Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Which party do you plan to vote for in the General Election? Jan-Feb opinion poll watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Which party are you planning to vote for?
    Conservative
    108
    22.74%
    Labour
    112
    23.58%
    Liberal Democrats
    28
    5.89%
    UKIP
    50
    10.53%
    SNP
    15
    3.16%
    Sinn Féin
    5
    1.05%
    Green Party
    117
    24.63%
    Plaid Cymru
    2
    0.42%
    SDLP
    3
    0.63%
    DUP
    4
    0.84%
    Independent
    3
    0.63%
    Alliance
    1
    0.21%
    Respect
    2
    0.42%
    Other (please state in a post)
    4
    0.84%
    Not voting
    21
    4.42%

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    You said that zero growth is ludicrous.

    OMG you're some religious extreemist. It's that kind of atitude we don't need. It is the right way.
    I'm not a religious extremist just because I know the truth about the good news of Jesus Christ. I hope you will appreciate that. I will pray for you that you will have a meeting with Jesus too.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyou)
    I'd like to vote Green as some of their proposed plans are actually good - but then you see the other things they plan to implement and I'm just like no.

    Either the Conservatives or Labour, probably the latter.
    You only have to look to Brighton (where I currently live) to see how bad the Green Party are. I don't think Caroline Lucas MP will be in office after May 2015.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andinet)
    You only have to look to Brighton (where I currently live) to see how bad the Green Party are. I don't think Caroline Lucas MP will be in office after May 2015.
    Yeah, I'll be really surprised if Greens win the General Election - although I won't think there'll be a huge disparity between Greens and other more established parties like Labour, Tories and Liberals.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No with work, money is a social structure less then 400 years old. Money isn't nessesary for a fully functioning society.
    also if you truly belive that I take it you help the homeless find shelter all the time? And nudists aren't happy being nude?! Bold accusation.
    400 years old? Lol. For society to work properly you either need money or dictatorship or slavery. People won't work for nothing. Unless you want to resort to bartering, or a dictatorship then money is required. Money has been around as long as civilisation has been around- not always in the form used now- grain for example was used as early as 9000BC, however coins have been used for over 4000 years, more than your 400 years. People need to be recompensed for doing work- and they need to be given something that they can trade for something else without finding someone who wants exactly what they have to sell.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by nich01as)
    400 years old? Lol. For society to work properly you either need money or dictatorship or slavery. People won't work for nothing. Unless you want to resort to bartering, or a dictatorship then money is required. Money has been around as long as civilisation has been around- not always in the form used now- grain for example was used as early as 9000BC, however coins have been used for over 4000 years, more than your 400 years. People need to be recompensed for doing work- and they need to be given something that they can trade for something else without finding someone who wants exactly what they have to sell.
    Who said that? People can work for the greater good. You lack faith
    i was using the Bank of England first printed money thing so I'll admit that that may be wrong.
    Offline

    15
    Tory! Tory! Green!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to vote green, and this is what I chose. They seem to be most representative of my views, and they have proven their merit locally. However, I may end up voting labour depending on the probability/polls nearer the time. I voted green last time thinking they had a chance in my area and they got barely any votes, but lib dems got in so I think the lib dem voters may divert to green this time.

    xxx
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Who said that? People can work for the greater good. You lack faith
    i was using the Bank of England first printed money thing so I'll admit that that may be wrong.
    Yeah, printed is maybe 400 years, coinage is far older.

    People 'can' work together for the greater good, yes. But not so hard as they work for their own good. Tell someone to plough a field and they'll get food and shelter they'll plough the field. Tell them the reward increases depending on how much they do, with a chance for promotion, they'll work a lot harder

    If everyone was like you and had your morals then it may work, but I certainly don't, and I know many others who also don't.

    Plus there's the practical things- Everyone would be 'payed' in the form of food, and shelter, these things are difficult to trade. The idea of money is to seperate the buyign and selling- you don't have to find someone who is selling what you want, and also buying what you have. Even in a working Communist Utopia, money is required. I have a cow, I want to be some bread. What do I do? Trade the cow for it's worth in bread (Which would be a huge amount)? You need to find someone willing to buy the cow for money, then a fraction can be used for bread.

