Well Nick Gryphon (former BNP leader before they got destroyed on question time in 2011) is quite the Corbyn supporter

Just remember that the Labour Party is full of controversial figures, when your head of equalities states that young girls need to keep their mouth shut about being raped for the sake of diversity it makes you wonder

I have a weird idea which might be really good but also has potential downsides. What if every time people had to pay taxes they could allocate them to things they felt were important? It would force the government to act like a business by becoming less wasteful (because they don’t know how much money they’d get as its dynamic) and do a better job to entice people to pay for their specific service. If part of the government isn’t doing a good job then people don’t allocate money to them and they stop that program.

isn't that essentially privatization?

It’s not privately owned so not really.

Anyways I came up with the idea because of PP funding. If people are against it they should just be allowed to not pay taxes towards it and allocate them elsewhere. If it can’t survive on public funding then it will close or need to be privately funded.

You would get excessive fund allocation to feel good expenses like lgbt parade while starving tax dollars toward boring things like roads.

Yes that is a potential downside.

Lots of people are pretty bad with money.

It could also be structured that you only get to use what you pay into.

To prevent people from wasting money on wants instead of needs.

Plus planned parenthood isn't a government institution.

If planned parenthood is to exist as an institution, it should stand on it's own.

They get taxpayer money though.

Yup.

Imagine if the NRA got a taxpayer money kickback.

And I agree. Same with sports. They should be able to survive on their own without taxpayer money.

Absolutely.

Stadiums shouldn't be allowed to filch a local government of money for a stadium

Or for an Amazon headquarters

Your allocation proposal has the problem of free riders. How do you refuse to defend people in the country from foreign powers? we're either defending the country or we're not

I don't think wealthy industrialists are going to voluntarily fund the welfare state

At best you can convince them "a rising tide lifts all boats", and its hard to make that case when your country has weak borders

A sturdy boat has shiplap walls. - _-

coasta del tanic

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
(Psa 119:160)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4R97ukIgUA

The UK Labour party 2018.
White ppl have to pay for tickets while POCs get a free ones.
No male candidates allowed to stand for certain seats.
No private closed groups on the net if they are over a certain size.
No anonymous accounts on social media.
A do over of the largest democratic decision in UK history.
What have I missed?

Redistribution of wealth and no support for the Zionist state of Israel

@Poppy Rider are they members of EPP ? Then they voted for internet censorship

All but one of their MEPs voted in favour of the EU copyright shite.

A good little podcast from Spiked. Talking to a writer about art in the current climate. 1 hour long.
https://soundcloud.com/spikedonline/lionel-shriver-the-brendan-oneill-show

I have a brett kavanaugh question...

Since what he is accused of happened when he was a minor...

If it had been brought up at the time, tried, and convicted...

Anyone with decent representation would have their records sealed... and he was definitely connected...

would his accuser be allowed to bring it up now?

Also at a trial it'd be her word against his, he could say he tried to makea move on her, she rejected him, and that was that

sure, lets ignore those details for now. What I'm trying to figure out is, with hind sight of course...

"Would it be better to be guilty, and convicted as a minor, than innocent and falsely accused as an adult?"

(That's ignoring whether he is innocent or guilty, I'm just using his case as an example to keep from having to describe a full hypothetical.)