If you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live with it.

Segment the voting population based upon those who voted for parties which favour multiculturalism

I'm pretty sure that this would break voting laws related to secret ballots.

Ignoring whether or not it is enforceable (it's borderline impossible), do you agree with the fairness of the principle?

More to the point, do you feel it would change people's perspective on multiculturalism were they forced to live on the same street as, say, 50 Syrian refugees, all with inclinations towards homophobia, misogyny, polygamy and enforcement of Sharia law?

In my view, multiculturalism - at its worst - needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it.

Ignoring whether or not it is enforceable (it's borderline impossible), do you agree with the fairness of the principle?

More to the point, do you feel it would change people's perspective on multiculturalism were they forced to live on the same street as, say, 50 Syrian refugees, all with inclinations towards homophobia, misogyny, polygamy and enforcement of Sharia law?

And in equal measure, let us only charge students who voted Conservative, or in the absence of their vote, students whose parents align themselves with the Conservative Party, tuition fees of £9,000 a year.

Furthermore, let us make the required public spending cuts to only Tory led councils, whilst leaving others untouched.


After all, it "needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it".


"We're all in this together, except when we aren't all in this together".

I could just about reconcile myself with the principle itself, because I don't see it as any different to anything else in terms of trying to get the best deal for individual voters as possible.

But no, I don't think that I'd agree even if it was enforceable, owing to the system of representative democracy (implemented by a defunct voting system) that we have in the UK. I cannot tell, based on how people have voted, whether they actually voted in favour of multiculturalism or whether they actually disagreed with that policy and simply voted for the least bad alternative, in their view.

Given that a fair number of people are voting for such parties for reasons outside of their control or for single issues (like my mum -- voted Labour because they were the only ones promising a tuition fee reduction) or because they agree with most of the manifesto (or perhaps more accurately, the summary they read on Facebook) but not that one particular policy, I don't think there's a convincing case for it.

Not to mention that, should we transition to a system of direct democracy, you would either have to move people against their will or impose multiculturalism on those who didn't vote for it in regions where a majority voted for it, neither of which I can agree with.



Maybe -- I don't deny that there are people who hold views because they're fashionable rather than because they have any real political convictions, but I don't think I can make predictions about people that I don't know.

Edit: @TheArtofProtest also makes a good point.

That's fine, providing you are happy to remove all Conservative voters tax contributions to their tuition fees.

Completely agreeable to that.

Let's also slash tax rates, close to nil as possible, and instead start borrowing to underwrite vital public services, but only for those that didn't vote Tory.

Those that voted Tory, can remain ideological and go private.

Again, fine with that. Again, remove all Conservative tax contributions. If you did...well, you wouldn't have an NHS. Poor people, who love voting for free money, making the requisite tax contributions for their own medical care. Yeah, that will work.

As far as 'borrowing to underwrite vital public services' goes, haven't we done that already? Have you heard of PFI? The Labour Party loves it - what's it costing us now? About £300bn, right? Yeah, only Labour voters - lovers of other people's money and great imposers of moral codes they don't have to live by - should have to pay that debt.

As an aside, you do realise I'm not a Tory voter, right?

As I said, no one will have to pay any tax but public service infrastructure will remain, it will just be borrowed money instead of general taxation and only applicable or be used to serve those who didn't vote Tory.

No it won't.

We'll consult historic voting patterns. All contributions made by Tories will be deducted from the asset value of all public holdings which form part of national infrastructure (as utilised by the New Health Service, and all other services deemed 'vital public services'.

Further, all additional tangible assets (MRI scanners, blood pressure monitors, ventilators and even stethoscopes, etc.) should be divided up in accordance with tax contributions, too. As well as any retained profits. We could probably ignore the intangible. All PFI debt will be flung in the direction of the Labour voters.

Labour voters then make a contribution to Tory coffers, to the tune of trillions of pounds, to retain control over public infrastructure. Then we'll be square.

Just as an aside, how do you suppose the credit rating of the new L-UK will fair without Tory tax contributions? I presume it will take a massive hit. Planning on printing some new L-GBP?

Ridiculous. Tory policies that are voted for will apply to only Tories, whilst those from other parties, and current policies towards those that are non-Tories will remain untouched.


It will be the responsibility of the Tory government to keep all current services going, the funding of which will be the responsibility of the Tory Government. Whether they start taxing their supporters heavier, or start borrowing larger amounts of money will make no difference to the services that they are obliged to provide.

It's the only fair way.

You don't seem to understand.

As you've stated, Tories can remain ideological and go private (where it states in the Tory manifesto that the Tories don't want the NHS I don't know, however I digress) - only Labour voters can access the NHS. Fine. Therefore they (Tories) won't be using the New Health Service.

However, they have spent decades investing in the NHS, and their investments should be returned to a 'Tory pot.' As should the value of all tangible assets they've invested in. The debt (PFI) amassed to prop up the NHS - by Labour Governments - should become the sole responsibility of the voters, and political party, which facilitated it (Labour).

Whether someone has paid in a million or nothing at all, it is irrelevant as we are starting a new chapter.

Whichever way you look at it, the Tories (and right-wingers) will get screwed and will continue getting screwed.

Haha, satirical. You tried to reverse my logic thinking it would put me on the defensive, it fails spectacularly and it turns out I support your logic.

A new chapter? Is that Brand's revolution? Who's your leader? Owen Jones? He's a millionaire now, right?

The last people who would be screwed in this situation are the Tories. Why would they need the non-existent tax contribution of people who want free money? So much of the youth vote, and poor vote, goes towards the Labour Party - it's the nature of the beast.

We don't need it, you're all just clinging to people who actually make money for a living and decimating individual liberty in the process. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, the human should be dehumanised, turned into a category of people and be responsible for everyone around him. How does that ideology work in a nation of freeloaders? Oh, it doesn't.

What about if you vote for parties that favour not controlling levels of pollution and CO2 emissions.

Build a nice power station at the end of their road and they can enjoy breathing the pollution and see the effect on the value of their property.