General Election UK, June 8th...

[PsychoSerenity]

Actually I've changed my mind. I think Forty Two's idea that the more people pay in the more democratic influence they should have is a good one. You just need to get the calculation right to make it fair. Obviously it can't be based on absolute values because that gives a massive unfair advantage to the rich. It needs to be a vote share based on the percentage of income paid in tax. But there also needs to be a threshold to account for living costs otherwise people would be being forced to chose between food or shelter and their democratic rights. So it should be based on the percentage of discretionary income paid in tax i.e. income after all necessary bills are take care of. I believe the Living Wage Foundation puts average living costs at about £20,000 per year. So let's say, - anyone unfortunate enough to be being paid less than the cost of living automatically gets a 100% vote, - since they don't have discretionary income yet they're still paying taxes. Whereas anyone being paid half a million a year, well if they want a 100% vote they're going to need to pay £480,000 in taxes.

Sound fair?

[Brian Peacock]

Would those on £10k pa get a 200% vote? Would the unemployed get a 0% vote?

I think a democratic system weighted in favour of the poor is about as sensible and workable as one weighted in favour of the rich - that is, it renders politics and governance an exercise in servicing the interests of nominal groups on the basis of income. The way to counteract the undue political influence and interference of of the wealthy - or any other special interest group - is state funding for political parties and stricter regulations around donations and campaign spending.

Last year the Observer reported that at a 2015 fund-raising event for the Conservative party a Russian oligarch bid £160,000 for his wife to have a game of tennis with Boris Johnson and David Cameron. In March this year the party was ordered to pay the maximum possible fine (£70,000) for spending irregularities during the 2015 general election campaign. By my reckoning the imbalance in the system is highlighted in the conjunction of those two pieces of information.

[PsychoSerenity]

Stop spoiling my fun.

[Hermit]

Actually I've changed my mind. I think Forty Two's idea that the more people pay in the more democratic influence they should have is a good one. You just need to get the calculation right to make it fair. Obviously it can't be based on absolute values because that gives a massive unfair advantage to the rich. It needs to be a vote share based on the percentage of income paid in tax. But there also needs to be a threshold to account for living costs otherwise people would be being forced to chose between food or shelter and their democratic rights. So it should be based on the percentage of discretionary income paid in tax i.e. income after all necessary bills are take care of. I believe the Living Wage Foundation puts average living costs at about £20,000 per year. So let's say, - anyone unfortunate enough to be being paid less than the cost of living automatically gets a 100% vote, - since they don't have discretionary income yet they're still paying taxes. Whereas anyone being paid half a million a year, well if they want a 100% vote they're going to need to pay £480,000 in taxes.

Sound fair?

PsychoSerenity for Prime Minister.

[Svartalf]

most everybody makes a finer PM than a professional politico.

[mistermack]

Hold the front page !!

The real reason for the early election is gradually seeping out. And it's HOUSE PRICES !!

They dropped for the second quarter in a row, and new mortgages have dropped, and applications are down.

The house price slump is on the way, and it will accelerate as the deadline for Brexit gets closer. Dropping prices will mean dropping demand, especially for investment buyers.

Theresa has probably just got in in time. But the quick election will start to look a bit of a cynical ploy after the election, with a dropping housing market and consequential drop in output.

Mark my words. When am I ever rong ??

[pErvinalia]

DaveDodo for PM!!

[Scot Dutchy]

The bubble is bursting. Once the banks have pulled out of the City London will be finished.

[Hermit]

DaveDodo for PM!!

For Palliative Medicine? Purulent Meningitis?

[mistermack]

The bubble is bursting. Once the banks have pulled out of the City London will be finished.

Of course.

There was no City of London before we joined the EU.

[Scot Dutchy]

The bubble is bursting. Once the banks have pulled out of the City London will be finished.

Of course.

There was no City of London before we joined the EU.

There was no Euro either. The City was then for bowler hatted gits and their private clubs. They had people called jobbers running around with pieces of paper.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Seems that UK is not doing very good at political nonsense these days. Maybe is time for consider giving back to monarchy and let them for clean?

[cronus]

Without a housing market the economy becomes non-predictives and the stats led market pulls out....some think that is a bad thing. How's you like neolibarlism and algorithm led economics screwing you then?

[JimC]

Would he make the trains run on time?

[Svartalf]

Nobody can make trains run on time