Yes, Totally against the Unions, yet will gladly take what us olduns went on strike for a few times to get what we have today…this industry was never perfect, but its a lot better than days gone by…we do need a union, to unite all drivers in this industry,sadly, there isnt one available that 1. would represent us in a right and proper fashion. 2. theres not many drivers around these days that have the same spirit that we all had years ago.
Theyre too far up their own backsides to even talk to other drivers, let alone be united by a union…they will happily moan about their conditions, but will just accept it rather than fight for better ones, there are still many hauliers out there who exploit their drivers, and also many drivers who will allow themselves to be exploited…then there are those who are happy with their lot, who would never dream of joining a union as they are happy with their lot, working max hours, for crap money, well it aint gonna get any better..unless this industry reverts to the system we had years ago..where drivers were drivers, all in the same boat, all proud to belong to a union, albeit we had no choice, join the TGWU, or go find a job elsewhere, and there were shop stewards everywhere we went to load and unload, and checked all the cards to make sure your not taking unionised work, thats the system im talking about…where drivers spoke to each other, where drivers met to have a pint and a chat…oh how i wish we had those kind of days back, i think they call it today cameraderie
Handed my unite card back a month ago with an email stating my dismay/anger at their recent politicising,re - the ’ rights’ of sandwich shop,catering EE new arrivals to blighty.in contrast to the elephant in the room issues facing our own august industry.Made the parallel of the situation with R.S.P.C.A donors who are shelling out seemingly for boutique.hobby horse,pc projects meanwhile farm animals continue to live satanically cruel lives when i last checked,particularly poultry,and even dairy livestock are seemingly never seeing a green field on a stealthily increasing basis judging by recent news.yet still the donations come.
No response as yet 
cav551:
The RMT and ASLEF dispute with Southern Rail and the government has been mentioned along with salary levels. Not many weeks go by without some green with envy post materialising enquiring about how to become a train driver, yet equally given the chance we see also opportunity taken to deride the very people we see as having a better deal. Just about every other day we see someone complaining about some aspect of their terms and conditions, pay or treatment by their employer. Frequently one of the answers to such a post concludes that likely the situation would not have arisen if the workforce had been union members. We see also the assertion that unions are dinosaurs and irrelevant to the modern workplace which needs to modernise, this often accompanied by the claim that: “I can look after myself, if I don’t like it I can always leave and work elsewhere”. That’s fine it works for some, but not everyone.The unions are there to protect the weak, the ones too timid, threatened, tongue tied or financially desperate to speak up for themselves. Not everyone can jump readily from a job in which they are unhappy into another at the drop of a hat, there may not be a suitable alternative within economic commuting distance. To cut an article in a recent RMT monthly magazine down to a few words the following unfair dismissal case illustrates why unions are good thing. An employee had been on sick leave IIRC following an injury. It was becoming clear that he was unlikey to be able to return to his job. He had undergone several medical assessments by the company doctors. As a long service employee his T&Cs dictated that he had been offered a generous severance package. He had found that cannabis relieved the pain he was suffering more effectively than anything else. During the course of one of his medical assessments he had a routine drugs test. This proved positive for cannabis. The company sacked him for being present on company property for this medical assessment while under the influence of drugs. The Union funded a long winded legal case which went to court rather than tribunal, the result of which was that the company were held by the judge to have acted in an underhand and obstructive manner. The man’s severance pay was reinstated. Without the support of his union the man could never have won.
The train guards’ dispute has dragged on for over a year now, it will no doubt become a significant propaganda issue from the tories in the forthcoming election campaign. They will use it in an attempt to rally all daily mail, sun and telegraph readers to the blue rinse cause - stamp on the workers, divide and rule and put the plebs in their place. The whole issue could have been resolved months ago, the railway customers still want a properly trained second man on every train, however the government has managed to orchestrate the progress of all negotiations into prolonging the dispute until the travelling public just wish to see an end to the disruption, no matter what the actual outcome entails.
What is behind this? The Govenment and rail operators wish to introduce one man operation to save labour costs. They have sucessfully manged to concentrate the publicity upon button pushing when that is only a part of the issue. They wish to see their second man employed as a revenue collector free to ride the train ensuring passengers have valid tickets, but only present on board during the most lucrative sections of the journey. Given this limited role the training to undertake this work is nowhere near the level necessary to deal with an emergency which incapacitates the only other crew member. Cleverly sidestepped is that a guard’s training not only deals with emergency situations, but relates his response to the timetable and the section of track in which such emergencies may occur. ASLEF and the RMT concentrate on the above knowing full well that the intention of the operators, if they can get away with it, will be to employ part time or zero hours minimum wage second men on peak hour services only. We have seen the government and the operators frustrated in their aim in spite of repeated recourse to the courts; where they have lost their case.
