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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    On what basis should we accept you?
    I'm (largely) in line with your latest manifesto and like to think of myself as a competent debater, though previous experience is largely in either spoken debate (I started a debating society in my school and staged a series of debates on various political issues before exam leave for A levels) or online in the fields of theology and philisophy more than politics (the debate forum I frequent/moderatre is by and large American, thus in terms of the necessary knowledge to debate contemporary issues and policy it's very American centric leaving me somewhat lacking in necessary knowledge, not so much a problem with English politics).

    I fully support your aims to shift towards a green country and your desire to make a part of that preventing further expansion of an already mass-polluting air industry (unless I'm very much mistaken a study in 1999 estimated that left to expand unchecked air travel could up 15% of all greenhouse emissions by the year 2050, the vast majority of which contributed by Europe and America). I further support raising taxes on short haul flights, especially those up and down the UK.

    In terms of generic energy policy beyond air travel I'm an advocate of a large scale move to renewable energy, particularly wind and hydro with nuclear power to bridge the gap of the medium term. (Granted these policies weren't specifically discussed in your manifesto I figure your claims to have an emphasis on being green would put my views [possibly bar nuclear which tends to be more controversial] in line with TSR labour party)

    Tax free energy efficiency products I think is good in the abstract although would need some stringent defining on what constitutes specifically efficient products (I realise of coure your manifesto had a word cap meaning you probably wouldn't be able to expand this idea fully).

    I think cheap, efficient, rail travel is perhaps one of the best ideas for a move to both green and safe transport across the country. Frankly for the standard currently being provided rail fares are beginning to get somewhat extortionate and I am of the opinion that given transport is of national interest, the state rightly has a part to play in ensuring that it is a service worth using.

    I was also particularly happy to see your work on protecting the minimum wage. Frankly I think that is perhaps the greatest triumph of the labour party during its time in power between 1997-2010 and am glad to see that it's TSR counter-part is taking an active role in protecting it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    I'm (largely) in line with your latest manifesto
    All the rest is policy wonk but this is the most interesting. What makes you more Labour than socialist? I mean, you are pretty well into socialist territory according to the political compass (I am too but I'm not at all comfortable with the Socialist attitude to drugs).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    All the rest is policy wonk but this is the most interesting. What makes you more Labour than socialist? I mean, you are pretty well into socialist territory according to the political compass (I am too but I'm not at all comfortable with the Socialist attitude to drugs).
    Wonk is the technical term is it ?

    Since you mentioned drugs let's start there. The socialist party policy fails to take into account victims of the drug trade beyond the user. Countless morally and legally questionable groups around the world could gain an entirely legitamate source of income if things such as marijuana are to simply be legalised without careful consideration of the sources of the drugs. This simply cannot be allowed, your policy on the matter made specific mention of this problem and that drugs would should not be legallised without workable solutions to it.

    Socialist principles are also far too extreme for my tastes insofar as taxation and benefits are concerned. Granted I fully and absolutely support the concept of a social welfare net and higher taxes from those who can afford more, I do not however think that this should be taken to unworkable extremes as most socialisists I am aquainted with would.

    Their idealism is once again my major disagreement with them in terms of justice. TSR Socialist party seems to be under the impression that investing tax money in "community centres, schools, social housing" will solve the major causes of crime. Throwing money at a problem does not work, it's putting money to useful ends that matters and I think the concept of "half-way houses" are far more likely to be effective.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    Wonk is the technical term is it ?

    Since you mentioned drugs let's start there. The socialist party policy fails to take into account victims of the drug trade beyond the user. Countless morally and legally questionable groups around the world could gain an entirely legitamate source of income if things such as marijuana are to simply be legalised without careful consideration of the sources of the drugs. This simply cannot be allowed, your policy on the matter made specific mention of this problem and that drugs would should not be legallised without workable solutions to it.

    No we don't, that's just a lie. Prohibition fosters gangsterism, as illustrated in this article. We'd be doing the developing world a service if we legalised drugs, because it could become well regulated and we'd no longer be bombing the **** out of opium farmers/forcing them into the protection of the Taliban (for example).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    oh come on adorno we don't have to interrogate someone before we let them in!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Internationale)
    Drogue the left only likes Unions in Capitalist Societies we hope to change them for a better system when we get a Socialist Society
    Which isn't something I want.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    We want full employment because not having a job is really bad for people's well being
    However full employment is only good if it's useful employment. If someone invents a robot so it requires only half the number of people currently employed to build the same number of cars, that's a great efficiency gain. You're producing the same goods at half the manpower cost. Surely it's far better that rather having a huge oversupply of cars, or worse still not using the invention, some of the people employed building cars before the invention do something else? If you can make the same goods with fewer people, you free up people to do other things, to make more goods and improve the (material) quality of life of society.

    Yes, having a job is good for people. But why should people be paid for something that isn't useful? It's a waste of their time.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    P.S. I know this Idea wont take off, I would just like to see how a popular front on TSR would play out because I bet It would be challenging and fun.
    It's happened, and was partly what pushed me into founding the Centre Party - the Lib Dems joining with the Socialists and Labour.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    Any change of an opposition sub-forum being made?
    Certainly not at the moment, as the opposition isn't a coalition. Since most of the time this is the case, I doubt there's much of a call for it. Plus the coalition doesn't have PMQs, the budget or Sec. of State reports to do, so even with a coalition opposition there's less of a need for it. However if there was one, I'm sure the admins would consider it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    No we don't, that's just a lie. Prohibition fosters gangsterism, as illustrated in this article.
    If by fosters gangsterism you mean that it maintains the actions of these people as illegal then yes. The fact is in order to get our hands on marketable quantities of drugs we'd still be dependant on develloping world imports which are still controlled by gang lords. Regardless, even if it were legal in our country, this would not make it legal to farm in the countries which are currently producing it meaning that unless we encouraged shopping from illegal organisations in other nations we'd still have no marketable source for it.

    (Original post by iwilson03)
    We'd be doing the developing world a service if we legalised drugs, because it could become well regulated
    Regulation doesn't mean the money isn't still going to questionable hands.

    (Original post by iwilson03)
    we'd no longer be bombing the **** out of opium farmers/forcing them into the protection of the Taliban (for example).
    We (and by we I mean the United Kingdom) don't bomb the **** out of opium farmers...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Which isn't something I want.


    However full employment is only good if it's useful employment. If someone invents a robot so it requires only half the number of people currently employed to build the same number of cars, that's a great efficiency gain. You're producing the same goods at half the manpower cost. Surely it's far better that rather having a huge oversupply of cars, or worse still not using the invention, some of the people employed building cars before the invention do something else? If you can make the same goods with fewer people, you free up people to do other things, to make more goods and improve the (material) quality of life of society.

    Yes, having a job is good for people. But why should people be paid for something that isn't useful? It's a waste of their time.


    It's happened, and was partly what pushed me into founding the Centre Party - the Lib Dems joining with the Socialists and Labour.

    Certainly not at the moment, as the opposition isn't a coalition. Since most of the time this is the case, I doubt there's much of a call for it. Plus the coalition doesn't have PMQs, the budget or Sec. of State reports to do, so even with a coalition opposition there's less of a need for it. However if there was one, I'm sure the admins would consider it
    You'd rather have the status quo over attempting to create Utopia?

    You can have full employment without people doing useless jobs and without inefficiency you just focus people into jobs they have the skills for ect.....

    Yes but now a proper Popular Front in the MHOC would now mean The Socialist, TSR Labour, TSR Lib Dems and The Centre Party because you and the Lib Dems seem to come as a two for one deal nower day's.

    Well I wouldn't expect It to come into existence until we get a Coalition Opposition, I was just wondering If a Coalition Opposition would get an Opposition sub-forum now that the role of government has greatly increased.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Internationale)
    You'd rather have the status quo over attempting to create Utopia?
    I don't see socialism as a route to utopia.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    You can have full employment without people doing useless jobs and without inefficiency you just focus people into jobs they have the skills for ect.....
    Not if people don't want to consume the product of those skills. Efficiency isn't just producing lots, it's about producing the mix of goods people want to consume. However efficiently you produce cars, if people don't want to consume them, that's inefficient.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    Yes but now a proper Popular Front in the MHOC would now mean The Socialist, TSR Labour, TSR Lib Dems and The Centre Party because you and the Lib Dems seem to come as a two for one deal nower day's.
    Not really, we happen to agree on a lot but we're not bound together. Just to confirm, we wouldn't enter that coalition, and though I doubt the Lib Dems would either, or the other parties with the Lib Dems, it's more plausible.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    Well I wouldn't expect It to come into existence until we get a Coalition Opposition, I was just wondering If a Coalition Opposition would get an Opposition sub-forum now that the role of government has greatly increased.
    I've no idea, it depends whether usergroups and forums are easier under v 3.8.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    I don't see socialism as a route to utopia.


    Not if people don't want to consume the product of those skills. Efficiency isn't just producing lots, it's about producing the mix of goods people want to consume. However efficiently you produce cars, if people don't want to consume them, that's inefficient.


    Not really, we happen to agree on a lot but we're not bound together. Just to confirm, we wouldn't enter that coalition, and though I doubt the Lib Dems would either, or the other parties with the Lib Dems, it's more plausible.


    I've no idea, it depends whether usergroups and forums are easier under v 3.8.
    Well how else do you propose we create Utopia, Social Capitalism?

    Not everyone needs to work making money or making products to sell.

    I know It's not going to happen, I just like throwing the idea around because a Popular Front government in the MHoC would be challenging yet fun at the same time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You seem to assume that history can even strive for this 'utopia'. I'm not sure Drogue would accept that assumption. The concept of 'utopia' remains ill-defined. The status quo may simply be the best outcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    You seem to assume that history can even strive for this 'utopia'. I'm not sure Drogue would accept that assumption. The concept of 'utopia' remains ill-defined. The status quo may simply be the best outcome.
    history do you mean humanity?

    Anyway. Utopia is quite well defined in terms of the definition of the world we just don't know exactly what It will look like and If status quo is the best possible outcome then I'm a Black, White, Asian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Anarcho-Capitalist, Neo-Nazi.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Internationale)
    Well how else do you propose we create Utopia, Social Capitalism?
    I don't propose we do, I don't think it's possible. I propose we make the best of the world we have given human nature, which means researching how policies will change people's behaviour and acting accordingly.

    (Original post by Internationale)
    Not everyone needs to work making money or making products to sell.
    I didn't mention anything about money or selling, I said consume. If you're not making anything or doing anything people want to consume you're wasting your time. Why make things or perform services that nobody wants? Who does that benefit?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Internationale)
    history do you mean humanity?

    Anyway. Utopia is quite well defined in terms of the definition of the world we just don't know exactly what It will look like and If status quo is the best possible outcome then I'm a Black, White, Asian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Anarcho-Capitalist, Neo-Nazi.
    'Humanity' would probably be more appropriate if we're speaking literally. By using 'history' I was using the Marxist theory of a determined history - I probably shouldn't have given it consciousness.

    'Utopia' isn't well defined if you don't know what it will actually look like. Or at least it doesn't seem like a useful definition. Are we in a utopia now? What are the sufficient and necessary conditions required before we reach a 'utopia'? What's the criteria? Just what is it? I think it would be useful if the term was explicated a bit more.

    I think the meaning of a sentence is intimately connected to its truth conditions, i.e. the situations under which it would be true (that's the verificationist view). What does it even mean to say that we're now 'in a utopia'? Or 'striving for a utopia'? You need to have some understanding of what it actually is, rather than relying on some faith that this ill-defined state will be achieved. What do the truth conditions of "we're in a utopia" actually look like? (In other words, what would make the whole sentence true?)

    Marx wasn't actually all that explicit on what a utopia would specifically require.

    edit: I don't understand your last point regarding the status quo.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I think people that can't define a point where they would no longer strive to better the situation, or at least mollify some facet of it, can be said to be striving for 'utopia', at least their perception of it. The problem with relative things like 'utopias' is that the definition will be different from person to person and reaching concensus on something predicated upon perfection is logically never going to happen as, as soon as someone makes a concession - an abdication from their percetion of perfection - is is automatically sub perfect, in as much as it was originally perfect to them....

    I have interjected in the middle of the conversation so may have missed some vital context here, in which case disregard my point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know in what direction to go?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    'Humanity' would probably be more appropriate if we're speaking literally. By using 'history' I was using the Marxist theory of a determined history - I probably shouldn't have given it consciousness.

    'Utopia' isn't well defined if you don't know what it will actually look like. Or at least it doesn't seem like a useful definition. Are we in a utopia now? What are the sufficient and necessary conditions required before we reach a 'utopia'? What's the criteria? Just what is it? I think it would be useful if the term was explicated a bit more.

    I think the meaning of a sentence is intimately connected to its truth conditions, i.e. the situations under which it would be true (that's the verificationist view). What does it even mean to say that we're now 'in a utopia'? Or 'striving for a utopia'? You need to have some understanding of what it actually is, rather than relying on some faith that this ill-defined state will be achieved. What do the truth conditions of "we're in a utopia" actually look like? (In other words, what would make the whole sentence true?


    Marx wasn't actually all that explicit on what a utopia would specifically require.

    edit: I don't understand your last point regarding the status quo.
    Ah ha I get what you mean by history now.

    I'll get back to you on that point in about twenty years when I've got a degree In History and Politics, a Masters in History, a Masters in Politics, a PHD in History, a PHD in Politics etc... you get the drift.

    Marx never got to finish everything he wanted to so It's up to us subsequent generations to fill in the blanks to complete Marxist theory.

    It was me basically stating in an extremely OTT and Sarcastic way that IMHO the status quo can't possibly be the best possible outcome.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Coolio
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    oh come on adorno we don't have to interrogate someone before we let them in!
    Well... it's interesting to see why people decide labour over the socialists when their political compass scores imply otherwise. You're right, perhaps I was a bit harsh in asking.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well... it's interesting to see why people decide labour over the socialists when their political compass scores imply otherwise. You're right, perhaps I was a bit harsh in asking.
    Tbh, I think if I can't handle a few questions about my political positions when joining a politicial group I probably shouldn't be applying anyway. So did I pass your questions, do I get to join labour?

    Also, side note, how do you know my political compass score? I'm fairly sure I was actually slightly further right than TSR labour. Am I missing something where I wrote it down or it automatically recorded me doing and I simply remember my position wrongly?
 
 
 
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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.