[internetguru]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Foreign aid 'pointless'? Elaborate, please do. I for one am not fond of suffering.

Railways 'pointless'? Elaborate, please do. They are more ecologically efficient than motorcars, and are much more useful than trucks for large amounts of transport. Same goes for barges.

I'm afraid I cannot take you seriously...

Foreign aid is pointless. We give countries medicine and food then we wonder why we have massive unsustainable populations that can't feed themselves. Why should British people pay whilst the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians the list goes on do nothing.

Building more railways is pointless as only a small minority will use them. Why should a tax payer who has no intention of using trains pay for the railway? Is the railway necessary? No. Will everything be just fine without it? Yes. Then why waste money when it is better spent elsewhere?

[MagicNMedicine]

There was a strong social democratic party for much of the 1990s and 2000s, New Labour won three elections and was pretty much a monopoly force in British politics from about 1994-2007 (which was when Tony Blair led it).

Right now I think the party is a bit hesitant and doesn't know what its doing otherwise it would have a struggling Coalition government right on the rack....guys like Ed Miliband and Jon Cruddas who he has just brought in to develop policy are not up to the job.

I think if you put David Miliband in charge of the Labour party or even Alastair Darling you would have a more powerful social democratic force that would return to government.

[alex5455]

(Original post by internetguru)
I would lower taxes but keep things like education and healthcare. I would take away pointless spending such as foreign aid and railways. The public sector must be drastically reduced in non essential areas as it is draining the tax coffers and ruining our country. Cracking down on tax avoidance/evasion is also important.

i disagree foreign aid and railways are both important. who decides which parts are non essential, you? no sorry.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by internetguru)
Foreign aid is pointless. We give countries medicine and food then we wonder why we have massive unsustainable populations that can't feed themselves. Why should British people pay whilst the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians the list goes on do nothing.

Because we can, and ought. Those countries will in time, as the Indian government Socialises and the Chinese move away from their current regime. Countries have unsustainable populations due to lack of family planning. The way to solve poverty is:

1) Women's rights.
2) Education.

Which many are doing, but we ought to be doing more. Foreign aid is necessary.

Building more railways is pointless as only a small minority will use them. Why should a tax payer who has no intention of using trains pay for the railway? Is the railway necessary? No. Will everything be just fine without it? Yes. Then why waste money when it is better spent elsewhere?

Not everyone uses motorways. The government build those.
Only relatively few receive social support from the government, but we all pay. That is because we help the disadvantaged and mitigate the negative effects of Capitalism.

The point is, the rich and the majority support the rest of society--that's what the Social Market is. In so doing, the government also encourages more environmentally friendly modes of transport, whilst reducing congestion.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
There was a strong social democratic party for much of the 1990s and 2000s, New Labour won three elections and was pretty much a monopoly force in British politics from about 1994-2007 (which was when Tony Blair led it).

Right now I think the party is a bit hesitant and doesn't know what its doing otherwise it would have a struggling Coalition government right on the rack....guys like Ed Miliband and Jon Cruddas who he has just brought in to develop policy are not up to the job.

I think if you put David Miliband in charge of the Labour party or even Alastair Darling you would have a more powerful social democratic force that would return to government.

I'd disagree on that. I don't think David Miliband, right now, would be doing a better job than Ed Miliband. If he were put in charge of the Labour Party today, he would have very little credibility. Firstly, the Conservatives would highlight the fact he lost to his brother constantly. He failed to become Labour leader, never mind leader of the country. Secondly, he was even more closely linked to the Brown/Blair era, and it would allow David Cameron to associate Labour even more closely with the Brown/Blair era now. I mean, look at the torture renditions case - never mind Cameron or Hunt's associations with Murdoch, David Miliband is associated with torture (rightly or wrongly). Thirdly, Ed Miliband did not really run as an openly Blairite/Brownite candidate. He did serve under Brown during the last administration, but was never close to him in the way Ed Balls was. Whatever you say of Labour at the moment, it is absolutely remarkable how united they have remained. Look at the Conservatives after their 1997 loss, or Labour after 1979. Both parties imploded. In contrast, Labour is doing extraordinarily well. There's a minimum of internal squabbling. I'd attribute that to the fact that neither the Blairite candidate (David Miliband) nor the Brownite candidate (Ed Balls) won the leadership election. Instead, you get someone who while associated with one camp, was not strongly associated enough to prove divisive. I think under David, there would have been far more discontent and strife in the Labour Party.

