2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

Currently the vast amount of this countries’ built assets are in the hands of a few. Redistribute this wealth by creating the legal right for private tennants to buy thier rent accomodation. This is simply another mechanism by which the goverment could channel money to the alilying banks. Whilst at the same time redistributing the built assests of the country.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Tennants currently unable to purchase thier rental properties because of an insufficient desposit or because the current onwer does not wish to sell would be given the legal right and the cash.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

The money currently being pumped into the banking industry could be put to some use on it’s way there. It would generate spending in the economy which would benefit everyone.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Landlords would fight any law that would insist that they have to sell a property. In fact legally it is probably a grey area.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

No

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

The goverment is currently giving money directly to the banks with no easily percieveable benefits to the citzens. Some of this money should go into a deposits for first time buyers fund. Through this fund renters could withdraw money to cover the deposit needed to purchase the property they rent. The money ends up in the banks pockets but on its way there it has helped to redistribute the built assests of this country. Generating spending in the economy and getting the housing market going again.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

comments made by clinical psychologists Allen D. Kanner, PhD in Monitor on Psychology, the official journal of the American Psychology Association (APA)

‘Advertising is a massive, multi-million dollar project that’s having an enormous impact on child development,” says Kanner,
Freedom from advertising while growing up would be a chance not to be conditioned in a constantly consuming,always disconted way. Allowing a future generatuion be more to Free, Happy and stainable

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

The reduction in a value system of success and status based on material aquisition will allow community and families to be based on values of good society and human realtionships. Childrens TV producation would be better done through Public Service Brodacsting and the BBC and Channel 4 etc would be best developed to do this . We should begin to see local communities ,streets and particularly families as institutions of social democracy

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

There are of course potential cost to the media industry anf they would claim less childrens TV would be made but I suggest we include a ‘childrens element’ in the TV license which would be a small increase and the quality and value of programmes made by a good public service broadcast operation will be a big improvement on those made by the market with the predominant purpose of creating ‘merchandising’opportunities.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

No evidence but there will be those in advertising and media who oppose but no large demographic groups.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Sweden has a ban on all advertising aimed at children under 12 . Most European consumer organisations call for strong limitations of commercial activity directed at children. Out of the 15 EU countries, only 4 (France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK) do not consider advertising aimed at children as harmful, and Spain alone considers a ban on advertisement undemocratic. The present move to harmonise legislation in this area on a EU-wide basis raises a number of issues concerning how far legislation should go.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

For

1)Children free to grow up without consumerist propaganda
2)Children will be happier free from material status anxiety
3) Less pressure within families to ‘get stuff’

Against
1)Limit on freedom to choose to consume or not to consume - Children learn about being wary and how to deal with ‘hard selling’
2)Impact upon making of Childrens TV
3) ?

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

It’s easier & cheaper at present to throw rubbish away regardless, unless a policeman with time on his hands is watching you. This wastes recyclable resources, preventing a sustainable way of life, & makes everywhere a mess.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Only indirectly. It makes it in the interest of individuals to do something (collect litter) which benefits everyone else.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

Prices of new goods will presumably rise to cover the cost to suppliers of paying forthe returns. However, the input of potential recyclables should encourage them to set up recycling processes for the increased flow of material. Eventually, prices should decline.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Shops & manufacturers will oppose it.
Most of the public will support it (cleaner environment &, for those with little or no other income, a way of making some money while doing a useful job).

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Used to work in England in the 50s. Shops paid children who took bottles back.
I think it works (without need of law) in many developing countries.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

Cleaner environment.
Recycling will delay our exhaustion of natural resources.
“Money for old rope” for anyone prepared to collect what richer people throw away. Poor people will be grateful.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

National Insurance is in effect a regressive addition to income tax, which impacts most heavily on the lowest paid, adding to the poverty trap and increasing the equality gap between the haves and the have-nots.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Too many of the less-advantaged have no interest in our society and have given up on democracy and social institutions. We need to re-engage the poorest in democratic process, as they stand to gain most from it.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

The cost needs to be absorbed by the income tax system. For the majority of tax-payers, there would be no effective change in that the amount they currently pay in national insurance would be re-designated as income tax. For the highest payers there would be a proportionately small increase in tax. For the lowest tax payers - and those who currently pay no income tax - the change would be very significant.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Support depends on how policies are portrayed - I have no evidence that the lowest-paid people could be persuaded to vote by a policy which would remove their requirement to pay, but if this didn’t persuade them then I suspect nothing would.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Is there a place or Country which has the same illogical system of “national insurance” payments as the UK?

