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

TSR MHoC General Election March 2013 Watch

  • View Poll Results: TSR MHoC General election. Cast your vote:
    TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
    110
    18.09%
    TSR Green Party
    77
    12.66%
    TSR Labour Party
    131
    21.55%
    TSR Liberal Party
    53
    8.72%
    TSR Libertarian Party
    46
    7.57%
    TSR Socialist Party
    69
    11.35%
    tehFrance
    36
    5.92%
    TSR UKIP
    69
    11.35%
    Spoilt Ballot
    17
    2.80%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I can see your point, and I would support the creation of a national living wage that reflects regional differences in living costs. Beyond that, it's not for the state to subsidise people's desire to buy the latest technology. The state should absolutely ensure we all have good housing, access to affordable nutrition and quality education. However, taxpayers should not foot the bill for someone's new iPad.
    Yes, you'll see I didn't actually say the state should foot the bill for someone's new iPad. Hence why I called it implied demand for such things. Besides which, if wages are good enough people will be able to make a decision - individual freedom shall we say - whether or not to invest in an expensive piece of technology like an iPad (or alternative equivalent products).

    I haven't got anything to be guilty about - making our society fairer will take many years but it seems futile to oppose legislation that really will benefit the poor, exploited and vulnerable.
    We've had 500 years of capitalism... how much longer is it going to take?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    We've had 500 years of capitalism... how much longer is it going to take?
    I'm wary of any of the real alternatives to capitalism.

    A socialist utopia might appear desirable to solve all of the problems with capitalism but it will never happen - communism or socialism has always ended getting corrupted and serving the needs of the ruling class, as capitalism has. All the while, individual freedoms and liberty have been squeezed by those in power.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Against the background of the communist gathering, liberal redesign and the other parties of the right i hear people asking what can you achieve under a Conservative government, are we are a party solely for the rich? The answer is that we believe believe in prosperity for all who work hard and make prudent decisions, there is no better example than that below...

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I'm wary of any of the real alternatives to capitalism.

    A socialist utopia might appear desirable to solve all of the problems with capitalism but it will never happen - communism or socialism has always ended getting corrupted and serving the needs of the ruling class, as capitalism has. All the while, individual freedoms and liberty have been squeezed by those in power.
    What about the Nordic Model? High public spending due to many workers being employed by the public sector. A social safety net that actually works. Universal healthcare and free education. The results speak for themselves, not just economically but I'm sure Norway is top of the HDI and Sweden and Finland aren't far behind. A perfect example of how socialism can work. You may as well just embrace it
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    What about the Nordic Model? High public spending due to many workers being employed by the public sector. A social safety net that actually works. Universal healthcare and free education. The results speak for themselves, not just economically but I'm sure Norway is top of the HDI and Sweden and Finland aren't far behind. A perfect example of how socialism can work. You may as well just embrace it
    The Nordic combination of social justice, fiscal responsibility and high personal freedom definitely appeals to me.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    What about the Nordic Model?
    What are you a sissy? :holmes:

    tehFrance, he unlike the Socialists isn't a sissy.

    A Vote for tehFrance is a Vote for Manhood!
    Question Everything :fuhrer:

    Seriously question everything, especially the BS the Liberals are spouting, worse than Labour and the Socialist party, ****ing Liberals, worse than Hitler :fuhrer:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    [center]What moronic crap, you will force energy companies to lower their costs? so they are going to run at a loss are they? never going to happen, you put less thought into that than I did when I took my morning crap
    We plan to make energy companies offset the inflation of energy costs by using pure profit. Energy companies have a duty to protect consumers from the worst effects of rising energy costs - although the rise and fall of raw energy supplies can't be controlled, it's not acceptable or fair that energy companies should continue to make massive profits without fulfilling their obligation to providing affordable prices.

    Energy costs are a real concern for households across Britain and we'll do our best to help people in difficult times. What would you propose as an alternative - more fuel poverty?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You're manifesto says you will loosen state control of the railways. Does this loosening of state control extend to privatisation or something short of?

    You say you want to reform the immigration system - can you give a bit more detail on this reform might entail?



    How will you ensure your press regulator doesn't curb press freedom whilst ensuring that the victims of press misconduct are protected?



