Fourth, the whole fiasco budget, based on secrecy and hype, should be diffused. Instead, there should be widespread consultation, on a transparent basis, on what government spending priorities should be. This might involve a form of people’s parliament, or large-scale focus groups, if you like, but these should not be behind closed doors. The evidence and the findings should be available for people to note.
The same should be true with tax rises. We are not going to get additional taxes on the wealthy, it would seem, and that is precisely because Rachael Reeves is terrified of them, when she should actually be listening to people, and if she did, she would realise that this is an essential course of action for her to follow because people are fed up with being fleeced by those who exploited the current financial system for their advantage at cost to everyone else.
So, therefore, says the Spudster, we should have another Parliament. That’ll definitely work, right?
Come on! He’s not wrong is he? You do need another Parliament. You certainly don’t need this one!
But is is he sure he knows what he’s asking for? By the look of the polling, if he got what he’s talking about it’d be foaming at the mouth far-right.
No it wouldn’t, because the representatives in the “People’s Parliament” would be carefully selected by people who share Spud’s worldview (or just a bunch of the unemployed with time on their hands, which amounts to almost the same thing).
Why have another parliament or focus groups to answer the questions – shall we tax the rich more and spend more? The answer will always be yes. If this is the result of his week away to focus on thinking then god help us if he goes away for a month
Yeah. But he’s envisaging a Parliament to decide how to finance his spending plans. Any Parliament to decide financial matters is going to want a say in how the money’s spent. So you could say good-bye to 1000 quid a week hotels for asylum seekers, benefits for immigrants or the intentionally unemployed, the entire foreign aid budget, funding for climate bollocks, the entirety of DEI, grants for cvnts like him…
Government spending halved?
“… when she should actually be listening to people …”
I think we can guess who he thinks are the people who should be listened to.
Yeah. I assumed a one person Parliament would be the proposal.
Secondly, she could stop living in fear of financial markets when she has the power to control what they do.
Wow that was easy. It must be so stimulating being Ritchie’s hat.
Come on. She can make productive economic activity disappear “just like that”.
“This might involve a form of people’s parliament, or large-scale focus groups, if you like”
If you can be tasting wine, or have a hot Swedish lingerie model who wants your attention, you are not going to a focus group to get your £10 and a cup of average coffee. If your hot Swedish lingerie model girlfriend wants you to take her shopping on a Saturday afternoon, you’re going to do that rather than spend an afternoon at a people’s parliament. Or realistically, if you’re a dad with kids, you’re going to go to the zoo with them rather than attend a people’s parliament.
So these things get dominated by weird lefties. And there’s quite enough weirdos in politics as it is, rather than people focussed on delivering what the country generally wants and needs.
The ballot box is a great leveller. Everyone gets a say, and it takes 15 minutes, at any time of a day, every few years. Everyone can find that. Even if your Swedish lingerie model brings a hot friend, you’re going to be able to take a break for 20 minutes.
And if you want things micromanaged, the best way is to shrink government. Go for the daily referendum of markets. End the BBC. School vouchers. Insurance-based health.
Perhaps what we need is a B parliament for all the wierdos. But it occurs that the A parliament isn’t much different. We’re gonna need a bigger ark.
You’re reminding me of the Voice referendum here in Oz. The people had just voted the Labor party in with a huge majority but then they had to vote on a specific policy.
They voted no.
Plus ça change… IIRC about 60-odd years ago the “Daily Mirror” (it was a decent newspaper in those days!) surveyed its readership and discovered that comparing their views with the way they voted, more than half of them actually voted for the “wrong” party.
Evidence that people many times don’t vote for a person so much as against.
More evidence? Britain’s last election.
Even if your Swedish lingerie model brings a hot friend, you’re going to be able to take a break for 20 minutes.
I’d need a damn-site longer than 20 minutes!!
Ah, but Murphy will control who gets into this one.
Wouldn’t stop him falling out with them all within a week, mind you.
What the left really want is a tax system that dispenses with rates, income bands, deductions, etc. They want is to be able to take what they want. Call it the Viking raider theory of taxation. If they leave you with anything, it would be by accident and they’ll come back for it later.
MPs were elected by the people.
Instead of elected representatives in Parliament (democracy), he wants selected representatives to determine what to do.
“Democracy didn’t work, so we must find another way.”
I would argue that democracy didn’t work, at least in our last iteration. 80% of the electorate didn’t vote Labour but a massive Labour majority was what we got…..
That’s because we use FPTP which is a system that can elect the worst candidate (i.e. the candidate that could not beat any other in a two candidate runoff). We need a system that gives a more representative result (but not a party-list PR system as that is at least as bad).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.
I am familiar with that theorem. The impossibility of a perfect system does not mean that all other systems are equaly good.
As a Union Rep, I attended a two day Labour Party conference when it was in my town. Lots of ‘focus groups’, full of Gruaniad readers, Al Beeb lovers and all with the same leftist liberal groupthink. You know, nutters…..
I do wonder how many union reps get elected on the basis of “Well he doesn’t do any actual work, so let’s send him off where we aren’t bothered by his guff.”
Rather like how the US has chosen a number of ambassadors actually.
Present company excluded of course.
We don’t need another Parliament, we need another Guido Fawkes. 650 useless place-holders of limited ability, unable to break free of the Globalist control – what would make it better?
The problem is their power. They should be very limited in what they can touch.
A friend of Gamecock is a state senator. By profession, he is a real estate lawyer. He is good at that. Issues come before the Senate (firearms regulation, boat regulations, etc) that have FA to do with real estate. So my fine real estate lawyer has to make decisions on things for which he has no clue.
He will never have a clue. Which is not to say that he is a bad person. He has just been put into a position where he must use his best judgement on fields for which he has no familiarity. No elected senator will ever have a clue on most issues.
The solution is to get the government to keep their hands off things they don’t understand. The national government has a Constitution that sets limits on their actions. The fascist shits in Washington DC do whatever the f*** they want to. They are unconstrained. Yet constraint is critical to good government.