Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    I really have to disagree, hardly anyone knows what (right) libertarianism is, and I reckon a lot of the population can find some common ground, a lot in fact

    - War
    - Drugs
    - Marriage
    - Tax
    - Road Laws
    - Free speech
    - negative liberty
    Ahhh, how nice. What lovely rhetoric. Find me one party in the current British political climate that doesn't spread such nice, liberty-loving rhetoric, that isn't an extreme fringe party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Which was caused by competition not strikes.
    It's caused by both. Please tell me you're able to see this.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I would imagine that most Libertarian supporters are of the young generation and that the reason they do not vote for the actual party other than not fielding candidates is because many young Tories are broadly libertarian.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well there is the key word.

    I have no objection to collective bargaining, but i object to their current rights.
    So how far back would you push them? And I'm still not convinced that you actually support them in any form to be absolutely honest - so far, correct me if I'm wrong, you've said that striking shouldn't be allowed. You understand that this would mean any bargaining would be a complete sham - only one side, the employers, would have any chips to play with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    You sure?
    Most is not equal to all. I am certain of that even if you, perhaps, went to a special school on Moss-side.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    It's caused by both. Please tell me you're able to see this.
    The affects of strikes are so much smaller than the affects of competition. Socialism takes away all competition leading to wage stagnation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    The affects of strikes are so much smaller than the affects of competition. Socialism takes away all competition leading to wage stagnation.
    No, it doesn't.

    And the effects of strikes are just as large as competition in the long run. You seem to think I mean only in the private sector. I do not.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JPKC)
    So how far back would you push them? And I'm still not convinced that you actually support them in any form to be absolutely honest - so far, correct me if I'm wrong, you've said that striking shouldn't be allowed. You understand that this would mean any bargaining would be a complete sham - only one side, the employers, would have any chips to play with.
    Strikes should not be allowed however a persons labour is valuable to an organisation and as such competition will mean that they can take their labour elsewhere.

    An example, i have a friend who worked for Vauxhall on about £13k so a bit above minimum wage for his age. He then got a job at Jaguar offered, went to the Vauxhall boss and said.. "if you value my labour this is what it will cost you", as a result he got a pay rise to £18k.

    I have no objection to collective negotiations and the union can state that x% of employees will leave if the offer made is not satisfactory.

    The current law preventing somebody striking from being sacked puts all the cards in the hands of the striking employee.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    No, it doesn't.

    And the effects of strikes are just as large as competition in the long run. You seem to think I mean only in the private sector. I do not.
    Hmm I thought affect didn't sound right in that context it was good of you to correct me. If strikes had such a profound effect on wages they would be much more common than they are today.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Hmm I thought affect didn't sound right in that context it was good of you to correct me. If strikes had such a profound effect on wages they would be much more common than they are today.
    No, as strikes cost a lot to the unions, and with this Government, they know that it's harder to get their point across. Still, a number of strikes and protests have caused some changes to the pay of workers in this Government's term.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    No, as strikes cost a lot to the unions, and with this Government, they know that it's harder to get their point across. Still, a number of strikes and protests have caused some changes to the pay of workers in this Government's term.
    I'm talking about private sector strikes. Wouldn't they be more numerous if they were as effective as you say they are?

    The government must not allow the public sector to hold the taxpayers hostage by giving them what they want, not only are the encouraging them to do it again in future but they are also losing more taxpayer money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    I'm talking about private sector strikes. Wouldn't they be more numerous if they were as effective as you say they are?

    The government must not allow the public sector to hold the taxpayers hostage by giving them what they want, not only are the encouraging them to do it again in future but they are also losing more taxpayer money.
    I'm not saying that they are effective at all.

    I'm simply saying that they happen in your beloved private sector as well as the public sector.

    You seem to think that people are against the strikes. You're wrong1.


    1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621, http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/06...-ignores-them/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/po...r-strikes-poll, http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/1...trike-support/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    I'm not saying that they are effective at all.

    I'm simply saying that they happen in your beloved private sector as well as the public sector.

    You seem to think that people are against the strikes. You're wrong1.


    1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621, http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/06...-ignores-them/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/po...r-strikes-poll, http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/1...trike-support/
    Well people almost certainly don't want all the public sector employees on strike all the time. They also don't want them to have massively inflated wages. The government need to play it smart and keep the wages at a rate to attract the right people but don't pay them more than they have to. It it the job of the government to ensure they don't waste money they don't necessarily need to waste.

    Did the teachers return to work and give up? If yes then no negotiation works.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Well people almost certainly don't want all the public sector employees on strike all the time. They also don't want them to have massively inflated wages. The government need to play it smart and keep the wages at a rate to attract the right people but don't pay them more than they have to. It it the job of the government to ensure they don't waste money they don't necessarily need to waste.

    Did the teachers return to work and give up? If yes then no negotiation works.
    Teachers did not return to work and give up. The last strike was a week ago exactly.

    People do not want employees on strike all the time, that's obvious, but they do support them in their struggle to get better pay. You're one of a few, less empathetic people in society, that do not support strikes. The vast majority of people do, and your view is, quite frankly, nonsense. How can you not see that strikes happen all the time in both the public and private sector? How can you not see that strikes and negotiation work? How can you not see that most taxpayers support strikes? How can you not see that striking is a right that everybody should have? How can you call yourself a Libertarian if you deny people the right to strike, and therefore deny them some of their human rights? Surely then you are just getting rid of liberty altogether? You are, therefore, a Fascistic Authoritarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Ahhh, how nice. What lovely rhetoric. Find me one party in the current British political climate that doesn't spread such nice, liberty-loving rhetoric, that isn't an extreme fringe party."

    "Most is not equal to all. I am certain of that even if you, perhaps, went to a special school on Moss-side."

    So I've had two ad hom's thrown at me out of nowhere haha.

    No I can't find you a ******* B/S major party in the UK that's anti-war (anti-imperialist really), is for drug legalisation, is for true marriage equality in that there are no laws discriminating against anyone that has harmned no one, not the bollox proposals by the tories or labour that just favour state enforced gay marriage that adds to their bows of positive discrimination against everyone, all parties apart from maybe some honest, real liberal, lib dems are for lower tax in all areas, all 3 parties will still perpetuate the status quo on stupid road laws that punish the vast, vast majority for the actions of the few, and still perpetuate the view that free speech is only good when it doesn't offend anybody, and we decide what you can and cannot say.

    Maybe UKIP and the greens offer some light into those areas, but their aren't major.

    And as for the sny moss-side comment, I went to a grammar school called crosley heath initially, hated it, and transfered to a state comprehensive called CVHS and hated it. Most libertarians on this forum will either be state or grammar school educated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Teachers did not return to work and give up. The last strike was a week ago exactly.

    People do not want employees on strike all the time, that's obvious, but they do support them in their struggle to get better pay. You're one of a few, less empathetic people in society, that do not support strikes. The vast majority of people do, and your view is, quite frankly, nonsense. How can you not see that strikes happen all the time in both the public and private sector? How can you not see that strikes and negotiation work? How can you not see that most taxpayers support strikes? How can you not see that striking is a right that everybody should have? How can you call yourself a Libertarian if you deny people the right to strike, and therefore deny them some of their human rights? Surely then you are just getting rid of liberty altogether? You are, therefore, a Fascistic Authoritarian.
    I support the right to strike, not negotiating with strikers is common sense when they are trying to get as much money as possible from the government and won't stop until someone finally says no. Look public sector workers are humans too and are just looking out for their own needs I understand that. They have to understand that that infinite money doesn't exist and when we are in hard times sometimes changes need to be made.

    Everybody understands that cuts have to be made in order to prevent bankruptcy. If we went down the route of no cuts our debts would soar, our credit rating would drop and our country would inevitably fail. Look at the US, Obama kept on spending without raising taxes and the debt doubled. Their economic outlook is better than ours but only slightly, was it really worth trillions of debt? This debt will have to be paid back at some point and when it does start to get paid back their economy will begin to suffer. If we had gone down the spending route we would almost certainly be in a much worst position right now.
    Offline

    15
    What are the opinions of those whom are in the Labour Party on the European Union, Free Market and CIS?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    I support the right to strike, not negotiating with strikers is common sense when they are trying to get as much money as possible from the government and won't stop until someone finally says no. Look public sector workers are humans too and are just looking out for their own needs I understand that. They have to understand that that infinite money doesn't exist and when we are in hard times sometimes changes need to be made.

    Everybody understands that cuts have to be made in order to prevent bankruptcy. If we went down the route of no cuts our debts would soar, our credit rating would drop and our country would inevitably fail. Look at the US, Obama kept on spending without raising taxes and the debt doubled. Their economic outlook is better than ours but only slightly, was it really worth trillions of debt? This debt will have to be paid back at some point and when it does start to get paid back their economy will begin to suffer. If we had gone down the spending route we would almost certainly be in a much worst position right now.
    I wouldn't call Obama's spending 'intelligent' spending, and you can't compare our two countries. We, the Labour Party, believe that in order to make money, you have to spend money. We don't want to splash out money, but we see that to improve the well-being of people, as well as the services provided, the Government has to intervene and spend a little. I understand that these are hard times, but spending has risen up to higher than it has ever been under this Tory-led coalition, so, so much for not spending :rolleyes:

    The Government does not need to raise taxes to stop bankruptcy; there are so many other methods that can beat the deficit. We do not need to stop all cutting, like you and the Tories want to, but merely cut where overspending is not causing any benefit socially or economically to our country. The cuts in education, the NHS, the civil service, the arts, and in public services are ridiculous, wrong, and do nothing but harm Britain. People aren't happy with this Government, and definitely not with the cutting. Of course some cutting does need to be done, but not in these key industries where the money going in really helps. Your method of cutting as much as we can is absolute *******s, and would do more harm than good to the economy; just look at the state of our economy, getting worse through these cuts and worsening due to the lack of ability among the Tory and Lib-Dem ranks when it comes to economics.

    If we had gone down spending all the time, like the RL Labour, we would be in a worse situation, of course. However, if we took the 'wise', and 'thoughtful' economic route of increasing spending in some areas but cutting in other, more inefficient or wasteful areas, the economy of Britain would be much, much, much better.

    This negotiation nonsense you're talking on about, is, as mentioned, nonsense. The only reason there are so many strikes during this coalition is because this care-free, economically-damaging cutting is harming the economy, and lowering people's living standards. The Labour Party condemns this style of cutting, and would rather spend a little more on key services (such as the NHS, education, the civil service, and benefits) because it's fairer towards people, and costs less than simply cutting away, like both you and the Tories want.

    Your economic plans would cause nothing but damage, unhappiness, and inequality coupled with soaring prices and expenditure. Our economic plans are cheaper, more fair, and genuinely improve the economy of this country.

    I'm not an economist, but even I can see this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    I wouldn't call Obama's spending 'intelligent' spending, and you can't compare our two countries. We, the Labour Party, believe that in order to make money, you have to spend money. We don't want to splash out money, but we see that to improve the well-being of people, as well as the services provided, the Government has to intervene and spend a little. I understand that these are hard times, but spending has risen up to higher than it has ever been under this Tory-led coalition, so, so much for not spending :rolleyes:

    The Government does not need to raise taxes to stop bankruptcy; there are so many other methods that can beat the deficit. We do not need to stop all cutting, like you and the Tories want to, but merely cut where overspending is not causing any benefit socially or economically to our country. The cuts in education, the NHS, the civil service, the arts, and in public services are ridiculous, wrong, and do nothing but harm Britain. People aren't happy with this Government, and definitely not with the cutting. Of course some cutting does need to be done, but not in these key industries where the money going in really helps. Your method of cutting as much as we can is absolute *******s, and would do more harm than good to the economy; just look at the state of our economy, getting worse through these cuts and worsening due to the lack of ability among the Tory and Lib-Dem ranks when it comes to economics.

    If we had gone down spending all the time, like the RL Labour, we would be in a worse situation, of course. However, if we took the 'wise', and 'thoughtful' economic route of increasing spending in some areas but cutting in other, more inefficient or wasteful areas, the economy of Britain would be much, much, much better.

    This negotiation nonsense you're talking on about, is, as mentioned, nonsense. The only reason there are so many strikes during this coalition is because this care-free, economically-damaging cutting is harming the economy, and lowering people's living standards. The Labour Party condemns this style of cutting, and would rather spend a little more on key services (such as the NHS, education, the civil service, and benefits) because it's fairer towards people, and costs less than simply cutting away, like both you and the Tories want.

    Your economic plans would cause nothing but damage, unhappiness, and inequality coupled with soaring prices and expenditure. Our economic plans are cheaper, more fair, and genuinely improve the economy of this country.

    I'm not an economist, but even I can see this.
    The public sector is unproductive as such no amount of investment will help the economy improve. In order to improve the economy we must cut the unproductive sector and give money back to the people. In doing this more money will be available to buy goods and invest in the productive part our economy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    The public sector is unproductive as such no amount of investment will help the economy improve. In order to improve the economy we must cut the unproductive sector and give money back to the people. In doing this more money will be available to buy goods and invest in the productive part our economy.
    The Public Sector is not unproductive. That's a massively over-simplified view, and it would seem you didn't read what I wrote. Please reread it, and then think about it with an open mind.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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