Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
P155ing On Democracy; 'savings'
Topic Started: Dec 4 2015, 11:13 PM (904 Views)
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/long-and-short-it

Quote:
 

On Wednesday, the Chancellor announced his decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by a fifth.


So let’s be clear - the decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by 19% is bad news for democracy. The UK already spends just a tenth of the European average on funding parties. This cut could therefore be deeply damaging for accountability. And as for the ‘cutting the cost of politics’ argument, well, just look at how many Lords the government has appointed since 2010 - 233 new Peers, at a cost of at least £24,000 each per year in expenses and allowances alone. 50% of them have been Conservatives.

Of course, the whole party funding system is a complete mess as it is, what with parties’ worrying reliance on big donors and the ever-intensifying spending arms race at every election time. But cutting Short money risks making it worse. By removing public money from the mix, it risks making parties even more reliant on big donors – with all the potential for corruption that entails.

Unilateral moves like this could be seen as overtly partisan, and could make it even harder for parties to get round the table and thrash out a deal on the real problem – their over-reliance on big donors’ money. Until we see a cap on donations and a lower spending limit, taking away public money from opposition parties will just make things worse.


This is an outrage TBH. And has it been widely reported? Not that I've seen..this govt take the p1ss everyday.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 4 2015, 11:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 08:08 PM

Can you please format your post a bit better? It's difficult to read on my phone screen and hard to quote from due to the selection boundary preferences of this phone.

[/quote]I tried with this one-will try a different method next time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ok :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 5 2015, 11:42 PM
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 05:35 PM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 05:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The all too regular strikes days off granted to their members by rail unions severely inconveniences vastly greater numbers of the majority ''average'' workers who are not subscribers to trades unions and who are prevented from going about their ''average'' working day and 'average' social calender


Trades unions represent their own members - no-one else
Our democracy is represented by our MPs in the house of commons where our laws are made, and who are elected by their constituencies whether trade union members, employers retired or unemployed. Trade unions represent only their membership with their own vested interests.
And the wealthy don't have any protection ? And don't abuse the system ? :)



Edited by C-too, Dec 6 2015, 10:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
No the wealthy make all the money and call the shots; rightly so.


 ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 12:08 AM
If you bothered to read my posts properly you will have seen the figures showing that the Conservative party has many hundreds of donations from wealthy individuals
Do what! ;D

So in your warped mind several hundred wealthy people offering bribes directly is not at all the same thing as several hundred/thousand other people offering bribes through a union!

You do make me laugh! !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 6 2015, 06:31 PM
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 12:08 AM
If you bothered to read my posts properly you will have seen the figures showing that the Conservative party has many hundreds of donations from wealthy individuals
Do what! ;D

So in your warped mind several hundred wealthy people offering bribes directly is not at all the same thing as several hundred/thousand other people offering bribes through a union!

You do make me laugh! !jk!
Not me with the warped thought processes


If you truly cannot see the difference between 1398 individuals having made a free choice to donate directly to the conservative party and an automatic levy on trades union subscriptions being handed to the Labour party there really is no hope for you blinker wearers
Edited by Ewill, Dec 6 2015, 07:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 07:52 PM
Tigger
Dec 6 2015, 06:31 PM
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 12:08 AM
If you bothered to read my posts properly you will have seen the figures showing that the Conservative party has many hundreds of donations from wealthy individuals
Do what! ;D

So in your warped mind several hundred wealthy people offering bribes directly is not at all the same thing as several hundred/thousand other people offering bribes through a union!

You do make me laugh! !jk!
Not me with the warped thought processes


If you truly cannot see the difference between 1398 individuals having made a free choice to donate directly to the conservative party and an automatic levy on trades union subscriptions being handed to the Labour party there really is no hope for you blinker wearers


Is the levy automatic?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]


Is the levy automatic?[/quote]

According to factcheck


Labour’s biggest donor by far is Unite, which has provided 20 per cent, or £11.9m, of party donations since the election.

Unite is the country’s biggest union with 1.42m members, and the automatic levy they pay is worth £3 per person to Labour.


http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899
Edited by Ewill, Dec 6 2015, 07:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 07:52 PM



If you truly cannot see the difference between 1398 individuals having made a free choice to donate directly to the conservative party and an automatic levy on trades union subscriptions being handed to the Labour party there really is no hope for you blinker wearers
You are either naive of profoundly stupid.