    Money isn't just the way to get the economy working in an aspirational Capitalist system- it's also just common sense in any form of society. i don't know how you could disagree with that.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Labour but only to stop SNP. I would vote Tory but they don't have a chance in hell in my constituency.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Here's an update on how the votes are looking towards the end of January:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    (Original post by Aph)
    x
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    x
    (Original post by Queen Cersei)
    x
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by nich01as)
    People 'can' work together for the greater good, yes. But not so hard as they work for their own good. Tell someone to plough a field and they'll get food and shelter they'll plough the field. Tell them the reward increases depending on how much they do, with a chance for promotion, they'll work a lot harder
    no, that is what you would assume but no. There is a study which shows as reward goes up the effort doesn't and I will try and find it after posting this. Thus all you need is a reward to do work the size of the reward doesn't increase your work ethic.
    Plus there's the practical things- Everyone would be 'payed' in the form of food, and shelter, these things are difficult to trade. The idea of money is to seperate the buyign and selling- you don't have to find someone who is selling what you want, and also buying what you have. Even in a working Communist Utopia, money is required. I have a cow, I want to be some bread. What do I do? Trade the cow for it's worth in bread (Which would be a huge amount)? You need to find someone willing to buy the cow for money, then a fraction can be used for bread.
    why would you need to trade though?

    Money isn't just the way to get the economy working in an aspirational Capitalist system- it's also just common sense in any form of society. i don't know how you could disagree with that.
    one of the many problems with money is that it's value changes. How does it make sense for the value of the thing we judge everything else's value on to change.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    no, that is what you would assume but no. There is a study which shows as reward goes up the effort doesn't and I will try and find it after posting this. Thus all you need is a reward to do work the size of the reward doesn't increase your work ethic.

    why would you need to trade though?

    one of the many problems with money is that it's value changes. How does it make sense for the value of the thing we judge everything else's value on to change.
    Okay, I've realised you're not all that intelligent, but I'll try to continue the argument.

    Even without an increased 'work ethic' then, I'll take your word for that there are many other problems. Firstly, no need to innovate. People may not work less hard if they get no financial reward, but they won't spend hours trying to come up with a new scheme if it has no reward. The lack of money also means loans can't take place- people cannot set up businesses. No new technology would be created, or if it does at a very slow rate.

    Why would you need to trade? FFS, really? Think of all the things you consume each day. Do you expect your employer to anticipate everything you'll need or want and give it to you? Very Naive.

    The last point is completely pointless- it's relative value people care about, and that's not a logical argument anyway, it's some badly constructed moral mumbo jumbo.

    Now, if you could create a society with an omnipotent and omnipresent ruler, or a society in which everyone was the same and desperate for the common good then maybe. But people differ, people are aspirational. There is a reason no society has existed without some kind of exchange system- try to find an example. (By society I imply social groups beyond that of tribal level)

    Arguing against Capitalism is one thing arguing against money is arguing against a common sense solution.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by nich01as)
    Okay, I've realised you're not all that intelligent, but I'll try to continue the argument.
    no, there is no need to stoop to personal attacks just because you are losing.

    Even without an increased 'work ethic' then, I'll take your word for that there are many other problems. Firstly, no need to innovate. People may not work less hard if they get no financial reward, but they won't spend hours trying to come up with a new scheme if it has no reward. The lack of money also means loans can't take place- people cannot set up businesses. No new technology would be created, or if it does at a very slow rate.
    you think money is the only reason people innovate? Boy you know less about the world then I do. There are loads of people who innovate because they want to. Science for the sake of science not money. That is a far surioriour world.

    Why would you need to trade? FFS, really? Think of all the things you consume each day. Do you expect your employer to anticipate everything you'll need or want and give it to you? Very Naive.
    or a state yes! and if there is something you need which you can't be readily supplied with you could just ask for it.