We hear the argument from some that these guards are grossly overpaid and that the money saved would result in cheaper fares and more money to invest in the railway. Really? are we that dim? it will result in increased profit for the train operator percolating through to the shareholder investors who happen to be state owned foreign railways. The money saved will benefit German passengers and British taxpayes will foot the bill for domestic railway improvements. Whatever amount could be saved needs to be valued against one life lost which could have been prevented. But then sachi and sachi and miscon de reya already have that factored in to the calculations.
What has been most noticeable has been that the ASLEF leadership has failed to grasp the depth of feeling their members have about the issue. They have ■■■■■ footed around the actual wording of the employers’ proposals in the hope that they can secure a majority vote for their deal, rather than truly represent their members’ wishes.
Just as we have seen consistently from the remoaners, if the outcome of any ballot/ referendum does not go the way the losers want then attention is focussed upon the difference between for and against in percentage terms and actual numbers of voters. If at all possible focus then shifts to the percentage and numbers of those entitled to vote against those who did not do so. The automatic assumption from the losers is that ALL of those who did not vote would naturally have voted in line with THEIR views. Conversely we can be sure that if the ASLEF ballot had resulted in a one vote majority for settlement on the employers’ terms, then this would have been met with a deafening silence.
If there is a significant tory victory in June we shall see a bill before parliament to declare any union ballot FOR industrial action declared null and void if there is not something like a 75 % majority in favour AND an 85% turn out. There is also a very good chance that lorry drivers will be included in the category of workers who will not be legally able to strike.
^ This.With the exception that unions are first and foremost there to stop the race to the bottom.In the form of workers under cutting each other and employers using workers’ wages and terms and conditions as part of the competitive customer tendering process.
While it seems to me that the whole country has turned into a load of turkeys voting for Christmas.Whether it’s workers calling for the end of unions and union power.Or supposedly Brexit Con MP’s voting themselves out of office to be replaced by the Remain opposition and to help May’s obvious agenda in that regard.
Or in this case people like McCluskey and Corbyn supporting race to the bottom free markets in the form of the import of cheap foreign immigrant labour and export of Brit jobs for foreign workers.Nothing having changed in that regard since Callaghan and Jenkins etc hijacked the Labour agenda v Shore,Benn and Heffer decades ago.
Cav551 - A well-argued post there.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians and union leaders could be on the same page as per “well argued everything” eh?
As a center-right person, I have a strong sense of fair play, but seeing people take the mick on either side - really gets my goat.
Perhaps I could be called a “former centerist that woke up”?
I’m not “Right Wing”, because I’ve got nothing against both legal immigrants already here, nor Eastern Europeans that make up the bulk of those already here that pay the taxes and hold down the jobs.
If anything I’m “Criminalist” in that I detest Crooks, those who act against more than 75% against the public interest (not that this is easy to measure), and of course those who don’t go when after their time at the top - they refuse to get the job done. I’ve got no respect for Cameron, because in my mind he got nothing done, nothing changed. I didn’t like Blair and never voted for him. I respected Brown as Chancellor, but not as PM. I reckon the credit crisis might have been of an entirely different outcome if Brown were still Chancellor at that point, making behind-the-scenes suggestions to the Bank of England as to how to get the banks solvent again without taxpayer cash, and thereby averting the slump that followed.
I support the idea of effective Unions that carry out effective Union actions to get the job done. What’s legal and illegal under coming-and-going governments - doesn’t matter to me.
Those that “Can” - ACT. Those that “Can’t” - Drag their feet.
Right now, I don’t see much going on at the top of our Unions rather than leaders trying to get their hooks into government party politics. In my mind it should be illegal to bribe political parties with funding, but totally legal to call snap ballots for strikes whenever the union wishes.
As for the nature and laws surrounding “Ballots” themselves - we need only declare each and every “Missing” or “spoilt” ballot paper as a vote for the leadership’s line on what’s being balloted - and all observers would have to do to ensure fair play is to make sure no ballot boxes go missing.
