The Student Room Group

What should TSR ask politicians?

I know that a lot of people feel that young people are neglected in politics. I want to know: what do you think are the most important issues that politicians should address?

TSR will be taking the most popular issues from this thread and approaching the UK's major political parties on Monday to see what they have to say.

The deadline for suggestions is the end of the day on Friday!

Scroll to see replies

In wake of the financial crisis, the main challenges currently for the financial services industry are operating amidst the ever increasing regulation, for instance, the Dodd-Frank Act. Such impacts suggest that European regulatory change may have passed the ‘tipping point’ to a situation where the costs of new rules exceed the benefits. For instance, you have have exerted pressure on banks to cut back their commodities business earlier this year which would suggest that a tighter regulatory criterion drastically affects the industries maneuverability going forward.

Despite an economic upturn, regulatory reforms could exert noticeable macro-economic impacts on the overall economy, including reduced business investment or investor optimism, which would surely have an effect on the potential client base to said institutions. The costs of such implementations to the industry is definitely unfavourable so how do you justify these excessive implementations?
why are all three parties so opposed to renationalising both the railways & the energy companies when the majority of the public would support both?

why are all three parties so pathetic at dealing with tax avoidance, could it be because you are all funded by people who dodge tax?

why is corporation tax so low in the UK compared to every other major economy when raising it would bring in a lot more cash for the government rather than cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable?
Original post by miser
I know that a lot of people feel that young people are neglected in politics. I want to know: what do you think are the most important issues that politicians should address?

TSR will be taking the most popular issues from this thread and approaching the UK's major political parties on Monday to see what they have to say.

The deadline for suggestions is the end of the day on Friday!


I know many our age will disagree but for me it has to be taxes and housing costs. Seriously need sorting out.

An example, if I was to take a well-paid job in London that requires me to move to London because of long hours - so cannot commute from Surrey - then I need to live. If I was on say 70k (quite high example to highlight) then after tax and rent, best case scenario I will be left with 32k before even spending anything - and that's if I live in somewhere the size of most people's bedroom. So you can imagine what you have left on a more average wage.

Taxes need fixing - they are too high. It's impossible to save for a housing deposit when so much goes in tax.

National insurance needs to go especially as we won't even see a pension anyway.

Infrastructure and housing in the South East is at crisis level and needs fixing urgently - I need to save £50,000 deposit to buy a small two bedroom house in Surrey and in rush hour, I cannot get into a train - this isn't right.

One of the City banks recently increased salaries by 25% because Associates and VPs complained they couldn't afford to live. Obviously not every company can do that so if this problem isn't addressed people and companies will start moving out which means opportunity will go with it.

In short, how about a tax cut for the young?

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 4
Lower tuition fees. Guarantee on not leaving Europe, a maximum voting age of 65 (if 17 year olds can't vote 66 year olds shouldn't),

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by will2348
I know many our age will disagree but for me it has to be taxes and housing costs. Seriously need sorting out.

An example, if I was to take a well-paid job in London that requires me to move to London because of long hours - so cannot commute from Surrey - then I need to live. If I was on say 70k (quite high example to highlight) then after tax and rent, best case scenario I will be left with 32k before even spending anything - and that's if I live in somewhere the size of most people's bedroom. So you can imagine what you have left on a more average wage.

Taxes need fixing - they are too high. It's impossible to save for a housing deposit when so much goes in tax.

National insurance needs to go especially as we won't even see a pension anyway.

Infrastructure and housing in the South East is at crisis level and needs fixing urgently - I need to save £50,000 deposit to buy a small two bedroom house in Surrey and in rush hour, I cannot get into a train - this isn't right.

One of the City banks recently increased salaries by 25% because Associates and VPs complained they couldn't afford to live. Obviously not every company can do that so if this problem isn't addressed people and companies will start moving out which means opportunity will go with it.

In short, how about a tax cut for the young?

Posted from TSR Mobile


So you want to cut tax, and invest and services. Where do you want the money to come from? The tax base is actually still at a historic low. The problem is we've allowed the cost of living, particularly in terms of rent in London, to spiral out of control, aided by a Government all too happy for many areas to be available only to the wealthy. In addition, the lack of tax paid by the rich and larger companies thanks to various cuts and avoidance schemes means we don't have the resources to invest in our public services. Finally, with the money we do have, we spend it not on things of use to everyday people that would enhance their lives, but on vanity projects such as foreign wars, trident and HS2.
Original post by Green_Pink
So you want to cut tax, and invest and services. Where do you want the money to come from? The tax base is actually still at a historic low. The problem is we've allowed the cost of living, particularly in terms of rent in London, to spiral out of control, aided by a Government all too happy for many areas to be available only to the wealthy. In addition, the lack of tax paid by the rich and larger companies thanks to various cuts and avoidance schemes means we don't have the resources to invest in our public services. Finally, with the money we do have, we spend it not on things of use to everyday people that would enhance their lives, but on vanity projects such as foreign wars, trident and HS2.


Well you hit the nail on the head. Collect corporate taxes correctly and stop wasting it on projects with little support. They can also reduce unnecessary wastage in the state which still exists. Furthermore a tax cut is likely to provide the right incentives, improves productivity and ultimately growth hence less people on benefits so the cut would act as a net contribution. It would also give people a higher disposable income which is likely to be spent in the economy.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Can the government please stop pretending they care about the environment? Either you do something about it or you admit you don't care - this greenwashing at the moment is driving me nuts.