    Now, if you could create a society with an omnipotent and omnipresent ruler, or a society in which everyone was the same and desperate for the common good then maybe. But people differ, people are aspirational. There is a reason no society has existed without some kind of exchange system- try to find an example. (By society I imply social groups beyond that of tribal level)

    Arguing against Capitalism is one thing arguing against money is arguing against a common sense solution.
    So you need a god or Borg to make 'colectivist societies' work? Are we going to completely ignore how good collectivist societies or the Far East are? Or used to be before capitalism?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    no, there is no need to stoop to personal attacks just because you are losing.

    you think money is the only reason people innovate? Boy you know less about the world then I do. There are loads of people who innovate because they want to. Science for the sake of science not money. That is a far surioriour world.

    or a state yes! and if there is something you need which you can't be readily supplied with you could just ask for it.


    So you need a god or Borg to make 'colectivist societies' work? Are we going to completely ignore how good collectivist societies or the Far East are? Or used to be before capitalism?
    I didn't say no one would innovate for the sake of science, however some people wouldn't. Also, they wouldn't have the start up capital if it involved a big investment for example. And innovation isn't just eureka moments of scientific discoveries- it could be as simple as an employer finding a slightly more efficient way to produce needles for example. That's the sort of thing a desire to increase competitiveness incentives. Also- the only way your 'just ask' idea would work would be if people were willing to wait, or were predictable. If there's a sudden surge in demand for a product it is shown that central planned economies are far slower to reply than demand-supply capitalist economies. Look at the queuing inherent in all Soviet countries in the 20th century. And what if everyone 'asked' for a bigger house? How would they decide who gets the bigger house? A lottery? Planned economies have innate corruption, people with too much power seeking g to further their own cause. Even if they don't, there's no way to 'fairly' allocate the scarce resources- a hard worker would have no advantage over lazy ones for example. If you start giving out bonuses for example to productive workers that's moving towards capitalism whilst trying to cling to the inefficient state plan.

    Now how are these far east economies so good? Are you telling me that everyone in China has everything they want, and everyone is equal? China is being so successful (although people are still incredibly poor) due to the increase in Capitalist ideas.

    To our arguments about Communism vs Capitalism we can agree to differ. However the main focus of this argument was 'money' in general. You have still failed to point out a single example of countries without money in history. The thing is, it's logical, people will do it of their own accord. If I get slightly too much grain in my food ration, and prefer more meat I could swap with another person. The difficulty of finding 2 people with opposite needs makes it logical to have a currency- often grain is used as that in primitive economies- I'll give you 3 sacks of grain for that pig. Okay, then use the 3 sacks to buy 5 chickens. Money will form in a free society- even if it is centrally planned. Unless your advocating a ban on the logical, your argument falls down right there. If you want to retract your previous statement about money not being needed in certain societies then you can, and we can continue the argument of Capitalism vs Communism. Until then, I, with the backing of over 10000 years of human history, have won the argument, unless you can give a good way in which people will not be inclined to desire mutual exchange without infringing on liberty or basic human rights
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by nich01as)
    I didn't say no one would innovate for the sake of science, however some people wouldn't. Also, they wouldn't have the start up capital if it involved a big investment for example. And innovation isn't just eureka moments of scientific discoveries- it could be as simple as an employer finding a slightly more efficient way to produce needles for example. That's the sort of thing a desire to increase competitiveness incentives. Also- the only way your 'just ask' idea would work would be if people were willing to wait, or were predictable. If there's a sudden surge in demand for a product it is shown that central planned economies are far slower to reply than demand-supply capitalist economies. Look at the queuing inherent in all Soviet countries in the 20th century. And what if everyone 'asked' for a bigger house? How would they decide who gets the bigger house? A lottery? Planned economies have innate corruption, people with too much power seeking g to further their own cause. Even if they don't, there's no way to 'fairly' allocate the scarce resources- a hard worker would have no advantage over lazy ones for example. If you start giving out bonuses for example to productive workers that's moving towards capitalism whilst trying to cling to the inefficient state plan.
    wow you like to talk. Couple of points 1. Why do I need start up capital if there is no money?
    2. People are predicable and there are paterns in all human behaviour.
    3. Need also it would mean that people who need bigger/smaller houses can get them more easily.
    4. There is no objective measure of how hard someone works.
    Now how are these far east economies so good? Are you telling me that everyone in China has everything they want, and everyone is equal? China is being so successful (although people are still incredibly poor) due to the increase in Capitalist ideas.
    yes but people were more equal and happy before capitalism and chairman mou.
    To our arguments about Communism vs Capitalism we can agree to differ. However the main focus of this argument was 'money' in general. You have still failed to point out a single example of countries without money in history. The thing is, it's logical, people will do it of their own accord. If I get slightly too much grain in my food ration, and prefer more meat I could swap with another person. The difficulty of finding 2 people with opposite needs makes it logical to have a currency- often grain is used as that in primitive economies- I'll give you 3 sacks of grain for that pig. Okay, then use the 3 sacks to buy 5 chickens. Money will form in a free society- even if it is centrally planned. Unless your advocating a ban on the logical, your argument falls down right there. If you want to retract your previous statement about money not being needed in certain societies then you can, and we can continue the argument of Capitalism vs Communism. Until then, I, with the backing of over 10000 years of human history, have won the argument, unless you can give a good way in which people will not be inclined to desire mutual exchange without infringing on liberty or basic human rights
    so because it hasn't happened it never will? Wow you are so closed minded. But if you want an anti capitalist debate I'm happy to oblige.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh my ****ing God 74 Green votes seriously this is why students shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    wow you like to talk. Couple of points 1. Why do I need start up capital if there is no money?
    2. People are predicable and there are paterns in all human behaviour.
    3. Need also it would mean that people who need bigger/smaller houses can get them more easily.
    4. There is no objective measure of how hard someone works.
    yes but people were more equal and happy before capitalism and chairman mou.
    To our arguments about Communism vs Capitalism we can agree to differ. However the main focus of this argument was 'money' in general. You have still failed to point out a single example of countries without money in history. The thing is, it's logical, people will do it of their own accord. If I get slightly too much grain in my food ration, and prefer more meat I could swap with another person. The difficulty of finding 2 people with opposite needs makes it logical to have a currency- often grain is used as that in primitive economies- I'll give you 3 sacks of grain for that pig. Okay, then use the 3 sacks to buy 5 chickens. Money will form in a free society- even if it is centrally planned. Unless your advocating a ban on the logical, your argument falls down right there. If you want to retract your previous statement about money not being needed in certain societies then you can, and we can continue the argument of Capitalism vs Communism. Until then, I, with the backing of over 10000 years of human history, have won the argument, unless you can give a good way in which people will not be inclined to desire mutual exchange without infringing on liberty or basic human rights [/QUOTE]so because it hasn't happened it never will? Wow you are so closed minded. But if you want an anti capitalist debate I'm happy to oblige.[/QUOTE]

    1. Exactly- There's no way to start up any business or idea that requires more than the small amount that person receives from your government.
    2. I completely disagree with people being predictable- If you truly believe that then we can't really argue because the premises both our arguments rest on is different. Studies show game theory for example, doesn't work as people don't always act logically.
    3. That makes no sense- what I'm saying is that shortages occur- people almost always want bigger houses and more 'stuff'. Maybe a person in 100 would say no to more money- which is exactly the same as more 'stuff' in todays world. Hence, people would always be sending in requests for more. So answer me the original question- how would this all be assigned to people?
    4. I'm sorry, but where do you get that knowledge from? Either way, they have always been less happy than the rich Capitalist countries. I assert that with more backing than your assertion.

    Finally- it has happened, as I said. Pre 10000 years ago. In tiny communities it's logical, money is not required. The thing is, in larger societies, no one says 'Lets introduce money guys!', it just evolves from decisions people make. In every society without money, money has been brought in and stayed- showing it brought about a marked improvement. You've been defending how not having money can work right? That's a negative defence- give me some positives- not of Communism, but lack of money. Why is a communist society where everyone gets 1000 currency a month and they can spend that on what they wish, worse than one where everyone is given similar quantities of goods?

    I'm not sure if you're trolling or just very suborn. If you want a convincing refutal of Communism read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman- far more logical than any writing by Marx.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Oh my ****ing God 74 Green votes seriously this is why students shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    76 and green is the only sensible choice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    76 and green is the only sensible choice.
    If you haven't read their policies, then sure, the vague idea of a Party who wants to take care of the environment sounds okay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    If you haven't read their policies, then sure, the vague idea of a Party who wants to take care of the environment sounds okay.
    But only until you realise they want to go back to 83 BC

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.