This is what makes me so suspicious of the leadership election that McCluskey has just won. 12.2% turnout? - Quite frankly I’m surprised that the figure itself wasn’t massaged to look a lot higher, given that it looks so suspiciously low there… Anonymous ballots don’t help much either. Either stand up and be counted as “for” or “against” an issue - or don’t bother! It should not be necessary in a free society to feel one has to “vote in secret” because your opinion could possibly be THAT offensive to those leaning towards the opposite view on whatever issue is being voted upon.
We need all kinds of electoral reform in western democracy, now that we are solidly in the 21st century information era.
The Internet will get the truth out there - but also speeds of the dissemination of “faux information” too, where it’s known at the outset to BE faux.
We want new blood in politics, NOT yet more “Historians” who like to preach negativity for ancient history reasons as their way of winning their non-arguments.
I’d vote for ANY strong-presence political parties if only they could consist of all policy commitments rather than evaded questions!
Labour, are only electable if you believe the lies. The Conservatives will only win a thumping majority if one believes some other lies.
The latest “propaganda” we’ve been asked to swallow for example, is this notion that the public “don’t give a ■■■■ about the forthcoming election, so stay at home and don’t bother voting at all”.
Yeh right!
I’m not only a floating voter, but one that ALWAYS votes. I await to be sold to throughout the continuing electoral campaign these next few weeks…
It’s going to take a lot to get me to vote for ANYONE at the moment, and if no one sells me - I’ll end up voting for the strongest of the independent candidates. Independents often do win a handfull of seats up and down the country at each and every election - so I don’t feel I would be wasting my vote to do this.
I’m giving both the Labour and Conservative parties to win me over with their arguments of course! I want to know what they will DO - Not whom they intend to stop. 
Winseer:
Labour, are only electable if you believe the lies. The Conservatives will only win a thumping majority if one believes some other lies.
The latest “propaganda” we’ve been asked to swallow for example, is this notion that the public “don’t give a ■■■■ about the forthcoming election, so stay at home and don’t bother voting at all”.
Yeh right!
To be fair if anyone believes in the idea of
The Nation State and the right of self determination of others in that regard which obviously includes Scottish and English idependence or at least,like the EU issue,a Confederal UK.
Protectionist economic and trade policies.
Strong unions including the right to secondary action.
Anti climate change global warmist.
Pro road transport and freedom of car use without being penalised for the privilege.
Recognition of the fact that we have an immigration problem in regards to everything from split loyalties and resulting risk in terms of the Islamic cultural group to distortion of the domestic labour market and over loading of social provision.
We can’t build our way out of the housing affordability issue at least in the South East.With transfer of local development policy from national to local government as part of that.
Who do I vote for ?.Bearing in mind that Farage has effectively said that UKIP’s job is supposedly done and its voters should now go back to their ‘natural home’ in the form of the Cons. 
Notice the Balance there that I am seeking: MORE local powers to Unions, but NO power to donate money directly to a political party. We don’t need any more “Union’s Parties”. We just need ALL parties to serve the taxpayers, most of whom will be workers.
Even the Tories only seem to serve those workers that want to avoid as much tax as possible, alas. Hammond has lost a lot of respect by U-Turning on his “White Van Man Tax” recently.
Labour seem to serve the donating Unions first, benefit claiming workers second - and taxpaying workers - a distant nowhere.
It is the Working Taxpayer who will eventually decide the future of this country, as it jolly well should have all along.
“No representation without taxation.” seems a very fair and square way to make up the Westminster Complement.
A bit off topic but what REALLY gets up my nose is working tax credits. WTF should you and I as taxpayers be paying part of someone’s wages so that the skinflint employer doesn’t have to? That really is a reward for contribution to party funds. Just like all the bleating about access to foreign workers, pay the money, treat people decently and people will do the job.
Winseer:
Notice the Balance there that I am seeking: MORE local powers to Unions, but NO power to donate money directly to a political party. We don’t need any more “Union’s Parties”. We just need ALL parties to serve the taxpayers, most of whom will be workers.Even the Tories only seem to serve those workers that want to avoid as much tax as possible, alas. Hammond has lost a lot of respect by U-Turning on his “White Van Man Tax” recently.
Labour seem to serve the donating Unions first, benefit claiming workers second - and taxpaying workers - a distant nowhere.It is the Working Taxpayer who will eventually decide the future of this country, as it jolly well should have all along.
“No representation without taxation.” seems a very fair and square way to make up the Westminster Complement.
