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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    Yes

    There's a difference between open door immigration and throwing people away.

    So you don't support raising the minimum wage (because not everyone deserves luxury)?
    No I support raising the minimum wage. But I don't support the entitlement culture we seem to have in the UK in regards to believing that we shouldn't have to suffer to help others. We are too individualistic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No I support raising the minimum wage. But I don't support the entitlement culture we seem to have in the UK in regards to believing that we shouldn't have to suffer to help others. We are too individualistic.
    However surely raising the minimum wage would increase the culture of entitlement.

    Also raising the minimum wage drastically is idiotic, it would cause unemployment and raise inflation, great.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    However surely raising the minimum wage would increase the culture of entitlement.

    Also raising the minimum wage drastically is idiotic, it would cause unemployment and raise inflation, great.
    I'm sorry, have you been hacked? The minimum wage should be the minimum amount you need to live a comfortable life. And we aren't talking about a drastic raise, although that's what people said when the minimum wage was introduced and it didn't happen.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm sorry, have you been hacked? The minimum wage should be the minimum amount you need to live a comfortable life. And we aren't talking about a drastic raise, although that's what people said when the minimum wage was introduced and it didn't happen.
    No but I comprehend economics. A much better system is to use tax credits to top up peoples wages to said point and to fund this by taxes on the richest. I thought the greens wanted £10 now, that's almost 66% extra and it's not drastic?

    When the minimum wage was introduced it wasn't set very high. This change would make it high.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    yes I do, houses built into hill sides are popular for example. I belive that the future is underground cities.
    You should be used t this by now [citation needed]. And the only underground 'cities' I see in our future is large bunkers such as the one under Chyenne Mountain.

    im saying that trident is petty and useless nit the army...
    They both serve the same purpose though, it serves the same purpose as to why some people keep in their homes the means to defend themselves if necessary, or why in the states people carry guns, the whole point is that it means you are able to strike there and then, the only differences between the 4 cases is the amount of force. If trident is petty and useless then so is having anything more than a militia, and even then you might be pushing the boundaries.

    you also asked about shelf stackers and executives.
    Read it again "whether they be shelf stackers of members of the board", they are in the same set, the employed set, the set being compared to the homeless, the set who make significant contributions to the economy vs those that add incredibly little.

    because for culture to be identifiable it must be unique.
    Sadly for you, it doesn't; sadly my OED is at home so I will have to make do with the crappy online version but here goes:
    Culture, noun: 1) the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
    or, more relevantly, 2) the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

    and let's throw in the synonyms for 2;
    synonyms:civilization, society, way of life, lifestyle; There is no uniqueness clause. Part of British culture is democracy, the fact that this is common with massive portions of the global population does not detract from it being part of our culture

    we don't actually know what life it as the bottom of the ocean... And also species at the surface use the earths magnetic field less.
    There is a "E" in EMF, not just an "M", and that is generally going to be the bigger issue, and this hardly detracts from the fact that 98% of known marine life lives in the top few hundred metres of the oceans, only 2% is known to live below that, and the depths between the UK and Iceland are in a fairly well explored part of the deep sea, being only a couple of thousand metres deep.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    No but I comprehend economics. A much better system is to use tax credits to top up peoples wages to said point and to fund this by taxes on the richest. I thought the greens wanted £10 now, that's almost 66% extra and it's not drastic?

    When the minimum wage was introduced it wasn't set very high. This change would make it high.
    The current minimum wage in TSR land is about £7.35 so it's only 50% more. And no it's not drastic.

    So do you not support the living wage?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The current minimum wage in TSR land is about £7.35 so it's only 50% more. And no it's not drastic.

    So do you not support the living wage?
    I thought you just said that you were against a culture of entitlement and only wanted the minimum wage to be what is necessary to live on?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The current minimum wage in TSR land is about £7.35 so it's only 50% more. And no it's not drastic.

    So do you not support the living wage?
    Well yes that would be drastic. That's £154,760 extra per year for a company paying 20 minimum wage employees. I'd also point out £10 an hour is above the living wage.