    How far will your clampdown on legal loansharks and payday lenders extend?
    Will you break up the Murdoch empire under you're anti-monopoly plans?
    As well as invested in railways will you reform the broken franchising system?



    Given that water is currently free can you justify why you would rather people paid for it and the money went to some business owner profiteering off a basic human need?



    What will your comprehensive rehabilitation service include and will this apply to all drugs not just legal ones? Would the private sector be allowed to make a profit on the sale of cannabis and other harmful drugs?



    How would you fund your increase in military spending?



    Why do you continue to seek an EU referendum despite the fact the population of TSR voted to stay in the EU in a referendum already? Do you favour asking the same question over and over again?

    Why do you want to bring back divisive schooling by re-introducing grammar schools?
    I trust you've seen toronto's reply, stating that I'm best placed to answer on the grammar schools front.

    Grammar schools aren't about division. They are, in fact, about the absolute opposite: inclusion. Inclusion of the brightest children from the poorest backgrounds in a quality of education otherwise only available to those who can pay for it. I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school, and I saw peers who came from much worse backgrounds than I did (I was privately educated for primary) utterly eclipse what I achieved, because selective education creates a melting pot of the brightest kids, and gives the poorest children the chance to compete with the richest. I don't see why we should ruin the chances of the cleverest poorer children by putting them in with the less capable children, just in the vain hope that it'll somehow 'rub off'. It's fundamentally unfair, because the clever children from rich backgrounds get packed off to private schools, meaning their intelligence is never seen as 'eminent domain' - as a tool to make less capable children cleverer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    What about the Nordic Model? High public spending due to many workers being employed by the public sector. A social safety net that actually works. Universal healthcare and free education. The results speak for themselves, not just economically but I'm sure Norway is top of the HDI and Sweden and Finland aren't far behind. A perfect example of how socialism can work. You may as well just embrace it
    You know Sweden has a universal school voucher program and Denmark's fire services are run by G4S, right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    I'm not participating here as a representative of a political party, so what I say is what I say and nothing more.

    Now, isn't capitalism supposed to rely upon indefinite growth, upon the never-ending march of progress from poverty and backwardness to richesse and modernity? If that model is somehow broken - we socialists knew that anyway, even got t-shirts and badges made up to demonstrate our foresight - then what exactly are you right-wingers bothering to be in politics for?
    There is still growth to come but not in this country we have hit our limit with current technology. I don't know which capitalists have been spreading those myths but it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    Denmark's fire services are run by G4S, right?
    Er no, G4S is a separate company to Falck A/S, the company that runs the emergency services in Denmark. While it is true that G4S came from Group 4 Falck and Securicor PLC., they are different companies doing different things in various countries.

    tehFrance, a Man Correcting Conservative Lies!

    Vote tehFrance for Honesty!
    Question Everything :fuhrer:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team




    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    We will look to cap the maximum amount of interest they can legally charge on loan repayments. Currently the APR can exceed 5000%, which is disgusting. We'll look to set the maximum legal APR at 50% to protect consumers.

    Our anti-monopoly plans will mainly apply to future media deals, although we will consider making anti-monopoly legislation retrospective - which will affect the size of Murdoch's UK empire.

    As the railways in TSR-land are now nationalised, we'll look to streamline state rail franchises between long-distance and local to ensure funding can be better allocated according to the specific demands of long/short distance rail travel. We also plan to increase Network Rail's budget so that infrastructure can be upgraded nationwide and try to eliminate existing regional disparities where some areas get more money, but others lose out.
    Capping APR at 50% would mean that for a short-term loan, on a loan of £100 for 1 month, all they could charge would be £4. For a loan of £100 for 5 days, all they could charge would be 68pence. There is no way that the short-term loan companies could operate at these level, resulting in them moving out of the UK, meaning that people who need a bit of money to tidy them over to payday (and were doing so responsibly, only borrowing what they could afford to pay back) will be punished, and will either get charged large late payment fees from companies they owe money to, or will borrow money from backstreet loan sharks.

    The problem (with short-term loans) is no the APR, which is a terrible indicator for a short term loan, but with loans being rolled over, and irresponsible borrowing/lending. For instance, if I lend a friend £20, and then 2 days later, he pays me back, and buys me a pint (£3) to say thanks, I have charged him 2700% interest APR. And yet I don't think many people would think I had ripped him off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    QFA
    How many times are you going to post that rubbish?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I trust you've seen toronto's reply, stating that I'm best placed to answer on the grammar schools front.