Firstly it needs to be remembered that the Union’s were actually a founding component of the Labour Party which was a reactive measure to the influence which the employer classes had on their side through the Conservative Party.If you want to break that link then you’ll also need to guarantee that the employers have also reciprocated by cutting their links and influence on government.In which case the deal would obviously have to be no more biased government intervention in trying to rig the economy against the working class and blaming unions for doing their job of maximising their members’ incomes for the minimum effort.In which case the unions could then obviously reciprocate by removing their need to have influence at government level.
While the real issue is just that of the Unions and the Labour Party being hijacked by socialist ideology which actually goes against the interests of the indigenous workforce.Not the issue of Unions’ influence or otherwise at government level which is a red herring and a moot point.Bearing in mind that Union committees working together with government and employers’ representative groups works fine in Germany.
As for taxation being linked to democratic representation.The logical conclusion of that idea is no vote for unemployed or sick or retired workers,with incomes below the minimum taxation threshold and a graduated number of votes depending on income in which the highest earners ( tax payers ) get the highest number of votes.What could possibly go wrong.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Notice the Balance there that I am seeking: MORE local powers to Unions, but NO power to donate money directly to a political party. We don’t need any more “Union’s Parties”. We just need ALL parties to serve the taxpayers, most of whom will be workers.Even the Tories only seem to serve those workers that want to avoid as much tax as possible, alas. Hammond has lost a lot of respect by U-Turning on his “White Van Man Tax” recently.
Labour seem to serve the donating Unions first, benefit claiming workers second - and taxpaying workers - a distant nowhere.It is the Working Taxpayer who will eventually decide the future of this country, as it jolly well should have all along.
“No representation without taxation.” seems a very fair and square way to make up the Westminster Complement.Firstly it needs to be remembered that the Union’s were actually a founding component of the Labour Party which was a reactive measure to the influence which the employer classes had on their side through the Conservative Party.If you want to break that link then you’ll also need to guarantee that the employers have also reciprocated by cutting their links and influence on government.In which case the deal would obviously have to be no more biased government intervention in trying to rig the economy against the working class and blaming unions for doing their job of maximising their members’ incomes for the minimum effort.In which case the unions could then obviously reciprocate by removing their need to have influence at government level.
While the real issue is just that of the Unions and the Labour Party being hijacked by socialist ideology which actually goes against the interests of the indigenous workforce.Not the issue of Unions’ influence or otherwise at government level which is a red herring and a moot point.Bearing in mind that Union committees working together with government and employers’ representative groups works fine in Germany.
As for taxation being linked to democratic representation.The logical conclusion of that idea is no vote for unemployed or sick or retired workers,with incomes below the minimum taxation threshold and a graduated number of votes depending on income in which the highest earners ( tax payers ) get the highest number of votes.What could possibly go wrong.
The cornerstone of tory philosophy.
cav551:
A bit off topic but what REALLY gets up my nose is working tax credits. WTF should you and I as taxpayers be paying part of someone’s wages so that the skinflint employer doesn’t have to? That really is a reward for contribution to party funds. Just like all the bleating about access to foreign workers, pay the money, treat people decently and people will do the job.
Tax credits in my mind should be the benefits for those that had a job but lost it for whatever reason, whilst those non disabled people who’ve never actually had a job due to workshyness - don’t qualify for benefits at all.
Instead though, we have a system now that is broken. If your income drops one year and you qualify for tax credits, as I did when I first went onto agency in 2011 - you then find that you have to pay it all back when you go back to full time employment as I did in 2015. The net result of this was that I didn’t really gain from the move from agency back to full time overall. It was fortunate that I had held out for a FT job that didn’t represent a pay cut in terms of it’s hourly rate when compared to agency though. God knows what people would do if they dumped an agency job @ £10ph with tax credits in place for an £8.50ph job with being obliged to work extra hours to close the gap… The tax credits would still have to be paid back I would imagine.
FFS I thought Tax credits were a benefit paid to top up an otherwise low income - not a bloody loan until you “get back on your feet”. Quite frankly, my personal debt level has increased since going back to full time, and I’m currently looking at my options. Move to a higher paid job, perhaps in supermarkets or go back to agency again.
Is it any wonder that people who don’t have a job but are already on the benefits - are very reluctant indeed to make a serious attempt to actually get back into full time work from then on? 
The government could do away with tax credits and replace it with either a MUCH higher minimum wage (thus closing the gap on employing immigrants, because they’d no longer be able to pay low enough to make it pay)
And/Or Bringing in a new PAYE tax regime where OVERTIME is taxed at a lower rate than one’s contracted hours. This would encourage people to work harder to earn the less-deductible line of pay, similar to the way drivers are encouraged to Tramp by this “tax free night out allowance”. Shame that the hourly rates with such jobs are so low as to cancel out the effect though.
