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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You, and of course Jake, will also find the RL Student Labour body to be more left than the main face of the party.

    Now I'm all for the politics of moderation and hate the idea of blind partisanship - I even think there should be more 'Blairites/Brownites' in the party just to make things more interesting, to diversify and to better reflect the RL party - 'Thatcherite' however is not a term I can associate with a party built on socialism and built for the working class.
    To be honest they just struck be as a giant blobby, bureaucratic and predominantly Blairite mess
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The principle that Government should reduce its expenditure during a recession (Keynes demonstrates that and increase expenditure is needed to increase aggregate demand yadda yadda) is the most pertinent and also the general theory that the free market will sort itself out.

    I was taking about the wealth of individuals rather than businesses. Though regarding your point about India and China (China especially) with average wages the way they are I would be very, very cautious about calling their's an economic success story. It depends on how you measure success.

    My problem with privatisation is (in this instance) the wasting of the proceeds on tax cuts.
    Do you mean austerity rather than recession, i'm not aware anybody argues for reduced spending in recession? If so then i'm half and half. I think that Keynesian's are right to call for increased capital spending and QE however i do agree with cuts to overall spending in order to reduce the deficit because spending/growing your way out of deficit (other than being risky and needing more QE to fight off the bond market realistically) is putting a plaster over a broken arm, you create dependency and crowding out meaning that once your in surplus and remove the additional spending, growth falls markedly. Here in the UK it's notable that when Osbourne halved capital spending growth fell (in addition to the Euro-zone malarkey) however once we engaged in Help To Buy (essentially a £130bn debt based stimulus programme), growth returned. Yes i do agree that just waiting for the market is not really viable.

    Fair enough. If your looking in absolute terms then of course but wage growth is consistent and wages are round about where you'd expect given their per capita peers.

    Given the welfare and health budgets in this country, i'm not sure we wasted it all on tax cuts really. Even under Thatcher welfare and health spending grew markedly, even in real terms.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    No, I'm quite happy with the general policy on immigration and don't feel the need to tighten immigration law up.
    The UK needs a drastically modified immigration policy. Our policy is nothing short of shambles and if nothing is done to protect our economy and society from inefficient immigration then any government should be deemed a failure.

    Solving the influx of immigration will inherently fix many problems we face and, you know that perfectly.

    Hold on, I expected nothing less from a labour MP.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Green_Pink)
    To be honest they just struck be as a giant blobby, bureaucratic and predominantly Blairite mess
    You're a defector?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Do you mean austerity rather than recession, i'm not aware anybody argues for reduced spending in recession? If so then i'm half and half. I think that Keynesian's are right to call for increased capital spending and QE however i do agree with cuts to overall spending in order to reduce the deficit because spending/growing your way out of deficit (other than being risky and needing more QE to fight off the bond market realistically) is putting a plaster over a broken arm, you create dependency and crowding out meaning that once your in surplus and remove the additional spending, growth falls markedly. Here in the UK it's notable that when Osbourne halved capital spending growth fell (in addition to the Euro-zone malarkey) however once we engaged in Help To Buy (essentially a £130bn debt based stimulus programme), growth returned. Yes i do agree that just waiting for the market is not really viable.

    Fair enough. If your looking in absolute terms then of course but wage growth is consistent and wages are round about where you'd expect given their per capita peers.

    Given the welfare and health budgets in this country, i'm not sure we wasted it all on tax cuts really. Even under Thatcher welfare and health spending grew markedly, even in real terms.
    I don't understand the highlighted part as I'm discussing austerity as well as recession...
    The UK Government has been reducing spending during this recession to meet thei goal to reduce the budget deficit to 0 by 2019 (scarily implying that they'll cut twice as quickly if the Tories re-elected). I glad, though maybe a little surprised that we agree (at least in part) on an economic issue where it seems another Labourite disagrees.

    The distribution of wealth is still awful. Its not particularly great in the UK either.