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

1) It is wrong to tax people who cannot afford to pay
2) It is wrong to tax people on low incomes disproportionately more than people on higher incomes
3) It is wrong to allow people on very high incomes to pay no additional tax (ie “national insurance”) on a slice of their income above a certain level.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

A better voting system would give us a better democracy. We would have real elections in which more votes count and parties have an incentive to campaign everywhere rather than just in marginals, thereby encouraging more participation in the political process. It could give a more effective voice to politicians who espouse Compass’s values, a parliament that could hold the executive to account, and a Commons that reflects the pluralism of British politics. The proposed referendum might not change the outcome of the election, but would give electors a chance to vote for a better form of politics.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Opening up politics to new voices and making politicians more accountable through competitive elections would encourage campaigning organisations by giving them better opportunities to influence political debates. Eliminating safe seats would force MPs to take more account of the concerns of their electorates. All local political parties would have something to fight for in elections, making politics more vibrant at a local level.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

By holding a referendum on the same day as the general election, the additional costs would be modest. There would be the cost of referendum ballot papers and additional time would be required for counts, but otherwise it would not add greatly to the costs of the general election. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the Government may decide to provide campaigning funds to each side of the debate, but it is not obliged to do so.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Groups campaigning on poverty, climate, stronger civil rights and faith groups will support this measure as it may lead to a government more responsive to their demands. Liberal Democrats, Greens, and supporters of minor parties will support as it offers then better representation. Labour’s reformers will support, as will others who see it as an opportunity to fulfil a long-standing Labour promise. A 2006 ICM poll for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust showed that, when asked, only 12% of people did not want to see a referendum on changing the voting system.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

We have evidence from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that electoral reform produces more representative government and parliaments where decisions follow real debate. Research by the Electoral Reform Society shows electoral reform can increase opportunities for community groups to use the political system. Referendums on the voting system have been used in other countries. New Zealand introduced PR through a referendum. In Ireland referendums on the same day as elections have shown voters use their independence in rejecting the recommendations of the winning party. British Columbia will have a referendum on the voting system on Election Day this May.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

For

1.We need to open up politics to new voices and new ideas. A referendum could ensure the next election will be the last under the present system.

2.Labour promised a referendum in its most popular manifesto of 1997.

3.A referendum on Election Day would allow the issue to be debated as a separate issue from party politics.

Against

1.Winners of 2010 election might choose to ignore the result, but at considerable political cost.

2.The referendum might be lost, but as democrats we must trust the people.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

This optimises our work life balance, a quantum leap in our life quality. Boldly curing a causes rather than stickplaster tinkering. The week length is the only artificial construct in our underlying measures of time constraining our way of life. After the damp squib of year 2K concerns which subdued the initial, coinciding start of the New Millenium Calendar Reform, change is not so great a hurdle- with a swift return on investment in effort.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Shared efficient systems help the global community work and play together. As individuals, our time is so valuable that we should should take control of its management to optimise its potential for our quality of life and our potential to socialize.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

Consequence of stress is a major cost some estimates as much as 1% of
GDP. Refreshed workers are most efficient. Symetrical calendering aids efficiency. All these efficiencies might see a return on relatively modest very short term investment within several weeks- aghainst norms where ROI in terms of years is generally accepted viable!

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

There is a significant summary logic in favour; given a brief pause to take in detail and benefit against emotive aversion to change per se, colloqial evedence is substantial support. Argument and strategies to counter all objection raised from all sides so far.
Industry has a good overall gain. Emotive /religious objection has basis of the original understandable but simple miss understanding to consider

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

The week is a recent construct, the seven day one may well have a root in market days of Babylon. Countless permutations have worked in different cultures over many years, some still do. Ancient Egypt may have had a six day week.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

By losing Mondays from the calendar, we have a four day work week- more frequent refresh, more weekends, but as 61 instead of 52 weeks,
an equal workhour year (see website -though a little tongue in cheek, math and system is all correct). We also gain a symetrical perpetual calendar.

