Common Decency

Your platform is sounding too much like Russell Brand. There is nothing decent about leaving future generations with billions of debt.

Dogma alert! You need to be more creative and string some policies together that can invite a proper debate. Making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer.

Try this... http://newsscaper.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/qe-for-rest-of-us-answer-to-austerity.html

I would be really happy to live off 23K a year.
My income is about half that.

We were made to believe that Austerity was to be shared by all,as in WW2. Where a "lady" was jailed for buying black market butter. Our political elite and many more have not been included. Why not ?.

Surely austerity policy itself is not the problem - we all clearly need to change our lifestyles if they can only be funded by billions of pounds of debt.
The problem is that the current austerity is not shared by all - and those guilty of the worst excesses of lifestyle take the least part in the austerity measures.

We are all in it together...... Really? If austerity had really hit everyone equally / proportionally, then it might have been acceptable..... BUT IT DID NOT. £50 to someone on min wage is totally different from £50 to a millionaire. During these years of austerity, bankers have done well, millionaires have done well, politicians have done well, energy companies have done well, whilst the rest of us poor slobs have seen bills rise exponentially, salaries not rise at all, saving become almost pointless and it impossible to get on the housing ladder....... The benefits cuts might have been popular with demagogues, as it is easy to vilify those who are worst placed to defend themselves - the poorest, the handicapped, immigrants etc. But maybe people do not understand how some of these policies have been implemented - they are debasing members of OUR society & that is never good. Now, I firmly believe that people should not sit on unemployment benefits. if they don't have to. I went to Uni, got a good degree but then worked in a shop for 4 years - nothing demeaning about it, I wanted to work & to contribute & it was a excellent, albeit tough experience. Am a believer in the idea of a 'social wage' not 'unemployment benefit' and would like to see some system, whereby people out of employment could add value into voluntary projects that enhance their local community - that's a Win: Win. All it takes is some imagination & organisation at local gov level to get that sort of thing off the ground. I don't believe most folks are lazy good-for-nothings. After all, the biggest 'drains' on benefits are pensioners and in-work benefits.... hardly skivers. Austerity disproportionally affects those least capable of combatting the negative impacts & it have simply got to end. But, until we tackle the central issue of the gulf between rich & poor (or, increasingly, the richest & the rest of us - middle class is collapsing), we are not going to get anywhere.

We are all in it together...... Really? If austerity had really hit everyone equally / proportionally, then it might have been acceptable..... BUT IT DID NOT. £50 to someone on min wage is totally different from £50 to a millionaire. During these years of austerity, bankers have done well, millionaires have done well, politicians have done well, energy companies have done well, whilst the rest of us poor slobs have seen bills rise exponentially, salaries not rise at all, saving become almost pointless and it impossible to get on the housing ladder....... The benefits cuts might have been popular with demagogues, as it is easy to vilify those who are worst placed to defend themselves - the poorest, the handicapped, immigrants etc. But maybe people do not understand how some of these policies have been implemented - they are debasing members of OUR society & that is never good. Now, I firmly believe that people should not sit on unemployment benefits. if they don't have to. I went to Uni, got a good degree but then worked in a shop for 4 years - nothing demeaning about it, I wanted to work & to contribute & it was a excellent, albeit tough experience. Am a believer in the idea of a 'social wage' not 'unemployment benefit' and would like to see some system, whereby people out of employment could add value into voluntary projects that enhance their local community - that's a Win: Win. All it takes is some imagination & organisation at local gov level to get that sort of thing off the ground. I don't believe most folks are lazy good-for-nothings. After all, the biggest 'drains' on benefits are pensioners and in-work benefits.... hardly skivers. Austerity disproportionally affects those least capable of combatting the negative impacts & it have simply got to end. But, until we tackle the central issue of the gulf between rich & poor (or, increasingly, the richest & the rest of us - middle class is collapsing), we are not going to get anywhere.

There seems to be a contradiction at the heart of Common Decency which is putting me off a good idea. On the one hand there is an argument that the power of the Whips should be broken, which I find very attractive. But then there is a suite of policy positions, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. If I wanted to stand as a Common Decency candidate (whatever that would mean) would I have to sign up to this 'manifesto' and vote for those policy positions whatever my personal judgment might be - or to put it another way would I have to accept the Common Decency whip? Either CD is to become a voice for individual politicians using their judgment free from preferment or control from a Party, or it will be a political party with a series of policies of its own. I don't see how it can be both.

We appreciate your comments & agree that there are many that are less fortunate than others. In order for a difference to be made please vote. https://www.commondecency.org.uk/may-7th-2015/2015-candidates-2