ChatterBank2 mins ago
People Power
Is the government at last giving people what they want? Suggestions are invited from the public in how public spending can be reduced to tackle the deficit.
http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/
http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
[Two Part post]
Governments in the UK (of any persuasion) do not give the people what they want. That is not what they do. What they do is to give an impression that they are giving people what they want (and some are better at this than others) but then proceed to do what they want.
This government has little intention of doing what millions want them to do to reduce the deficit (which is what the fatuous website referred to is all about). If you read the ideas that have been put forward by members of the public you will note that a large majority of them refer to overseas aid, immigration, and benefits. This is not surprising. People do not like being told they have to tighten their belts whilst they see large amounts of taxpayers’ dosh being handed to countries like India (which has its own space programme and the largest middle class in the world) and China (the world’s fastest growing economy). They do not like to see jobless Somali families housed in Notting Hill mansions at a cost of £2,000 per week because, apparently, Kensal Green is not a nice enough area. Meanwhile benefits consume one third of all government expenditure and if savings are to be made you start with the big ticket items.
Despite this the government has no intention of cutting overseas aid, although I accept that at around £8bn it is comparatively small beer it is the principle that sticks in people’s throat. For some inexplicable reason it has been “ring fenced” and is not up for debate.
Governments in the UK (of any persuasion) do not give the people what they want. That is not what they do. What they do is to give an impression that they are giving people what they want (and some are better at this than others) but then proceed to do what they want.
This government has little intention of doing what millions want them to do to reduce the deficit (which is what the fatuous website referred to is all about). If you read the ideas that have been put forward by members of the public you will note that a large majority of them refer to overseas aid, immigration, and benefits. This is not surprising. People do not like being told they have to tighten their belts whilst they see large amounts of taxpayers’ dosh being handed to countries like India (which has its own space programme and the largest middle class in the world) and China (the world’s fastest growing economy). They do not like to see jobless Somali families housed in Notting Hill mansions at a cost of £2,000 per week because, apparently, Kensal Green is not a nice enough area. Meanwhile benefits consume one third of all government expenditure and if savings are to be made you start with the big ticket items.
Despite this the government has no intention of cutting overseas aid, although I accept that at around £8bn it is comparatively small beer it is the principle that sticks in people’s throat. For some inexplicable reason it has been “ring fenced” and is not up for debate.
[Part Two]
There is no likelihood of curbing the sort of immigration which leads to excessive Housing Benefit (HB) being claimed (even if that benefit is capped at a “modest” £400 pw (£20k pa). We are bound by Human Rights legislation to keep these people here in the manner to which they have become accustomed and there is no sign that that legislation will be modified.
There is similarly no chance that the tide of workers from Eastern Europe will be curbed. European legislation by which we are bound does not allow it. Even if it did it is far easier to ship in new labour to do the jobs that the settled population will not do than to get them off their backsides. A nation that has two million plus unemployed but that has to import unskilled labour to keep vital services going has something seriously wrong with.
None of these problems will be addressed in the way that most people would like to see them tackled and it is disingenuous in the extreme for Mr Osborne to suggest that they will.
Incidentally, the website does not need closing down. It is barely useable as it clearly (and probably deliberately) has insufficient capacity.
It’s a shame you view some of the suggestions as racist, sexist or whatever, puternut. I did not see any myself, I only saw suggestions that, since we are skint, we do not give so much of our hard earned away to foreigners either here or overseas. But that’s what happens when you ask people what they want – they usually tell you.
There is no likelihood of curbing the sort of immigration which leads to excessive Housing Benefit (HB) being claimed (even if that benefit is capped at a “modest” £400 pw (£20k pa). We are bound by Human Rights legislation to keep these people here in the manner to which they have become accustomed and there is no sign that that legislation will be modified.
There is similarly no chance that the tide of workers from Eastern Europe will be curbed. European legislation by which we are bound does not allow it. Even if it did it is far easier to ship in new labour to do the jobs that the settled population will not do than to get them off their backsides. A nation that has two million plus unemployed but that has to import unskilled labour to keep vital services going has something seriously wrong with.
None of these problems will be addressed in the way that most people would like to see them tackled and it is disingenuous in the extreme for Mr Osborne to suggest that they will.
Incidentally, the website does not need closing down. It is barely useable as it clearly (and probably deliberately) has insufficient capacity.
It’s a shame you view some of the suggestions as racist, sexist or whatever, puternut. I did not see any myself, I only saw suggestions that, since we are skint, we do not give so much of our hard earned away to foreigners either here or overseas. But that’s what happens when you ask people what they want – they usually tell you.
