Reply to: Who do we vote for in the May general election and who do we not vote for?

[lilelvis2000]

Think I'll be voting SNP ;O)

I wish I could.

[scooterscot]

Think I'll be voting SNP ;O)

[Zero Liability]

Unfortunately both PJ and BB are correct: the expansion of "Universal Credit" into a non-means tested system is a great idea. There would need to be a system in place to ensure that any claims were legitimate, but this are already there (e.g. NI Number). The unfortunate part is that BB is correct when he says that the savings would not be realised because the current bureaucracy would not be dismantled.

A minimum payment coupled with flate rate taxes = Utopia

Yes, agree on that entirely, plus constraining govt borrowing to a low multiple of its tax revenues and inhibiting money "printing" thereby inhibiting spending to (relatively more) sustainable levels, but all this would be faced with huge uphill resistance sadly.

[SueEllen]

I'll be voting Labour 'cos I'm as thick as pig tulip.

I hope you are in a constituency where all the main parties and a few minor parties have candidates standing.

I remember voting as a student and finding there was no Tory or Lib Dem candidate on the ballot paper. Then once as a working adult there was no Labour candidate. I felt cheated both times

Some times the parties pull stunts to stop other parties e.g. the BNP from getting in but in these cases it was because the area was solid Labour or solid Tory.

[SueEllen]

Saying they are appalling is an easy thing to do, so maybe you could explain why and then suggest what else they could do and how someone else could do it any better.

Apart from some of the smaller parties virtually everything that comes out of party leaders' mouths and the more prominent MPs mouths is a lie. Former spin doctors openly admit they are taught to lie without lying, or to put it plainly they give the impression of telling the truth.

This is why when the Tories state we must cut the deficit a lot of the electorate don't believe them. When the government (of any colour) states that foreign aid needs to be increased again lots of the voting population doesn't believing them due to foreign aid going to countries like India.

[SueEllen]

Of course in the end your system is no different in terms of what people get.

Is it less bureacratic?

Of course not, just saying it isn't doesn't make it so. If it was governments would do it. Of course changing the system would cost a fortune.

So what's the point? it sounds gr8 if you want to win votes, but is completely pointless.

But we live in a democracy, if your idea is really convincing and I'm wrong it will be implemented. But it won't be because it's fundamentally flawed (i.e. by the time it's implemented it's just as bureacratic and no-one wins or gains).

Lets discuss this in 10 years to see whether your idea has taken hold.

Various forms of PR are used in the UK so changing the Westminster system shouldn't be too hard and costly. However because civil servants and MPs, who are self serving are involved, it will be.

[Goatfell]

Unfortunately both PJ and BB are correct: the expansion of "Universal Credit" into a non-means tested system is a great idea. There would need to be a system in place to ensure that any claims were legitimate, but this are already there (e.g. NI Number). The unfortunate part is that BB is correct when he says that the savings would not be realised because the current bureaucracy would not be dismantled.

A minimum payment coupled with flate rate taxes = Utopia

[Project Monkey]

I'll be voting Labour 'cos I'm as thick as pig tulip.

[BlasterBates]

I am flattered, but it certainly was not my idea. Ten years (two electoral cycles) is too short for such a reform, however I would not be surprised to see less means testing and more universality in that timeframe. It is debatable whether we live in a functioning democracy - and just looking around is sufficient to observe that democracy is more than capable of delivering less than optimal solutions to complicated problems.

Well is this entitlement for anyone resident in the UK?, and if so watch out for a flood of immigrants handing their bank details over to the government for the unbureacratic handing over of 70 week. If not i.e. British citizens then that means you need the existing system to be maintained because you can't not pay benefits because they're not citizens, and therefore you've created two systems without dismantling the old one.

I think you are going to find this rather theoretically simple idea will be a can of worms, and if it is really going to be unbureacratic it will mean it will be exploited to the extremes because no-one is checking.

It's a nice idea that you simply sit on your sofa and whatever you do 300 quid flows into your bank account and no-one needs to check anything, but once you start discussing this with Sir Humphrey in your cabinet ministry I'm afraid you going to find out it won't fly.

[pjclarke]

I am flattered, but it certainly was not my idea. Ten years (two electoral cycles) is too short for such a reform, however I would not be surprised to see less means testing and more universality in that timeframe. It is debatable whether we live in a functioning democracy - and just looking around is sufficient to observe that democracy is more than capable of delivering less than optimal solutions to complicated problems.

