Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Hugh McLachlan: Why Labour's election slogan is far from fair

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

" There is a case for saying that the fairest sort of taxation is a poll tax"
Published Date: 12 March 2010
THE Labour Party has announced its slogan for the forthcoming general election, now likely to be on 6 May, will be "A future fair for all".
It might seem that fairness is something we can all agree on, all aim for and all have. However, this is not so. "Fairness" is a contentious notion and an unreliable policy aim.

Fairness can be contrasted with justice. Justice should be consider...



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 March 2010 8:02 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Hugo of Garven,

12/03/2010 08:07:48
" . . whereas MPs who have English constituencies do not have a similar say over Scottish affairs. Some people get distressed by such paradoxes and consider them unfair. However paradoxes of one sort or another cannot be eradicated completely without eradicating the parliamentary system, which we hold to be a fair one."

2

Hugo of Garven,

12/03/2010 08:11:37
Appologies for #1 which has a quote but no comment - inadvertently pressed the 'Post Comment' button.

What I was going to say was that the remedy in this case is to have an English parliament which is separate from the UK parliament.
3

Linda,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 08:51:12
Gordon Brown's Tory legacy:
The Iraq War; Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction; Doubled the 10p Tax band for the poorest while letting Non-Doms off with limited tax bills; Lax Banking Regulations; Scotland’s Oil Revenues used to pay off bankrupt Britain’s debts; Use of expensive PFI / PPP method of finance; Sky high fuel duty; Imposing student tuition fees; oppose fair local income tax and no say on Scotland’s future in a referendum.
4

eck788,

Leven 12/03/2010 15:47:08
Prof. McLachlan, spends half a page, convincing us, unnecessarily, that “Fairness” is a dubious political ideal. He needed to go no further than his second paragraph. “Justice for all” should have been the political ideal Labour offered.

But he had another political point to make. As each citizen has only one vote, all should be taxed equally. No mention of a just taxation system there. So many paradoxes, with no way to eradicate them, without eradicating the parliamentary system, which we hold to be a “FAIR ONE”. Bring it on.

A written constitution, is one way of creating a political system, which embodies justice, rights and duties.
5

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 12/03/2010 22:10:31
4 eck788

'As each citizen has only one vote, all should be taxed equally.'

Did I say that? I don't think so. Apart from anything else, 'fairness' and justice are not the only relevant considerations. The Poll tax was a very bad tax whether or not it was fair or unfair and whether or not it was just or unjust.
6

eck788,

Leven 12/03/2010 23:54:40
Hugh V McLachlan

“We all have one and only one vote in parliamentary elections. Should we not all bear an equal burden of taxation? There is a case for saying that the fairest sort of tax is a poll tax”

I accept that my point was, clumsily put.

I will try again if I may. “Justice for all” should have been the political ideal Labour offered. If just and justice had been substituted in each of your examples. Would the parliamentary system survive as one which we hold to be fair.

A written constituton, creating a political system, which embodies justice, rights and duties would
7

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 14/03/2010 16:02:18
Dear eck788

I am sorry to have taken so long to reply to your post. Domesticity has pleasantly over-taken me so far this weekend.

Your question is a very good one and I am not sure how best to answer it briefly. There is a difference between legal and moral justice, which complicates the picture.

In general, I think that it is possible for actions to be just but unfair - strange though that might seem. For instance, if a husband was perfectly just but only just to his wife, he would be a pretty poor specimen of a husband. The wife might resonably feel that she was being treated unfairly. If all we got from society was justice, we might feel short-changed. We might well want and expect something more. In general, I think that we normally get from current society more than we would get were we merely to receive what was our just lot.

Most of what we have in life, including existence as such is not something we have of moral or legal right but on some other basis - good fortune, one might say.
For instance, my twin miscarried very early in the pregnancy. I, obviously, survived. However, my survival was not a matter of justice but of luck and, if you like, divine grace. Life is a gift, not a matter of justice.

Although justice is a virtue and I am in favour of it, justice is not the only virtue that societies can have. A football team which had only one virtue would not be much of a team if that virtue was justice. Similarly, a society which had only the virtue of justice would, in my view not be much of a society. Indeed, it might be better to have a society which was less just but had other features - abundance, for instance. An abundance unjustly and unfairly distributed might be preferable to a fairly and justly distributed abject scarcity.

See:

http://www.hummingearth.com/biblio/1846220033.htm

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/reviews/wearne.html

8

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 14/03/2010 16:05:34
6 eck788

I am against having a written constitution. The Soviet Union had one, I believe, and it did more harm than good as, I think, does the written constitution of the USA.