    Indeed some was invested into infrastructure which isn't a massive compliment when you begin fire-selling it all away - a huge transference of wealth away from the people and into the hands of, for lack of a better phrase, fat cats.

    Spending certainly grew more than the popular image would suggest - but unemployment strained the welfare state and it was in an era of economic growth rather than crippling recession.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    The UK needs a drastically modified immigration policy. Our policy is nothing short of shambles and if nothing is done to protect our economy and society from inefficient immigration then any government should be deemed a failure.

    Solving the influx of immigration will inherently fix many problems we face and, you know that perfectly.

    Hold on, I expected nothing less from a labour MP.
    Where does the shambles lie?
    What are the inherent economic problems it will fix? Unemployment? The distribution of wealth? Austerity?
    What are the inherent social problems it will fix? Xenophobia? Class divisions? Education?

    You should expect nothing less from a Labour MP than rigorous scrutiny on the topic of immigration.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Where does the shambles lie?
    What are the inherent economic problems it will fix? Unemployment? The distribution of wealth? Austerity?
    What are the inherent social problems it will fix? Xenophobia? Class divisions? Education?

    You should expect nothing less from a Labour MP than rigorous scrutiny on the topic of immigration.
    "Rigorous scrutiny" - I mean hardly?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're a defector?
    No, but I had quite a bit of involvement with their members through some cross-party stuff on campus. Might have just been my local branch but they seemed split between wannabe career politicians and other activists who were a bit fed up of it all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Green_Pink)
    No, but I had quite a bit of involvement with their members through some cross-party stuff on campus. Might have just been my local branch but they seemed split between wannabe career politicians and other activists who were a bit fed up of it all.
    That's how it seems here, too.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    "Rigorous scrutiny" - I mean hardly?
    Reaching a different conclusion doesn't indicate any less concern or analysis.

    Labourites do typically note a historical association between xenophobia and economic roubles and identifies the real problems as socio-economic. Punitive austerity measures that punish hard-working citizens for the mistakes of bankers and low wages in a low-pay/low-skill economy breed distrust and disunity. Labour wishes to solve this problems, thus fulfilling the its purpose. We don't want to be distracted by the populism of the reactionary right that wishes to protect the richest in society by blaming our ills on the poorest. Such is our philosophy, ultimately rooted in our faith in the existence and necessity of 'society'.

    That's my position.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Reaching a different conclusion doesn't indicate any less concern or analysis.

    Labourites do typically note a historical association between xenophobia and economic roubles and identifies the real problems as socio-economic. Punitive austerity measures that punish hard-working citizens for the mistakes of bankers and low wages in a low-pay/low-skill economy breed distrust and disunity. Labour wishes to solve this problems, thus fulfilling the its purpose. We don't want to be distracted by the populism of the reactionary right that wishes to protect the richest in society by blaming our ills on the poorest. Such is our philosophy, ultimately rooted in our faith in the existence and necessity of 'society'.

    That's my position.
    Well what were you expecting? People with next to zero qualifications/limited skills should be subject to lower pay then people who are trained and proficient in the work they are employed into.
    What UKIP are proposing to do for these people, is that instead of making them reliant on the welfare system (like the previous labour government did), they should receive suitable training and schemes which will allow them to become more skilled in their work and thus allow them to access higher wages.

    UKIP are not suggesting we should blame the poorest of our society, but rather limit inefficient immigration into our society, thus allowing the already millions unemployed in our borders to be focused on and not add to our economic problems by creating extra unemployment to deal with.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    Well what were you expecting? People with next to zero qualifications/limited skills should be subject to lower pay then people who are trained and proficient in the work they are employed into.
    What UKIP are proposing to do for these people, is that instead of making them reliant on the welfare system (like the previous labour government did), they should receive suitable training and schemes which will allow them to become more skilled in their work and thus allow them to access higher wages.

