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

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

  • 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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was talking about my city in general, it's very hard to find a job and I feel labour will create more opportunities
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AstroNandos)
    Slightly off topic, but I hope they never lower the voting age to 16, otherwise we're screwed
    We need more young people voting so we are taken more seriously by the government and politicians. Why, despite much fiscal austerity this parliament, has the government protected pensions with the extremely generous 'triple-lock' system, or retained the winter fuel allowance, or free bus passes and free tv licenses, or the recent overly-generous pensioner bonds? Because lots of old people vote, and so the politicians pander to them. See this: http://theeconomicview.blogspot.co.u...le-public.html

    We need more young people voting to reverse this, so we can have a bit more influence!

    http://theeconomicview.blogspot.co.u...le-public.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oaidyl)
    Are people seriously saying Green? Have you seen some of their policies? They want to make being affiliated with groups like ISIS legal because it being illegal inhibits the right of freedom of speech.... Of course they won't get in but voting for them in protest is ridiculous, it means you condone things like that
    Agreed! But, then they drop the one good policy they had, economically at least. The basic income. Interesting read on this: http://theeconomicview.blogspot.co.u...od-policy.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    The press has completely taken that policy out of context. Basically the principle is that it is not for the government to decide whether or not something is a terrorist group. In pretty much every civil war, the group in power labels the opposing group terrorists. "Terrorist" is a pretty ambiguous term.

    The policies that the press have been referring to are here so you can read them for yourself: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html
    It's PD440-PD445. The part that has been particularly criticised is PD443. I honestly can't see what the issue is with those policies, they seem perfectly logical and fair to me. The press has just put their own spin on it because the press is owned by corporations and is therefore immensely right-winged so they don't like the Green Party.
    Ridiculous. Is there any ambiguity whatsoever that ISIS is a terrorist group? It's pretty easy to see which groups are terrorist groups, and a threat to our country. It's not an ambiguous term!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tggfootymad)
    Ridiculous. Is there any ambiguity whatsoever that ISIS is a terrorist group? It's pretty easy to see which groups are terrorist groups, and a threat to our country. It's not an ambiguous term!
    That's not really the argument. The point is, at many times in history, a minority group has been silenced or even punished for saying things which we would now consider perfectly acceptable and think the silencer is in the wrong. The argument for free speech is that it would make absolutely sure no one is silenced just for being in he minority or unpopular, nothing important is hidden because people aren't allowed to say it.

    Yes it has the unfortunate side effect that horrible people get to say horrible things, and there are some implications for spreading hatred/networking of terrorists etc, but unless someone is encouraging, planning or carrying out an illegal ACT that's just something that needs to be put up with in order to protect other vulnerable people. That's why the issue should be tackled by education and open discussion, not simply banning people talking about it which won't work anyway unless you monitor all conversations between anyone 24/7! You could easily visit times and places in the past where the majority of people would want civil rights activists, or Jewish people, or any number of other groups silenced. You cannot, unfortunately, trust the majority of people to recognise when it's sensible or not, so even though it may seem perfectly obvious that ISIS members shouldn't be able to spread their message we can't make exceptions to the rule as you hen don't know when to draw the line.

    Just to make absolutely clear I do not condone the actions of any terrorist groups, and I do not think it's a good thing that they exist or discuss ideas of hatred, even if not explicitly planning a crime.

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kpwxx)
    That's not really the argument. The point is, at many times in history, a minority group has been silenced or even punished for saying things which we would now consider perfectly acceptable and think the silencer is in the wrong. The argument for free speech is that it would make absolutely sure no one is silenced just for being in he minority or unpopular, nothing important is hidden because people aren't allowed to say it.

    Yes it has the unfortunate side effect that horrible people get to say horrible things, and there are some implications for spreading hatred/networking of terrorists etc, but unless someone is encouraging, planning or carrying out an illegal ACT that's just something that needs to be put up with in order to protect other vulnerable people. That's why the issue should be tackled by education and open discussion, not simply banning people talking about it which won't work anyway unless you monitor all conversations between anyone 24/7! You could easily visit times and places in the past where the majority of people would want civil rights activists, or Jewish people, or any number of other groups silenced. You cannot, unfortunately, trust the majority of people to recognise when it's sensible or not, so even though it may seem perfectly obvious that ISIS members shouldn't be able to spread their message we can't make exceptions to the rule as you hen don't know when to draw the line.

    Just to make absolutely clear I do not condone the actions of any terrorist groups, and I do not think it's a good thing that they exist or discuss ideas of hatred, even if not explicitly planning a crime.

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes in some instances that is true, but not in the context of an extremist, violent, radical terror group. There's no ambiguity here. We won't be looking back in 100 years and saying that ISIS, the minority, were right after all. They are not just a racial, or religious, or political minority being unfairly targeted. They are actively seeking to commit horrible acts of physical violence. That is different.

    I see your point, but disagree. I don't think anybody believes in complete, unrestricted free speech, apart from maybe you and the Greens. Of course we want as few restrictions as people possible on what people can say in a free society. I think we're all agreed on that. But, joining a clearly terrorist group with intent to pursue violent acts of terror and spreading messages to incite violence and physical harm clearly oversteps the mark. That seems completely reasonable and is where the line is drawn in almost all western democracies I can think of. Free speech should be as free as possible, but not when it is inciting physical violence. I actually agree with the Economist's stance on this. They have said in recent weeks that the 'line' where free speech should be restricted is where physical violence is being incited or encouraged. I agree that mental harm, i.e. feeling offended, should not be a legitimate restriction for the reasons you laid out, but stopping the incitement of physical violence is ok.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tggfootymad)
    Yes in some instances that is true, but not in the context of an extremist, violent, radical terror group. There's no ambiguity here. We won't be looking back in 100 years and saying that ISIS, the minority, were right after all. They are not just a racial, or religious, or political minority being unfairly targeted. They are actively seeking to commit horrible acts of physical violence. That is different.

    I see your point, but disagree. I don't think anybody believes in complete, unrestricted free speech, apart from maybe you and the Greens. Of course we want as few restrictions as people possible on what people can say in a free society. I think we're all agreed on that. But, joining a clearly terrorist group with intent to pursue violent acts of terror and spreading messages to incite violence and physical harm clearly oversteps the mark. That seems completely reasonable and is where the line is drawn in almost all western democracies I can think of. Free speech should be as free as possible, but not when it is inciting physical violence. I actually agree with the Economist's stance on this. They have said in recent weeks that the 'line' where free speech should be restricted is where physical violence is being incited or encouraged. I agree that mental harm, i.e. feeling offended, should not be a legitimate restriction for the reasons you laid out, but stopping the incitement of physical violence is ok.
    But if somewhere were inciting or encouraging physical violence that would be an offence in itself. You don't need to create an additional offence. The actual Green Party policy wording in question here reads:

    It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.
    If we say we can arrest someone simply for belonging to an organisation, you then open the door to people who have absolutely no intention of violence or harm being imprisoned simply for association with someone who does. Threat, encouragement or incitement of physical violence would certainly come under aiding and abetting criminal acts, and if there is evidence that someone has done this it would be just as illegal as ever.

