relief - why does that make sense? Why should Starbucks or any other multiinational be able to have its directly managed subsidiaries pay a big enough 'franchise fee' to declare a loss each year and avoid paying corporation tax? Taxation shouldnt be optional

Lets find the real Ohio Saint and exile the current one to Minnesota or somewhere.

Thats the trouble, your opinions are based on somebody you spoke to, something you think you heard on the radio. They arent facts. Read more, look at the evidence of what happens bvoth in the UK and overseas. You could start here. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-minimum-wage-impact-on-earnings-employment-and-hours-in-the-recession

We made a mistake 30 years ago in thinking development and economic growth would bring political liberalisation. So far all its done is create a more powerful bully. I do some work in the Philippines and China is hated by the pacific rim countries because of their attempt to annexe the high seas and even grab other countries territorial waters by building artifical islands and then claiming an EEZ around them.

This is the article I read. Chinese politics has so many hidden motives and levels to it its very hard for an outsider to understand. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-29454385

Another hoary old myth that was busted years ago. Your me me me self interest has blinded you to rational thought.

I didnt realise until today that the Chinese Prime Minister who made promises about democracy in HK and was 'dovish' towards the Tiannamen square protestors was purged shortly afterwards and spent the rest of his life in house arrest.

That is exactly why the minimum wage should be higher and taxation more progressive. People are most powerfully motivated to work by a need to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. People whose current situation is eating past sell by date cheap carp and live in a cold damp shoebox will struggle harder to get more money than somebody who already has two houses and three cars. Well paid people usually do their jobs because they are more satisfying and enjoyable than being a bin man or working in Kiplings cakes - they wont give them up if the tax increases and their accountant's scope for 'sheltering' money is restricted.

It doesnt feel right because it isnt right Bletch. The wealthiest amongst us have more scope for tax dodging - deferring income, taking it as dividends, maxing out on pension contributions, manufacturing 'losses' on assets, offshoring etc etc than the poor do. That is the reason tax take falls as rates rise - because the incentive to cheat becomes stronger. However pretending there is no way around that is specious. This study from Berkley and MIT demonstrates that. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feml.berkeley.edu%2F~saez%2Fpiketty-saez-stantcheva12thirdelasticity_nber_v2.pdf&ei=NngtVLmrIrSu7AaZqYGABw&usg=AFQjCNGFYzkmfNFiSA6mbRudepdVez2gcw&bvm=bv.76477589,d.ZGU&cad=rja The doubling of the share of national income enjoyed by the richest 1% over the past 30 years has largely happened in English speaking countries and it has been at the expense of the middle. Median incomes in real terms have barely changed at all in 30 years in the US. All that is needed is the political will to tighten up tax breaks and loopholes instead of pretending to the poor they are on their side whilst pushing more money at those already best off.

Really? Not an election giveaway and there is no massive debt? Its paying the bills by extending your credit and lowering the repayments. Paying the bills by using more borrowed money. Do you run your business like that as you may well be insolvent. Or is it a special logic you save for here?

Certainly would have created more work for physios locally