    Grammar schools aren't about division. They are, in fact, about the absolute opposite: inclusion. Inclusion of the brightest children from the poorest backgrounds in a quality of education otherwise only available to those who can pay for it. I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school, and I saw peers who came from much worse backgrounds than I did (I was privately educated for primary) utterly eclipse what I achieved, because selective education creates a melting pot of the brightest kids, and gives the poorest children the chance to compete with the richest. I don't see why we should ruin the chances of the cleverest poorer children by putting them in with the less capable children, just in the vain hope that it'll somehow 'rub off'. It's fundamentally unfair, because the clever children from rich backgrounds get packed off to private schools, meaning their intelligence is never seen as 'eminent domain' - as a tool to make less capable children cleverer.
    You're primary reason seems to be splitting kids up by ability and giving them the opportunity to achieve. Surely you recognise we can do this in the current model without splitting children into thicko schools and non-thicko schools when they turn eleven? The setting system use by a lot of schools (most I know of at least) already puts the clever kids together and the less academically able children together but it gives the less academically able the opportunity to progress in their education to the highest sets, do you not think given more support to children by having smaller classes is the way to solve the problem you identify rather than putting children into different schools and demonising them before they've even started secondary?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    We plan to make energy companies offset the inflation of energy costs by using pure profit. Energy companies have a duty to protect consumers from the worst effects of rising energy costs - although the rise and fall of raw energy supplies can't be controlled, it's not acceptable or fair that energy companies should continue to make massive profits without fulfilling their obligation to providing affordable prices.

    Energy costs are a real concern for households across Britain and we'll do our best to help people in difficult times. What would you propose as an alternative - more fuel poverty?
    Why is your solution better than the socialist solution of nationalizing energy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politixx)
    There is still growth to come but not in this country we have hit our limit with current technology. I don't know which capitalists have been spreading those myths but it sounds like a load of nonsense to me.
    Yes, you're right, capitalism is a load of nonsense.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Birchington)
    We plan to make energy companies offset the inflation of energy costs by using pure profit. Energy companies have a duty to protect consumers from the worst effects of rising energy costs - although the rise and fall of raw energy supplies can't be controlled, it's not acceptable or fair that energy companies should continue to make massive profits without fulfilling their obligation to providing affordable prices.

    Energy costs are a real concern for households across Britain and we'll do our best to help people in difficult times. What would you propose as an alternative - more fuel poverty?
    You are a disgrace to the Liberal convention, you removed Democrats from your name because you are very Undemocratic, you are not pulling a fast one on me, my young Birchington! What you suggest is as bad as Nazism, companies don't have that duty at all, tell me where in the Articles of Incorporation and Articles of Association in every company ever incorporated or in the law of the United Kingdom where this duty is legally bound to them? there is no such thing at all.

    To me the energy prices are quite competitive and not too bad, is it the companies fault if people cannot afford energy? no it is not. Supply and Demand of a Precious Resource dictates price increases until it is depleted or a better alternative is found. It is clear to me that you do not understand how the market works.

    tehFrance, kicking the Liberals in the balls!

    A Vote for tehFrance is a Vote for Economic Freedom and Sensibility!
    Question Everything :fuhrer:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    tehFrance, licking the Liberals in the balls!
    My good sir, you cannot kick the Liberals in the balls for, as is well known by the entire medical profession of Zanzibar, they do not have any. Instead, they procreate through a mixture of the goo from Creme Eggs and holy water bought from the Evian truck at Lourdes.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    My good sir, you cannot kick the Liberals in the balls for, as is well known by the entire medical profession of Zanzibar, they do not have any. Instead, they procreate through a mixture of the goo from Creme Eggs and holy water bought from the Evian truck at Lourdes.
    Sir how dare you say I lick Liberal balls, I said I KICK Liberals in the balls, so amend your falsified quote at once or face a good bumming :sexface:

    I must protest, they have balls purely for the reason of being kicked and causing pain to them that they force upon millions.

    Vote for tehFrance, the defender of the people!
    Question everything those damn Liberals say! :fuhrer:
 
 
 
  • 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.