Would you consider the UK 'FULL' ???
Scroll to see replies
Original post by john2054
i can only think of one policy, that is they don't give housing to the voluntary homeless...
Ok, your not really following this.
The right to buy
Not funding new houses from those sales
Not giving priority housing to voluntary homeless
Prioritising families over single people.
Not prioritising the mentally ill
This list could literally go on for 50 or 100 points
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Ok, your not really following this.
The right to buy
Not funding new houses from those sales
Not giving priority housing to voluntary homeless
Prioritising families over single people.
Not prioritising the mentally ill
This list could literally go on for 50 or 100 points
Posted from TSR Mobile
The right to buy
Not funding new houses from those sales
Not giving priority housing to voluntary homeless
Prioritising families over single people.
Not prioritising the mentally ill
This list could literally go on for 50 or 100 points
Posted from TSR Mobile
i see. You were thinking about the bigger picture.
so what would you say to iethan, who says that people 'live where they choose'??
Seems everyone here is comparing the UK to places like Singapore, a better comparison would be London and Singapore which is
1,510 inhabitants per square kilometer (apparently)
Cities are obviously packed, that's the point! Compare the population density of the countryside from England to other countries and you'll get a better metric.
And yes I use England, as Scotland and NI are not complaining much about immigrants.
1,510 inhabitants per square kilometer (apparently)
Cities are obviously packed, that's the point! Compare the population density of the countryside from England to other countries and you'll get a better metric.
And yes I use England, as Scotland and NI are not complaining much about immigrants.
Original post by john2054
i see. You were thinking about the bigger picture.
so what would you say to iethan, who says that people 'live where they choose'??
so what would you say to iethan, who says that people 'live where they choose'??
Depends on the context of his comment
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
He was talking about immigration...
Original post by john2054
He was talking about immigration...
He's obviously a happy clapper who doesn't believe in borders and we are all citizens of the world.
Obviously the most retarded of views
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
He's obviously a happy clapper who doesn't believe in borders and we are all citizens of the world.
Obviously the most retarded of views
Posted from TSR Mobile
Obviously the most retarded of views
Posted from TSR Mobile
he is also a mod?!
Original post by john2054
he is also a mod?!
So?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
that means he has the power to enforce warnings and bans. i know this from personal experience
Original post by john2054
that means he has the power to enforce warnings and bans. i know this from personal experience
Yea I know what a mod is
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
A politician has a duty to represent his interests not his opinions. Essentially we all elect politicians who devote more and attention to politics that the rest of us ever can. That is what representative democracy is about. Bob, who may live in Sunderland, may think he will be better off with fewer foreigners but Piers who may represent Sunderland and is privy to much more information that Bob ever will be, knows that is not the case. Piers' job is to convince Bob that Piers will fight for Bob's interests better than Sophie who has a different political agenda.
Are the two mutually exclusive? An opinion is usually based off of self interest in such contexts. More time and effort? They spend a third of the year minimum doing nothing and clearly its not time to become informed on issues because we still hear rubbish about the wage gap, or about how the poor just don't work hard enough, or about how we need to spend millions on things nobody is asking for.
Then Piers should present the evidence to Bob (we've created so many pretend people lol) and let him decide for himself and then act on an informed decision. It's not his job to 'know better' or to disregard Bob because he's 'wrong' (and by what standard. Maybe Bob doesn't care about the economy, maybe he wants to know his children have a secure future for example). Political action and political agenda should be separate. An agenda is the issues you focus on, action is how you deal with issues. In so far as you might believe women are discriminated against, that's the agenda but if you discriminate against men (that's the action) then you are going against your constituents for your agenda even if you believe the outcome to be 'right' because of all that info you have. My point being politicians are neither (a) moral arbiters nor; (b) allowed to act for the greater good and disregard people in doing so. This is not a socialist country
Refugees are not welcomr here.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Are the two mutually exclusive? An opinion is usually based off of self interest in such contexts. More time and effort? They spend a third of the year minimum doing nothing and clearly its not time to become informed on issues because we still hear rubbish about the wage gap, or about how the poor just don't work hard enough, or about how we need to spend millions on things nobody is asking for.
Then Piers should present the evidence to Bob (we've created so many pretend people lol) and let him decide for himself and then act on an informed decision. It's not his job to 'know better' or to disregard Bob because he's 'wrong' (and by what standard. Maybe Bob doesn't care about the economy, maybe he wants to know his children have a secure future for example). Political action and political agenda should be separate. An agenda is the issues you focus on, action is how you deal with issues. In so far as you might believe women are discriminated against, that's the agenda but if you discriminate against men (that's the action) then you are going against your constituents for your agenda even if you believe the outcome to be 'right' because of all that info you have. My point being politicians are neither (a) moral arbiters nor; (b) allowed to act for the greater good and disregard people in doing so. This is not a socialist country
Then Piers should present the evidence to Bob (we've created so many pretend people lol) and let him decide for himself and then act on an informed decision. It's not his job to 'know better' or to disregard Bob because he's 'wrong' (and by what standard. Maybe Bob doesn't care about the economy, maybe he wants to know his children have a secure future for example). Political action and political agenda should be separate. An agenda is the issues you focus on, action is how you deal with issues. In so far as you might believe women are discriminated against, that's the agenda but if you discriminate against men (that's the action) then you are going against your constituents for your agenda even if you believe the outcome to be 'right' because of all that info you have. My point being politicians are neither (a) moral arbiters nor; (b) allowed to act for the greater good and disregard people in doing so. This is not a socialist country
Read Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
Original post by MarkAustinPowers
Refugees are not welcomr here.