The wealthy in my experience NEVER give money away and expect to get nothing whatsoever in return for it, add politics into the mix and this becomes virtually a given.

They buy what they want, do you understand that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 6 2015, 07:57 PM
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 07:52 PM



If you truly cannot see the difference between 1398 individuals having made a free choice to donate directly to the conservative party and an automatic levy on trades union subscriptions being handed to the Labour party there really is no hope for you blinker wearers
You are either naive of profoundly stupid.

The wealthy in my experience NEVER give money away and expect to get nothing whatsoever in return for it, add politics into the mix and this becomes virtually a given.

They buy what they want, do you understand that?
"The wealthy in my experience NEVER give money away"

You should get out more then
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 6 2015, 07:57 PM
Ewill
Dec 6 2015, 07:52 PM



If you truly cannot see the difference between 1398 individuals having made a free choice to donate directly to the conservative party and an automatic levy on trades union subscriptions being handed to the Labour party there really is no hope for you blinker wearers
You are either naive of profoundly stupid.

The wealthy in my experience NEVER give money away and expect to get nothing whatsoever in return for it, add politics into the mix and this becomes virtually a given.

They buy what they want, do you understand that?
Well, just a cursory search on the web turns up the top 50 philanthropists....take a look and see if they are from the N,E S W of the globe.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkl45ekigl/1-target/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Charity is often a tax loss, it makes perfect financial sense to give to charitable causes, further, charities on average only spend 10% of their revenues on the cause in Q. (edit - see correction below)

That is why I am against right-wing 'philanthropy'.

I find that impromptu and borderline illegal, informal charitable setups tend to be a lot more, well, 'charitable'.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 13 2015, 11:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 12 2015, 03:36 PM
Charity is often a tax loss, it makes perfect financial sense to give to charitable causes, further, charities on average only soend 10% of their revenues on the cause in Q.

That is why I am against right-wing 'philanthropy'.

I find that impromptu and borderline illegal, informal charitable setups tend to be a lot more, well, 'charitable'.
Please explain the difference between any sort of philanthropy and Right wing philanthropy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Basically right wingers enjoy their tax-efficiencies, Feel Good factor, corporatism etc and the lefty lefties seem to prefer "do-gooder pc bs", actually there is a grain of truth in that, but generally they seem to prefer to actually achieve results even if they look bad and are disorganised etc.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 12 2015, 03:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 04:39 PM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:27 PM
Your contention appears to be that TU's are worse than rich individuals.

I am telling you that that's bollocks.

TU's are democratically run by their members; the average working men. Private businesses are not, QED.
LOL

Out of a workforce of about 34m a mere 6.4 m are trades union members

That hardly makes a TU member a representative member of the ''average'' workforce
And when is a banker a true representative of the electorate? Seeing as most of the tories donations come from the very ones who got the country into this mess which the tories are making EVEN worse by the day..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Dec 12 2015, 03:50 PM
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 04:39 PM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:27 PM
Your contention appears to be that TU's are worse than rich individuals.

I am telling you that that's bollocks.

TU's are democratically run by their members; the average working men. Private businesses are not, QED.
LOL

Out of a workforce of about 34m a mere 6.4 m are trades union members

That hardly makes a TU member a representative member of the ''average'' workforce
And when is a banker a true representative of the electorate? Seeing as most of the tories donations come from the very ones who got the country into this mess which the tories are making EVEN worse by the day..
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/former-bank-lobbyist-to-head-treasury-office-tax-simplification

Oh look banksy they got a top advisor

Angela Knight, a former Tory MP who was chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) and then Energy UK, will chair the Office of Tax Simplification after spending years as chief defender of the City and the “big six” power firms.

In her new role, she has been charged with helping the Treasury “create a tax system that delivers for British businesses and people” by proposing areas for review and recommending changes to ministers.

While working for the BBA, Knight launched a stinging attack on the 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses in 2009 as “populist, political and penal”. She subsequently campaigned against additional taxes on banks in the aftermath of the crash, warning that this could threaten the UK’s future as a financial centre.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 7 2015, 12:35 AM


You should get out more then
I get out rather a lot Steve, and know scores of very wealthy people.

The majority of these folks will be looking for some sort of return on their charitable donations, it might grease some palms, it might open a door or two or at the very least it will generate some very welcome good publicity.

After twenty years in business I could count on one hand the number of folks I've met who give either their valuable time or money and do it largely anonymously and without expecting a return, and you are also likely to be unaware that "charitable" donations are also both tax efficient and deductible, an abuse of the process in my opinion ..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 13 2015, 06:09 PM
Jonksy
Dec 12 2015, 03:50 PM
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 04:39 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
And when is a banker a true representative of the electorate? Seeing as most of the tories donations come from the very ones who got the country into this mess which the tories are making EVEN worse by the day..
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/former-bank-lobbyist-to-head-treasury-office-tax-simplification

Oh look banksy they got a top advisor

Angela Knight, a former Tory MP who was chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) and then Energy UK, will chair the Office of Tax Simplification after spending years as chief defender of the City and the “big six” power firms.

In her new role, she has been charged with helping the Treasury “create a tax system that delivers for British businesses and people” by proposing areas for review and recommending changes to ministers.

While working for the BBA, Knight launched a stinging attack on the 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses in 2009 as “populist, political and penal”. She subsequently campaigned against additional taxes on banks in the aftermath of the crash, warning that this could threaten the UK’s future as a financial centre.

I do not envy anyone who has to try and sort out the quagmire of a taxation system that Gordy created, even the taxation dept had a hell of a job trying to implement it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 13 2015, 06:44 PM
I do not envy anyone who has to try and sort out the quagmire of a taxation system that Gordy created, even the taxation dept had a hell of a job trying to implement it.
Just to add balance, because I know you are very keen on that sort of thing, the present government has made it easier to dodge tax by refusing to reign in our ten overseas tax havens, they have also done very little to correct the freebies Gordon so kindly gifted a certain percentage of the population.

But lets look on the bright side, there is now talk of forcing the self employed and those who run small businesses to fill in quarterly tax returns instead on annual ones, and this is despite cutting large numbers of workers at HMRC! a veritable red tape fest awaits us!

A cynic might conclude the government was trying to trash the ability of the state to both collect and record taxation............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 12 2015, 03:36 PM
. . charities on average only soend 10% of their revenues on the cause in Q. . .
Link please
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 13 2015, 09:27 PM
skwirked
Dec 12 2015, 03:36 PM
. . charities on average only soend 10% of their revenues on the cause in Q. . .
Link please
Actually I retract my claim in this case, it wasn't only wrong but it was based on seriously misrepresented data. That's my fault for being suckered in by people with an agenda (right-wing propaganda in the Torygraph IIRC, I wonder if it's time to stop reading that shite).

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/13/worried-about-where-your-charity-donations-are-going-heres-what-you-need-to-know-5562425/

This is interesting in saying that 200% of revenue is actually reinvested. A few other studies show most charities giving 60-90% to the cause.

Edited by skwirked, Dec 13 2015, 09:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 13 2015, 09:49 PM
Steve K
Dec 13 2015, 09:27 PM
skwirked
Dec 12 2015, 03:36 PM
. . charities on average only soend 10% of their revenues on the cause in Q. . .
Link please
Actually I retract my claim in this case, it wasn't only wrong but it was based on seriously misrepresented data. That's my fault for being suckered in by people with an agenda (right-wing propaganda in the Torygraph IIRC, I wonder if it's time to stop reading that shite).

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/13/worried-about-where-your-charity-donations-are-going-heres-what-you-need-to-know-5562425/

This is interesting in saying that 200% of revenue is actually reinvested. A few other studies show most charities giving 60-90% to the cause.

Not trying to mislead us are you blaming the Telegraph for your nasty post?

Lets look at the Telegraph on the matter
Quote:
 

Charity Choice said the top 100 charities spent an average of 78p in every pound on their charitable activities, while 21p was spent raising more income. The remaining 1p was spent running the charity, including staffing and office costs.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nope, that's not the article although I saw that one whilst searching. The article I refer to is old. But cheers for the accusation of 'nastiness' after admitting I was "mistaken" (to use your favourite kind of speak ;). It's a shame that others cannot admit they're mistaken wrt to other far bigger things..

Edited by skwirked, Dec 13 2015, 11:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 13 2015, 11:00 PM
Nope, that's not the article although I saw that one whilst searching. The article I refer to is old. But cheers for the accusation of 'nastiness' after admitting I was "mistaken" (to use your favourite kind of speak ;). It's a shame that others cannot admit they're mistaken wrt to other far bigger things..

Well if you really regretted making a nasty false point that if taken seriously would harm charities you'd go back and correct the post wouldn't you

Seems you haven't http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8366365&t=11440453

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ah well it's corrected now, after all you'd probably edit it for me and accuse me of some kind of illegal accusation, then add another point (lol).

But still, there's the multitude of studies and news articles pointing out that charities spending more than 10% of revenues on admin costs are not credible. That'd be most of them then wouldn't it. Just adding some balance Mr 'Unbiased' ( :P ).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 14 2015, 12:15 AM
Ah well it's corrected now, after all you'd probably edit it for me and accuse me of some kind of illegal accusation, then add another point (lol).

But still, there's the multitude of studies and news articles pointing out that charities spending more than 10% of revenues on admin costs are not credible. That'd be most of them then wouldn't it. Just adding some balance Mr 'Unbiased' ( :P ).
Quit the malicious ad homs

So do you have evidence to challenge the Charity Choice analysis that the breakdown is

78% on the charitable purpose
21% raising money for the above
1% central admin

?

And returning to your original point why do you suggest a firm makes money out of charitable donations? If a firm makes a £1,000 donation yes it will have lower profits so pay less tax but it's still going to be net ~£800 down on the transaction isn't it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gnikkk
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 11:13 PM
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/long-and-short-it

Quote:
 

On Wednesday, the Chancellor announced his decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by a fifth.


So let’s be clear - the decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by 19% is bad news for democracy. The UK already spends just a tenth of the European average on funding parties. This cut could therefore be deeply damaging for accountability. And as for the ‘cutting the cost of politics’ argument, well, just look at how many Lords the government has appointed since 2010 - 233 new Peers, at a cost of at least £24,000 each per year in expenses and allowances alone. 50% of them have been Conservatives.

Of course, the whole party funding system is a complete mess as it is, what with parties’ worrying reliance on big donors and the ever-intensifying spending arms race at every election time. But cutting Short money risks making it worse. By removing public money from the mix, it risks making parties even more reliant on big donors – with all the potential for corruption that entails.

Unilateral moves like this could be seen as overtly partisan, and could make it even harder for parties to get round the table and thrash out a deal on the real problem – their over-reliance on big donors’ money. Until we see a cap on donations and a lower spending limit, taking away public money from opposition parties will just make things worse.


This is an outrage TBH. And has it been widely reported? Not that I've seen..this govt take the p1ss everyday.
I think you will find that if something is not right the BBC will attack it mercilessly (if not a bit stupidly), like commy attack dogs. They haven't so I assume you got this think out of balance, maybe four candles sort of thing. This looks like you really haven't thought it through and decided to attack like a commy dog before you thought it 'frew'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 14 2015, 12:22 AM
skwirked
Dec 14 2015, 12:15 AM
Ah well it's corrected now, after all you'd probably edit it for me and accuse me of some kind of illegal accusation, then add another point (lol).

But still, there's the multitude of studies and news articles pointing out that charities spending more than 10% of revenues on admin costs are not credible. That'd be most of them then wouldn't it. Just adding some balance Mr 'Unbiased' ( :P ).
Quit the malicious ad homs

So do you have evidence to challenge the Charity Choice analysis that the breakdown is

78% on the charitable purpose
21% raising money for the above
1% central admin

?

And returning to your original point why do you suggest a firm makes money out of charitable donations? If a firm makes a £1,000 donation yes it will have lower profits so pay less tax but it's still going to be net ~£800 down on the transaction isn't it.


Never suggested that co's save money from making charitable donations, although it has been the case in some instances.

It is tax-efficient (my words) and curries favour with the public and the charities..make what you will of that.

As for the studies, best check the public accounts committee because they agree with me and want to overhaul the charities commission.


However, it looks like they're doing it for unpleasant ideological reasons. I found this:

http://giving-evidence.com/2013/05/02/admin-data/

That destroys my argument and the govt's by the looks of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply