[Moleman1996]

(Original post by internetguru)
Yes but if I try to write a bill on minor changes I have to do more research on what the money is actually spent on. The internet is useless there is no break down of the transport spending anywhere. All you get it e.g. 1b roads, 2b london. What am I supposed to do with that?

You can get away with estimates based on what figures you have, and you won't need figures for all of your bills. If you deal with things on a more local basis it is often more easy to find figures. I understand what you mean though, all my stuff so far has been on a national scale and its a pain in the arse trying to find figures that aren't contradicted by themselves or other sets of figures :/

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
UKIP?

(Original post by internetguru)
Well they seem to be a more diverse party their members all have different opinions and only seem to be united by wanting a referendum on Europe. They have members who want to stop most immigration whilst their leader is against stopping immigration.

internetguru is right. Besides the EU issue, UKIP members can hold whatever opinions they want and so we don't really sit anywhere on the political spectrum as a party. Internetguru is slightly incorrect because I support limiting immigration, but stopping it may be a step too far.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by toronto353)
internetguru is right. Besides the EU issue, UKIP members can hold whatever opinions they want and so we don't really sit anywhere on the political spectrum as a party. Internetguru is slightly incorrect because I support limiting immigration, but stopping it may be a step too far.

i know, but you'd probably be the easiest party to work with on creating acceptable transport bills, our parties are producing bills acceptable to both sides in all other areas.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
i know, but you'd probably be the easiest party to work with on creating acceptable transport bills, our parties are producing bills acceptable to both sides in all other areas.

We are because our party is quite flexible due to how the party is run. It's a good system really, but I don't think that it would work for bigger parties.

[cl_steele]

all ive seen is people saying no to this bill, i think i'll vote yes just to be different

[internetguru]

(Original post by cl_steele)
all ive seen is people saying no to this bill, i think i'll vote yes just to be different

They are saying no because they aren't British and therefore will always vote against Britain(or Britannia) becoming more powerful. When a powerful pro empire government is formed we will purge the ranks of all non Britannians.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
They are saying no because they aren't British

...or perhaps - and I know you probably won't agree with me here - because they think it's stupid.

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
...or perhaps - and I know you probably won't agree with me here - because they think it's stupid.

Only a foreigner or a Communist would think it is stupid. Being the #1 country in the world is the best idea of all time and anyone that disagrees is deluded.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
Only a foreigner or a Communist would think it is stupid. Being the #1 country in the world is the best idea of all time and anyone that disagrees is deluded.

Yes, spending billions on changing our name to "Britannia" sure will make us the "#1 country in the world".

On a side note, I forgot: did you clarify on whether this was a joke bill or not? Just if it isn't I'm going to struggle to take you seriously in the future.

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
Yes, spending billions on changing our name to "Britannia" sure will make us the "#1 country in the world".

On a side note, I forgot: did you clarify on whether this was a joke bill or not? Just if it isn't I'm going to struggle to take you seriously in the future.

my name isn't Bill.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
That's a joke isn't it.

The left call us right-ists, the right call us left-leaning, and the centre say we're nothing like them...

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
The left call us right-ists, the right call us left-leaning, and the centre say we're nothing like them...

You all identify, either personally or under duress, as right-Libertarians. Your policies -which are invariably pro-business and pro-capital - are as far from the Left as you can get without being a fascist.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
You all identify, either personally or under duress, as right-Libertarians. Your policies -which are invariably pro-business and pro-capital - are as far from the Left as you can get without being a fascist.

Under duress is a different matter - it depends on the choices given. I'd identify as a geolibertarian. The common ownership of land is what sets me, personally, apart from 'right-libertarians'. Indeed it's something that's been attempted by some of the left, or left-leaning, governments over the past century.

As for pro-business, I'm largely ambivalent between how people with to structure their business. The models of democratic worker organisations, mutuals and co-operatives are sure as hell appealing to me, but what I support is the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom of individuals to organise as they wish. As it is, I'd consider Libertarianism one of the biggest dangers to big business, who can no longer count of lobbying the state for special benefits as so often happens in our crony capitalist system.

The enemies are largely the same, big business with vested interests using the state to gain a stronghold which they they use to exploit the rest of the population. We solve it by reducing the size of the state in the economy, whilst your approach is to restrict the role of business. Now as for which is better we can argue all day but it'd be like bald men over a comb - it's the recognition of this chain of events and this problem which I think puts us apart from the traditional conservative right, much as despite sharing some policy positions, a socialist is not a liberal, as you like to keep us reminded of.

