Election Year or Fear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macstheman

I will vote as I always have but with little hope that the successful incumbents will do no more than fudge, fudge, fudge in the hope that things go well and another 5 years beckon. As MA says we should vote with future generations in mind but with the world teetering imo on the brink of another mass extinction event, which will be man made through abuse of the planets natural resources and the inevitable use one day of weapons of mass destruction, their future looks somewhat bleak!

---

We should always vote with future generations in mind…although - and GP may correct me on this - only Victorian politicians seemed to truly grasp this, which is perhaps why we remain indebted to their establishment of, amongst other things, sewerage systems and educational establishments which remain in use to this day.

As for ‘weapons of mass destruction’. The current situation can seem ‘bleak’ to say the least…I console myself with the knowledge that, probably the first major ‘political’ crisis I have a vivid recollection of was the assassination of JFK when I was just nine. There have been a great many scarier events since, usually involving the Middle East, civil unrest in the USA or war of some description on the fringes of Eastern Europe. We’re all still here and I genuinely hope that sense and decency will prevail and that our younger generations will be able to look back in the same way as we can at events such as the Bay of Pigs crisis, Martin Luther King’s assassination, Vietnam, the 6 Day War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf Wars etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

Here's a viewpoint I put in a previous political thread and will repeat it here. We all have far more of our lives behind us than in front. The future is our children and our grandchildren. Vote for their future. Vote for the party THEY believe has most regard for the problems THEY face. I have friends over here who did exactly that, asked their adult kids which party they were voting for and why. They then voted the same as their kids. We did similar with our 2 and ended up with a choice that didn't include the parties our kids were totally against. We still had a choice and, in true Dutch fashion came to a "compromise", ignoring parties that we don't agree with and choosing from those that the kids aren't against.

---

It's a noble sentiment. However had the younger generation been bothered to 'vote for their future ' in the 2016 referendum then the outcome may have been different.

Turnout in the UK in younger age groups us significantly lower than the older generations. So like I say its noble to think about voting with the younger generation in mind but they should also shoulder some responsibility by bothering to turn up.

I appreciate I'm collectively referring to them as they and not all young people are like that, but certainly those in my close family who are of voting age wont have been anywhere near a polling station. In fact I'm not 100% sure if I asked my 30 yo niece who was PM she would know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SithHappens

It's a noble sentiment. However had the younger generation been bothered to 'vote for their future ' in the 2016 referendum then the outcome may have been different.

Turnout in the UK in younger age groups us significantly lower than the older generations. So like I say its noble to think about voting with the younger generation in mind but they should also shoulder some responsibility by bothering to turn up.

I appreciate I'm collectively referring to them as they and not all young people are like that, but certainly those in my close family who are of voting age wont have been anywhere near a polling station. In fact I'm not 100% sure if I asked my 30 yo niece who was PM she would know.

---

Fair point that, Sith. Certainly seems that my own children were not as politically aware as I was at the same age and there seems to be no equivalent these days to the huge anti Vietnam War and anti apartheid demonstrations along with the Protest and Survive movement which were largely driven by students and the younger generation of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

Maybe they’re just too disenchanted looking at how their elders have ducked things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Fair point that, Sith. Certainly seems that my own children were not as politically aware as I was at the same age and there seems to be no equivalent these days to the huge anti Vietnam War and anti apartheid demonstrations along with the Protest and Survive movement which were largely driven by students and the younger generation of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

Maybe they’re just too disenchanted looking at how their elders have ducked things up.

---

They live in the gaming world where they can disappear and hide from reality. Reality to them is texting your mates or watching some crap on the box BUT they will inherit the world and it is our responsibility that it is worth inheriting. While the Putins and Trumps of this world are around causing mayhem that seems in the balance.

It might be a "Dutch" thing, or maybe down to me always having spoken to my 2 lads about politics and its importance. The eldest is an ominvore who eats red meat maybe 3 or 4 times a week, The rest of the time its vegetarian for him, much like his folks (I made onion soup with red wine and port yesterday and have enough left over for today). He is well versed in things internationally and takes his time in deciding who should get his cross on the ballot paper. The youngest is a full blown vegan and, like his brother, can explain his voting choice very eloquently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

it might be interesting to see if we can reach a consensus on what forum members regard as the priorities for any new government.
.