[BlasterBates]

Presumably slavery could never have been abolished under that logic, I mean where do we put all the slaves?

But I am not sure I follow the argument. There are no major groups of losers under the proposals, and they represent a huge simplification of the system, every citizen is entitled, so there is no raft of means tests or tax credits, and no need to report every tiny change in circumstances.

More than one in ten polled now support the Green Party, and membership is higher than UKIP, so they are fast emerging from the fringes. In Switzerland the proposal has gathered enough support that the Government is now obliged to hold a referendum ...

Of course in the end your system is no different in terms of what people get.

Is it less bureacratic?

Of course not, just saying it isn't doesn't make it so. If it was governments would do it. Of course changing the system would cost a fortune.

So what's the point? it sounds gr8 if you want to win votes, but is completely pointless.

But we live in a democracy, if your idea is really convincing and I'm wrong it will be implemented. But it won't be because it's fundamentally flawed (i.e. by the time it's implemented it's just as bureacratic and no-one wins or gains).

Lets discuss this in 10 years to see whether your idea has taken hold.

You're comparing it abolishing slavery, but everyone is in favour of abolishing slavery so that's why it happened, but no-one apart from a small minority are interested in this particular idea.

[pjclarke]

If you radically change a system and because of it some major "societal group" ends up with a lot less it will never get through parliament. Any change would end up with everyone more or less with the same amount of income. So what happens your simple idea suddenly becomes very complicated to introduce all those exceptions and adjustments so that no-one is a lot worse of because of it.

Result: a new bureacratic monster to replace the old bureacratic monster.

It's great being an economist because you sit there and plug values into your computerised model and no mob is going to come around and pelt you with rotten eggs.

This idea has been touted, usually by small political parties on the fringes seeking a bit of attention, in almost every single country in the world and has been ignored, for good reason.

Presumably slavery could never have been abolished under that logic, I mean where do we put all the slaves?

But I am not sure I follow the argument. There are no major groups of losers under the proposals, and they represent a huge simplification of the system, every citizen is entitled, so there is no raft of means tests or tax credits, and no need to report every tiny change in circumstances.

More than one in ten polled now support the Green Party, and membership is higher than UKIP, so they are fast emerging from the fringes. In Switzerland the proposal has gathered enough support that the Government is now obliged to hold a referendum ...

[BlasterBates]

Is this a small change? Greek economy to shrink 25% by 2014 | Business | The Guardian

If an economy produces 75 and then the government borrows 25 to make it 100, inevitably after a few years their artificial GDP will be reduced by 25%, so the government had no choice, of course it's destroyed the politcal party who was in power, and simply underlines the point then when a "societal grouping" takes a big cut it will destroy whoever is in power.

Pasok the party in power when they went bankrupt gets about 4% of the vote now and is regularly pelted with rotten eggs.

[DodgyAgent]

If you radically change a system and because of it some major "societal group" ends up with a lot less it will never get through parliament. Any change would end up with everyone more or less with the same amount of income. So what happens your simple idea suddenly becomes very complicated to introduce all those exceptions and adjustments so that no-one is a lot worse of because of it.

.

Is this a small change? Greek economy to shrink 25% by 2014 | Business | The Guardian

[BlasterBates]

And there you have it. The current maze of regulation is asymmetrical between men and women, and can discriminate based on marital and habitation status. Plus, JSA and Child Benefit are progressively withdrawn if/when the citizen's income rises or they do more than a few hours a week training. In some circumstances this can mean losing 95p out of every additional pound earned. With a guaranteed non-means tested income, net income rises much faster as earned income rises. Take up is near 100%, corporations are forced to rethink their business models based on paying exploitation level wages, and benefit fraud is much reduced.

You can say what you like about Bertrand Russell, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, JK Galbreith, and Nobel Economists Herbert Simon, Friedrich Hayek, James Meade, Milton Friedman (and 1200 others) all of whom have advocated some form of Basic Income, but I don't think economic naivity is one of their faults.

If you radically change a system and because of it some major "societal group" ends up with a lot less it will never get through parliament. Any change would end up with everyone more or less with the same amount of income. So what happens your simple idea suddenly becomes very complicated to introduce all those exceptions and adjustments so that no-one is a lot worse of because of it.

Result: a new bureacratic monster to replace the old bureacratic monster.

It's great being an economist because you sit there and plug values into your computerised model and no mob is going to come around and pelt you with rotten eggs.

This idea has been touted, usually by small political parties on the fringes seeking a bit of attention, in almost every single country in the world and has been ignored, for good reason.