Talking Politics

[Floating Onion]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it the case now in the US that if you are

> picked up off the street, they can hold you for

> the said 42 days?

>

> On radio 4 a month ago, I believe it was stated 15

> days.

This may be the case if you are an American citizen picked up off the street. You may want to be careful flying through the US though. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen was detained for 374 days. From Wikipedia:

He was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the U.S. for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The U.S. Government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though the nation is known to use torture on suspects. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was regularly tortured, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, until his release to Canada.

The Canadian government had concluded that he was tortured based upon unsworn interviews with Arar and others.

Extreme? Yes. But removing the legal safeguards that are in place is a dangerous direction.

[Bleep]

I see the unfortunate erosion of civil liberties in this country as a part of what I would term the "surveillance/terrorist" complex, which is similar to what Eisenhower dubbed "the military/industrial" complex in the US after WW2. We built up a network of surveillance in London and the SE during the IRA bombing campaign, and once that had finished, a whole organisation and attendant policies were lying dormant waiting to be used. 9/11 and 7/7 unfortunately accelerated the drive for its need.

The only thing I can say is that the penalties for the misuse of data are enormous, but that doesn't deflect the suspicion that it's already going on. I can't find the specific article in the Telegraph a fortnight ago, but it highlighted some council's use of a term called RIPA where essentially what they can do is comandeer data and intelligence for specific things such as benefit fraud and the like, but instead were using it to haul up people for inconsequential offences.

[cdonline]

I should get worked up about 42 days, but with all the machinations of both parties and posturing of ?Dickie? Davis, it?s been reduced to a side show. Why has Brown bigged up the issue, when there are more important issues to stake your political future on? The argument seems to be that the police will need more time to do their job against terrorism effectively. Isn?t that more about resources? Is that really worth sending a message to everyone that you can be detained for 6 weeks without being charged?

The recent stance of the Tories that they are the party of individual freedom makes me laugh. I presume Davis thought he was onto a winner, taking Shami Chakrabarti?s advice and making a stand. Makes you realise that having principles and being an effective politician don?t always go hand in hand.

I find CCTV aggravating, but it doesn?t really worry me. What did news programmes do before we had grainey footage of people, err walking. Imagine the Jill Dando story without her walking into the shop on the day she was killed? We all watched.

You?d probably learn more about most of us reading this site. Some gormless image of me, picking my nose, meandering up Lordship Lane, daydreaming, is of interest to whom?

Oh, and should the Police get paid more? No. Particularly my whinging brother in law.

[Moos]

I dislike the idea of ID cards (excellent posts from Marmora Man and Mockers on this) - how will they preserve us from terrorists when those who have made terrorist attacks in Britain were British citizens?

A number of posters have contended that it's unlikely that it will become ann offence not to produce an ID card on demand. In a number of countries in Europe citizens are obliged to carry their ID cards, and produce them on request. It's hardly a great step to imagine that once we all have to have a card, that we will be required to carry one 'for our own protection'.

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, yes, I agree Dave R. I was referring to

> taxation in general. Unlike Mamora Man I believe

> in moderate redistibution of wealth to be a

> thoroughly good thing.

>

> Ta credits, as you rightly point out, are a

> complete mess.

My point was about the tax credit system. However, I'd be interested in your definition of "moderate" redistribution. I fully support higher tax thresholds and a system that ensures basic dignity and needs for those unable, for whatever reason, to provide for themselves. I am less persuaded that taxing people at progressively higher taxes to redistribute (inefficiently - because the gov't would be in charge) the take to others on lower incomes does much for anyone.

I'd be interested to understand your rationale.

[Floating Onion]

From a government that can't hang on to top secret intelligence and we should trust them with ID cards? What happens when those records are lost?

[????]

Tax/benefits - get rid of as much of the benefit system as possible and give every single person (including dependent kids) a set annual income whatever they 'earn', their assets or wether they choose to work or not (i'd still keep a limited benefit system for say disability and as some kind of genuine saftety net). At the libeterian extreme I'd even say get rid of free health and education and increase the basic income for all so they could choose what to spend this on (including education/health/insurance etc) but too many people are utterly feckless and incapable about taking responsibility for their own lives. So I'd just try and simplify and debueacratise(?) the benefit system.