More efficent worklife and systems, healthier lifestyle, quantum leap in quality of life. Against it, global rather than local change now required but a first act of union of the peoples of the world. And this is a good moment in economic activity cycles to introduce it.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

It is often suggested that plastic bags should be taxed to reduce their use. But this hits the consumer without punishing the companies producing them. Instead if all advertising and company logos were simply banned on unsustainable (non compostable) throwaway items, including bags and disposable cups, the incentive for companies to produce and spread these would be ended. It would thus maintain personal freedom while boosting sustainability.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

Limited impact in this area. But worth noting that banning logos on disposable items would help reduce the consumer messages we are constantly subjected to, including “status” packaging that some shoppers use to broadcast “look how much money I’ve got: I can shop HERE!”. And of course it would end ubiquitous Starbucks and Tesco packaging everywhere. Instead all disposable cups and bags would be plain, dull, and consequently less desirable to all.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

It would cost absolutely nothing. Even for retailers production would be cheaper. It would discourage use of unsustainable disposable items and reduce costs of disposal, as well as long-term pollution costs.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Those who want to escape from a wasteful consumer-obsessed world would welcome it. Retailers would hate it, as of course these items are effectively free advertising for them. But that’s exactly why they have a vested interest in continuing to circulate them (why else do shop staff continue to press plastic bags on us, despite these companies’ public protestations?) - and hence exactly why the policy is needed. Of course there would be a level playing field - all shops would be equally disadvantaged.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Lots of countries now tax plastic bags. But this policy seems preferable as a bag tax encourages consumers to blame government for added costs, while putting no pressure on retailers. I don’t know if it’s been tried elsewhere.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

In favour:
- reduces waste and pollution
- reduces our exposure to endless advertising messages
- makes circulation of disposable items a clear net cost (rather than benefit) to companies, encouraging them to change behaviour

Against:
- unlike a tax it doesn’t pressure consumers to cut back, but getting retailers to do this is as good or better
- retailers will complain it imposes restrictions on them
- those who feel big and important when they carry home masses of logo-laden bags may loose a feelgood moment (or maybe that’s an advantage…)

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

These core beliefs require a focus on our common denominator, interdependent need. Need’s purpose (Maslow)is to evolve us to our true potential and to recognise that enabling others, enables ourselves. This requires a new, encompassing infrastructure seeking to transform what is into what it can become. A rewiring of conflicting energies; liberation, rather than imposition of ideas; understanding that fulfilment is a journey we all share, not myriads of opposing destinations.
Integrated integrity can be achieved through channeling our natural diversity into creative, cohesive, social patterns, constantly adapting to changing needs in unpredictable contexts. Social evolution!

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

A dynamic, inclusive infrastructure working in tandem with existing configerations, which harmonises diversity into individual, thence social integrity is required. This will be need-led, cohesive, coherent and holistically evolutional. History has produced structures, of all persuasions, that are ideas-led, fragmented, conflictional and holistically inhibiting.
The model has five interactive elements. Local meetings, nationally and globally linked stimulating need-led dialogue; a supporting web site; an inclusive research capacity based on identified need; a responsive ideas network and a transforming agency to advocate and support need-led change across all sectors.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

Minimal initial cost; publicity and a small core, best from independent subscription (expertise or donation) to the model. The model is sequential (ripples in a pond) and will attract people and organisations from all walks. It persuades a new focus on socio-economics.The ’shadow’ need-led infrastructure will collect and collate data through it’s interactive elements to evaluate real costs and benefits across sectors in new ways including quality of life and social cohesion indicators. This approach will enable positive living, and, thus, enhance social cohesion and reduce costs.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

It is not a matter of support or opposition but of stimulating engagement to mutual benefit. This is about informed dialogue and practical, sustainable ways forward for all in harmony with our environment. It dosn’t impose values, it elicits them. It encourages diversity through collabaration.The ‘polling’ evidence is overwhelming. Dissatisfaction with existing democratic and capital structures, pressure groups in all forms of social need, conflicts between religions and factions of all sorts. This model does not beg people to give up thier beliefs or focus, it asks to them to unite thier uniqueness to mutual enhancement.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Need-led tribes evolved us and artificial constructs divided us; numerous ‘philosophers’ have strived to put it right since! There is much, similar, activity in health, education, welfare, dedicated pressure groups and, indeed, business around the world. Need-led is global and we now have Information Technology. This needs a mutually enhancing model to effectively connect all the many existing positive elements. Local meetings could grow into modern versions of the Greek ‘agora’,with the model’s elements making Socratic dialogue universal and turning proposed solutions into practical, enhancing reality.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

Against: “This is too idealistic, you can’t change human nature”
For: “OK, let’s find out what our true natures and ideals are first.”

Against: “The world is too complicated for this.”
For: “Drop a pebble in a pond and watch the ripples flow.”