    UKIP are not suggesting we should blame the poorest of our society, but rather limit inefficient immigration into our society, thus allowing the already millions unemployed in our borders to be focused on and not add to our economic problems by creating extra unemployment to deal with.
    Making the assumption that education automatically leads to jobs in an unequal society.
    Labour is keen to rejig the way the economy works to benefit these people - including through the use of schemes like apprenticeships. It was after all Labour that created the Open University for example and the Minimum Wage.

    But it is demonstrable that immigration benefits this country and that the key problems don't lie with immigration. They are an easy scapegoat. The socialists are right in that our interests are divided by class not by nationality.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Making the assumption that education automatically leads to jobs in an unequal society.
    Labour is keen to rejig the way the economy works to benefit these people - including through the use of schemes like apprenticeships. It was after all Labour that created the Open University for example and the Minimum Wage.

    But it is demonstrable that immigration benefits this country and that the key problems don't lie with immigration. They are an easy scapegoat. The socialists are right in that our interests are divided by class not by nationality.
    Education and training are significant factors which we need to improve drastically, if we are to raise job production standards.
    This would reduce elitism in our society by a crucial percentage.
    The number of qualifications within the poorest is significantly lower then those who are more privileged - which highlights the core reason for this ever growing gap between the poor/rich; they have the right qualifications and set of skills to be attractive to the employer.
    If we are looking to create a more equal society, then we need to tackle these problems.
    So for you to say that education does not automatically lead to jobs is partly right, because employers look for skills backed with education in most sectors.

    See that's the problem, labour is only interested in the welfare of the poorest and continuously ignore the importance of the richest in our society. You say, you want to create an equal society yet all you speak of is the "disadvantaged" people and continue to peddle across the importance of the richest in terms of our economy and society.
    The UKIP want to create a fine balance between tackling the issues which arise with both parties and thus inherently creating a more balanced system.
    See with all these mad taxes on corporations, all you will do is deter potential businesses from expanding into the UK. However we should be creating incentives for firms to move over to the UK which will in time create more jobs thus reducing unemployment.

    And here we go, typical labourers who know nothing about immigration are at it again.
    Mass Immigration is definitely a key factor in the failure of our economy.
    Whether you would like to contest that or not, it's a fact.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    Education and training are significant factors which we need to improve drastically, if we are to raise job production standards.
    This would reduce elitism in our society by a crucial percentage.
    The number of qualifications within the poorest is significantly lower then those who are more privileged - which highlights the core reason for this ever growing gap between the poor/rich; they have the right qualifications and set of skills to be attractive to the employer.
    If we are looking to create a more equal society, then we need to tackle these problems.
    So for you to say that education does not automatically lead to jobs is partly right, because employers look for skills backed with education in most sectors.
    Aye.

    See that's the problem, labour is only interested in the welfare of the poorest and continuously ignore the importance of the richest in our society. You say, you want to create an equal society yet all you speak of is the "disadvantaged" people and continue to peddle across the importance of the richest in terms of our economy and society.
    The UKIP want to create a fine balance between tackling the issues which arise with both parties and thus inherently creating a more balanced system.
    See with all these mad taxes on corporations, all you will do is deter potential businesses from expanding into the UK. However we should be creating incentives for firms to move over to the UK which will in time create more jobs thus reducing unemployment.

    And here we go, typical labourers who know nothing about immigration are at it again.
    Mass Immigration is definitely a key factor in the failure of our economy.
    Whether you would like to contest that or not, it's a fact.
    Labour wishes to create a future fair for all, and it is the broadest shoulders that must bear the greatest weight.
    I haven't said the emboldened statement... but a Labourite would obviously be concerned with the plight of the 'disadvantaged'. The damage of the crunch is being offset onto ordinary people by the Tories and blamed on immigration by UKIP.
    The distribution of wealth is worse in the UK than it has been in a long time, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. The Labour Party promotes social responsibility on the part of corporations which is why the RL Party is offering tax incentives to companies that pay the 'living wage'. What we have here in the UK (interestingly a topic on this morning's 'Sunday Politics') is an economy where growth in employment is good but not in wages.