    xxx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As a student, I feel like Labour is connecting more with students and young people. I have been through the manifesto and they are promising cuts in university fees, more apprenticeships and much higher minimum wages. Another question would be, if it was a hung parliament what parties would you like to see form a coalition and why?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FoxtrotAlphaOne)
    As a student, I feel like Labour is connecting more with students and young people. I have been through the manifesto and they are promising cuts in university fees, more apprenticeships and much higher minimum wages. Another question would be, if it was a hung parliament what parties would you like to see form a coalition and why?
    Cutting fees achieves nothing for the majority, the people helped are the richest, especially since labour believe only the richest pay off their loans.
    As for apprenticeships and minimum wage increases, well, they're also almost certainly in the manifestos of the Tories and the Lib Dems since they've both talked about it seriously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Green. We need a shift in political paradigm from our present stagnated political approach.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Cutting fees achieves nothing for the majority, the people helped are the richest, especially since labour believe only the richest pay off their loans.
    As for apprenticeships and minimum wage increases, well, they're also almost certainly in the manifestos of the Tories and the Lib Dems since they've both talked about it seriously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But out of the other 2, Labour has given the highest figure on minimum wage. Obviously it does help the majority as it would mean paying £6,000 rather than £9,000 a year.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FoxtrotAlphaOne)
    But out of the other 2, Labour has given the highest figure on minimum wage. Obviously it does help the majority as it would mean paying £6,000 rather than £9,000 a year.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Have they?
    And it really does not. Ask any student how much they've paid and all but a handful should say zero. If you only pay back, say, £25k it doesn't matter whether the loan was 6 or 9k, you will still pay only 25k (assuming you took maintenance).
    Since the impression they give us that you're lucky to manage that then it is only the rich that are helped. Those that are rich now and passing up front, and the rich off tomorrow who will be paying less. The working class they claim to serve gain no benefit what so ever.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tggfootymad)
    Agreed! But, then they drop the one good policy they had, economically at least. The basic income. Interesting read on this: http://theeconomicview.blogspot.co.u...od-policy.html
    Really interesting article actually. Thank you for sharing!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynmous)
    The tories are the only sensible choice.
    No they're not! Please explain how they are a better choice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxtrotAlphaOne)
    No they're not! Please explain how they are a better choice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes they are.

    1) Their economic plan is working
    2) They introduced the benefit cap
    3) Record numbers of people are back in work
    4) Wages are going up
    5) Taxes down
    6) Deficit is reduced
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynmous)
    Yes they are.

    1) Their economic plan is working
    2) They introduced the benefit cap
    3) Record numbers of people are back in work
    4) Wages are going up
    5) Taxes down
    6) Deficit is reduced
    1) After the 2010 election the economy was picking up anyways from the crash in 2008. If any other party came in power, the economy would have still grown. Just because conservatives were in power, they took all the glory.

    2) If you looked in Labour's 2010 manifesto, they were going to introduce the benefit cap too, again conservative stole the glory.

    3) Record number of people are not in work. Let me give u an example, when someone is taken off benefits and put on a 'work placement programme' they are effectively put under education and not unemployment. This course could last a few months. When it's finished people are back on to benefits. This is just an illusion to say " oh, record number of people are back in work" when effectively they're not.

    4) Wages go up every year with inflation. Wages were going up since Labour days. So it's not a big change. If wages were up to living wage or a high living wage, then I would have understood, but they're not, they're going up in pennies.

    5) Taxes have not 'officially' gone down. Only the wealthiest earners have there tax cut. You have to be earning over a specific amount which is £40,000-£50,000. It's these people who are getting a tax cut not the lower earners.

    6) The deficit may have gone down but this is due to massive cuts to our vital emergency services, hospitals, police, ambulance and nurses. If you look at the records, borrowing is still high and infact has been the same since 2010. Why borrow more and cut services?

    What ever party comes in, it will be the same. However some parties may have a different approach on policies.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oaidyl)
    Really interesting article actually. Thank you for sharing!
    No problem! Glad somebody else found it interesting
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tggfootymad)
    No problem! Glad somebody else found it interesting
    What party do you support if you don't mind me asking?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxtrotAlphaOne)
    x
    Not going to bother debating
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oaidyl)
    What party do you support if you don't mind me asking?
    I'm most closely aligned with the Conservative party, but not totally, and there are elements of the Liberal Democrats, particularly over civil liberties, that I also side with. I don't neatly fit into any one party really. I'd describe myself as a classical liberal. So, basically I like freedom, both social and economic.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.