|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 14:24:04 GMT
So we can disregard the notion of no taxation without representation as a general principle then. If that’s the case then we can disregard the notion that any individual taxpayers should have the vote on principle . The right to vote should only be given to UK citizens who have reached the required age to be considered an adult . Absolute rubbish. Everyone resident in the UK pays UK taxes, even if not on their incomes. Anyone individually resident here and liable to taxes here of a suitable age and who has been resident here for a suitable period should have the vote as of right. How long you should need to be a resident for I have no fixed ideas but it should be at least two years I would suggest. I am also in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 for reasons already given in earlier posts. I have seen no compelling argument against this that goes much beyond partisan political considerations relating to fears about the newly enfranchised ones voting in ways they disagree with them doing, and perhaps occasionally a dollop of obvious condescension and disdain for young people. I do not find any of this very convincing, as it seems to be putting selfish political motivations above any wider principle, with actual nationality being used as a barely effective fig leaf of a justification. Because the same people are quite happy to extend the vote to those foreigners rich enough to easily pay the price, who are also reliably rich enough to be more likely to safely vote Tory. My support for extending the franchise is a principled one - I dont actually care how they vote - and not one of dubious partisan considerations as it mostly seems to be for the naysayers such as yourself. Even if polling were to reveal that two thirds of foreign nationals wanted to vote Tory, and a clear majority did not favour rejoining the EU I would still support their right to vote. But the opposition of you lot would melt away. Because yours are brazenly partisan considerations attempting and pathetically failing to masquerade as principled ones, whilst mine are genuinely principled. I know my Latvian friend would be far more likely to vote Tory than for anything on the left but I still want her to have the right to vote because giving her that is the right thing to do. Too much waffle I’m afraid . If paying tax is not the criteria for having a vote then we can disregard it altogether. Unfortunately this refutes the claim that immigrants who,pay tax should have the vote because they pay tax . Which supports my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 14:35:32 GMT
So Srb7677, You are saying that people should immediately be given the vote as soon as they lawfully move here. Your logic is such that you are saying Roman Abramovic and other oligarchs who came here legally should have the vote. And anyone able to vote, is also able to stand for office as a politician. No other country in the world operates that way, not even ones in the EU. You have failed to give a reason why someone with the means to pay £1400 who wants citizenship, should not pay it. It is not the same as giving someone asylum. I have never said anything of the sort. Do you actually bother to read what I said before responding to it? Or do you prefer to imagine what I said and respond to that instead? Because I have never said that anyone who comes here to live should immediately get the vote. I have said throughout that a period of permanent residency should be required first and have suggested five years but in my most recent post suggested that it should be at least two years. And I have also several times brought up the case of New Zealand which you have also clearly not bothered to read, which grants all nationals resident in the country for at least two years the vote as of right. Which means of course that our nationals can vote there but theirs cannot here. So that's at least one country in the world I have told you about. Citizenship is also not the issue. It is the right to vote that is the issue And you fail to explain why anyone resident here should have to pay for that to vote when you wouldnt pay such a sum to do so yourself. Basically I have already explained why the right to vote should not be for sale. In essence if citizenship is going to cost such an amount it should not be a requirement for voting as it already isnt for local elections. It should be a right for those settled here. And you have utterly failed as usual to explain why this right should be denied to anyone unable to afford £1400. Again I challenge you to put your money where your moth is and if you think it reasonable for anyone to have to pay £1400 for the right to vote in the country they live and work in, next time you intend to vote, donate £1400 to the charity of my choice, whilst considering if that is reasonable. And if you don't think it is, look up the meaning of the words "double standards". |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 15, 2023 14:41:11 GMT
I love that Starmer is coming out with all this shit. He is going to fail so badly at the next general election and he won't even understand why.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 14:42:08 GMT
Absolute rubbish. Everyone resident in the UK pays UK taxes, even if not on their incomes. Anyone individually resident here and liable to taxes here of a suitable age and who has been resident here for a suitable period should have the vote as of right. How long you should need to be a resident for I have no fixed ideas but it should be at least two years I would suggest. I am also in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 for reasons already given in earlier posts. I have seen no compelling argument against this that goes much beyond partisan political considerations relating to fears about the newly enfranchised ones voting in ways they disagree with them doing, and perhaps occasionally a dollop of obvious condescension and disdain for young people. I do not find any of this very convincing, as it seems to be putting selfish political motivations above any wider principle, with actual nationality being used as a barely effective fig leaf of a justification. Because the same people are quite happy to extend the vote to those foreigners rich enough to easily pay the price, who are also reliably rich enough to be more likely to safely vote Tory. My support for extending the franchise is a principled one - I dont actually care how they vote - and not one of dubious partisan considerations as it mostly seems to be for the naysayers such as yourself. Even if polling were to reveal that two thirds of foreign nationals wanted to vote Tory, and a clear majority did not favour rejoining the EU I would still support their right to vote. But the opposition of you lot would melt away. Because yours are brazenly partisan considerations attempting and pathetically failing to masquerade as principled ones, whilst mine are genuinely principled. I know my Latvian friend would be far more likely to vote Tory than for anything on the left but I still want her to have the right to vote because giving her that is the right thing to do. Too much waffle I’m afraid . If paying tax is not the criteria for having a vote then we can disregard it altogether. Unfortunately this refutes the claim that immigrants who,pay tax should have the vote because they pay tax . Which supports my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens . If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to you run the obvious risk of looking stupid. I have said all along that residency here should be the requirement for voting but also pointed out that all individuals resident here pay at least some taxes. And it wasn't me who tried to muddy the waters by saying that corporations pay tax so should have a vote too. Clearly voting is something that individuals only can do. Tesco PLC cannot walk down to the local polling station and cast a vote can it, lol. You utter clown |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 15, 2023 14:44:27 GMT
Srb you argued that citizenship should not cost.
