damian666

Obviously, with the continuing destruction of our country by incompetents with their own self interests in mind, the concept of forming a political party struck me.

However, I am at a loss on how it is done!

I've googled it to little success.

Can anyone help?
Damian
PS: Here is my manifesto:
Transport
To assign all current vehicle exise and fuel duties to the maintenance and improvement of the road and transport system. This would include heavier subsidised public transportation, and people actually working on the roads. HGVs companies would be encouraged to use low polluting fuels.
Crime
To reduce crime by introducing performance related pay for police officers. Faster response to serious crimes would warrant bonuses, as would a higher crime resolution rate - if crime is noted to be lower (by people living in the area) than that force would be entitled to a bonus.
Health
The presentation of a national insurance card or number that is verified on a central database (this is already done) for treatment with the NHS. This will reduce massively 'health tourists' and illegal asylum seekers. Smokers would be encouraged to take out additional health insurance to cover against smoking related diseases. The management heavy structure of the NHS would be reformed to prevent money wastage and mismanagement.
Social Security
Benefits will be available to those who have contributed to the system. If you haven't paid in, why should you be able to claim? Those who do claim should participate in a welfare to work program to improve the local area - this could include police duties, or sanitation. Married persons allowance would be reintroduced to promote the family unit. Individuals can decide whether to pay for a pension in old age, reducing NI if they wish.
Taxation
Income tax would be set at a fixed 15% for those earning below £20000, 20% for those earning below £40000, and 30% for those earning more than £75000. Earnings below £12000 would be taxed at 5%. VAT would be 'locked' at 10%, and alcohol and tobacco duties would be reduced. Tax breaks would be given to those able to demonstrated financial hardship. Council tax would be locked with inflation to prevent rises.
Education
No school would be allowed to have an entry exam based on pupil intelligence. Strictly on boundaries. Standardised testing would occur at 10 years of age, before secondary school. Similar to the policy on crime reduction, schools would be rewarded for improved exam results. This way, schools are not just encouraged to get good results, they are encouraged to improve.

Phew!
Thats all I got for a mo.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

A few points for discussion:

- You've cut taxes across the board, so no complaints there. Where are you going to get your money from? (I suggest a punitive tax for bringing an off-road vehicle within a mile of a school between 7-9am and 3-5pm).

- Nobody likes supporting a scrounger, but what are people who aren't entitled to benefits under your scheme supposed to live on? They're not going to just disappear, and it'll end up costing a lot more to keep them in jail when they have to turn to crime to survive. Maybe some sort of active encouragement to participate in an education and work scheme might be better? (Same as those who HAVE paid in, in fact).

- Your education policy banning selection on intelligence could (and probably will) be debated forever. Personally I think it's a bad idea. Mixed intelligence classes don't just benefit the less able, they hold back the most able - those who will go on to be the inventors, the entrepreneurs and the highest level taxpayers. In 20 years' time you'll be wondering where all these essential people are and why industry is going down the pan.

damian666

Time will be spent looking at where most money is spent and whether it is being spent efficiently. Public spending decreases as efficiency increases, making up the 'loss' as it were. The reforms made to the NHS alone should save millions of pounds.

VAT would be applicable to anyone buying goods in the UK - there would be no further concessions for international travellers for example. This would reduce beauracracy. VAT would be charged on ALL goods.

'Where would I get the money from?'
For what? Inneficient systems and policies would be done away with. Why give extra money to prison/parole services where the criminals get to go to Butlins? Why spend money on traffic calming measures when they are proven to be ineffective? Why give tax breaks to large companies that end up shutting plants? Public spending is not cut as such, it is carefully evaluated - so the most value is gotten from the tax £.

The 'scroungers' problem you mention is counteracted by the welfare to work program. This is a value-added system, as money is paid out for work done, not just for sitting at home. Essentially, the current eligebility rules do not change - you are just required to work, or put something into the community/economy for claiming. There is nothing about going to jail! Education can be seen as giving something back - as on the return to work, you will be contributing to the economy.

The third point could be addressed by school reform. The 'sets' theory (as currently implemented by state schools) would be further enhanced. It is up to the schools how the children are organised into classes. As mentioned above, the success of the systems they implement will be rewarded.

Brendan Hughes

How old are you, exactly?

Tiggs

11?

dsmith

What is wrong with the concept some people are more intelligent than others ? Just wishing it wasnt so and bundling all kids together doesnt make it untrue.

Why on earth have bright kids who want to learn kicking their heels waiting for some f*ckwit who doesnt to stop mucking about.

Deano

Vicki Butler -Henderson

Edited by moderator to remove abusive comments

This thread COULD be interesting lets not spoil it by throwing insults about.



