[Re: Taxpayers must not be forced to pay, Tuesday]
Surely if a party appealed to a sufficient number of people, they would happily donate funds for the party to use. Insufficient appeal leads to insufficient funds. If there was cash at the end, maybe politicians would be more likely to respond to consumer demand.
[Re: Coalition plans fails to shake-up UK’s antiquated planning rules, yesterday]
You make very good points. The report was something of a damp squib and I really don’t think the system will be any better today than before.
[Re: It’s not just the wealthy who should be kept from influencing politicians, yesterday]
Jamie Whyte makes an interesting point about the self-interest of most voters under a progressive tax system, and politicians’ willingness to do favours in return. But what are these strict constitutional limits on politicians he advocates? Are they even necessary? There are many examples of policies that are in the self-interest of many voters, which are completely ignored by politicians and the cause of great indifference among most people, Europe for one. Whyte attributes too much rational awareness to both politicians and voters. We need self-interested millionaires to focus politicians’ minds with money.
The price of everything, the value of nothing. Many of us don’t want new towns full of Tescos and tiny houses
New garden cities stuffed with facilities can happen now. Just try and find a developer willing to pay for the links and facilities.
Jamie Whyte at it again in @cityamforum: democracy is “100 years of wasteful spending”. Neo(lithi)conomics.
Cornwall must establish itself as a tax haven, or pasty lovers will flee to Switzerland