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

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by dances with poodles)
    I may only be 17, which is young compared to some of you uni types, but I'm not immature -_-
    I'm 17 too tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Yes, I've confused you now :p:
    its not hard
    The idea they have is a good idea. I'd support it, but not at the current time. People who can save money should be helped to try and save that money or spend it more wisely. When the recession goes, then I think it would be a better time to implement the scheme.

    So in essence, good Bill, but not for another 1/2 years.
    But it doesn't save the state any money, and thats where we need to save money. It basically means that if they save any money they can keep it, instead of the state getting the money saved.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by dances with poodles)
    its not hard

    But it doesn't save the state any money, and thats where we need to save money. It basically means that if they save any money they can keep it, instead of the state getting the money saved.
    Yes but isn't that good for them at such a time? The state can then save money after the recession is over. Anyway, that's just my personal opinion.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Why, then, maskerade under the Labour banner?
    Would you be proud to "maskerade under" and be associated with the Bolshevik Party, Lenin and Stalin?

    I suppose your answer to this will be obvious. Well there we go...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Would you be proud to "maskerade under" and be associated with the Bolshevik Party, Lenin and Stalin?

    I suppose your answer to this will be obvious. Well there we go...
    Maskerade under what? You aren't speaking in complete sentences and until you do, it's difficult to reply. Presumably you mean "communist" banner there ... I am not, have not, and will not associate myself with communists. I am a democratic socialist and am happy to be a member of a socialist party which is, on the whole, committed to democratic and non-revolutionary approaches to solving social problems as we see the solutions. I am not the one falsely utilising the history of a movement that I do not believe in.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Maskerade under what? You aren't speaking in complete sentences and until you do, it's difficult to reply. Presumably you mean "communist" banner there ... I am not, have not, and will not associate myself with communists. I am a democratic socialist and am happy to be a member of a socialist party which is, on the whole, committed to democratic and non-revolutionary approaches to solving social problems as we see the solutions. I am not the one falsely utilising the history of a movement that I do not believe in.
    Yes, I meant communism, sorry. Also working on PS Help...

    Fair enough, but given socialism was a huge part of the modern USSR even, it's not something you can't be linked with.

    Similarly, our name is a name. Two people called John might not necessarily both like chocolate ice cream. Similarly, TSR Labour and RL Labour are not one and the same. We are simply similar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Fair enough, but given socialism was a huge part of the modern USSR even, it's not something you can't be linked with.
    There was a definitive split in Marxist and Socialist thinking in the 1930s and your desire to impose a uniformity on socialism and communism betrays your lack of understanding of the philosophy and its teachings. Western Marxism (the New Left and democratic socialism etc), which teaches democratic principles, is what I associate myself with, not Soviet-style Communism.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Being left wing and generally supporting Labour policies does not mean I have to vote for them when they're in a complete mess.
    Put it this way. You have a choice between who will run the country next June. A vote for anybody but Labour makes it more likely that the Tories will run the country, a vote for Labour makes it less likely. That's your choice.
    Offline

    13
    It's also wrong to indelibly link Soviet-style Communism with Stalinism... (that was aimed mostly at sohan, because that's what he was really tarring us with)...
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    There was a definitive split in Marxist and Socialist thinking in the 1930s and your desire to impose a uniformity on socialism and communism betrays your lack of understanding of the philosophy and its teachings. Western Marxism (the New Left and democratic socialism etc), which teaches democratic principles, is what I associate myself with, not Soviet-style Communism.
    Hence the I knew what your answer would be. Your connotations are pretty much similar, if less crude.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    Hence the I knew what your answer would be. Your connotations are pretty much similar, if less crude.
    That's complete and utter ********. You are justifying your absurd usurpation of the name Labour Party by saying I make a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Socialism? And this is relevant because our party is called the TSR Socialist Party and not the TSR Bolshevik Party?

    You make absolutely no sense.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    That's complete and utter ********. You are justifying your absurd usurpation of the name Labour Party by saying I make a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Socialism? And this is relevant because our party is called the TSR Socialist Party and not the TSR Bolshevik Party?

    You make absolutely no sense.
    You lack common sense. You try to overcomplicate issues that a 5 year old could understand. Let me put it ion layman's terms: two people with the same name don't necessarily have the same tastes; ideologies etc...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    You lack common sense. You try to overcomplicate issues that a 5 year old could understand. Let me put it ion layman's terms: two people with the same name don't necessarily have the same tastes; ideologies etc...
    You are a ******* POLITICAL PARTY. This isn't about two brothers called John. You're the simpleton in this matter, not me.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You are a ******* POLITICAL PARTY. This isn't about two brothers called John. You're the simpleton in this matter, not me.
    **** me. You can't relate two ideas? Seriously... You need to spend some time with Verbal Reasoning books.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohanshah)
    **** me. You can't relate two ideas? Seriously... You need to spend some time with Verbal Reasoning books.
    Ths will be my last response on this. So please follow carefully: you are usurping the name of "The Labour Party", which has a strong history, a clearly defined set of values, and an obvious set of priorities and using that to pursue a course of political action which has little to do with the Labour Party. The TSR Conservatives, act in a manner consistent with (albeit Thatcherite) Conservative thought and therefore are not usurping the name. The Lib Dems are more left-wing that the RL Lib Dems but they are not outwardly different from the party which they have used the name of. You, however, have said that you do not support Labour and yet are using the name Labour to fool people into voting for you on the basis of their support for Labour.

    Yes, I understand that two objects with the same name do not share the same characteristics; however, it is disingenuous of a model political party in this model house of commons to utilise a party poltiical name from RL to whose values, priorities, and historical foundations they do not subscribe.

    And you are complaining about benefits fraud. :rolleyes:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Ths will be my last response on this. So please follow carefully: you are usurping the name of "The Labour Party", which has a strong history, a clearly defined set of values, and an obvious set of priorities and using that to pursue a course of political action which has little to do with the Labour Party. The TSR Conservatives, act in a manner consistent with (albeit Thatcherite) Conservative thought and therefore are not usurping the name. The Lib Dems are more left-wing that the RL Lib Dems but they are not outwardly different from the party which they have used the name of. You, however, have said that you do not support Labour and yet are using the name Labour to fool people into voting for you on the basis of their support for Labour.
    Erm no. Rubbish. I support Labour and I support what they stand for. However I do not support Brown and the government that he has formed. I would rather see a different leader, a different approach and a whole new cabinet. Then, I would vote for them. If you asked me who I support, I'd still say Labour. Would I vote for them tomorrow though? No. I don't think Brown is the man to lead the country.

    Big difference between that a usurping the Labour name.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    What do you think about the RL Labour party?
    I think there's some awful people in it. I think Tony Blair was terrible, I'm ashamed he was the leader. Jacqui Smith was horrendous, I'm glad she's out the cabinet. Gordon Brown isn't great as a leader (I don't think he was that good as chancellor either). I hate the pointless authoritarian measures the government has brought in, I hate the wars in iraq and afghanistan they seem to think are worthwhile, I hate how they're wasting money on Trident. They're not as socially progressive as I'd like them to be. They haven't had any particularly good ideas about how to fix the broken society or reform the economy.

    But nevertheless, there's some great people in the party, I think fundamentally it's a good party with good aims. I'm proud of what it has achieved in its history. It's just a shame that since 1997 the leadership haven't really represented the true nature of Labour. But even then, they've still done some very good things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    They haven't had any particularly good ideas about how to fix the broken society
    Someones been lapping up Cameron's/Newscorp's propaganda:rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Someones been lapping up Cameron's/Newscorp's propaganda:rolleyes:
    I think our society, as a society, leaves a lot to be desired. If the positions were reversed and it was Labour in opposition, they'd be saying it too, they only deny it because they've been in power for 12 years and have made very little progress in improving the situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I feel strongly about the beliefs of the Labour party. However, a non vote for labour is not a conservative vote necersarily. Considering a house is made of seats not votes. My seat is between labour and lib dem, if I dont vote it's a vote for lib dem. Lib dems have long had a close link with labour and the labour that I believed in. Having them in power for 4 years wouldn't be so unbearable.

    I accept that labour will lose the next election. But I believe it is what the party needs. It has become comfortable in its ways and needs a kick up the arse and a revamp. To win back public support they will have to bring in the beliefs of the labour we saw when they came into power this time round and not the latest mess we have now.

    Gordon Brown is a nice guy, he's decent at what he did (apart from the shocking Gold error) but he's not a leader. He's not inspirational and he's not exactly passionate, atleast not in the way we want to see. David Cameron is an absolute arse though, the conservatives have made big claims, but whenever they have a Q and A they stick a foot in their mouth with regards to how funding will be gained. Cutting the fuel payment to old people is not even a possibility as far as i'm concerned but Cameron is interested in it.
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.