Consider too the nonsense that gets talked with regard to the declarations of so-called 'human rights' that the United Nations and its associated organisations and committees comes out with again and again.
9

eck788,

Leven 15/03/2010 01:04:23
Hugh V McLachlan
Thank you for your considered response and the time which you spent on it.

My post was concerned with your quote below.
"So many paradoxes, with no way to eradicate them, without eradicating the parliamentary system, which we hold to be a “FAIR ONE”.

My problem is with the parliamentary system. Which as it evolved, has been hijacked by the political parties, to such an extent, that instead of serving the electorate, it serves only to increase the power of the political parties. Most of who have not been elected to represent the electorate, but still hold executive powers, in the name of The Sovereignty of Parliament.

Her Majesties Government Consists of:
The Prime Minister
The political leader of the government, a post not created by act of Parliament nor mentioned in legal documents. It evolved and was manipulated, by the political parties into what we have to-day.
The modern day PM leads a political party. Is voted into the post, not by the House of Commons (the Legislature ), or the electorate, but by his party colleagues and thus by a political party.
He then chooses the Executive ( the Cabinet ) from members of his party, not necessarily elected members of parliament. As leader of the Cabinet he wields, Executive and Legislative powers, many of which are “Royal Prerogative” and still legally vested in the Sovereign.
Hence one party has control over Her Majesties Government, both Legislative (MPs)
and Executive (Cabinet). For a term of five years
10

eck788,

Leven 15/03/2010 01:06:43
continued

The Members of Parliament
The candidates, for the job of representing the electorate in parliament, are not vetted or selected by that electorate, but selected and put forward by the parties to represent the parties.
The choice of the electorate is therefore, which party to vote for, ( based on the published manifestos). As the candidate are frequently completely unknown to them and have never made themselves available for questioning or consultation on the needs of the constituency they are to represent.
The promised policies and legislative programme (manifesto) is not legally binding and contains no costing or time scale.

This government is accountable to, Sovereign, Parliament, political party and LASTLEY to the electorate
To the electorate, supposedly by virtue of a majority of seats ( MPs ) elected at a general election. This majority it is claimed to be of the popular vote. In reality is of the TURNOUT.

For example in 1997 the turnout was 71% of a total electorate 30.7 million.

Labour party 13.5 million = 44% of turnout = 31.24% of total electorate.
Conservative party 9.6 million = 31% of turnout = 22% of total electorate.
Liberal Democrat party 5.2 million = 17% of turnout = 12% of total electorate
Others 2.45 million = 8% of turnout = 5.6% of total electorate.

None of the above party 8.9 million, did not vote for any candidate put forward.

Therefore, 17.25 million voted against having a Labour party government.

Turnout at elections in UK have been declining since 1979.
The acceptability of the British Party System of government is quickly losing credibility in 21st century.
The parties have to be removed from the process of selecting our representative right down to local level.

What is required is a Constitutional Convention to be called. This is the first step to regain democracy in Britain.
11

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 15/03/2010 10:31:20
#10 eck788

There is, indeed, an awful lot in what you say. The British Parliamentary system, which I would defend not because it is particularly good but because (as Churchill argued)the rest are far worse has been much eroded.
12

eck788,

Leven 16/03/2010 16:42:29
Hugh V McLachlan

The British Parliamentary system, which I would defend not because it is particularly good but because (as Churchill argued)the rest are far worse has been much eroded.

I am surprised. The British Parliamentary System, holds parliament as Sovereign as opposed to the constitution as Sovereign.

As parliament is held by the parties, where does that leave the people.
13

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 16/03/2010 22:35:11
12 eck788

'As parliament is held by the parties, where does that leave the people?'

Often it is 'the people' that we need to be defended against so it is good that they are not in all respects, if any, 'sovereign'.

There are no guarantees in politics and no risk-free systems. Parliament could well oppress us and it often passes poor legislation. To have a constitution and to try to place sovereignty there will not solve all problems. In any case, who interprets the constitution in such a system? Constitutions do not interpret themselves or speak for themselves.


14

eck788,

Leven 17/03/2010 18:49:09
Hugh Mclachlan

Often it is 'the people' that we need to be defended against so it is good that they are not in all respects, if any, 'sovereign'
You answer all my questions like a politician (you do not answer).
As you well know, I am sure, once a constitution is agreed by the electorate, the constitution is sovereign. Not the people and not the political parties. That leaves the people protected by the constitution. They have justice, rights and responsibilities.
The Judiciary would interpret and administer.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.