There is a big difference between inviting suggestions and blindly "giving people what they want"
The key issue to that is responsibility.
We vote for representatives to safeguard our interests and persue objectives and they give us a general view of how they would to that on which we bsae our choice.
They take responsibility for that.
If you had a system where "people power" was how the detailed policy was decided there would be no responsibility for safeguarding our general interests.
Despite what you may think of them MP's and Government ministers are generally relatively intelligent and well educated people.
People power in this way would mean that we would be governed (by definition) by people of average intelligence.
Most notable is the power that this would hand to media pundits.
You might as well give Rupert Murdoch the keys to number 10 and be done with it
The key issue to that is responsibility.
We vote for representatives to safeguard our interests and persue objectives and they give us a general view of how they would to that on which we bsae our choice.
They take responsibility for that.
If you had a system where "people power" was how the detailed policy was decided there would be no responsibility for safeguarding our general interests.
Despite what you may think of them MP's and Government ministers are generally relatively intelligent and well educated people.
People power in this way would mean that we would be governed (by definition) by people of average intelligence.
Most notable is the power that this would hand to media pundits.
You might as well give Rupert Murdoch the keys to number 10 and be done with it
[Two Part Post]
Yes, jake, they are generally intelligent and well-educated and even, in most cases, well meaning.
The difficulty many people have is that they labour under the misapprehension that in a democracy the will of the majority should prevail. There will always be different priorities and different wishes and desires among the population. The idea that I was brought up with was that where these differences exist the wishes of the majority should be enacted. Of course there must be safeguards to ensure that extreme measures are not taken just because they are the will of the majority. But I believe we have enough of those safeguards.
However, this question posed by rov is not associated with extremes. It is simply a question of how the majority of people who have cash forcibly taken from them in large quantities would like to see that money spent. The new government has already declared that overseas aid is sacrosanct. Yet the suggestions on the website they have launched indicate that large numbers of people want to see those funds curtailed. There really is no point in their asking for suggestions when they have already taken many of the decisions which those suggestions address.
Yes, jake, they are generally intelligent and well-educated and even, in most cases, well meaning.
The difficulty many people have is that they labour under the misapprehension that in a democracy the will of the majority should prevail. There will always be different priorities and different wishes and desires among the population. The idea that I was brought up with was that where these differences exist the wishes of the majority should be enacted. Of course there must be safeguards to ensure that extreme measures are not taken just because they are the will of the majority. But I believe we have enough of those safeguards.
However, this question posed by rov is not associated with extremes. It is simply a question of how the majority of people who have cash forcibly taken from them in large quantities would like to see that money spent. The new government has already declared that overseas aid is sacrosanct. Yet the suggestions on the website they have launched indicate that large numbers of people want to see those funds curtailed. There really is no point in their asking for suggestions when they have already taken many of the decisions which those suggestions address.
[Part Two]
This country cannot afford to pander to every minority interest that comes its way. You quite rightly say that we vote for MPs to represent our interests. The problem is that those MPs, once elected, tend to ignore the interests of the majority of those who elected them and instead pursue their own (or usually their party’s) agenda which usually involves diverting disproportionately large amounts of resources to small minorities of people. And when they ask the electorate what they want they should not be surprised to learn that is not what they want.
Furthermore, let’s not shoot the messenger. Yes, much of the media accentuates events to their own ends. But the public is entitled to know what is being done in their name and with their money and without the media they would not be informed.
Finally, what would be wrong with being governed by people of “average” intelligence (whatever that might mean)? There is currently no intelligence test for parliamentary candidates. The fact that most MPs tend to be well educated is testament only to the fact that one needs to be reasonably intelligent to negotiate the hurdles needed to achieve firstly candidacy (certainly as one of the main parties’ choices) and then election. Are you suggesting that only people who have had the benefit of a superior education and who possess above average intellect are capable of becoming MPs? Surely that is just as bad as suggesting that too many of them attended Eton and Oxbridge.
This country cannot afford to pander to every minority interest that comes its way. You quite rightly say that we vote for MPs to represent our interests. The problem is that those MPs, once elected, tend to ignore the interests of the majority of those who elected them and instead pursue their own (or usually their party’s) agenda which usually involves diverting disproportionately large amounts of resources to small minorities of people. And when they ask the electorate what they want they should not be surprised to learn that is not what they want.
Furthermore, let’s not shoot the messenger. Yes, much of the media accentuates events to their own ends. But the public is entitled to know what is being done in their name and with their money and without the media they would not be informed.
Finally, what would be wrong with being governed by people of “average” intelligence (whatever that might mean)? There is currently no intelligence test for parliamentary candidates. The fact that most MPs tend to be well educated is testament only to the fact that one needs to be reasonably intelligent to negotiate the hurdles needed to achieve firstly candidacy (certainly as one of the main parties’ choices) and then election. Are you suggesting that only people who have had the benefit of a superior education and who possess above average intellect are capable of becoming MPs? Surely that is just as bad as suggesting that too many of them attended Eton and Oxbridge.
What would be wrong with being lead by people of only average intelligence?
Are you serious?
What would be wrong with being represented in court by an advocate of only average intelligence?
I think most people would agree that we should be lead by, if not the finest minds, certainly those in the top division.
Are you serious?
What would be wrong with being represented in court by an advocate of only average intelligence?
I think most people would agree that we should be lead by, if not the finest minds, certainly those in the top division.
So then, jake, those who suggest that too many MPs have attended the top schools and universities are deluded. Don’t get me wrong. I do not subscribe to that idea. I think we need quality minds to tackle difficult issues. But we need a mixture. Very often people of only “average intelligence” are in many cases quite able identify issues and come to reasoned decisions and are certainly capable of representing the interests of others.
So how, exactly, are we to achieve this Utopian ideal? How do we measure “above average intelligence”? Only those with a 2:1 or better can apply? That rules our Sir Richard Branson, Sir Alan Sugar and the actor David Suchet. Do we set an examination before people can stand for Parliament? What does the exam cover? Those who fail cannot apply? Suppose less than 650 candidates pass? Do we reduce the number of MPs, set a lower pass mark, or set an easier exam?
I don’t think I’ll go any further down that road!!!! That’s me done on this one!
So how, exactly, are we to achieve this Utopian ideal? How do we measure “above average intelligence”? Only those with a 2:1 or better can apply? That rules our Sir Richard Branson, Sir Alan Sugar and the actor David Suchet. Do we set an examination before people can stand for Parliament? What does the exam cover? Those who fail cannot apply? Suppose less than 650 candidates pass? Do we reduce the number of MPs, set a lower pass mark, or set an easier exam?
I don’t think I’ll go any further down that road!!!! That’s me done on this one!
I'm not sure quite how practical this innovation will prove to be.
However, as someone who has become frustrated over the years with blind 'manifesto' politics, I think that the government-of-the-day are actually asking the electorate for their views, on a somewhat individual basis rather than at the ballot-box, is to be commended.
At election time, I find myself agreeing with separate policies from the different parties and end up disatisfied with having to vote for the party I find to be the lesser of the three evils.
We've become used to being led by the nose by the nanny-state who act 'in our best interests, we are told, often without our sayso (especially if circumstances arise not addressed during the election campaigns) and in direct opposition to many.
I shall be watching with interest to see how this all unfolds.........
However, as someone who has become frustrated over the years with blind 'manifesto' politics, I think that the government-of-the-day are actually asking the electorate for their views, on a somewhat individual basis rather than at the ballot-box, is to be commended.
At election time, I find myself agreeing with separate policies from the different parties and end up disatisfied with having to vote for the party I find to be the lesser of the three evils.
We've become used to being led by the nose by the nanny-state who act 'in our best interests, we are told, often without our sayso (especially if circumstances arise not addressed during the election campaigns) and in direct opposition to many.
I shall be watching with interest to see how this all unfolds.........
Everyone of us knows of examples of waste in our every day lives. This a chance of telling the government about them . Let me give an example of waste which applies to all public services . When they have training days and meetings etc. which they could easily hold in schools or other publically owned buildings , they prefer to use private expensive venues elsewhere. Not for better facilities , they are frequently inferior, but the management's case is that it was allowed for in the budget. So let's spend it.
I experienced this on many occasions costing the taxpayer a fortune.
I experienced this on many occasions costing the taxpayer a fortune.
It was Eddy Mair who brought up the subject of this suggestion website on Radio 4 at 5pm. He said there had been 160 one sided compaints in the website of giving aid to foreign countries when we are in such dire straights ourselves. He had a coalition minister on the program to justify this and all he did was to rubbish the compaints and said they were going ahead with their policy anyway of dishing our money to foreigners.
Either the government takes notice of people's grievances or the website is just a talking shop. The reason that Labour came a cropper was that they were unwilling to listen to the population and thought they knew best.
Either the government takes notice of people's grievances or the website is just a talking shop. The reason that Labour came a cropper was that they were unwilling to listen to the population and thought they knew best.
1 to 14 of 14