Against: “This is dangerous to the status quo.”
For: “Leaving the status quo intact is very dangerous, the evidence is everywhere. A shadow status quo is the best way forward, we are all included and we can adapt according to our experience.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

The attainment of greater social equality and the eradication of poverty will require wealth generation. If we want a brighter, greener, better future for our children only science can deliver that. The alternative is stagnation or economic decline.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

As the state would be holding the purse-strings, the state could retain stakes in the share capital of any start-up businesses.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

The record of this government in investing in science and technology has been better than many previous ones. Spending on science has increased from £1.7bn under to Tories to £6bn now. This is still only 1% of government spending though. The average research spend in the G7 is 2.5% of GDP. We need to see at least a doubling of government spending in this area, particularly as British industry has an even worse record and accounts for a smaller sector of our economy than is the case for our competitors.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

Sadly, many in this country and the Labour Party are anti-science. They see it as elitist (the most misused term in the English language) and would prefer to spend the money paying people (even trained scientists) to do nothing, or would only fund science that yields immediate economic gains (the short-term Thatcherite utilitarian view). Then there are the eco-luddites who yearn for a return to pre-industrial society, while forgetting about the massive increases in life expectancy and quality that science has brought about.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

Germany, Japan, France and the USA all spend substantially more on science than we do. Consequently they have a greater proportion of their economy devoted to industry. What a surprise! Paradoxically, we produce more science and engineering graduates per capita than all these countries. It’s just a pity we don’t have any jobs for them to go into.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

For
a) It would improve our industrial base and help reverse the brain-drain.
b) It would improve the status of science.
c) By investing during this recession we could actual emerge from it better placed than our competitors for once instead of worse off.

Against
a) The government would have less money to waste on ID cards, the 2012 Olympics and MPs’ expenses.
b) People with arts degrees (and PPE from Oxford) may require additional counselling when they realise they are less important to the economy than they originally thought.

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

The higher education funding system fails to meet its flawed market objectives and fails to create a fair system for students, graduates and their families; creating huge debts and a deeply unfair repayment mechanism. A fair graduate contribution would create a funding compact between the state, employers and individuals. Contributions should be based on future earnings, not a notional price in a higher education supermarket. This could form part of a more progressive taxation system, fostering solidarity as graduates contribute back to society, allowing others to pursue opportunities. A more flexible funding system would expand access and choice.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

A fair graduate contribution system would reverse the market logic that currently encourages the fragmentation of individuals by casting graduates as consumers rather than citizens. Individuals would contribute according to the financial benefits they receive, enabling graduates to work in the public and voluntary sectors – contributing back to their communities and the public good instead of seeking the highest paid jobs in order to pay back their debts. This would mark a move away from an individualist market-based approach and one based on the assumption that all valuable enterprise is based on wealth creation.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

There may be additional start up costs to Government, but these would be met in the long term by a more sustainable contribuion system and a highly skilled labour force. Employers, who currently contribute little, but benefit from graduates would contribute more. Future costs would be met by those who earn more paying more through fairer contributions. Initial costs would be a valuable and popular long-term investment: funding for education and opportunities for new high-level skills is vital for economic recovery. Educational participation is infinitely preferable to unemployment, and the economic and social costs it implies.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

A poll conducted by YouGov for the University and College Union (UCU) in September 2008 showed that three out of five members of the public said university funding could influence how they vote, over half wanted a funding system that is free for students and their families, while more than two thirds were against fee rise and said university is less attractive since fees were introduced. A fair graduate funding system would ensure no upfront costs for students and their families, support based on need, and a repayment system that is fair and seen to be fair

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

The Swedish system is designed so higher education is accessible to all those who can benefit, regardless of socio-economic background. Tuition is free-of-charge. Student finance covers living expenses. Student finance comprises a grant and a loan. Student loans must be repaid monthly. The size of monthly payments are adjusted according to income and ability to pay. Sweden has more progressive income taxation than the UK, with the richest paying up to 60% in comparison to 40% here. This is a different mechanism to ensure that those who earn more contribute more to society.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

For:
1. Equity. It would ensure that funding is based on need, not prices, while contributions are based fairly, on earnings.
2. Sustainability. It would ensure funding is fair for all, and that HE policy is part of a progressive, not market-based, approach
3. Well-being. Rather than saddle students and graduates with enormous debts, contributions would be paid back in solidarity with, and to allow opportunities for, others.

Against:
1. Conservatism. It would involve significant changes to the funding system
2. Cost. It could require significant up-front Government funding.
3. Individualism. Reluctance among the rich to contribute a fairer share