What’s the world coming to if you can't eat a pie, buy a loaf of bread or buy your lover some saucy knickers without funding the Tory party in the process???

Hello & thanks reading this. I'm writing this to promote a petition I started on change.org asking for a ban on corporations being allowed to donate money to political parties.

Currently the petition has 63 signatures; hardly the ringing enthusiasm I was hoping for when the House of Commons receives petitions with tens if not hundreds of thousands of signatures.

The current system for party funding is hardly fair - parties who are liked by the rich & powerful become major parties, those who have to rely on cold hard logic and public spirited-ness get side-lined and rarely get noticed.

Even more unjust is that it is there customers themselves are the people who are funding the Tory party - we are, each and every one of us, I am not a Tory yet by buying from businesses that support them I am funding them; in what world is that democracy?

Corporations take our money and they then donate it to the party that they want to win. Under the current system we are funding the Tory party buy buying from there corporate sponsors. I really don't want to have to start vetting who I buy my ties, my bread, my pastries and my fluffy handcuffs from based on who the shops and brands are funding so I'd much rather that big business and the state were separated, and businesses weren't allowed to donate at all.

We are funding Cameron's road back to number 10, each and every one of us, every time we buy a pie, a loaf of bread or decide we want a night of kinky sex according to this Mirror article, because of the number of big businesses and sheer quantity of money they are donating:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/buying-12-things-means-youre-5391826

Enough is enough, please sign:

https://www.change.org/p/house-of-commons-totally-ban-businesses-from-sponsoring-or-donating-to-political-parties-cap-the-amount-an-individual-can-donate-to-a-political-party-each-year-apart-from-party-membership-to-what-a-person-employed-full-time-on-the-minimum-wage-would-

#DemandDemocracy

Dear Tory’s… Don’t you trust us with all the facts about tax?

Something that really pissed me off on an episode of BBC’s Question Time was opposition to the 50% tax rate, because when national insurance contributions are added this means that a person would be paying 52% tax, which might apparently be a hindrance to an individual’s aspiration to try to earn a salary over £150,000.

Well most people don’t pay 2% national insurance contributions they pay 12%; only people earning over £797 per week pay 2% and people earning under it pay 12%. £797 per week equals 41,444 per year. However as the 40% tax band kicks in at £31,886 per year, this means that when 40% income tax plus 12% national insurance are added, people are paying 52% tax on all earnings between £31,886 and £41,444 per year already.

This also means that people earning between £41,444.01 and £150,000 are paying 42% on earning’s in this range and people earning over £150,000 are at present paying 47% tax on earnings over £150,000.

And I always thought that a progressive tax system was where richer people paid more not less because they could afford it, but as we see here people earning over £41,444 are paying a lower rate than people earning less than £41,444. The only thing which is even more stupid than this is that the people who reduced the 50% tax rate down to 45% didn't think we’d notice this.

This proves where the typical Tory’s priorities lie; making middle earners pay more to give a tax cut to their millionaire mates…

Well I have an idea; instead of increasing the 45% tax rate back to 50%, increase tax on the rich by replacing the regressive national insurance bands with a flat rate of 10%, then people earning between £31,996 and £41,444 won’t be paying a higher rate than the minority earning a six figure salary; thus nullifying in the process the argument that high taxes on the rich are bad for business because thousands of smaller business owners will have been given a slight tax cut in the process. The tax difference may be small, 2% opposed to 5% but it would positively impact far more people so there’s a much better chance of someone being able to do some good with it, and the reduction would (at least partly) be cancelled out by the fact that people who were once paying 2% would now be paying 10%. 

I support Ed: the 'Daily Wail' had no right slagging his dad off

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mail-defends-ralph-miliband-article-235155608.html#gQXyeDZ

I’m gunna be blunt: this pi**ed me off.

I think I’ve criticised every party leader in some way or another after seeing them on telly or reading something about them or what they’ve done/said, but 1 thing I will not do is treat someone as though members of their family are fair game to slag off because I don’t like them.

I am me: I am not my dad. Frankly my dad is an abusive arsehole. That does not mean that I am. It doesn’t mean that I can be expected to inherit being disliked, I didn’t pick my dad I got the one nature gave me, not my fault.

Fortunately for Ed Miliband he actually has a father worth defending, and despite their differences I’m glad that the other party leaders have stood by him in condemning the Daily Mail for claiming Ed’s father ‘hated Britain’ in order to tarnish Ed’s reputation.

Firstly I think Ed is a much better judge of his father’s politics than a newspaper can be, as they are after all family.

Secondly I think Ed should be judged on what Ed says and does, not his father’s beliefs; especially as clearly Ed’s father didn’t hate Britain because he defended this country in the 2^nd world war. Yes, I’ve criticised Ed myself once or twice; but who his father is does not reflect in my view his ability to run this country.

In fact it would be just as stupid as asking the current Daily Mail staff to inherit being disliked because of the fact that between 1934 and 1939 the Mail was pro-Hitler (we don’t hold it against you; but don’t think we’ve forgotten).

In conclusion I would like to say a big thanks to the Daily Mail: I already said I’m glad his opponents in government stood by Ed in this in giving you the middle finger - but if they didn’t they could probably have really used this to damage him and the fact that they stood up for him, and criticised you fear-mongering guys and girls has left me that little bit less cynical of British politics than I was yesterday. It proves that they are guided by a sense of right and wrong and not just self-interest. Not the outcome you were hoping for was it?