    Not your butchery of it and I think it should be phased in so that the businesses can afford it. As I said I'd use tax credits instead.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You should be used t this by now [citation needed]. And the only underground 'cities' I see in our future is large bunkers such as the one under Chyenne Mountain.
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...ve-underground

    [/quote]They both serve the same purpose though, it serves the same purpose as to why some people keep in their homes the means to defend themselves if necessary, or why in the states people carry guns, the whole point is that it means you are able to strike there and then, the only differences between the 4 cases is the amount of force. If trident is petty and useless then so is having anything more than a militia, and even then you might be pushing the boundaries.[/quote]trident is a counterattack and will only be used after we have suffered heavy damage. It's completely different.

    Read it again "whether they be shelf stackers of members of the board", they are in the same set, the employed set, the set being compared to the homeless, the set who make significant contributions to the economy vs those that add incredibly little.
    I never said that the homeless were equal in terms of economic output. I simply stated that the 2 in the question were.

    Sadly for you, it doesn't; sadly my OED is at home so I will have to make do with the crappy online version but here goes:
    Culture, noun: 1) the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
    or, more relevantly, 2) the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

    and let's throw in the synonyms for 2;
    synonyms:civilization, society, way of life, lifestyle; There is no uniqueness clause. Part of British culture is democracy, the fact that this is common with massive portions of the global population does not detract from it being part of our culture
    im simply stating that there isn't a uniquely identifiable British culture. I'm not saying that culture has to be unique but to align it to a group of people is should be.


    There is a "E" in EMF, not just an "M", and that is generally going to be the bigger issue, and this hardly detracts from the fact that 98% of known marine life lives in the top few hundred metres of the oceans, only 2% is known to live below that, and the depths between the UK and Iceland are in a fairly well explored part of the deep sea, being only a couple of thousand metres deep.
    i fail to see your point here?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    Well yes that would be drastic. That's £154,760 extra per year for a company paying 20 minimum wage employees. I'd also point out £10 an hour is above the living wage.

    Not your butchery of it and I think it should be phased in so that the businesses can afford it. As I said I'd use tax credits instead.
    The thing about tax credits is that they are inefficient because of all the administration costs. a citizens income is better
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The thing about tax credits is that they are inefficient because of all the administration costs. a citizens income is better
    I see you're ignoring about how much more it would cost businesses.

    A citizens income would go to everyone so ultimately there would be more costs. However I do support citizens income.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    I see you're ignoring about how much more it would cost businesses.

    A citizens income would go to everyone so ultimately there would be more costs. However I do support citizens income.
    They could cut the wages of the higher ups. Or we just support the smaller businesses in paying it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    They could cut the wages of the higher ups. Or we just support the smaller businesses in paying it.
    A small business is likely to have few higher ups. So basically just giving tax credits to the businesses rather than the people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    They could cut the wages of the higher ups. Or we just support the smaller businesses in paying it.
    Or, if not being naive, either cut some workers, or alternatively cut them all by closing down.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    UKIP sees capital increases as being key to the restoring Britain's hard power in the world which will be funded by an annual defence budget of 3% of GDP. A 3% of GDP defence budget provides the armed forces with an annual budgetary increase of £10bn; this will be enough to pay for the capital increases and the deployment increases. The figures below are open to change as new product enter the defence world, and the battlefield changes to become more high-tech, but the figures for the navy, air force, and army will make Britain the leading military power in Europe.

    Naval increases:

    Type 45s: 9
    GCS: 7
    Landing Platform Docks: 3
    Amphibious Assault Ships: 2
    Carriers: 1
    Astute-class: 7
    FAA: 100 F35s, 55 assorted helicopters

    RAF increases:

    Typhoons: 75 of assorted variants
    F35s: 100
    Transport fixed-wing aircraft: double A400Ms and G17s.
    Helicopters: 50% increase in Chinooks, and Wildcats.
    UAVs: 20

    Army increases:

    Helicopters: 50% increase in Wildcats, and Apaches.
    Soldiers: 20,000
    Challenger 3 designed with an expected order of 500.
    All vehicles lost in combat in Afghanistan will be replaced to prevent no decrease in the number of fighting vehicles since 2001.

    Operational Increases:

    Britain has 14 overseas territories with some of them rarely seeing anything British. To reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the overseas territories there will be an annual deployment of a task force to each overseas territory as a show of force, and to promote the United Kingdom. Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands will see an appropriate expansion of its infrastructure to allow it to accommodate any sized ship in the fleet, once this is complete there will be ships permanently in the regions based in those territories. The overseas Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are in areas of geo-political importance, and vital to Britain’s long-term national interest. To boost Britain's capability in the area there will be an increase in the numbers based there to provide a quick reaction force.

    UKIP recognises the importance of the Commonwealth of Nation, we will improve military cooperation between the states by having more routine deployments to Commonwealth nations, and engaging in joint training opportunities to boost Britain's inter-operability with allies. On the approval of the Australian government, Britain will establish a permanent presence at a joint base in Australia to boost Britain’s Asia-Pacific influence, and provide an environment where British troops can be trained in preparation for combat taking place in extreme heat. Britain will also look to seek the authorisation of the Indian government to use a joint facility on the Arabian Sea coast of India for extended periods of time, allowing the military to have ships and soldiers near the Middle East to assist in any potential crisis.
    Thank you for your detailed response , I fully support this policy however I just have a few more questions

    1) If you are going to increase spending to 3% of GDP ,How will you fund this ( would the money saved by leaving the EU go towards this )

    2) If we are increasing RAF aircraft numbers where will we store them ? We would need to build / re-open some RAF Stations to cope with high aircraft numbers and we would need to recruit more pilots , ATC Controllers , Engineers , Loadmasters ETC ( How would you fund building new bases and increasing personnel numbers ?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The thing about tax credits is that they are inefficient because of all the administration costs. a citizens income is better
    Because of course that comes with no admin(!)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    So, in cities complementing the surface world, and in extreme conditions, so let's get back to the original question, do you really believe that people who want to live in rural areas want to live underground?

    trident is a counterattack and will only be used after we have suffered heavy damage. It's completely different.
    They're completely different? How is one deterrent completely different from another just because you would be even more cautious about using it? Ultimately, we have three phases of deterrence, the first is diplomatic, embargoes and the likes, and the one most often used; the second is military, the one we rarely have to use, but do if necessary, i.e. most wars; then finally we have our nuclear deterrent, which hopefully we do not use. At the end of the day, all three systems are in place to try to stop other people doing things we don't want to

    I never said that the homeless were equal in terms of economic output. I simply stated that the 2 in the question were.
    You didn't say that though, you said in your initial answer that "no-one is more important", not "neither is more important", two things which are distinctly different from one another.

    im simply stating that there isn't a uniquely identifiable British culture. I'm not saying that culture has to be unique but to align it to a group of people is should be.
    Go read the definition again and point out where there is the necessity of uniqueness to talk about culture belonging to a group of people.
    i fail to see your point here?
    That your claim that we do not know what is at the bottom of the ocean is largely irrelevant; we are talking about fairly well explored regions of the ocean, and unless we have missed just shy of 98% of life that lives on the sea bed at 6000ft the point still stands, there is way more sea life that would be affected by energy production on the surface, which you seem to care little about, compared to transporting it across the sea floor, something you seem strongly opposed to. There is blatant hypocrisy here when you want to drive up costs to protect very little from EMFs, but are perfectly happy to expose that same 'risk' on an amount of life nearly two orders of magnitude greater in number, and that of course assumes that, per species, the density of life per unit volume is the same, which is isn't, so you're likely looking at several orders of magnitude of life forms being exposed with wave than with that big cable that you seem so against.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Thank you for your detailed response , I fully support this policy however I just have a few more questions

    1) If you are going to increase spending to 3% of GDP ,How will you fund this ( would the money saved by leaving the EU go towards this )

    2) If we are increasing RAF aircraft numbers where will we store them ? We would need to build / re-open some RAF Stations to cope with high aircraft numbers and we would need to recruit more pilots , ATC Controllers , Engineers , Loadmasters ETC ( How would you fund building new bases and increasing personnel numbers ?
    I believe controlling the welfare budget, cutting foreign aid, and tax changes could fund the increases but there are 28 RAF bases in the UK with runways capable of operating the aircraft, there are a further four RAF bases operated by the USAF with runways capable of operating the aircraft, there are five RAF bases abroad with runways capable of handling the aircraft, and there are many MoD facilities over the UK with aviation facilities. I believe the current 38 bases alone are enough to accommodate all of the extra aircraft but if they are not, the MoD facilities, the extra overseas bases UKIP support, the bases with runways that are now closed but can be reopened, and the possibility of using commercial airports will be enough to house aircraft.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Socilaists Stiff Little Fingers DaveSmith99
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Same as Gren and Lab, you declare Right to buy to be part of the problem and a failure, on what basis is this claim made?

    Q2: How much will this program cost first to take control of these industries, and then to run them at public sector levels of inefficiency? May I also remind you that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare in this country, that is unless somehow you don't pay any taxes at all.

    Q3: There are no British nuclear weapons gathering dust in Silos.

    Q4: The question asks about future economic prosperity, and to make the statement that both the graduate and the apprentice as equally valuable can, I imagine, be extended in this instance to every single person in this country, something that is patently absurd, do you deny it?

    Q5: Which human rights?

    Q6: No questions.
    Just to inform you in case you claim I have no legitimacy, the Socialist Party is run as a collective and therefore all members of the Party have equal status.

    Q1:
    We've come a long way since Labour's Aneurin Bevan founded modern council housing in the aftermath of WW2. Above all, his aim was to create mixed communities, the reasoning behind this being that it would mix people of different backgrounds together, helping them to understand one another, breaking down the sort of prejudices we see today.
    "It is entirely undesirable that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live," he argued. "If we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should all be drawn from different sectors of the community. We should try to introduce what was always the lovely feature of English and Welsh villages, where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived on the same street."

    This laudable principle has been fatally undermined by policies introduced in the Thatcher era which New Labour have happily kept in place. Council estates now display the exact opposite result to that originally intended by Bevan. As the 1970s drew to a close, before the Thatcher government launched the 'right to buy' scheme, more than two in five of us lived in council housing.
    Today the figure is closer to one in ten, with tenants of housing associations and co-operatives representing half as many again. Councils were prevented from building new homes and, over the last fourteen years, the party of Bevan has refused to invest money in the remaining houses under local authority control. As council housing collapsed, remaining stock was prioritised for those most in need. 'New tenants coming in, almost exclusively in order to meet stringent criteria, will either be single parents with dependent children, or people out of institutions e.g. prisons', explained the late Alan Walter, chairman of Defend Council Housing. 'Therefore they are, almost by definition, those without work.' Many of those who remain in council housing are too poor to take advantage of the right to buy scheme.

    New evidence has emerged that the Government’s Right to Buy scheme is an abject failure and is leading to a significant reduction in vitally needed social housing. It has been revealed that 80% of councils replying to a Local Government Association survey said that the system does not allow them to replace homes that are sold. Last year 10,000 homes were sold under the Right to Buy scheme but only 1,662 new homes were built.
    The government itself was also forced to admit the 'right to buy' scheme had failed. The Government has been forced into an embarrassing climbdown after admitting the number of homes financed by Right to Buy sales money is just over half the amount it initially claimed.
    Social housing experts poured scorn on the Department of Communities and Local Government after it slashed official figures of houses being built using council house receipts from 4,795 to 2,712.

    Right to Buy isn't aspirational, it's a club that's battering the needy and increasing inequality.
    Social housing is in crisis as right-to-buy continues to deplete stock.


    Q2: We believe in nationalisation because it is proven that under democratic public ownership, public services can be run in the interests of the people and not solely for profit. London Underground, for example, is state-run, and nobody can argue that it isn't bloody brilliant. All of LU's profits are pumped back into the system to provide a more efficient service.
    And don't be a cheeky sod, we all know the meaning of free healthcare - slightly more taxes mean a more well-funded, better-run healthcare service, which we'd all rather have than having to buy health insurance and that labyrinth of inequality.

    Q3: Really? Then where are the UK's nuclear weapons? Have they been launched at Ukraine or something? Do us a favour, we all know that nuclear weapons will never be used and no longer work as a deterrent, this isn't about lines on a map or flags anymore, the UK's biggest threat is terrorists that don't work as a conventional army or for a country.

    Q4: I'm not even going to respond to that.

    Q5: Which human rights? Well how about Freedom of thought, conscience and religion?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Q3. Socialists - as I understand it, you support cutting our defence budget immensely, never mind cutting Trident, but are additional defense cuts truly justifiable while Putin continues to push his agenda in Ukraine and Syria, is a totally pacifistic attitude fair, and how will we protected?
    Ummm, no. Just Trident. And leaving NATO.
    Putin is not a threat to the UK, therefore it's hardly rational we increase our defence spending, that would simply cause alarm to other countries.
    Trident is no longer necessary as a weapon or deterrent - no other country intends to use nuclear weapons and the main threat to the UK is from Islamic extremists. Therefore, there should at least be a cut in nuclear weapons spending and an increase from that in conventional defence spending, in that of conventional military and security forces.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: October 19, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.