EDIT: This isn't to classify myself as part of the 'Left' or anything like, but merely to point out that I'm closer than perhaps 'further than the Left from anything but a fascist', and further also from the Right than you might think. I see Libertarianism (especially geolibertarianism, which is a popular position within the Party) as neither from the Left nor Right - as I stated earlier.

[TopHat]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Under duress is a different matter - it depends on the choices given. I'd identify as a geolibertarian. The common ownership of land is what sets me, personally, apart from 'right-libertarians'. Indeed it's something that's been attempted by some of the left, or left-leaning, governments over the past century.

As for pro-business, I'm largely ambivalent between how people with to structure their business. The models of democratic worker organisations, mutuals and co-operatives are sure as hell appealing to me, but what I support is the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom of individuals to organise as they wish. As it is, I'd consider Libertarianism one of the biggest dangers to big business, who can no longer count of lobbying the state for special benefits as so often happens in our crony capitalist system.

The enemies are largely the same, big business with vested interests using the state to gain a stronghold which they they use to exploit the rest of the population. We solve it by reducing the size of the state in the economy, whilst your approach is to restrict the role of business. Now as for which is better we can argue all day but it'd be like bald men over a comb - it's the recognition of this chain of events and this problem which I think puts us apart from the traditional conservative right, much as despite sharing some policy positions, a socialist is not a liberal, as you like to keep us reminded of.

If you think that mutuals are co-operatives are socially beneficial in comparison to other models, but at the same time you think preventing the other models goes against the principle of not banning anything unless it infringes the liberties of others, surely that would lead you to place a Pigovian subsidy for mutuals and co-operatives? To internalise the positive social externality they have in comparison to other business models, and thus create them at the socially optimum level?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by TopHat)
If you think that mutuals are co-operatives are socially beneficial in comparison to other models, but at the same time you think preventing the other models goes against the principle of not banning anything unless it infringes the liberties of others, surely that would lead you to place a Pigovian subsidy for mutuals and co-operatives? To internalise the positive social externality they have in comparison to other business models, and thus create them at the socially optimum level?

I don't think they are inherently better, or have an inherent social benefit. I think that making it easier to get into markets by reducing regulation on business structure and within markets to encourage competitively is the best way to allow these to flourish where they are superior models. I don't think, though, that they have benefits for wider society outside of the parties involved with them.

I think that the key is to have the openness so that people can innovate, not only with products, but business structure (and indeed governance, which explains our focus on localism to an extent). Those that provide good outcomes for those involved will be copied. I think that in the cases where perhaps costs might be higher (and thus profits lower, but still positive), then trade unions are a great force for organising people into starting their own options. I think the freedom of association of people into trade unions here is a very helpful thing - and is a legitimate role for trade unions to play, and it certainly internalises the possible benefits to the degree where the sum total of it with all the above combined is that I don't believe state involvement would be beneficial here.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Under duress is a different matter - it depends on the choices given. I'd identify as a geolibertarian. The common ownership of land is what sets me, personally, apart from 'right-libertarians'. Indeed it's something that's been attempted by some of the left, or left-leaning, governments over the past century.

As for pro-business, I'm largely ambivalent between how people with to structure their business. The models of democratic worker organisations, mutuals and co-operatives are sure as hell appealing to me, but what I support is the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom of individuals to organise as they wish. As it is, I'd consider Libertarianism one of the biggest dangers to big business, who can no longer count of lobbying the state for special benefits as so often happens in our crony capitalist system.

The enemies are largely the same, big business with vested interests using the state to gain a stronghold which they they use to exploit the rest of the population. We solve it by reducing the size of the state in the economy, whilst your approach is to restrict the role of business. Now as for which is better we can argue all day but it'd be like bald men over a comb - it's the recognition of this chain of events and this problem which I think puts us apart from the traditional conservative right, much as despite sharing some policy positions, a socialist is not a liberal, as you like to keep us reminded of.

EDIT: This isn't to classify myself as part of the 'Left' or anything like, but merely to point out that I'm closer than perhaps 'further than the Left from anything but a fascist', and further also from the Right than you might think. I see Libertarianism (especially geolibertarianism, which is a popular position within the Party) as neither from the Left nor Right - as I stated earlier.

Touché. Basically, I'm a simple man and like to have things characterised as either good or bad. You're the complexity amongst the Libertarians. Most of the others appear on here to be quite straightforwardly right-wing irrespective of whether they are "Conservative" or stuck in a different closet. They are, if you like, bad. However, you tend to confound the binary perhaps because of intelligence, I don't know, but you do. Ah well. I'm curently staring at an advert for a 6-day cruise around the Blatic Sea. TSR must be trying to get me off the island!

[TheCrackInTime]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.