How long will it take until the government realises that the environment doesn't care about the economy? Attempts to improve our green credentials are always shrugged off with the general excuse "it's too expensive" or "the economy is more important". I'm not entirely sure if the government is under the impression that the environment is sentient and sympathises with the economic situation and therefore is going to temporarily halt its derogation until our financial situation improves but surprisingly enough, this isn't the case. Why can't the government put our long-term interests in front of some silly short-term wants? And on that note, why is the government perfectly happy to use science if it supports the message the government wants to convey but refuses to acknowledge the grave warnings of the global scientific community when it comes to something less comfortable?

Also, why doesn't the Environment Secretary understand how solar panels work?

When will the government stop allowing MPs with disgraceful conflicts of interest? For instance, why was an MP who is Vice Chairman of a petroleum company allowed to take part in and influence a Parliamentary Select Committee on Climate Change? Will the government admit that it is more interested in serving the various corporations that fund it than the public it is supposed to serve? Everyone knows this but the fact that the government continues to pretend it listens to people is really annoying.

Why is the government totally neglecting science funding? Apart from a few flagship projects, science funding has experienced over a billion pounds of effective cuts over the past five years, to the point where our science funding is now only barely half of the EU's recommended 3% of GDP figure.

Obviously there absolutely zero chance of any of these being addressed but oh well.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 8
well i'd rather have 0 fees and a graduate tax then £9,000 worth of fees per year to pay back.
and also there is no competence test to prove the elderly are still sound of mind therefore we should stop them from voting as a precautionary mesure.
Will think of some more, but for now:

* Is there still a place for Common Law Jurisdiction?

* If you are meant to serve and represent the people, why doesn't the MPs' Oath of Allegiance include the people?

* Many MPs are registered as companies (for example, my MP, Craig Whittaker, who is registered as Craig Whittaker MP at the House of Commons). How can companies vote on acts that affect people?

* Is it not time to stop pressuring MPs to vote according to party lines but, instead, according to their conscience and in the best interests of their constituents?

* As a voter, I find it difficult to discern ideological differences between the bigger parties. Both Labour and the Conservatives appear to follow the same agenda, which has led to a lack of true opposition. The Liberal Democrats appear to have left behind their ideological stance in order to support their coalition partners. Politics, then, has increasingly moved to the right of the spectrum, and that means that voters like myself feel alienated and unrepresented. I would like to ask the political parties what has caused this uniformity and whether and how this will change.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 10
Ok but still, no votes for over 65s

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Aph
Ok but still, no votes for over 65s

Posted from TSR Mobile


I believe that everyone over the age of 18 (possibly 16) should be entitled to vote. That includes settled migrants and prisoners. The way I see it is, everyone is subject to the law. Everyone is affected by the decisions made by government. Therefore, everyone should have a say in who gets to make these decisions. We already have a minimal democracy with a voting system that should be replaced by PR. We cannot deprive people of what democratic voice they have.
Reply 12
Original post by Kittiara
I believe that everyone over the age of 18 (possibly 16) should be entitled to vote. That includes settled migrants and prisoners. The way I see it is, everyone is subject to the law. Everyone is affected by the decisions made by government. Therefore, everyone should have a say in who gets to make these decisions. We already have a minimal democracy with a voting system that should be replaced by PR. We cannot deprive people of what democratic voice they have.


Ok yeah I guess it was out of spite and my issue with the gray vote. I withdraw my proposal

Posted from TSR Mobile
What would you do to tackle food poverty in this country?
What is your idea of how the British NHS should look in 5 years time, and will you be prepared to block attempts to establish private medical schools in the UK that will render the cap invalid and reduce the the employability of our medical and nursing graduates.
(edited 9 years ago)
Open your mind to economic reform and stop choosing a linear ideology as it conforms to your party's archaic fundamental beliefs. Do what is best for the country, not what you are 'meant to stand for'. The biggest mistake is inaction in crisis and the biggest inaction is failure to reform imo

Oh and make all your personal income transparent so we know how many conglomerates are using you as a puppet. Be cool if they walked around like race car drivers with all their sponsors sewn to their suits :P


Posted from TSR Mobile
Do politicians think Economics should be mandatory, at least at GCSE, given recent events in the world?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Many people in Britain right now are struggling to provide basic necessities for themselves and their families - food, housing and utilities, with the costs of these key areas far outstripping the general rate of inflation and in particular average earnings. Perhaps the most stark manifestation of this is that despite Britain remaining one of the richest countries in the world, more than half a million households were reliant on charitable food banks in 12 months in order to have food to put on the table. Do you agree that this represents a failure in the Government's duty of care to its citizens? And what action would you propose to counter it - for instance, would you ever countenance replacing the welfare system with the non-means tested "Citizen's Income" scheme as we have in the MHoC?
Original post by Aph
well i'd rather have 0 fees and a graduate tax then £9,000 worth of fees per year to pay back.
and also there is no competence test to prove the elderly are still sound of mind therefore we should stop them from voting as a precautionary mesure.


We've had Prime Ministers over the age of 65 as well as many MPs.
There is and shouldn't be a state-issued 'competency test'.
What a ridiculous, agist suggestion.
If you pay tax, you should get the vote.
If you're bitter about 17 year olds (who often do pay tax) not getting the vote then campaign for a lower voting age, but an upper limit is stupid as hell.
Reply 19
Original post by RayApparently
We've had Prime Ministers over the age of 65 as well as many MPs.
There is and shouldn't be a state-issued 'competency test'.
What a ridiculous, agist suggestion.
If you pay tax, you should get the vote.
If you're bitter about 17 year olds (who often do pay tax) not getting the vote then campaign for a lower voting age, but an upper limit is stupid as hell.


I already withdrew it. I only suggested it as a way to counter the grey vote. Which is in my mind a big problem, because the old people xan ruin this contry for us youner generation

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest