ah, and there it is. young? thanks. just not a bitter git fighting some supposed class war that never was.

if i won't get to see whatever it is they can do to a nation (i'm assuming you mean in a bad way), what are you complaining about? surely you won't see these unimaginable horrors either!

dramatically? not so much when you actually think about it. take e.on, my fixed term just ended last month, they initially put me on the 2nd highest tariff of i think 5 possible ones, if cameron's ridiculously crazy idea comes to fruition, they'll have to put me on the lowest tariff. good lord, it's just a mental idea. yes, they'll take their ball home and just turn the lights off. ffs.


do i? stupid policies done on the hoof are stupid, good policies done on the hoof are good.

To think up a "good policy" while stood addressing parliament, while at the time arguing with someone opposite and trying your best to point score like you were back in some jolly-boys debating class, would take a remarkable individual to suddenly think up a policy in totality, that would work for everyone's benefit from day one, and would be accepted by everyone including the commercial organisations who will be putting it into practice but don't yet know it.

I know that Cameron is not that remarkable individual, and I can't think of one in recent history (ie 50 years) who would fit that bill either.

if 'good policy' can only be described as 'working for everyone's benefit from day one', then even the policies that are studied for bloody years will struggle to be given that description.

It depends what purpose you view parliament as having I suppose.

If you view parliament as a forum where everyone in the country can elect one person to represent their viewpoint during decision making that will affect everyone in the country, then working for the common benefit of the whole of society is indeed the sole aim of a parliament.

If you view parliament as a place where you can persuade, cajole or bribe representatives to make possible things that benefit only certain sectors of society then ultimately you are never going to achieve the aim of benefiting the whole of society for that was never your aim in the first place.

If its the second that applies then we don't need a parliament or a democracy because we had already achieved a monarchic society centuries before we decided that democracy might be a fairer way to go.

not everyone in the country can elect someone. unfortunately we don't give kids the vote.

i've no problem with the 2nd scenario to be honest. one of the tasks of being a voter is to get politicians to do things that benefit the country/yourself, whether that be with cold hard cash or the even better way of not voting for the buggers. build us a new community centre or we wont vote for you is pretty much the same as let me build a supermarket or we won't sign a cheque to the party. every 4 or so years we get to hold these people accountable.

Its a rather selfish attitude though and not at all compliant with "The Big Society", quite the opposite in fact.

the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. there's a small community group round our way that has spent a great deal of time and effort improving a local woodland to make it more accessible/user friendly, however, there's a pond that has collected tons of silt over the years and to clean it up will take £25k or something yet successive councils have dragged their heels and made excuses and i think finally, with council seats in the balance a bit of pressure on the 'i will not vote for you' front has got the money found. there's bugger all selfish about that.

On a national scale though, ultimately the prime purpose of a government is to spend the nations income in our name, for our benefit, without that they have no other purpose and too often political dogma influences those decisions.

To take the NHS as one very simple example, is it better run in state or private hands, if we spend half of the NHS budget on private contractors are we certain that we are getting a better service for all of us who use it, is it cheaper, is there any point in going down the privatisation line if its not cheaper and better, is the money being recirculated back into the economy by way of wages to UK citizens and procurement from UK companies, are the profits being taken (profit is not a dirty word) excessive at the expense of wages and procurement, are company taxes being properly paid in the UK on those profits.

Its never as simple a question of "Private is better than public ownership", sometimes it will be, sometimes its not - that is what we should be paying the politicians to analyse and decide on our behalf across all 650 seats without party prejudice, invoking party whips on crucial votes is an admission of defeat and a sign that party dogma is being enforced by the puppet masters who are rarely elected and often benefitting from the vote.

THIS!

As we are part of the EU, any tendering is open to any company domiciled in the EU. It should not be too difficult to legislate that any company winning a tender for services undertaken on behalf of a prima facie department of any EU member state (i.e. NHS), should pay all taxes relevant in that state. They could also mandate that any EU service providing company, that makes use of any offshore, "tax-efficient" methods be automatically disbarred from tendering in the first place. A letterbox in Jersey or a cupbaord in Switzerland would not count as a bona fide operating company.

There is of course a problem with the political will in implimenting such legislation and that is precisely where the problem lies.

Given that in recent weeks I have offered a nil-cost (to the taxpayer), solution to truly affordable housing, leading to a fiscal stimulus in terms of increased employment, tax-take and reduced benefit payments. A solution to the problems of offshoring personal and corporate tax avoidance, through the introduction of Land Value Taxation and greater transparency in government contracting. I'm frankly surprised that no one has yet prposed me as Benevolent Dictator