The Five Demands

DaisyAnne

^At some point a government - whichever one it is - will have to address the ever-increasing gap between the exceptionally-rich and those at the bottom of the heap who live from hand-to-mouth.^ Dickens Mon 27-Mar-23 12:39:39

What you say in this comment isn't true. Governments don't have to address this if they choose not to - and the Conservatives don't want to. They see the "rich getting richer" and everyone in a free for all, as the best way of running the country.

Richie Sunak releases his tax and there is a murmur of appreciation for that. How many comments have you seen on this gossip shop about the fact that it shows he only pays 22%?

Many Tories will think him foolish for paying so much. The Conservatives don't want to govern; they want to reduce government. To do this, their greatest need is to keep voters onside in any way they can, to stop other parties from ever governing.

They will do something if it makes others wealthy. They will bring in childcare to get more workers. More workers mean cheaper labour. They will repeat the 1970 attacks on the unions, with all the underhand and undemocratic use of government that went on then, to reduce the money they have to pay in taxes to make the country work and reduce what workers earn.

They only have to make a show of making things being fairer for as long as it takes to get back into power. So no, unless it's simply for the time it takes to retain power, they do not "have" to do anything, even if we all want to rant about it.

What you say in this comment isn't true. Governments don't have to address this if they choose not to - and the Conservatives don't want to. They see the "rich getting richer" and everyone in a free for all, as the best way of running the country.

Well of course DaisyAnne they don't have to do anything of the kind - and I know this current government has no intention of doing anything constructive about the wealth-gap - except possibly widen it! They're not going to upset their backers and donors, or the party-faithful. I'm sure they see the haves and have-nots as a necessary evil.

My observation was really to indicate what I believe should be done... which I thought might be obvious!

But if the nation continues along the trajectory of strikes and rebellion, and the brewing anger erupts... then the government - whichever one it is - will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate, and will have to address the issues, one way or another.

Do you see?

Mollygo

Spending comes before taxation-true.

Paying after the spending is done . . .

As the spending, so long as it doesn't end up in the hands of those who'll squirrel it away overseas, creates economic activity and a wider tax base the government will get much of it back via taxation.

Why would I "see" Dickens. Again, you say that whichever government is in power will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate. That isn't true, either. Many are not discontented in the way that you or I might be. Many vote because they dislike one lot less than the other. Many don't have the time, energy or perhaps just the inclination to be interested in politics. They are getting on with life. Many believe what they are fed by the media.

I'm not trying to be unkind. I can see what you are saying, but I don't agree with your assumptions. To change anything we would need to be realistic. Thinking that things will have to be addressed or that governments will have to face up to anything they don't choose is simply unrealistic. Governments will do what they believe in. Let's hope the majority vote for one we can believe in too.

DaisyAnne

Why would I "see" Dickens. Again, you say that whichever government is in power will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate. That isn't true, either. Many are not discontented in the way that you or I might be. Many vote because they dislike one lot less than the other. Many don't have the time, energy or perhaps just the inclination to be interested in politics. They are getting on with life. Many believe what they are fed by the media.

I'm not trying to be unkind. I can see what you are saying, but I don't agree with your assumptions. To change anything we would need to be realistic. Thinking that things will have to be addressed or that governments will have to face up to anything they don't choose is simply unrealistic. Governments will do what they believe in. Let's hope the majority vote for one we can believe in too.

What I meant when I said "do you see" was - do you understand my explanation. I wasn't asking you to agree with my POV.

Do you remember the poll-tax riots? They forced The Conservative party to question Margaret Thatcher's Leadership; and John Major to examine the poll-tax and replace it with Council Tax - which took into consideration (to some extent) people's ability to pay, which the poll-tax didn't.

So I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that a disgruntled and angry public can force a government to address the issue(s) it doesn't want to bother about. What they decide to do is a different matter - but they (governments) do watch which way the wind is blowing - hence the u-turns we've already seen with this current one.

I have a horrible feeling the Conservatives might be re-elected. You need a really, really strong opposition leader. I hope it isn’t the case but they are very,very good at bulltitting, better at it than the others.

Jane71:

'How do we convince people in middle England (is there such a place?) to vote for the general good rather than their own interest?'

It's far worse than that. I've met many people who regularly do vote against their own interests - by mistakenly believing that the government supports small business and the middle classes (that the also mistakenly believe they are part of). Their level of ignorance is astounding.

(nanna8 - 'bulltitting', I like it! I was struggling for a description of what they do!)