[Edited by sasim - 1/14/2004 3:26:30 AM]

damian666

Deano
I attended state school, the school was non selective. The 'fu*kwits' as you say were in different classes (we are admittedly talking secondary school here though) so didnt disrupt my lessons. I can only assume you are talking from personal experience? The policy mentioned above would allow every child a fair chance at a good education. Whats wrong with a 'thick' child attending a good school - maybe they won't be thick forever. The problem is, the schools with the better results do not take in children who could be the future higher band tax payers, as they focus on a childs performance at 11 years of age.

Damo
ps. I'm not 11. Why the insults?

damian666

But, back to my original question.

Does anyone know how a political party is formed?

Damian

fatherpierre

You'd have the police on some big money as crime would be sky high with those policies. Saying that, your government would have no money to actually pay them as it would be bankrupt from the mass tax cuts and soaring outgoings to keep the few million in prison that have to steal to live.

No mention of immigration in your manifesto. What about those immigrants that haven't 'contributed'?

damian666

Immigrants would of course not be eligible for state benefits, until they have contributed to the system. (I mention this below)

My policies focus on removing waste from the system, not increasing taxes to cover the wastage. I encourage people into work, so while they are claiming benefits, they are gaining work experience. It would be up to the local communitites to decide (as mentioned above) whether police get a bonus for crime reduction in the area.

Why does everyone assume people will be going to prison more (ok, so if crime is improved...) just because they 'have to steal' to live? NO THEY DONT!!! They are getting state benefits, they just have to work for them! Its a SISO situation. Something in, Something out.

Damian

[Edited by damian666 - 1/14/2004 7:50:30 AM]

fatherpierre

But many will choose not to work, as is the case now. They will choose crime as the easy option. So, removing their benefits will increase the overall crime required for them to live.

As for immigration, you don't mention a ploicy for this hot potato? Stop it, increase it or leave it as it is?

Crapaud62

Is this for your school project????

A bit simplistic in places but basically looks like the right wing of the Conservatives. I sense a theme of less government rather than more?

Other points to consider:

Attitude to EU/Euro

Defense spending

Employment laws

Drug enforcement

Funding of BBC

Policy on GATSOs

fatherpierre

LOL @ crap!!

It could develop into a good thread..........

damian666

Attitude to EU/Euro
A referendum would be held to asses the publics overall opinion on the Euro. This would be the end of dicussion if you like if the public decided to veto our entry into the system. Of course, if the public is in favour, then the current economic tests would be applied to judge the economic viability of entry. In regards to European legislation, it would of course still play an active part in the development of the UK legal system. I feel however, that radical changes to policies already in place in the UK will warrant a more positive veto action by ourselves, or ignorance of the policy. It will be a case of what is best for Britain, not Brussells.

Defense spending
In the modern world, it would be idealistic to assume that defense spending could be done away with altogether. A policy of slow disarmament could occur however. It is unlikely that a nuclear attack could occur for instance, so a massive reduction in the maintenance and purchase of new nuclear arms could be made. Obviously, there is still need for a UK army - who would put out the fires when the firemen go on strike

Drug enforcement
Government opposition to drugs and drug crime would still be in force - for those who deal drugs, not those who possess them. A process of constant evaluation on the impact of drugs on communities would be created. It feels weak to say a referendum would be carried out to asses public opinion on current drug legistation, but I feel this would have to take place.

Funding of BBC
The BBC would be limited to producing news services and educational programmes. This should be seen as a human right and public service, and of course would reduce the license fee substantially, or possibly remove it altogether. It is difficult enough for the BBC to 'compete' against commercial TV stations, so the focus should be on what they are good at.

Policy on GATSOs
Speeding is a crime. However, I feel that it is not the only danger. GATSOs would be removed as a revenue generation program, and be focussed solely on safety areas, such as outside schools and hospitals. Speeding in these areas would be liable to a large fine. Police would have greater powers to issue on the spot fines and points - One point could be issued for erratic driving for instance. Therefore, if you drive badly enough to warrant police attention then you will lose your license. Speeding would be looked at in regards to situation. If it is 6am and there is no traffic on the motorway, why is driving quicker a reason to lose license and livelihood? However, if it is 6am and there is moderate traffic, you are speeding and changing lane dangerously, this is a reason to question the actions of the driver.

The core of the issue however, is pedestrian education - what happened to the green cross code? This should be heavily pushed to padestrians. How many times have we sat in traffic to see children (sometimes adults!) crisscrossing between traffic? Driving a bicycle on the road would require passing the CPT.

damian666

No replies?

rogp

I think the main issue would be raising campaign funds.

Edited to say - I'm all for challenging the hopeless mob in power (and those waiting in the wings!).


[Edited by rogp - 1/14/2004 10:48:42 AM]

carl

I like the idea that public sector workers (civil service, police, etc.) should pay no income tax at all. Obviously their (tax free) salary should be set at a level that is commensurate with the net salary of people in the private sector.

This would save a load of admin in shifting money and paperwork from what's essentially one government department to another.

damian666

carl, I have discussed this with my step-dad. He works within the NHS.

Apparently, it is actually easier just to collect tax from everyone, rather than just taxing private sector employees.

Damian

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Damian666 for PM he would get my vote.

on a side note I read the Monster Raving looney part website once and that explaind how to setup a political party and what you had to do to get it recognised, unfortunately I don't have the URL but I suppose google does.

Good luck anyway.

Hammy Hamster

Is this the British government you're hoping to run for?

If so, could you stop spelling defence the American way, please.

Ta.

damian666

In the interest of keeping up international relations with our American partners, I think that our permanent and final concession on bahalf of the UK shall be to spell defence with an 'S'

Besides, they are both listed as variants.

Leslie

I think Damian has made some good points and proposed some excellent policies.

I can't say whether the taxation proposals would be enough to run the country of course but there is enormous waste in the present system.

The main point I think is that Damians proposal's are based on what he thinks is best for the people of this country without any thought of self agrandisement or personal profit.

Les

milo

sorry, but although your policies sound "nice", i cant help thinking you've done little to no research.

the govt takes in around £100bn p/a (im using old figures, so may be out) with it's current tax model. to reduce LOWER rate tax by 1p would cost around £3.5bn to give you some idea of what your suggestions will cost.

your tax model will end up taking in (i would estimate) around £30bn+++ less than the current model. you are NOT going to make that up with savings in the NHS unless u scrapped it altogether.

moreover, you are making the rich people richer.. and those who choose to work a few hours a week (think single parents) to get a bit of extra money (£5k a year) where previously didn't have to pay ANY tax, are now losing 20% of their income. and what about national insurance?

your tax brackets will also seriously screw up the economy. taxing those who make >£40k/year that low will cause them to have a lot of extra money... they will SAVE it, not spend it.

what about other taxes - corporate tax (this is what the govt gets the most money from), cgt, national insurance, inheritance tax etc?

with regards to crime - how are you going to monitor this? that will cost. ditto for schools. cash incentives give an incentive to cheat. you'd need to spend more to regulate this.

you mention making savings by cutting inefficiencies - how? yes there are some, but if you're losing 30bn+ from tax, you'll have to make cuts. and there are some things you HAVE to keep paying such as existing pensions.

cutting defense is VERY dangerous imo, especially as current spending is a drop in the ocean.

just some thoughts...

Dracoro

Yes, you can make changes by making things more efficient. However, this is a hard process to follow through, will take YEARS and YEARS to implement, by which time many things will have changed (new govt. for a start! ). You also have the Civil Service to deal with who will fight tooth and nail against major reforms (watch some Yes, Minister episodes ), especially ones that involves cuts to staff numbers. You may say, 'sod the civil service' but they are ultimately the ones that have to implement your policies. You gotta keep them happy and willing to implement your changes at the same time making things much worse for them.

Making changes in itself costs lots of money, which will need to be financed. You can save £10m here or there but it may cost £15m to implement those changes so you are £5m down.

FWIW, I agree with many of the principles of what you are saying, but in reality, the policies for what you are suggesting would run into thousands of pages just for one area of concern. Then there's all the legal wranglings as one policy change will invariably affect others current and new.

So, your changes (if you did indeed manage to implement them) would probably take 5/10 years to fruition. Until then you need to keep the government income (i.e. taxation) at or near the current levels as the outgoings will still be high until the policy is completed (which is 5/10 years down the line).

Good Luck!

damian666

I have done the research, and what startles me is that people do not realise how much money the government spends on certain things.

The government spent in the 2001-2002 year £3.5Bn on the administration of social security. The administration! £22Bn was spent on defense. Health cost £56Bn. Instead of throwing money at these things, we need to examine where money is being wasted.

The government manages about £387Bn. You are saying that it will be impossible to lower this figure without services suffering?

In response to your questions regarding taxation, it is important to consider that your analysis is flawed. I stated in my first post that earnings below £12000 would be subject to a 5% tax rate. This amounts to £600 with a £12000 salary. With a £5000 as you stated, this amounts to £250. I also stated that in cases of demonstrable financial hardship, the government would reduce tax rates and offer tax benefits.

For those who are earning more money, but saving it, the revenue comes from tax on interest earned. Either way, the government will be able to keep a certain level of revenues.

From a weekly wage of £464.70 (taken from moneyweb) The current UK worker will take home around £348. Under my proposals, they will take home £371. This is a 6% increase, meaning a 6% reduction in income tax revenue (if NI stayed the same) This does not amount to a 30% decrase in tax revenue.

Damian

Scooby96

Just one question:

Who's going to finance this political party?

damian666

The party will be financed by individual contributions and party members.

As part of our constituation, we will not take large contributions from corporations or companies. This may have a negative influential effect on the future policy makers.

V45DSM

What about the Monarchy and Religion being taught in schools?

Whats your policy on Energy - Wind Farms, Nuclear or Chicken poop?

[Edited by V45DSM - 1/14/2004 12:38:10 PM]

Crapaud62

OK, I'll vote for you.

Better still, can I stand as an MP. Damn good salary for doing so little but not much job security.