I don't think Ed Miliband was the best candidate, in my view that was Andy Burnham (again, not really strongly associated with either of the Brownite/Blairite wings, strong and effective speaker, raised some good ideas like Land Value Tax in the leadership campaign, has that photogenic aspect), but he was probably the second best candidate to win, and in the long run I am glad he was chosen over David Miliband. I wouldn't say the Coalition is "on the rack", but UKPollingReport's average of the most recent polls from all companies puts things at Lab 42% Con 32% Lib 10%. It's only the mid-terms, and the Coalition will almost certainly recover, but that is still a very strong showing.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by internetguru)
The left generally tax the middle class like crazy in order to fund the poor then they turn a blind eye to the rich and leave loopholes in.

Be interested to know what you're classing as 'left'.

[internetguru]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Because we can, and ought. Those countries will in time, as the Indian government Socialises and the Chinese move away from their current regime. Countries have unsustainable populations due to lack of family planning. The way to solve poverty is:

1) Women's rights.
2) Education.

Which many are doing, but we ought to be doing more. Foreign aid is necessary.



Not everyone uses motorways. The government build those.
Only relatively few receive social support from the government, but we all pay. That is because we help the disadvantaged and mitigate the negative effects of Capitalism.

The point is, the rich and the majority support the rest of society--that's what the Social Market is. In so doing, the government also encourages more environmentally friendly modes of transport, whilst reducing congestion.

Who gives a damn about the environment take care of yourself and take care of your family to hell with everything else.

I wish I could use the railways but I can't you know why? Because the government waste all their money on building more railways and subsidising private companies that use them. I can't afford to take the train therefore making the whole train project useless.

[internetguru]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Be interested to know what you're classing as 'left'.

The hippie types that say "save the environment" "end border controls" "give more money to other people" "increase taxes to 100%" all these crazy sort of things they are ideas of the left.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by internetguru)
Who gives a damn about the environment take care of yourself and take care of your family to hell with everything else.

I wish I could use the railways but I can't you know why? Because the government waste all their money on building more railways and subsidising private companies that use them. I can't afford to take the train therefore making the whole train project useless.

How ignorant is it possible to be? There is a tangible threat to the environment, and there is a dire electricity shortage coming. Millions of people die every day. In one third of the world's countries, over 94% of child mortality occurs. And you don't care about that? Have you no sense of scale? Your comfortable Western lifestyle will remain intact no matter what, but a difference can be made to those suffering locally and internationally. Frankly, if the sentiments expressed in your first sentence are true, then I am disgusted.

And your second point is stupid. You reason as follows:

BECAUSE trains are good, and I would use them
BECAUSE they are too expensive
THEREFORE trains are useless

Just because the government ought to subsidise costs more, and base taxes on environmental output (thus forcing progess) rather than use, it doesn't mean that you destroy the entire thing.

The NHS is the second best health service of six major countries surveyed (to the Netherlands, better than countries including France, Germany and the USA). It isn't perfect, and things need to be done. Thus we should destroy our social healthcare? No, drivel! You are creating a straw man.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by internetguru)
The hippie types that say "save the environment" "end border controls" "give more money to other people" "increase taxes to 100%" all these crazy sort of things they are ideas of the left.

And you think they run the government?

[internetguru]

(Original post by anarchism101)
And you think they run the government?

Left wing people can't get into government because they are unelectable crazies.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by internetguru)
Left wing people can't get into government because they are unelectable crazies.

So you're saying that left-wingers aren't in government, but still leave tax loopholes? How does that work?