This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

why would anyone vote tory?

Is it called "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, by any chance?

Fiscal expansionism is not superior over fiscal contraction. It has never been and never will be, and there is no real life example of the opposite ever being true, other than in the theories and in the minds of silly Keynesians who think an artificially pumped economy on life support is one that is able to grow.

London Met is it?

Yes, let's begin a sentence by talking economics and continue it by talking emotions. "Keeping people afloat" is not an economic case.

Is it? Can you give an example?

I ... I don't even...

SotonianOne lays down the law for the lefties once again

Reply 61

100umsgod

2

Original post by HarryGaga

I do support it however there does need to be concessions; a new council house should be on offer for every one sold and only those who have been council tenants for a considerable period of time should be eligible.

...and until this completely fantastical scenario could ever be achieved, the scheme should not be implemented.

Reply 62

100umsgod

2

Original post by cleverasvoltaire

SotonianOne lays down the law for the lefties once again

Not really. Just utilises condescending diatribe to cover for unsubstantiated points.

Reply 63

HarryGaga

1

Original post by 100umsgod

...and until this completely fantastical scenario could ever be achieved, the scheme should not be implemented.

It's the only way it could work, although I love Margaret Thatcher and think she's one of the best PM's the UK has ever had, she did let too many properties go. But it is thanks to her that my family are out of council housing and in our own-owned homes.

Reply 64

100umsgod

2

Original post by HarryGaga

It's the only way it could work, although I love Margaret Thatcher and think she's one of the best PM's the UK has ever had, she did let too many properties go. But it is thanks to her that my family are out of council housing and in our own-owned homes.

Sorry I stopped reading at 'I love Margaret Thatcher'.

Reply 65

HarryGaga

1

Original post by 100umsgod

Sorry I stopped reading at 'I love Margaret Thatcher'.

Aha many non-Thatcherites do!

Reply 66

sdotd

17

Because they will give us an eu referendum and hopefully reduce benefits

Reply 67

scrotgrot

16

Original post by 789tom789

So you're saying borrowing should have increased to beyond £140 billion budget deficit? Can you even comprehend what our national debt would be if we did that. Also can it not be considered that the conservatives needed to keep borrowing after the mess labour created.

As I said, come back to me when you can stop using shock doctrine like raw absolute figures on the deficit and "the mess labour created".

I find it funny how you said we didn't need to cut spending, we needed to keep borrowing. Then you say the conservatives were wrong to borrow more and increase the national debt? You contradicted yourself majorly.

No I didn't. It's very, very simple. You cut something that is essential, the person benefiting ends up in crisis and is picked up at much greater cost elsewhere in the system. For example, a vulnerable person has their benefits sanctioned and six months later turns up at A&E with rickets. Which do you suppose costs more?

Thus, after cuts to front-line public service expenditure, more money needs to be borrowed to deliver the same service outcomes (to say nothing of the human impact).

It is not really about the amount spent or the amount cut in either case. It is about where it is spent and what is cut. Hence why I voted and supported Labour and not Green. Labour proposed to cut (as they did in 2010, and Osborne has ended up broadly following their plan, though none of the underlying strength of it (see below)).

This also ignores the fact that the growth in the economy since Georgie boy came over all Keynesian is entirely based on pumping up the housing market. Same hit off the crack pipe we took in the 80s after Thatcher's 79-81 strict monetarism failed just as hard as Osborne's 2010-12 austerity.

Reply 68

miser

20

Original post by cleverasvoltaire

Yep, because causing mass unemployment by raising the minimum wage to £10 is the most empathetic thing to do. In reference to your politics. Personally I think it is 'empathetic' to get the poorest of those who work out of tax and to help people keep more of what they earn. But politics isn't about empathy, it's about fairness and good old fashioned common sense.

The Green Party would also introduce a universal basic income. They are the only party seriously against poverty.

Reply 69

HarryGaga

1

Original post by miser

The Green Party would also introduce a universal basic income. They are the only party seriously against poverty.

Oh my god the Green party. People actually take Natalie Bennett seriously?

Reply 70

scrotgrot

16

Original post by HarryGaga

It's the only way it could work, although I love Margaret Thatcher and think she's one of the best PM's the UK has ever had, she did let too many properties go. But it is thanks to her that my family are out of council housing and in our own-owned homes.

And thanks to her that you will not easily be able to buy your own home.

You may argue that your parents are in a position to help, and we may even suppose that they can do so as a direct result of the give-away (i.e. needing invoke no extra privilege). But what if you had had uncooperative parents? Abusive, profligate, unsympathetic or just plain didn't understand the modern world?