You argued that people who pay tax should have citizenship.
Roman Abramovic lives here and has paid tax here.
By your own argument, he would qualify for citizenship.
Or is it different when you don't like someone?
We have citizenship rules that are very similar to the rules of any other developed country.
They are not onerous, citizenship is not overly expensive.
There is nothing wrong with our citizenship application process.
It is a one off fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 14:48:06 GMT
Too much waffle I’m afraid . If paying tax is not the criteria for having a vote then we can disregard it altogether. Unfortunately this refutes the claim that immigrants who,pay tax should have the vote because they pay tax . Which supports my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens . If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to you run the obvious risk of looking stupid. I have said all along that residency here should be the requirement for voting but also pointed out that all individuals resident here pay at least some taxes. And it wasn't me who tried to muddy the waters by saying that corporations pay tax so should have a vote too. Clearly voting is something that individuals only can do. Tesco PLC cannot walk down to the local polling station and cast a vote can it, lol. You utter clown Wel, if you will post waffle then don’t expect anything else. I pointed out that the concept of taxation without representation isn’t a general principle. I’m sorry that it went over your head . You pointed out that even children pay taxes , thus confirming the point that even individuals paying taxes is not a compelling argument fir the right to vote . So we are left with my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens. Is this too complicated for you too? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 14:56:03 GMT
I love that Starmer is coming out with all this shit. He is going to fail so badly at the next general election and he won't even understand why. If the focus groups and opinion polls were to start telling him that, he'd drop it like a hot potato and rule it out, but then do it anyway once elected.. But chances are he has probably already run this by focus groups - its the way he works - and found that most of the opposition to it comes from people who would never vote for him in the first place whilst undecideds and persuadables are more favourable to the idea. I mean just look at the heated opposition to it in this thread, almost entirely motivated by partisan political considerations rather than any more principled opposition. And all the heated objections are coming almost entirely from people who would never vote Labour in a million years anyway. It is not you lot who he is appealing to here. It is the more reasonable masses out there which you lot like to think you represent from within your own echo chambers but do not. The ones who are not motivated by right wing partisan political considerations but simply by what seems right and fair to them and the friends around them. Most people I know include foreign nationals amongst their friends and work colleagues, and we tend to think of them and the people around us when we consider the reasonableness of what is being proposed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 15:05:11 GMT
Srb you argued that citizenship should not cost. You argued that people who pay tax should have citizenship. Roman Abramovic lives here and has paid tax here. By your own argument, he would qualify for citizenship. Or is it different when you don't like someone? We have citizenship rules that are very similar to the rules of any other developed country. They are not onerous, citizenship is not overly expensive. There is nothing wrong with our citizenship application process. It is a one off fee. Again you are making shit up which I never said. I never said that citizenship should not cost. I said that the right to vote should not cost. And that it should be based upon a minimum period of residency rather than citizenship. And so what if Roman Abramovich got the vote. If he has genuinely lived here for whatever the minimum period or residency is, why not? Citizenship is a separate issue from voting and should not be a condition for the right to vote. Residency should be the determinant factor. But on the separate issue of citizenship, if you regard £1400 as "not overly expensive" you clearly live on a different planet to many of the struggling millions in this country. Which makes it all the more morally reprehensible that this is the price residents have to pay for the right to vote. Again, are you willing to pay £1400 into a charity of my choice to exercise your right to vote? If not you are the proponent pf blatant and ugly double standards |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 15:08:54 GMT
If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to you run the obvious risk of looking stupid. I have said all along that residency here should be the requirement for voting but also pointed out that all individuals resident here pay at least some taxes. And it wasn't me who tried to muddy the waters by saying that corporations pay tax so should have a vote too. Clearly voting is something that individuals only can do. Tesco PLC cannot walk down to the local polling station and cast a vote can it, lol. You utter clown Wel, if you will post waffle then don’t expect anything else. I pointed out that the concept of taxation without representation isn’t a general principle. I’m sorry that it went over your head . You pointed out that even children pay taxes , thus confirming the point that even individuals paying taxes is not a compelling argument fir the right to vote . So we are left with my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens. Is this too complicated for you too? I stated all along that residency should be the determinant of the right to vote but that everyone resident here pays some taxes here. Is that really so hard to understand? Clearly yes because in your book any detailed argument that you don't like but cannot effectively counter is "waffle." Maybe I should stop using big words and include drawings? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 15, 2023 15:10:55 GMT
The right to vote, is citizenship.
And a foreigner in our country, who wants to vote in our country, can pay to become one of us.
The fee is not very high, it's quite reasonable and gives them the right not only to vote, but to stand for office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 15:10:55 GMT
So basically, anyone can come here and buy the vote cheaply and it's only those "unreasonable" people who wouldn't vote for Starmer that wouldn't support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 15:11:13 GMT
Wel, if you will post waffle then don’t expect anything else. I pointed out that the concept of taxation without representation isn’t a general principle. I’m sorry that it went over your head . You pointed out that even children pay taxes , thus confirming the point that even individuals paying taxes is not a compelling argument fir the right to vote . So we are left with my claim that the right to vote should be given to UK adult citizens. Is this too complicated for you too? I stated all along that residency should be the determinant of the right to vote but that everyone resident here pays some taxes here. Is that really so hard to understand? Clearly yes because in your book any detailed argument that you don't like but cannot effectively counter is "waffle." Maybe I should stop using big words and include drawings? So basically you agree with what I’m saying and whining about it at the same time lol. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 15, 2023 15:15:43 GMT
If the focus groups and opinion polls were to start telling him that, he'd drop it like a hot potato and rule it out, but then do it anyway once elected.. But chances are he has probably already run this by focus groups - its the way he works - and found that most of the opposition to it comes from people who would never vote for him in the first place whilst undecideds and persuadables are more favourable to the idea. I mean just look at the heated opposition to it in this thread, almost entirely motivated by partisan political considerations rather than any more principled opposition. And all the heated objections are coming almost entirely from people who would never vote Labour in a million years anyway. It is not you lot who he is appealing to here. It is the more reasonable masses out there which you lot like to think you represent from within your own echo chambers but do not. The ones who are not motivated by right wing partisan political considerations but simply by what seems right and fair to them and the friends around them. Most people I know include foreign nationals amongst their friends and work colleagues, and we tend to think of them and the people around us when we consider the reasonableness of what is being proposed. See that's the danger for you, Shrieky: You're right that these places are echo chambers but you come on here (and doubtless other forums on which the very same people post the very same shite) and you think that lots of people agree with you. But out in the real world, they don't. You're just listening to the same tiny handful of people repeating the same minority views back to you. This may come as a shock, but the silent majority are not as keen as you on immigration, rights for foreigners, votes for children, self-defined gender issues or wokery in general. It has zero resonance at best and is actively unpopular at worst. Yeah, you probably think that makes them all horrible bigots. Hell, you may even be right, but telling them so will only make them vote against you even more. As Starmer is probably about to find out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 15:19:58 GMT
Anyway, I am tiring of taking on three or four ignoramuses single handed all day long and need a break. Your stupidity and frequent failure to understand plain English has reached the stage where I am constantly being told I said things I didnt and causing me to waste time explaining for the unpteenth time what I did actually say. If you are going to invent things I never said to argue against you are all perfectly capable of doing that without me actually needing to be here, lol. So the field is yours. Knock yourselves out and I might come back later for a laugh. You can all do what you usually do and slap each other on the back whilst convincing nobody of anything except yourselves, whilst competing for the crown of forum idiot together, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 15:20:04 GMT
If the focus groups and opinion polls were to start telling him that, he'd drop it like a hot potato and rule it out, but then do it anyway once elected.. But chances are he has probably already run this by focus groups - its the way he works - and found that most of the opposition to it comes from people who would never vote for him in the first place whilst undecideds and persuadables are more favourable to the idea. I mean just look at the heated opposition to it in this thread, almost entirely motivated by partisan political considerations rather than any more principled opposition. And all the heated objections are coming almost entirely from people who would never vote Labour in a million years anyway. It is not you lot who he is appealing to here. It is the more reasonable masses out there which you lot like to think you represent from within your own echo chambers but do not. The ones who are not motivated by right wing partisan political considerations but simply by what seems right and fair to them and the friends around them. Most people I know include foreign nationals amongst their friends and work colleagues, and we tend to think of them and the people around us when we consider the reasonableness of what is being proposed. See that's the danger for you, Shrieky: You're right that these places are echo chambers but you come on here (and doubtless other forums on which the very same people post the very same shite) and you think that lots of people agree with you. But out in the real world, they don't. You're just listening to the same tiny handful of people repeating the same minority views back to you. This may come as a shock, but the silent majority are not as keen as you on immigration, rights for foreigners, votes for children, self-defined gender issues or wokery in general. It has zero resonance at best and is actively unpopular at worst. Yeah, you probably think that makes them all horrible bigots. Hell, you may even be right, but telling them so will only make them vote against you even more. As Starmer is probably about to find out. “This may come as a shock, but the silent majority are not as keen as you on immigration, rights for foreigners, votes for children, self-defined gender issues or wokery in general. It has zero resonance at best and is actively unpopular at worst.” Indeed. I suspect that many people are turned off from voting Tory because they think the Tories haven’t done enough to curb these things . |
|