If any political party really wanted to be a party of the workforce then - how about it? Lower taxes for those that earn Overtime, no change for those with a meaty salary, and slashed benefits for those who stay on the dole when there’s nothing wrong with them…
cav551:
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Notice the Balance there that I am seeking: MORE local powers to Unions, but NO power to donate money directly to a political party. We don’t need any more “Union’s Parties”. We just need ALL parties to serve the taxpayers, most of whom will be workers.Even the Tories only seem to serve those workers that want to avoid as much tax as possible, alas. Hammond has lost a lot of respect by U-Turning on his “White Van Man Tax” recently.
Labour seem to serve the donating Unions first, benefit claiming workers second - and taxpaying workers - a distant nowhere.It is the Working Taxpayer who will eventually decide the future of this country, as it jolly well should have all along.
“No representation without taxation.” seems a very fair and square way to make up the Westminster Complement.Firstly it needs to be remembered that the Union’s were actually a founding component of the Labour Party which was a reactive measure to the influence which the employer classes had on their side through the Conservative Party.If you want to break that link then you’ll also need to guarantee that the employers have also reciprocated by cutting their links and influence on government.In which case the deal would obviously have to be no more biased government intervention in trying to rig the economy against the working class and blaming unions for doing their job of maximising their members’ incomes for the minimum effort.In which case the unions could then obviously reciprocate by removing their need to have influence at government level.
While the real issue is just that of the Unions and the Labour Party being hijacked by socialist ideology which actually goes against the interests of the indigenous workforce.Not the issue of Unions’ influence or otherwise at government level which is a red herring and a moot point.Bearing in mind that Union committees working together with government and employers’ representative groups works fine in Germany.
As for taxation being linked to democratic representation.The logical conclusion of that idea is no vote for unemployed or sick or retired workers,with incomes below the minimum taxation threshold and a graduated number of votes depending on income in which the highest earners ( tax payers ) get the highest number of votes.What could possibly go wrong.
The cornerstone of tory philosophy.
I would disagree with the notion that retired workers “don’t pay tax” for a start. The suggestion that representation should be in proportion to the percentage of taxes one actually ends up paying though - seems quite sound to me! PAYE 20% people get 20 votes, Unemployed who don’t pay in get No votes, Some toffee nosed twit who pays an accountant to get their otherwise 45% taxes down to 12% - gets 12 votes. Seems fair to me. 
Leave the disabled out of this argument because at no stage have I been aware that a disabled person working for a full time wage - pays zero taxes. The working disabled get treated the same as the working non-disabled, so why try and make them part of the argument at all? They get entitlements based on what they paid in - like everyone else. Benefits though? - An unemployed disabled person gets a lot more than an unemployed person because of the other “side benefits”. Providing no politician talks of scrapping benefits for disabled people then - what do they need a vote for, should they ever be in a position where they pay no taxes on the taxable raft of benefits they already get? As far as I know, Disabled people across the spectrum DO pay taxes then, so need not worry about being left behind by the system, whoever is running it.
The percentage equity way of deciding one’s personal “college votes” if you will - makes those on PAYE get more votes than the Self-Employed.
The Labour party and the Unions like to talk about “bums on seats” - but in reality, they have not represented those on PAYE for quite some time now. Meanwhile, the Tories have been quietly harvesting the Self Employed along the lines of White Van Man to “Come join us, and you too can get out of paying your taxes like we tory toffs do!”
There are far too many “exemptions, exceptions, and offsets” in our tax system.
I’m in favour of a flat rate of tax that CANNOT be offset as a longer term goal. Then we all really WOULD get an equitable society. The more wealthy workers one creates - the more votes that enriched workforce will use to keep that system and the government that pushes it - going! 
Didn’t we hear over and over again during the referendum campaign from the chairmen and MDs of massive companies attempts to bully the workforce into voting in accordance with their views? I get the point about percentage, but the philosophy would be to base it upon revenue received. After all some people, “the movers and shakers” (vomit), are far more equal than others.
Every attempt in history to raise taxes from possessed wealth rather than income has proved impossible without the force of might via warfare to take what you want from those who don’t want to relinquish it.
If you raise taxes for the wealthy, they’ll just up sticks and go somewhere else.
If you take from what they already have - it’s called theft as defined by those same wealthy, whom of course make the laws.
That leaves taking it from your enemies. Since taxes represent a state’s income - you don’t get to do this without having regular wars.
WMD though, makes warfare in it’s traditional sense - obsolete.
The 20th century proved to us that you can no longer have a war that doesn’t involve total defeat to one side or the other.
We’ve yet to learn in the 21st century that Popular Revolution though - is not yet obsolete.
Aristocrats would not have gone to the guillotine during the French “Reign of Terror” if it were not for the army rather than the people enforcing it.
You can imagine it… “Marie Antoinette’s Human Rights Lawyer argues that all those who’ve put her on trial must line up to be shot as revolutionaries.”
The army says “■■■■■■■■” and she ends up divided from her neck in a basket rather than dividing the people over who’s rich and who’s poor.
Winseer:
cav551:
Carryfast:
As for taxation being linked to democratic representation.The logical conclusion of that idea is no vote for unemployed or sick or retired workers,with incomes below the minimum taxation threshold and a graduated number of votes depending on income in which the highest earners ( tax payers ) get the highest number of votes.What could possibly go wrong.The cornerstone of tory philosophy.
I would disagree with the notion that retired workers “don’t pay tax” for a start. The suggestion that representation should be in proportion to the percentage of taxes one actually ends up paying though - seems quite sound to me! PAYE 20% people get 20 votes, Unemployed who don’t pay in get No votes, Some toffee nosed twit who pays an accountant to get their otherwise 45% taxes down to 12% - gets 12 votes. Seems fair to me.
The percentage equity way of deciding one’s personal “college votes” if you will - makes those on PAYE get more votes than the Self-Employed.
The Labour party and the Unions like to talk about “bums on seats” - but in reality, they have not represented those on PAYE for quite some time now. Meanwhile, the Tories have been quietly harvesting the Self Employed along the lines of White Van Man to “Come join us, and you too can get out of paying your taxes like we tory toffs do!”There are far too many “exemptions, exceptions, and offsets” in our tax system.
I’m in favour of a flat rate of tax that CANNOT be offset as a longer term goal. Then we all really WOULD get an equitable society. The more wealthy workers one creates - the more votes that enriched workforce will use to keep that system and the government that pushes it - going!
Firstly there are plenty of people who’s income is below the tax threshold including retired.While the issue of tax inequality can be easily sorted out by getting back to the idea of the more someone earns the more they pay in income tax.Which by default also means that the money will have been taxed before it is turned into property thereby getting round the bs that tax means theft.It also stops the issue of the Cons trick of putting more of the tax burden onto indirect taxes like VAT which mean that the lowest earners pay the same rate of tax as the highest.
As for your idea of the more someone earns the more votes they get.Ironically that American revolutionary call predictably ended up in the situation of an unelected tax regime in the form of the IRS making sure that the richest kept more of their cash while shifting the burden onto the lower paid.More or less like the Federal UK system they went to war with.Although unlike that UK system they have even less democratic input with the IRS than they had under King George.While your idea just takes that 18th century situation to new heights in the form of the more cash anyone earns the more votes they get and no surprise those extra votes will mean that they vote to keep more of their cash while shifting more of the tax burden onto the lower paid.
Unbelievably you seem to be making a great case to vote for Corbyn. 
No, you missed my point: It is the percentage that decides how many votes you get, NOT the absolute amount.
We can’t have our oligarchs getting block votes now can we? An oligarch using tax havens is probably going to be paying less tax as a percentage than their cleaner - so the cleaner on PAYE fair and square - gets more votes than her employer!
People that pay more as a percentage in tax - deserve to get more votes - don’t they? 
“Representation by Taxation”. The big cheeses will be those in the 45% bracket who don’t bother to get in an accountant then! Our new “Noble Class”?
We’re no more ready to be ruled by a Janitor any more than Phillip Green. It is the pillars of society among the middle classes that would make the best MPs, local government, police, businesspeople, etc.
The crooked though, getting out of just that bit too much of their taxes - will find themselves disenfranchised, and losing all power - for not “putting enough back”.
■■■■ me !
Are these two still having a Bore Off with each other.
robroy:
[zb] me !
Are these two still having a Bore Off with each other.
That’s because the likes of you and I keep feeding them large quantities of fodder to chew over. If we stop feeding them then they may also stop, who knows? Probably not.
Maybe we’ll start munching on the other banter and air-arguments one day - who knows? 