Right to Buy should surely have been offset with new houses built, either to rent or buy below market rates. Any give-away is quite worthless if it is not designed to be sustainable.

Reply 71

sdotd

17

The green party are a joke

Reply 72

TheTechN1304

21

So you think we should judge a character because of what they did 30 years ago in university? Please. I'm 18 years old. The idea that 30 years ago from people will judge me on what I do now sounds ridiculous. The conservatives care about the poor. No offence, but it is the politically uneducated like yourself who think: Labour = good, Conservatives = bad. That's not how it works. The conservatives are increasing minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, making poor people pay fewer taxes, and you think that nothing they do is in our best interests? Sorry, but Labour is not the 'party of the people'. They do not represent me or the 11.5 million other people who didn't vote for them. Rather than reading The Guardian or something, actually go out and try and educate yourself on politics before coming on to thestudentroom and whining about the conservatives. Food for thought?

Reply 73

scrotgrot

16

Original post by HarryGaga

Oh my god the Green party. People actually take Natalie Bennett seriously?

Green policies are unworkable under the sort of system we have. But that's not the function of the Green party, which is far away from even a minor role in coalition. Such policies suit their political expediency at this time.

How about Milton Friedman, a darling of free-market dogmatists, not least Thatcher? He was one of the most influential people to advocate a universal basic income, though spinning it as a negative income tax to make it fall nicer on right-wing ears.

Economists as far as I know generally agree that if you are going to have free markets in the laissez-faire sense we understand them today you have to have a universal basic income.

The thing is, both the idea of free markets and the idea of a universal basic income are idealised models which have very little applicability to the messy human society in which we live. Serious academic proponents of both always acknowledge this, just as you acknowledge in every essay you do at university that this is the model but it is simplified and idealised.

The problem is that in our society, thanks to the powerful influence of rich lobbies who imagine they'd do rather well out of it, we have tried to implement one of these impractical ideas - the laissez-faire free market - at face value, regardless that even its proponents say it is not fit for the real world; and furthermore we have done so without giving any regard to its theoretical corollaries, such as the universal basic income.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 74

SotonianOne

3

Original post by miser

The Green Party would also introduce a universal basic income. They are the only party seriously against poverty.

No they're not. They are a party in favour of poverty.

They raise taxes and the richest 10% emigrate, then their minimum wage increase will cause unemployment due to insufficient productivity among the lower classes which will cause too huge of a burden on the middle classes, who will probably by then be sacked due to job cuts through insufficient consumption. This will result in widespread poverty and no one will be bothered to help, because helping third parties is not actually a primary concern of the overwhelming majority of humanity, contrary to what greens believe.

Green Party is a party that abides to Emotion Economics. Their economic theory is that being nice to people drops money from the sun.

Reply 75

SotonianOne

3

Original post by 100umsgod

Sorry I stopped reading at 'I love Margaret Thatcher'.

You're studying PPE?

Lol. Bet you also want the Greens to win and believe that welfare increases demand.

Reply 76

cleverasvoltaire

11

Original post by miser

The Green Party would also introduce a universal basic income. They are the only party seriously against poverty.

Please refer to either SotonianOne's slightly later comments or to the video of Maggie talking about socialism.

Reply 77

miser

20

Original post by SotonianOne

No they're not. They are a party in favour of poverty.

They raise taxes and the richest 10% emigrate, then their minimum wage increase will cause unemployment due to insufficient productivity among the lower classes which will cause too huge of a burden on the middle classes, who will probably by then be sacked due to job cuts through insufficient consumption. This will result in widespread poverty and no one will be bothered to help, because helping third parties is not actually a primary concern of the overwhelming majority of humanity, contrary to what greens believe.

Green Party is a party that abides to Emotion Economics. Their economic theory is that being nice to people drops money from the sun.

That's a pretty clear-cut mischaracterisation. There are strong economic arguments for universal basic income, including ones proposed from conservative economists such as Milton Friedman. You can say it's expecting "money [to drop] from the sun," but that's just useless rhetoric that betrays a lack of any substantive understanding of anything.

In any case, what you're proposing is holding government and society to ransom to rich corporations. That's not something we should be in favour of.

Reply 78

100umsgod

2

Original post by SotonianOne

You're studying PPE?

Lol. Bet you also want the Greens to win and believe that welfare increases demand.

Yes, no I didn't, and no I don't.
Not interested in debating people like you. Too aggressive, sardonic and besotted with your own opinion to listen to others.

Reply 79

wb25

3

A £10 minimum wage is economic suicide. Green party should not be taken seriously in any political sense.

why would anyone vote tory?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you