    I do contest the fact.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Where does the shambles lie?
    What are the inherent economic problems it will fix? Unemployment? The distribution of wealth? Austerity?
    What are the inherent social problems it will fix? Xenophobia? Class divisions? Education?

    You should expect nothing less from a Labour MP than rigorous scrutiny on the topic of immigration.
    And though immigration may be a factor it certainly isn't the ultimate one and the focus of our attention should be income inequality and housing etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Aye.



    Labour wishes to create a future fair for all, and it is the broadest shoulders that must bear the greatest weight.
    I haven't said the emboldened statement... but a Labourite would obviously be concerned with the plight of the 'disadvantaged'. The damage of the crunch is being offset onto ordinary people by the Tories and blamed on immigration by UKIP.
    The distribution of wealth is worse in the UK than it has been in a long time, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. The Labour Party promotes social responsibility on the part of corporations which is why the RL Party is offering tax incentives to companies that pay the 'living wage'. What we have here in the UK (interestingly a topic on this morning's 'Sunday Politics') is an economy where growth in employment is good but not in wages.

    I do contest the fact.



    And though immigration may be a factor it certainly isn't the ultimate one and the focus of our attention should be income inequality and housing etc.
    At least we got one thing out of the way.

    Labour does not want to create a fairer society at all. We all know political parties tend to have interest groups and the "disadvantaged" of our society is definitely on the top of your list.
    The distribute of wealth has limiting effect on the determination of a successful economy (examples include the USA/China which have worrying gaps yet they are successful economically), the richest usually have better education and skills yet they shouldn't get more of the wealth generated by our economy? Again, this highlights you only think of the poor and continue to moan about the rich.
    Instead of giving tax incentives to the corporations to persuade them of paying the 'living wage' - Which in turn will be unsuccessful because the living wage will just make companies recruit less (leading to more unemployment) and pay more, you could focus on getting people into jobs then implementing training schemes which will expand their skill set and thus entitles them to higher wages, which will benefit the welfare of the most 'disadvantaged' as well as leading to higher productivity and enable economies of scale to be used thus being beneficial to profit seeking firms.
    This will allow companies to expand and recruit even more using the new generation of wealth thus leading to a reduction in unemployment.

    This is what's called "tackling problems from both sides" simultaneously. A thing, labour fail at epically.

    Holy?! Mass Immigration is a key factor in all of the UK's economic problems. It's a road of causation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    Does the Labour party feel that there is a issue with international organised crime, do we need to stop the Russian mafia, Triads and Yakuza?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    At least we got one thing out of the way.

    Labour does not want to create a fairer society at all. We all know political parties tend to have interest groups and the "disadvantaged" of our society is definitely on the top of your list.
    The distribute of wealth has limiting effect on the determination of a successful economy (examples include the USA/China which have worrying gaps yet they are successful economically), the richest usually have better education and skills yet they shouldn't get more of the wealth generated by our economy? Again, this highlights you only think of the poor and continue to moan about the rich.
    Instead of giving tax incentives to the corporations to persuade them of paying the 'living wage' - Which in turn will be unsuccessful because the living wage will just make companies recruit less (leading to more unemployment) and pay more, you could focus on getting people into jobs then implementing training schemes which will expand their skill set and thus entitles them to higher wages, which will benefit the welfare of the most 'disadvantaged' as well as leading to higher productivity and enable economies of scale to be used thus being beneficial to profit seeking firms.
    This will allow companies to expand and recruit even more using the new generation of wealth thus leading to a reduction in unemployment.

    This is what's called "tackling problems from both sides" simultaneously. A thing, labour fail at epically.