---

My ‘priorities’ would be

Stop picking on responsible private landlords

Police to do more policing

NHS to be more (consistently) efficient

Those who can’t help themselves to be prioritised over those who won’t help themselves

Public body executive pay to be limited to (let’s say) £250k per year and vacancies advertised on pleb-visible job sites

I doubt there’ll be much concensus there but hey ho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

My ‘priorities’ would be

1. Stop picking on responsible private landlords

2. Police to do more policing

3. NHS to be more (consistently) efficient

4. Those who can’t help themselves to be prioritised over those who won’t help themselves

5. Public body executive pay to be limited to (let’s say) £250k per year and vacancies advertised on pleb-visible job sites

I doubt there’ll be much concensus there but hey ho

---

1. but really harass the irresponsible ones

2. by investing in getting police numbers back up to where they were 15 years ago or better

3. Rejig the NHS so it's less "manager" top heavy. Increase investment to attract new staff and help keep the ones already there

4. Absolutely

5. Totally agree. In NL such jobs may not pay salaries above those of (I forget which) either a government minister or the Prime Minister. Same goes for "celebrities" employed by the NOS which is akin to the BBC with the main difference being they have ads and no licence fee but do get some government funding

I'd add that over here, income generated through work gets taxed at a higher rate than income generated through shares or renting out property. Income tax is 0% over the first €13K. The next 54K (up to 67K) is taxed at 24.5% and everything over 67K is taxed at 33%. You can add roughly another 15% in social premiums on top of all of those to reach actual stoppages. Company profits are taxed at 20% and dividend payments are taxed at 15%. From this year profit from renting out property is finally being taxed, at 20%. I find this discriminatory. Why should one type of income be taxed at a lower rate than income from a different source?

Not sure about ‘consensus’ or otherwise, AF.
It seems a bit personal and maybe in need of further explanation, at least as far as the ‘landlords’ one is concerned.
Would agree about the police and the NHS although the latter (probably both) need more funding imo.
Think I largely agree on 4.
Why £250k limit and why only ‘public body’ executive pay?

Put another way, I don’t understand the landlord one even though I was briefly a landlord about 12/13 years ago and had no problem at all.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing for greater support for public services (specifically the NHS and the police), people suffering from cancer having priority over those who desire a boob job and greater responsibility and pay restraint to be shown by the most wealthy…then you have my support.

P.S. Completely agree with MA about ‘harassing’ unscrupulous landlords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

1. but really harass the irresponsible ones

2. by investing in getting police numbers back up to where they were 15 years ago or better

3. Rejig the NHS so it's less "manager" top heavy. Increase investment to attract new staff and help keep the ones already there

4. Absolutely

5. Totally agree. In NL such jobs may not pay salaries above those of (I forget which) either a government minister or the Prime Minister. Same goes for "celebrities" employed by the NOS which is akin to the BBC with the main difference being they have ads and no licence fee but do get some government funding

I'd add that over here, income generated through work gets taxed at a higher rate than income generated through shares or renting out property. Income tax is 0% over the first €13K. The next 54K (up to 67K) is taxed at 24.5% and everything over 67K is taxed at 33%. You can add roughly another 15% in social premiums on top of all of those to reach actual stoppages. Company profits are taxed at 20% and dividend payments are taxed at 15%. From this year profit from renting out property is finally being taxed, at 20%. I find this discriminatory. Why should one type of income be taxed at a lower rate than income from a different source?

---

Seems like we have a bit of concensus

On the unearned (property) income thing, some of my income is 'unearned' by this definition, BUT

We've already paid vast amounts of tax out of 'earned' income to get in the position we have, AND

Whilst our friends have chosen to spend their 'earned' income on living the high life (cruises, flash cars, blah blah) we have invested more of our income (and sometimes ******* busting levels of effort) in building for our later years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Not sure about ‘consensus’ or otherwise, AF.
It seems a bit personal and maybe in need of further explanation, at least as far as the ‘landlords’ one is concerned.
Would agree about the police and the NHS although the latter (probably both) need more funding imo.
Think I largely agree on 4.
Why £250k limit and why only ‘public body’ executive pay?

Put another way, I don’t understand the landlord one even though I was briefly a landlord about 12/13 years ago and had no problem at all.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing for greater support for public services (specifically the NHS and the police), people suffering from cancer having priority over those who desire a boob job and greater responsibility and pay restraint to be shown by the most wealthy…then you have my support.

P.S. Completely agree with MA about ‘harassing’ unscrupulous landlords.

---

Regarding the landlords one, media/pressure group efforts have resulted in the demonising of private landlords and the subsequent sniffing of a bit of electoral capital by the major parties (I think you'd refer to it as 'populism') which has resulted in a gradual (IMO over) balancing of the law in favour of tenants and further proposed tightening on the way. The impression often given is that ALL landlords are descendants of Rachman himself. I/we take that as a personal insult, but on a wider point, the driving out of private landlords (with only a single property and therefore waaaay higher gearing of risk of punitive taxation or rogue tenants that we do) serves only to increase rental costs as the pool of available properties decreases. The major parties are pushing the anti-landlord agenda either a) hoping the electorate are too dim to see the problem as it affects them or b) the major parties are too dim to see it themselves.