PS I'd put all my state income on the 3.30 at Newmarket ;-)

[david_carnell]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My point was about the tax credit system. However,

> I'd be interested in your definition of "moderate"

> redistribution. I fully support higher tax

> thresholds and a system that ensures basic dignity

> and needs for those unable, for whatever reason,

> to provide for themselves. I am less persuaded

> that taxing people at progressively higher taxes

> to redistribute (inefficiently - because the gov't

> would be in charge) the take to others on lower

> incomes does much for anyone.

>

> I'd be interested to understand your rationale.

My rationale at a social level is that I think a society with a large differential in wealth between richest and poorest is a rather unpleasant place to live - if that doesn't sound too wooly. By "moderate" I meant to intimate that I am not in favour of Labour manifesto policies circa 1983 where top rates of tax were running at 90%.

Repeated statistics (which I shall endeavour to look for at some point) show happiness indices are inversely proportional to the 'weath gap'. The smaller the gap, the happier society is.

My concern of removing Govt inteference in this process is that it is reliant on individual selflessness. Free-marketeers often argue that if the rich were taxed less they often give away a lot of their money to charities and other philanthropic pursuits but I find little credence in this argument. I think progressive taxation is a (fairly) efficient method of redistribution and allows for a population who are economically mobile i.e. are able to move through the economic strata of society with relative ease. Currently there are huge differentials in wealth which are very difficult to 'break into' - lack of social mobility if you like. IMO a bad thing.

I think this Govt has roundly failed to reduce the wealth gap - a policy which, IMO, a Labour Govt should have had as a high priority - and in fact it has reached new heights. As a consequence I think society is suffering and this can manifest itself in big ways: anti-social behaviour, crime, etc; and in small ways: feelings of discontentment, isolation and malaise.

[Huguenot]

Quids, to suggest that everyone can have money back from the tax, is the same as saying they shouldn't pay it in the first place; to say that it's independent of income means it's non progressive.

The last non-progressive tax on citizens was the poll tax, and I can't believe you agreed with that?

On an overall note...

Progressive taxation is there precisely to redistribute the wealth 'from each according to their abilities' into public services and to the disadavantaged. In addition it's rechanneled into opportunities which help keep society running smoothly with a balance of services ranging from agriculture and infratstructure.

We don't have hypothecated taxation, (which means you get to say what is spent on what) because people won't pay for things they don't use/don't want. A particular example would be rich people refusing to pay for bus services they don't use and the poor can't afford. We're all in a mess.

We're expected to use our vote wisely to select appropriate and well educated spokesmen for ourselves at government level.

This all seems to revolve around a complete absence of faith in the process of government, which may either mean that we don't understand it (in which case get a book), or we don't use our vote well enough.

What was turn out at the last election? How many of the critics on this thread were a no-show? I'm guessing those that didn't only have themselves to blame for being disenfranchised?

[DaveR]

"This all seems to revolve around a complete absence of faith in the process of government, which may either mean that we don't understand it (in which case get a book), or we don't use our vote well enough"

There is another explanation - a perfectly rational belief that individuals generally know better than governments what they want, and even what's good for them. This leads to a similarly rational belief in the virtues of small government and the acceptence of the principle of individual responsibility. In practice this doesn't mean that everything is done individually, but that individuals choose what is best done collectively, how and by whom.

The purpose of taxation can either be to raise money or to discourage behaviour (or to include otherwise excluded costs into market prices, but that has rarely been attempted). The redistribution of wealth is a separate and distinct purpose - whether it is best achieved by progressive taxation (or how progressive) is open to question.

[PeckhamRose]

Oooh I am glad I chose to be taken off the "National Spine".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7461619.stm

[????]

Hugenot - I am not saying get rid of all income tax and would support keeping it progressive but am suggeting that we look at ways of managing redistribution more efficiently, at a lesser overall burden for all, and to those that need it rather than creating a culture which means that the financial incentive to work becomes pretty marginal at lower income levels. I truly think this can be 'carroted' rather than 'sticked' and I do believe we have serious 'welfare culture'.

[EKB2]

Really interesting thread. To bring it back to ED and possibly to class - which actually does a lot to help explain why so much of England feels so different from so much of the rest of Europe - I wonder what terror laws combined with paranoia, plus the voluntary self-exclusion of the upper crust from humdrum daily life, is doing to us in different parts of London?

Last summer I had to spend a bit of time around parts of East London like Bethnal Green and Canning Town that most people who read this probably only see from a moving train or car. The feel of being on a bus diverted by the police because of some road block or other interruption into the routine was almost exotic. (I'm a user of the 63 and the LL routes - are they OKish or is it just being familiar that makes them seem so?) The foul language and the obvious hostility towards the police who, apparently routinely, hassle people like this (the diverted/ snarled-up traffic etc) was an eye opener. Not quite sure into what, but somehow a lot of the issues that ya'll have picked up above were thrown in as I reflected on the weirdness of the world. And I didn't like it. I wish I knew what, politically and personally, would help. Help, that is, make everyday urban life feel a bit less coarse, a bit less exhausting. Meaningful jobs, well, jobs, for more of us? Shame about the recession I guess.

EKB2

[Huguenot]

Sure DaveR - I agree.

Individuals deciding collectively what is done is called democratic government. It's impractical to have a referendum on everything from Christmas lights to a bypass once an hour, so we decide through local and government processes who we nominate to act on our behalf. Sometimes we try and nominate people more perceptive, experienced and educated than ourselves... or not.

That's probably why potato marketing is a government issue. Perhaps someone older and wiser than us has recognising that trashing our agricultural heritage in the name of the free market allows foreign companies to monopolise the markets and then ram the prices up when it suits them! Bugger me if it's not food and fuel that are the major sources of the current economic situation, or will small islanders solve that for us? ;-)

I'd probably go on to suggest that Bethnal Green and Canning Town have reached the state they're in precisely because the middle classes have decided in their myopic way that they 'individually' know just 'what's right for themselves' - and it involves letting the impoverished sit in the cesspools we've created for them.

All those people who look after number one are just more likely to be answering the door in ten years time with a shotgun in one hand a fight-or-flee response giving them a metallic taste at the back of the throat.

The 'government' are those nominees, not a subversive mob of undercover fascists out to get us! Well at least if they are it's because we didn't use our vote well!

I don't see taxation as righteous oiks 'discouraging' others to do stop things of which they don't approve, but I do see it as a way of rebalancing costs when primary users of a product or service are failing to pay the true cost of their asset - for example car drivers.

Incidentally, there's some quality science fiction that discusses the possibility of government by perpetual referenda.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Damn, Huguenot you've gone all radical!

I'd like to add to your very poetic post that there is a 3rd way, not just to use your vote wisely, but to actually get off your arse and get involved in holding the people we vote in to represent us, to account (or even put yourselves forward to get involved in the decisions that are made).

[????]

LOL...oh dear

[Huguenot]

According to somebody or other, Chewing Gum costs 3pm a stick a buy, and 10p a stick to remove from the pavement. There's a case for appropriate local government taxation if I ever saw it!

Although over here in Singers the ban on Chewing Gum is the most quoted symbol of human rights abuse. Wierd eh? (I should add that's it's just Chewing Gum, not gummy sweets in general, the 7-11s are packed to the rafters with Fruit Gums etc.).

[Asset]

I'm all in favour of a ban on chewing gum - bugger civil rights. Until people can chew and dispose responsibly, then ban it.

[DaveR]

"Individuals deciding collectively what is done is called democratic government"

It doesn't have to be. Collective activity encompassses every club, society, foundation, pressure group and myriad other organisations, formal and informal, throughout society. People are instinctively very good at getting together to achieve things, given the freedom to do so. However, when the state discourages independent action and fosters a culture of state dependency, behaviour changes. The result is:

"the middle classes have decided in their myopic way that they 'individually' know just 'what's right for themselves' "

The truth is that the middle classes have in recent history been the mainstay of collective voluntary activity throughout Britain, to the benefit of society as a whole, but if they are castigated and obstructed they will look after their own narrow interests - just like everone else.

