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

Tory MP's vote AGAINST allowing 3000 refugee children into the UK watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Tories are heartless, so it doesn't surprise me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by godofwine)
    The Tories are heartless, so it doesn't surprise me.
    Rather be heartless than brainless.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    That's the argument I hear all the time. "I can't help them, but I want to force everyone else to."
    It's a pretty decent argument, considering that it's the basis for paying tax.

    No we dont.
    Yes we do. Just like we have a moral obligation to pay tax for welfare, healthcare, education. Even more so, because these people are far worse off and far less able to help themselves.

    I'm not saying we cant afford it, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't, surplus should be helping the citizens of the nation, not citizens of other nations.
    Why?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim."

    ~ Clement Attlee
    This must be why The Attlee Foundation is a registered charity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We aren't full. You can't get a GP appointment or a place in your school of choice because YOUR GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING FUNDING TO THE NHS AND SCHOOLS. House prices are going up BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSES.
    These cuts mean that the services can't support the people we already have. Why should we put further burden on these already stretched and cut services?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    Isn't the NHS budget going up? And education ring-fenced?
    Not sure about education spending as a whole, but Gove's reforms changed the system so that the best-performing, most well-off schools get more money, and the poorer schools get less.

    As for NHS funding, no. It was presented that way due to clever manipulation of statistics. My PC is running like **** right now and I can't find a source, but if you look around you'll be able to find articles discussing something along the lines of the NHS director being pressured to reduce his estimates for how much money the NHS needs. The NHS said "we need £_____" and the Tories said "no you don't, you need £____".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Not sure about education spending as a whole, but Gove's reforms changed the system so that the best-performing, most well-off schools get more money, and the poorer schools get less.

    As for NHS funding, no. It was presented that way due to clever manipulation of statistics. My PC is running like **** right now and I can't find a source, but if you look around you'll be able to find articles discussing something along the lines of the NHS director being pressured to reduce his estimates for how much money the NHS needs. The NHS said "we need £_____" and the Tories said "no you don't, you need £____".
    That's not how spending cuts and rises work... If I am paid, say, £10,000 and then the next day I say to my employer "I need £10m" but they only give me £11,000 that is not a pay cut, that is me not getting what I want. Oh, and here's the graph showing the spending both in real and nominal terms, funnily enough both are going up:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's not how spending cuts and rises work... If I am paid, say, £10,000 and then the next day I say to my employer "I need £10m" but they only give me £11,000 that is not a pay cut, that is me not getting what I want. Oh, and here's the graph showing the spending both in real and nominal terms, funnily enough both are going up:
    Just about to link that
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's a pretty decent argument, considering that it's the basis for paying tax.
    The basis of paying tax is for the government to appropriately distribute said taxes to it's citizens.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yes we do. Just like we have a moral obligation to pay tax for welfare, healthcare, education. Even more so, because these people are far worse off and far less able to help themselves.
    I guess we will have to disagree.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Why?
    Because tax is essentially theft via blackmail, but justified. The justification is based on what those taxes are paid for.

    Charity is a personal choice, and more importantly the state should not dictate the kind charity one donates to.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Social welfare, free healthcare and etc is state sponsored charity.
    They are, but that's not why we have them (or specifically why we should have them). Nationalized health-care and social welfare is simply more effective and improves the lives of all of society as a whole.

    The difference is that in the case of social welfare, the taxes go to the society that pays the tax.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    This makes me incredibly sad.

    1. It's only 3000 - I am sure we can fit 3000 vulnerable children in
    2. They're children - I know people object to letting refugees in because they "don't share the same values as us", however, they're children. I doubt these children have any set values - children can learn and adapt.
    Man said "only 3000". :teehee:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This must be why The Attlee Foundation is a registered charity.
    Which was established in 1967.



    This Tory didn't.

    "Against the Tory whip, I voted to accept 3,000 lone child refugees into the UK. My conscience tells me I am right. The government should change its mind"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ephen-phillips
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I never get with these tears on demand bleeding hearts is if they logically followed their sophist arguments to the conclusion then we'd have to admit every person from the third world into Europe who wants a better life because it's cruel and heartless to not do so.

    I can't figure if it's wilful stupidity or actual stupidity. I mean the left seem to pride themselves on having a higher IQ than right wingers. Probably ******** made up studies I imagine.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which was established in 1967.
    And?


    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This Tory didn't.

    "Against the Tory whip, I voted to accept 3,000 lone child refugees into the UK. My conscience tells me I am right. The government should change its mind"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ephen-phillips
    Yeah, I'll stick with my initial comment of congratulating the government for not giving into emotional hoo-ha.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Failing to act sufficiently in preventing a problem and not taking on the ensuing refugees is hardly equivalent. It was not the refusal to take in Jews that lead to their extermination (are these refugees being systematically exterminated?), it was the failure to take out the regime exterminating them.
    I didn't say they were equivalent.

    I said the refusal to provide refuge to Jews led to millions being murdered when at least some more lives could have been saved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)



    It doesn't rely on trying to appeal to emotion and petty morality and serves the inherent self interest of humankind rather than a shell of philanthropy.
    That is exactly what it does.

    "Our affairs are not in order" is just an appeal to emotion. You have not had one fact so far to support it so I have no reason to believe it .
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    That is exactly what it does.

    "Our affairs are not in order" is just an appeal to emotion. You have not had one fact so far to support it so I have no reason to believe it .

    Right on

    you do not always want to follow emotion, especially not when you are leading a country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    They are, but that's not why we have them (or specifically why we should have them). Nationalized health-care and social welfare is simply more effective and improves the lives of all of society as a whole.


    The difference is that in the case of social welfare, the taxes go to the society that pays the tax
    Well, you are changing your argument as you are going alone.

    One moment ago, you are against State sponsored charity and the next you are a proponent of it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, you are changing your argument as you are going alone.

    One moment ago, you are against State sponsored charity and the next you are a proponent of it.
    No, you've just misunderstood. I'm against programs put in place simply because they are charitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Well do something about it. Volunteer to sponsor a refugee child in a camp.

    Send them all your spare money. Go and work with refugees so you feel less "sad."

    Do something constructive to help rather than emoting on a student website.
    This is a pathetic criticism to make. One individual is not a government; she does not have the ability to organise providing housing, food etc for 3000 refugees.

    Individual moral responsibility and actions are an entirely different thing to our collective moral responsibility and actions.

    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.
    This is a terrible argument.

    What you are saying comes down to: unless we can solve all of the world's problems, we shouldn't even attempt to partially solve any of the world's problems.

    3000 children fleeing war and all manner of severe distress/trauma given a better life is 3000 children whose lives we have helped. Maybe this doesn't mean anything to you, but that doesn't degrade the argument that where we can help especially vulnerable people, we should.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    No, you've just misunderstood. I'm against programs put in place simply because they are charitable.
    I didn't misunderstand. In your last post you wrote " they are " state sponsored charity. Now, you are against programs that have charitable intentions because that makes a massive difference.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.