    Holy?! Mass Immigration is a key factor in all of the UK's economic problems. It's a road of causation.
    You write as if caring for the less fortunate is a bad thing, when obviously those with the lease are those who need the most.
    We're defining successful economies in a ver different way. I for example would describe Norway's as a much, much more successful economy than China. Success for us can be felt by the people.
    More of the wealth? Sure, I'm a meritocrat. A grossly disproportionate amount? No. Surely you don't deny our economy is skewed unfairly.
    A living wage increases productivity and makes work more appealing than burdening the tax payer by living on benefits. Good for business, good for the country. and anyway, people who do jobs that need doing deserve to be able to feed themselves doing it.
    As I've already said Labour has been and still is committed to training schemes and education. Aspiration is important to us and we don't believe the state should sort everyone's problems out but we do believe in opportunity, opportunities which just aren't there for some people.

    You keep saying that last thing without explaining it, lord knows I've given enough prompts. The UK's economic problems were caused by the global economic meltdown and overly optimistic borrowing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You write as if caring for the less fortunate is a bad thing, when obviously those with the lease are those who need the most.
    We're defining successful economies in a ver different way. I for example would describe Norway's as a much, much more successful economy than China. Success for us can be felt by the people.
    More of the wealth? Sure, I'm a meritocrat. A grossly disproportionate amount? No. Surely you don't deny our economy is skewed unfairly.
    A living wage increases productivity and makes work more appealing than burdening the tax payer by living on benefits. Good for business, good for the country. and anyway, people who do jobs that need doing deserve to be able to feed themselves doing it.
    As I've already said Labour has been and still is committed to training schemes and education. Aspiration is important to us and we don't believe the state should sort everyone's problems out but we do believe in opportunity, opportunities which just aren't there for some people.

    You keep saying that last thing without explaining it, lord knows I've given enough prompts. The UK's economic problems were caused by the global economic meltdown and overly optimistic borrowing.

    Let's just say, this debate is going no where.
    Your ideals lack logic, one prominent example would be the living wage, which apparently is good for business? Yet in order for businesses to be happy to pay more, workers aren't even being more skillful or trained.
    I doubt it would increase productivity.
    My proposal was more logical in also dealing with other economic problems such as unemployment, whereas labour adds to it because businesses will recruit less and pay more due to this 'living wage'.

    Norway lol. :hmpf:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by missfats)
    Let's just say, this debate is going no where.
    Your ideals lack logic, one prominent example would be the living wage, which apparently is good for business? Yet in order for businesses to be happy to pay more, workers aren't even being more skillful or trained.
    I doubt it would increase productivity.
    My proposal was more logical in also dealing with other economic problems such as unemployment, whereas labour adds to it because businesses will recruit less and pay more due to this 'living wage'.

    Norway lol. :hmpf:
    Lack logic? Ouch. I never make ungrounded assertions (unlike you with immigration - ok maybe that was uncalled for... hehe). The Living Wage Foundation have compiled statistics about how employers and employees feel about the concept. And whatever you feel its common sense and in fact demonstrable that someone will work harder if they're being paid more. I thought giving hard working people a better deal was one of the few things Labour and UKIP agreed on.

    Your proposal is just educate more etc. When did i disagree? Labour created the Open University, supports apprenticeship schemes and is massively concerned with improving the country's human capital.

    What's wrong with Norway? Its considered one of the best places in the world to live. It has a Sovereign Wealth Fund (something UKIP wish to emulate), a fair distribution of wealth (something we should both want to emulate) and economic success despite not even in the EU, so wouldn't you want us to be more like them?

    PS. I hear the local cuisine is pretty good to.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missfats)
    Let's just say, this debate is going no where.
    Your ideals lack logic, one prominent example would be the living wage, which apparently is good for business? Yet in order for businesses to be happy to pay more, workers aren't even being more skillful or trained.
    I doubt it would increase productivity.
    My proposal was more logical in also dealing with other economic problems such as unemployment, whereas labour adds to it because businesses will recruit less and pay more due to this 'living wage'.

    Norway lol. :hmpf:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oi

    What's wrong with Norway?
 
 
 
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: January 18, 2018
  • 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?
  • 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.