[Marmora Man]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

but to actually get off your arse and get involved in holding the people we vote in to represent us, to account or even put yourselves forward to get involved in the decisions that are made.

Politics isn't the only way to make change happen - tho' I agree with you Chav that more people taking an interest and takng action is important.

A scout group, amateur boxing club, guerilla gardeners, women's institutes are all groups that actively promote good. In my view tey are probably a damn sight more efficient than any centralised action led by government or politicians - tho' smetoimes politicians can do good by allowing such organisations to flourish and not drown in bureaucracy.

[Huguenot]

"Actively promote good"? This is why conversations get confused.

The majority of tax expenditure (national and local combined) is spent as follows: Social Security (read wealth redistribution) is about a third, and most of the remnant is NHS, Education, Defence, Public Order and Safety (police and fire) and transport.

The rest is sod all.

How do we propose to address this with small government?

Perhaps (in order): No Social Security (workhouses pay for themselves), Well Meaning Grannies, Tribal Elders, Dad's Army, Vigilantes and Mobile Wooden Pumps at Uncle Eric's house, and maybe for transport we could make the criminals break stones and pull carts (see Social Security).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, pressure groups and foundations (in the most part) lobby government for redistribution of existing tax revenues, they don't reduce it!!! Those that request charity or direct debits are merely requesting hypothecated taxation.

I agree that I'd prefer less bureaucracy, but let's try and vote for people with ideas and experience to help make those improvements. Not say 'government doesn't work', that's meaningless griping with no foundation in reality.

[DaveR]

I forgot to mention, of course, private companies, who also represent collective human activity.

From the list, healthcare, education, public order and transport are all areas where there is currently a mixture of public and private provision and varying degrees of state regulation which, while well-meaning, may or may not have the effect of stifling otherwise beneficial activity. And to describe social security as wealth redistribution is, frankly, cr@p - it is the single biggest contributing factor to a culture of state dependency.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot:

Reduce spending on Social Security by increasing the initial tax threshold for 20p tax band to ?12,500 and allowing more people to keep more of their money. For those not in work - a minimum indexed flat rate of say ?200/ week - ie ?10,000 pa or roughly the minimum wage which is less than the proposed first tax threshold. Therefore providing an incentive to find work without getting caught in the benefits trap.

Subsequent tax threshold at say ?20,000 for 22p tax band and ?62,500 for 40p tax band. For the Lib Demsand others a higher rate of 50p to kick in at ?250,000 (it wouldn't bring in much revenue but satisfies the envious). Tax thresholds to be indexed. NOTE: Personally I would prefer a flat rate of tax with realistically high starting threshold - but this doesn't seem to garner much support.

Reduce spending on Health allowing people to buy these services and thereby allowing further reduction taxes - in any which way they prefer but making the ownership of some form of health insurance compulsory. Those not in work covered by the State.

Reduce spending on Education making it all totally private - but this is probably not acceptable to the majority. Alternative give each child an education voucher - to be spent on education where they will. Let the schools themselves be run by the state, private companies, charities, Mum & Dad. The good ones will survive - the bad ones disappear.

Defence and public order are state functions and probably irreducible - tho' I have proposed privatising defence.

Do all this and Gov't spending reduces dramatically. So does an army of civil servants. Taxe rates go down - individuals decide what to spend their money on - their personal free cash won't impove dramatically tho' there will be some impovement, probably of the order of 10%, which in turn stimulates economic growth. For some this is recipe for anarchy, for others it represents individual freedom.

[Brendan]

It sounds like a recipe to further entrench privilege and to widen the gap between rich and poor.

It is an idea of ?Freedom? often favoured by big business. They like it so much because it gives them the freedom to exploit people.

[????]

Brendan why? Can we have some reasons rather than the generally given slightly dogmatic assumption that any effort to reduce the state's role in our lives = nasty capitalist plot by super-rich rather than an attempt to improve the delivery of what are currently hugely inneficient largely publicly funded public sector bodies to the benefit of all?

Personally on defence I'd scrap our nuclears and then rent out our armed forces as we're quite good at fighting