Thanks for that well thought out and structured comment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ZacLaw
Oh you are too kind, you'll agree 100% if what happened in france happens here because we let 'refugees' inside.
Original post by MarkAustinPowers
Oh you are too kind, you'll agree 100% if what happened in france happens here because we let 'refugees' inside.
Your view is that if we let a lot of refugees in, a lot of Muslims who aren't refugees but are actually our own nationals and those of a neighbouring country will attack football stadia and nightclubs?
Would you kindly share your logic on this?
Original post by MarkAustinPowers
Oh you are too kind, you'll agree 100% if what happened in france happens here because we let 'refugees' inside.
So maybe learn to structure a paragraph instead of just stating what you think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
Your view is that if we let a lot of refugees in, a lot of Muslims who aren't refugees but are actually our own nationals and those of a neighbouring country will attack football stadia and nightclubs?
Would you kindly share your logic on this?
Would you kindly share your logic on this?
I agree these muslims were born and raised in the UK and share the same values as the rest of the UK population. I am muslim btw and i believe their is a threat of IS terrorists posing as 'refugees' if they're let into Britain. These refugees/migrants have already escaped war and found safety as soon as they reached european shores so the UK has no obligation to take them in under a humanitarian pretext.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ZacLaw
So maybe learn to structure a paragraph instead of just stating what you think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh i'm very sorry but me no spek the english
Original post by nulli tertius
Read Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
Not a huge fan of Burke. His theory of Land Law is questionable and wholly unhelpful (especially if your course obligates it's study lol)
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole"
I disagree. It's an assembly of one nation made up of representatives of multiple groups. That's undeniable as a fact of its foundation (the defeat of the royalists by the parliamentarians was in no small part based on the tribalist mantra of the magna carta, namely awarding rights to the individual barons to protect their own interests). It developed from a system of tribalistic protection before full 'nationalisation' whereby the nation state was not divided by for example iceni or celt (I appreciate thats roman but it's the most obvious distinction for simplicity).
Constituencies and constituents exist separately for a reason, purposively the system does not work as described - people are inexorably voting for a representative of that area by virtue of their vote as well as a representative of the nation state and this is known. The front runners use national campaigning and the local MP's use local issues and policies to swing votes, to say there is no focus on 'area' but simply on 'nation' is disingenuous.
Also how is 'the general good' 'resulting from the reason of the whole' in any way functionally different to the tyranny of the majority except in this case it redefines the majority to the nonspecific 'general good' which a minority (MP's) act to protect without having to specifically engage with 'local prejudices' or to put it simply - the ideas of the locals. By this formulation every MP act's both simultaneously in the interest of everyone 'the nation' and no-one 'the general good' which leaves them entirely without consideration to local interests. A collectivist mindset like this would validate many things that a polite society should not consider and it's important to consider this is the historical period where the poor were considered dullard proles unworthy of proper opinions.
"Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living"
This is just a very eloquent way of saying his 'mature judgement' and 'enlightened conscience' ie his subjective opinions should trump that of everyone else's because for some reason being elected an MP makes you an arbiter of what is mature judgement and what is conscientious. Also no opinion is unbiased. That's a total falsehood. It's literally posh for 'we know better' which is not always the case and certainly does not encourage dialogue or the education of the electorate in a proper factual fashion to allow them to reach a legitimate conclusion, shadows of which we still see today (look at the Brexit fiasco, both sides propagandising and lying their arses off).
"These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
His judgement is also an opinion. He certainly owes the electorate that judgement. He owes them the meter of his intelligence, the information by which to decide and the engagement by which to have their ideas challenged. He certainly does not (or should not) have entitlement to claim his 'judgement' supersedes the 'judgement' of those he is meant to represent either as an area or a nation. It does bear mentioning as well he (a) says MP's act for the whole country not an area; and then (b) That they should not be bound by the opinion of who they represent...
As in they should not be bound by the opinion of the entire nation should their 'mature judgement' and 'enlightened conscience' (read their opinion) tell them otherwise. Dangerous precedent no?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What funding am I eligible for? Foundation course student
- Applying to DClinPsych as an International Student
- SFE eligibility on spouse visa married with a UK national
- engineering at uni without maths a level
- Is it worth it to study in the UK?
- Which university?
- What exactly does "a full level 3 qualification" mean?
- Entry requirements
- Lived as foreign resident 1 year + with partners family 3 years
- Transferring from international to Grammar school at mid-year 10
- Settled UK status - Eligibility for postgraduate loan
- Working Remotely and doing a MSc of Engineering
- US Student Looking for Fully Funded Counselling Psych PHDs
- Student finance Oversight - ineligible Appeal
- which undergrad
- I NEED HELP PLEASE!. What alevel subjects should I take?
- Full scholarships
- late application for tuition fee loan and being abroad!!!!!! help :((
- MPhil vs PHD
- CRNA or anaesthesiologist?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
