[Debatewise RRT] Re: General election debates
- From: Douglas Jefferson <thebigd003@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:36 +0000
hi all,
Oooh election time is somewhat exciting, Ill take the one on the referendum on
parlimentary reform, If I get time ill try and tackle the one about the lords
as well, but will e-mail if I cant get on with it.
Cheers
Doug
From: alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Debatewise RRT] General election debates
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:08:49 +0000
Evening all,
Things are slightly different today. Due to the upcoming elections Debatewise
will be working with votematch to help give voters an idea as to the issues
behind the policies of the parties. This means we have rather a lot of debates
to do and unfortunately the people behind votematch have given us very little
time in which to do these debates so we need your help to create them.
I have listed all the debates that need doing below (we may get some more for
Scotland/Wales/NI later) so if you could take them as usual. I have also listed
some similar debates for reference. Equally for the ones I have been doing
please add to them and I apologise to those of you whose points I have
cannibalised in order to create the debates!
Because we only have the 19th to create these debates if you take one and then
decide you can’t do it please email me in plenty of time so that we can do the
debate here at HQ
And finally could you please put the debates on our election site rather than
the normal Debatewise site: http://electionuk.debatewise.org/ (you can log in
with your usual details)
Thanks
Alex
Debates on the site for you to add to:
http://electionuk.debatewise.org/debates/1734-an-independent-board-should-allocate-nhs-resources-to-different-parts-of-the-country
http://electionuk.debatewise.org/debates/1733-the-cost-of-nhs-administration-should-be-cut-by-one-third
http://electionuk.debatewise.org/debates/1735-the-government-should-withdraw-troops-from-afghanistan-with-a-year
Economy:
The Bank of England should have overall responsibility for financial oversight
The financial crisis and the recession that have affected us over the last few
years have shown that we need a change in the regulatory system that provides
oversight for the city and the banks. The Financial Services Authority having
failed the Conservatives believe that the Bank of England have much more power
over the financial sector.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5906113/Sir-James-Sassoon-why-I-told-the-Tories-to-scrap-the-FSA.html
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=12296
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeconaf/101/10108.htm
http://debatewise.org/debates/870
The Government should be compelled by law to cut the deficit by 50% within 4
years
The UK is currently running a budget deficit of 12%, that is higher than Greece
a country that is in particularly hot water due to its fiscal imprudence.
Everyone agrees that this has to be reduced, but how quickly should this be
done and how far does it need to be cut? No one really knows. Governments do
not like making big cuts in services as they are unpopular so introducing a law
forcing a cut in the deficit within a certain time could be useful to whichever
party wins the election.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/deficit-fetishism-government-spending
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8514767.stm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ay3jUtAyftac
All departments should bear the brunt of spending cuts to reduce the deficit
Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are promising to ring fence some
areas from any spending cuts, areas such as international development and the
NHS. However such ring fencing simply means that the cuts have to be bigger
elsewhere in order to make up for the inability to cut in some areas. This is
unequal. The public may say they care most about the NHS but they may change
their tune when they find that the fire service is drastically cut back because
their can’t be cuts in other areas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/16/public-spending-departments-money-cuts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/05/financial-crisis-public-spending-tax
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7034353.ece
Employment and Equal Ops:
All companies who employ more than 250 people should be forced to publish an
annual report comparing the average pay of men with the average pay of women in
the company.
Pay between men and women doing the same job is supposed to be equal, but even
if and where it is there are many other little inequalities that reducing the
earning power of women. Having to publish a comparison between the average
earnings of men and women at companies would show which companies are closing
the gender gap and which have some way to go. Naming and shaming is a way that
may encourage firms to voluntarily equalise pay.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan/06/equality-bill-pay
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2009-09-14/gender-pay-gap-stays-as-wide-as-ever
The total hours allowed in a working week should not be decided by the EU
The French and the Europeans generally are stereotyped in Britain and the US as
being much more fun loving and wishing to work shorter working weeks than
‘Anglo-Saxon economies’ such as Britain. However the European Union now has a
big say over many areas of regulation that were previously the preserve of
Westminster. The amount of time we work is one of them. The working time
directive is one of them. It limits us to a working week of 48 hours, however
we are perfectly at liberty to set our own national limits on working weeks
that are less than 48 hours as several European countries have.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100007914/the-working-time-directive-the-one-jewel-in-the-eus-plastic-crown/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/eu-work-and-careers
http://debatewise.org/debates/818
People on job seekers allowance who refuse a job should lose their benefits
When there are millions looking for work people should be given every incentive
they can be to make sure that if they get offered a job they take it. It is a
simply a drain on the state’s resources if someone refuses a job and carries on
collecting jobseekers allowance the state should not nanny people until they
happen to find a job that they like. Job seekers should be given the option of
either taking the first job they are offered or losing their benefits if they
wish to turn it down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7176032.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6605850.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/1574822/Tories-to-strip-benefits-if-jobless-refuse-work.html
Immigration and Asylum:
Asylum seekers should be allowed to work while waiting for their application to
be processed
Asylum seekers sitting around doing nothing is of no use to anyone. They should
instead be doing something productive while waiting to see if their asylum
application is granted. Not allowing them to work forces them into poverty
while they wait for our slow system of processing applications to pass them
through the system. If they are allowed to work and if at the end of it all
they are rejected at least they will have gained something during their stay
and contributed to the economy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-let-asylumseekers-work-1609199.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2007/10/asylum-seekers-work-amnesty
http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/campaigns/livingghosts/destituteanddesperate
ID cards should be compulsory for immigrants and asylum seekers
The Home office keeps getting into difficulties with asylum seekers, either
through having more than predicted or with failures to deport asylum seekers
who then go on to commit crimes. Having ID cards compulsory for immigrants
means that it is much more difficult for the home office to lose people. ID
cards are meant to reduce the numbers of people working illegally so this makes
immigrants an obvious target group and they provide a test case for any
eventual role out for everyone.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/idcardsforforeignnationals/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1793151.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jun/09/labour-id-cards
http://debatewise.org/debates/1
People committed of crimes who were not born in this country should be deported
People who have committed crimes who were not born here should consider
themselves to have forfeited their right to stay in the UK. While it seems
obvious that where possible we should deport violent criminals who are not
native there are many circumstances where it would not be appropriate. Should
we be deporting everyone convicted for petty crimes? What do we do if the
country they come from is not safe?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563890/Foreigners-commit-fifth-of-crime-in-London.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6211514.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7149720/Failure-to-deport-foreign-criminals-costs-60m-a-year.html
http://debatewise.org/debates/691
Parliamentary Reform:
There should be a referendum on changing the electoral system for General
Elections in the next Parliament.
The current first past the post electoral system that we have in this country
no longer interprets the people’s wishes very well. It is very possible that
the conservatives may get a bigger percent of the votes while getting fewer
seats than Labour. The Liberal democrats and other small parties will almost
certainly be even worse off. Although it might not include a range of possible
electoral systems a referendum would at least allow a debate on the issue of
electoral reform and it is likely than any system decided on would be more
representative than our present one.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/09/bill-define-election-brown-legacy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8492622.stm
http://debatewise.org/debates/155
The number of MPs should be reduced by 10%
During this parliament many MPs have discredited themselves and the Houses of
Parliament with their excessive expenses claims. While there have been reforms
put in place to reduce these claims there are still a total of 646 MPs in the
House of Commons. The House of Representatives in the USA has 435 congressmen
to represent a population almost five times the size.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7294330.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6078282.ece
The Government should legislate for elections to the House of Lords within the
next Parliament
Labour has been promising an elected House of Lords since they were elected in
1997, there has been progress with hereditary peers leaving however there has
been no movement to having the House of Lords elected rather than appointed. If
we are going to lecture dictators on the benefits of democracy we should show
that we believe in them too, an appointed chamber such as we have now shows
that we do not take democracy seriously. But is legislating to create an
elected House of Lords really a priority with the economy in such a bad state?
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4183/ref-08.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/20/parliament-reform-house-of-lords
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=30
http://debatewise.org/debates/1223
Pensions and Retirement:
Pensions should be tied to average earnings in the next Parliament
Margret Thatcher in 1980 abolished the link that there had been between
pensions and average earnings meaning that the state pension has been falling
in value relative to earnings in almost every year since. This is obviously
unfair, however it would be very costly to restore the link and the public
purse is in no position to foot the bill in the near future.
http://colineldridge.org.uk/news/000025/bring_back_link_between_pensions_and_earnings_say_lib_dems.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-target-state-pension-in-battle-to-balance-books-1787328.html
http://debatewise.org/debates/790
The retirement age should be scrapped
Scrapping the retirement age would potentially solve numerous current and
future problems. It could help reduce our budget deficit if the state
retirement age is increased meaning less is paid out while if more people are
working then there will be more money coming in to the treasury. So long as
there is a retirement age it is easy for companies to pressurise people who
want to work into retirement. In the future having no retirement age would help
combat the problems of an ageing population such as a shrinking workforce and
their being less people to pay for pensioners pensions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/25/retirement-age-scrapped-equality-commission
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7309292/State-pension-age-should-be-70-PwC-says.html
http://debatewise.org/debates/848
Sovereignty and Devolution:
There should be an English Parliament
We have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a Assembly at Stormont for
Northern Ireland that has just voted to have policing and justice powers
devolved to them. This leaves England, with most of the British population
without its own parliament. In many cases the MPs for Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland can vote on laws that can only affect England while English
MPs have very little say over what happens in those areas with their own
assemblies, this represents a democratic deficit that has to be sorted out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/devolution-england-pseudo-democracy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8558466.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7396040/David-Cameron-will-have-to-finally-address-English-resentment-over-devolution.html
http://debatewise.org/debates/1246
http://debatewise.org/debates/3
There should be a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the European
Union.
We were denied a vote on the Lisbon treaty that many wanted, although so far
the results of the treaty have been less than spectacular. The UK has however
had a referendum on its membership and voted to become a member of the EEC, so
should a referendum simply be on the changes that have taken place since then?
There is very little in the way of referendums in Britain, so such a referendum
on leaving the EU should only occur if a party that has promised one in its
election manifesto wins the election. Many would like to have a referendum on
the continued membership of the EU so putting aside questions about what do we
do if we leave the EU should we get to vote?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9238909/Would_Britain_vote_to_leave_the_EU/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225053/A-referendum-Mr-Cameron-COULD-people.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763500-tories-set-to-retreat-on-eu-referendum-pledge.do
http://debatewise.org/debates/846
http://debatewise.org/debates/784
Tax:
Marriage should be incentivised through the tax system.
David Cameron has proposed a that marriage should be incentivised, although he
rapidly had to retreat due to not having the proposal all costed. The
Conservative proposals would have a transferrable tax allowance for all married
couples costing £3.2 billion. The tax system is regularly used to incentivise
or punish behaviour such as smoking or drinking. So it should incentivise
things that are good for us such as marriage which provides for more stability,
particularly for children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7005840/Marriage-is-good-for-us-its-time-to-support-it.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/18/family-marriage-tax-cameron-labour
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6992961.ece
Estates less than £1million pounds should not be liable for Inheritance Tax
Inheritance tax, often portrayed as the ‘death tax’ by its opponents. Everyone
dislikes having to pay tax, but why should we be bothered about paying taxes on
unearned wealth. An inheritance is a windfall so it makes no difference to
those gaining the windfall if the taxman shares in the gain. Does it make a
difference if it is a relatively small amount?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clarke-back-in-line-on-inheritance-tax-cut-policy-1652601.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alicethomson/3554424/Ive-changed-my-mind-on-inheritance-tax.html
http://debatewise.org/debates/1182
http://debatewise.org/debates/333
http://debatewise.org/debates/1052
People earning less than £10,000 pounds a year should not have to pay Income tax
Income tax for an income below £10,000 seems like a pointless excercise. The
treasury is not likely to get much money out of the tax and at the same time
will be encouraging those people who earn such small amounts to stay on welfare
payments instead of spending their time working in return for their pittance.
However even if they do pay income tax the chances are they will be able to get
as much back in benefits and means tested allowances. They still use the free
services of the state such as the NHS and the education system so should they
not pay for it?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/8046867/Its_inefficient_and_unfair_to_make_poor_people_pay_income_tax/
http://debatewise.org/debates/1013
Use Revisewise @ http://revisewise.debatewise.com/
_________________________________________________________________
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
Other related posts:
