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

Which party do you plan to vote for in the General Election? Jan-Feb opinion poll Watch

  • View Poll Results: Which party are you planning to vote for?
    Conservative
    108
    22.74%
    Labour
    112
    23.58%
    Liberal Democrats
    28
    5.89%
    UKIP
    50
    10.53%
    SNP
    15
    3.16%
    Sinn Féin
    5
    1.05%
    Green Party
    117
    24.63%
    Plaid Cymru
    2
    0.42%
    SDLP
    3
    0.63%
    DUP
    4
    0.84%
    Independent
    3
    0.63%
    Alliance
    1
    0.21%
    Respect
    2
    0.42%
    Other (please state in a post)
    4
    0.84%
    Not voting
    21
    4.42%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nich01as)
    I'll try it then- Greens, a party with a good overall ideology, but completely overrun with closet socialists and a mishmash of anti-capitalism policies that if implemented would likely bring the country to their knees. Their lack of organisational skills are shown by the shambles of their Brighton constituency.

    If you vote green as a message to the major parties that you want a shift towards greener policies then go ahead, if it's actually in the hope they gain some power then it is worrying- they have the same ability to avoid all real scrutiny as UKIP do, by being a fringe party. Whilst I have slightly more respect for them- they aren't just pandering to populist policies, and probably truly believe they could run the country- I certainly think they couldn't, and they ignore huge issues such as the increasing national debt.

    The best thing about the Green's in my opinion is their ability to split the Labour vote. My philosophy is this, and always will be- The best form of society is one in which the average person- by that I mean the medium, not mean, as in someone earning in the 50th percentile- is best off, as long as the worse off people are above a certain threshold- and have support to try to rise above that threshold- ie incentives of returning to work, high employment etc. If communism worked- as in if everyone was equal in wealth above the medium wealth in a capitalist society, I would jump straight over there. However, it doesn't. Rich people are needed to drive employment, to create wealth and pay the taxes (Top 1% pay 30% of taxes). The thing parties such as the Greens, and Labour seem to ignore is the fact that redistributing wealth can alter the amount of wealth. It's not like the UK is a pot of X billion, which can be spread around freely- it is a pot of X billion, that will shrink or grow depending on how it's distributed. A shift to socialism as advocated by the Greens would make the medium person poorer I believe, and hence is something to be avoided.

    I'd like to hear what you think about this
    Wealth is a finite thing. The only thing that can create wealth is resources and manufacturing (i.e. turning the resource into something that can harness more resources). Everything else is simply the process of taking money from one and giving it to another. What you consider 'wealth creation' is simply the act of taking wealth/resources away from other countries for the benefit of ourselves. We're only better off in that sense at the expense of others.

    Socialism can work and does work in Scandinavian countries, where the average person is still wealthy. The process of taking money from the rich and using to create infrastructure and help the poor does not suddenly result in a less overall amount of wealth. The reason it failed in the Soviet Union and other 'communist' states is because they spent disproportionate amounts on military and policing among other things, and insufficient amounts on infrastructure for resource gathering and manufacturing. Basically they wasted their resources.

    The policy of neoliberal parties is to take the resources from the ground until we run out and then we're all ****ed but it's alright because they will all be dead by then. The Green party policy is literally to create resources out of thin air. Therefore it won't run out and renewable energy sources are better for wealth creation than anything else.

    I apologise that this post is a bit of a mess (I'm tired) but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    Wealth is a finite thing. The only thing that can create wealth is resources and manufacturing (i.e. turning the resource into something that can harness more resources). Everything else is simply the process of taking money from one and giving it to another. What you consider 'wealth creation' is simply the act of taking wealth/resources away from other countries for the benefit of ourselves. We're only better off in that sense at the expense of others.

    Socialism can work and does work in Scandinavian countries, where the average person is still wealthy. The process of taking money from the rich and using to create infrastructure and help the poor does not suddenly result in a less overall amount of wealth. The reason it failed in the Soviet Union and other 'communist' states is because they spent disproportionate amounts on military and policing among other things, and insufficient amounts on infrastructure for resource gathering and manufacturing. Basically they wasted their resources.

    The policy of neoliberal parties is to take the resources from the ground until we run out and then we're all ****ed but it's alright because they will all be dead by then. The Green party policy is literally to create resources out of thin air. Therefore it won't run out and renewable energy sources are better for wealth creation than anything else.

    I apologise that this post is a bit of a mess (I'm tired) but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.
    In the 10-15 years up to 2008, the Nordic countries performed incredibly well- high growths leading to their current wealth. However in that period public spending was falling in tandem- by over 20% on average- it's still high I admit, however I don't think we can ascribe the wealth to a socialist(ish) government form, I might go as far as saying they're wealthy despite it.

    Wealth is a finite thing- wealth creation is not however, as you admitted. The ability to create wealth can increase or decrease, and over time that increases the amount of wealth, that is correct. If a country is more efficient in the short term, producing more capital goods than another, then in the long term it will be able to produce more 'wealth' and hence increase the total So again, the argument of which form of government leads to a society in the long run is down to which leads to a society that can produce more goods capable of increasing productive capacity.

    I honestly think very few people would say that a government run project is the most efficient way of building or doing something. The government should be the guiding hand at most, not the hand that builds wind turbines. Governments should encourage investment in areas they deem to have positive externalities with subsidies, and disincentivise those seen to have negative ones with taxes. In that way, if the green party was just a party very similar to the conservatives, with the only difference being this- 'By 2019 we expect to have a 27Bn surplus, I propose we start spending that 27Bn now, in the form of subsidies for green investment. This will at the worst add 120Bn to the national debt- a small addition to the massive sum- before we reach surplus, or at best help stimulate growth more to reach that goal faster' then I may consider voting for them. I entirely agree that green investment is crucial. As I said, I am very against the idea of an all powerful government.

    Competition for a profit is the best way to get something done- a centrally planned society, in which each person works for the 'greater good' would only work with an omnipotent ruler who knows what people will desire before they do- it won't allow choices in taste, it would be like having one brand of anything- if there was a state owned phone manufacturer, I doubt both Apple and Samsung fanboys could be happy- I know I may be taking your ideas to extremes, but state run economies can't work.

    I would go on in more detail about why I think they won't work, but I first want to know what your ideal society would be- I doubt it's a full on 100% public spending 'utopia'- What role does entrepreneurship play, what level of taxes would be in place- how much could the richest people earn etc.

    One flaw in your argument I think is the way you seem to have classified 'wealth' as one homogeneous thing. What is wealth- obviously necessities are in there, food etc, housing. Things which become very difficult to classify however become increasingly obvious- innovations such as computers, different types of phones, even games consoles. Hell, websites such as the student room. Things which become even more difficult are of course things such as art, music, films and books etc. I think these things flourish under a liberal society in which people can choose what matters to them, and try and try and gain/achieve it- through a complex series of events and due to the supply and demand mechanism this mishmash of wants/needs and the entrepreneurs wish to make a profit make a system that so far has worked better than any previously. State planning is only the best form of government up until the point where the infrastructure is great enough to allow private enterprise. From then on, the government should take a back seat, only intervening to improve infrastructure to make sure the capitalist system can continue to work at its optimum.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    Wealth is a finite thing. The only thing that can create wealth is resources and manufacturing

    The Green party policy is literally to create resources out of thin air. Therefore it won't run out and renewable energy sources are better for wealth creation than anything else.
    Surely the second statement invalidates the first one? By your admission wealth can be created by 'resources' and 'resources' can be created out of thin air- how can something that's finite be created out of thin air.
    Sorry for being pedantic- but wealth is not finite, unless you define wealth as literally the atoms that make up the planet. I personally think that a bridge constitutes more wealth than the constituent, unrefined iron ore, or the electricity from a wind turbine to the kinetic energy of air. Hence, as I said above, the argument about which form of society produces more overall wealth DOES exist. Wealth is finite at any one time, but if you have an inefficient government form then wealth creation will decrease, and hence the 'pot' of wealth won't increase- meaning the less efficient one will be less wealthy overall in the long run. For reasons outlined above,

    I think a socialist society would be the inefficient one- as moving wealth over from one person to another in the form of 'reducing inequality' takes away the productive capacity of the people who previously held wealth- these people were the entrepreneurs who were able to create huge amounts of wealth by properly utilising raw materials. I think therefore these people are best suited to produce more, with the start up capital required. If the bridge builder who finds incredibly efficient ways to build has his money taken away, he can't continue to employ the same number of people, his business decreases in time. The people who are given the wealth are unlikely to do much investing with it- if they made smart use of money they wouldn't need handouts. Hence, redistribution will reduce wealth in the long run. The only argument to this would be to say that the government are more efficient at doing things in every field than each and every individual in their own best field. I think that argument is ludicrous and beyond even the need to rebuff it. If you find another way to argue against the idea then please post it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nich01as)
    I'll try it then- Greens, a party with a good overall ideology, but completely overrun with closet socialists and a mishmash of anti-capitalism policies that if implemented would likely bring the country to their knees. Their lack of organisational skills are shown by the shambles of their Brighton constituency

    well as an eco-socialist and very much out of the closet myself I have no issue with that anti-capitalist policies can work, look at Scandinavia & South America, many such policies exist there and have seen huge increases in most peoples standards of living. Brighton from what I understand the council has struggled because it's a minority one so has to work against all the other parties basically, I imagine any party would look disorganised in that situation, the people on it who weren't suitable I imagine have or will be removed as well, the Brighton MP Caroline Lucas is actually one of the most popular and has been well received by voters there by all accounts I've heard as well, certainly a point can be made that we should do more to make sure the party is ready for power both locally and nationally but the growing membership imo will help with that as there is much more choice available in terms of potential candidates, I know from one person I spoke to that part of the problem in Brighton was having people elected who weren't really proper members even or had only been members for a very short time.


    If you vote green as a message to the major parties that you want a shift towards greener policies then go ahead, if it's actually in the hope they gain some power then it is worrying- they have the same ability to avoid all real scrutiny as UKIP do, by being a fringe party. Whilst I have slightly more respect for them- they aren't just pandering to populist policies, and probably truly believe they could run the country- I certainly think they couldn't, and they ignore huge issues such as the increasing national debt

    I vote for them because I think they are the best party out there, I joined them for the same reason. as I said I disagree that our policies are unrealistic, I don't know that they would raise debt much either if at all, the manifesto in 2010 was fully costed as will the 2015 one be, there's also a point to be made about moving away from traditional growth based economics but that's a bigger topic probably better suited to another thread really.

    The best thing about the Green's in my opinion is their ability to split the Labour vote. My philosophy is this, and always will be- The best form of society is one in which the average person- by that I mean the medium, not mean, as in someone earning in the 50th percentile- is best off, as long as the worse off people are above a certain threshold- and have support to try to rise above that threshold- ie incentives of returning to work, high employment etc. If communism worked- as in if everyone was equal in wealth above the medium wealth in a capitalist society, I would jump straight over there. However, it doesn't. Rich people are needed to drive employment, to create wealth and pay the taxes (Top 1% pay 30% of taxes). The thing parties such as the Greens, and Labour seem to ignore is the fact that redistributing wealth can alter the amount of wealth. It's not like the UK is a pot of X billion, which can be spread around freely- it is a pot of X billion, that will shrink or grow depending on how it's distributed. A shift to socialism as advocated by the Greens would make the medium person poorer I believe, and hence is something to be avoided.

    I don't really care what we do to Labour's vote, if they are losing votes to us then it's because they aren't offering a proper alternative themselves, for which they can only blame their own party. well the average in the UK is a salary of about £26k? I don't really do maths myself so I can't really claim to understand your point fully there? I disagree about work to an extent, or at least I don't like the traditional capitalist view of work, I think there is much more to work than just doing something for money but again this is another issue really. well I wouldn't advocate a completely communist approach anyway, at least not in the traditional sense, more a community based approach, where power is democratised and generally devolved to a local level where possible/prudent. I wouldn't advocate banning rich people either, I would advocate them paying a lot more tax though. well you are wrong there for one as well, it's the poor who create wealth through their labour, the rich generally in our society just exploit that labour. I disagree, I think a shift to an eco-socialist model both in the UK & elsewhere would make most people much better off, the only people who would "suffer" (for want of a better word as it's not even remotely suffering in any sense anyone would recognise it) would be the top 1% who would have to pay their fare share, but given they only have that money because of the society they live in, I think it's more than reasonable to ask them to contribute to that society.


    I'd like to hear what you think about this
    see bold, sorry for the late reply, not been on TSR much today. tbh from what you are saying I think you come at it from a very different point of view to mine in terms of how you look at how the economy works right now and how it would potentially work. but anyway, thank you for asking a question that was actually worth reading/replying to, most of the replies in this thread I had were just meaningless rhetoric & flame bait, which I have no interest in indulging with a reply lol
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    see bold, sorry for the late reply, not been on TSR much today. tbh from what you are saying I think you come at it from a very different point of view to mine in terms of how you look at how the economy works right now and how it would potentially work. but anyway, thank you for asking a question that was actually worth reading/replying to, most of the replies in this thread I had were just meaningless rhetoric & flame bait, which I have no interest in indulging with a reply lol
    Well thanks for the reply- and you are right, we do see things very differently :P At least your reasons for voting Green are thought out, and you realise they are basically Socialist- I think a lot of people who vote for them do not know their policies in full and are just voting from an environmental point of view. I cannot argue much with the top 2 paragraphs- I have not read the manifesto's in full as you seem to have (Although, despite being fully costed for, that's not enough at the moment, to stop adding to debt, it must be fully costed for with a further 30Bn a year pulled out of the hat), but I can attempt to argue with the final paragraph as it is just defence of socialism.

    To your first point- about the fact work shouldn't be just something you do for money- from an idealistic view I can understand that to be a nice point. However, I don't see how it could work? If you mean these local communities hand out jobs to people, and they get paid in the form of housing and food etc then that seems either far too oppressive or it won't work. If everyone had the same ideals as you, perhaps it would- but I think only a small proportion of people would happily work when the alternative was not working. They need an incentive- that is money. Money incentives work, and hard work for that matter. The prospect of bonuses, raises, promotions only work due to the increased buying power they result in.

    My argument against government run-- even local government run- economies is always the same. They don't produce anything different. People would have no choice in products. Competition and choice in a free market, and the desire to make a profit is the only efficient way to create true innovation and wealth. I think your Marxist statement that ' it's the poor who create wealth through their labour, the rich generally in our society just exploit that labour 'is completely wrong. Entrepreneurs- the people who become rich- are simply the people who have the ability to combine the factors of production to create a marketable product or service. Your implication seems to be that if these entrepreneurs at the top weren't around, the company workers would be better off- they would be able to share more of the profit around. But no- the people with the leadership ability to set up these huge businesses are the reason for the wealth creation. If, as I mentioned earlier, the government set up a 'co-operative' type factory to manufacture phones, the results would be far worse, without choice and competition, technology growth and increases in standards of living would be far slower. Entrepreneurs offer the labourers pay to create something, and the labourers, as consenting adults agree. If the labourer had the same ability as the entrepreneur, then he would be in his shoes. Nowadays, where people are no longer held down by class- class mobility is the highest it's ever been- I think saying the workers are exploited is vastly outdated.

    My point overall is, if a socialist system were put into place, the result;t would be very inefficient. So inefficient that the average person would be worse off than they would be in a capitalist system- even if wealth were to be split equally in this socialist system, as the total wealth- output- would be higher under the capitalist system. IMO, taxes are high enough on the rich, any higher they would have little incentive to do what they do and create wealth. Hence, everyone will suffer- fewer jobs created, more people on benefits, more money needed- hey let's tax the rich again. It's a viscous cycle- then the only way to get the unemployed back to work is by government employment. Outside of public goods- things which have major positive externalities- the government are the least efficient producer, and will result in a homogeneous product type. That's if the whole world increased taxes on the rich. If just we did it, like you suggest, they would simply leave the country, and we'd be even worse off.

    Socialism works slightly in Nordic countries as they are smaller, with a far more homogeneous culture than us. If you want to look at the effects of socialism on a country similar to us, then looks over at Mr Hollande's failure. There is a reason that Capitalism is the go to Economic model
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Keep voting guys.

    The Greens are currently leading with the Tories and Labour just trailing behind!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm...... there is no option for Muslim Brotherhood, yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    no people provide all these things.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yes. how? with money? you cant possibly be happy if you don't have a home, you're ill or you're naked?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by caral99)
    yes. how? with money? you cant possibly be happy if you don't have a home, you're ill or you're naked?
    No with work, money is a social structure less then 400 years old. Money isn't nessesary for a fully functioning society.
    also if you truly belive that I take it you help the homeless find shelter all the time? And nudists aren't happy being nude?! Bold accusation.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No with work, money is a social structure less then 400 years old. Money isn't nessesary for a fully functioning society.
    also if you truly belive that I take it you help the homeless find shelter all the time? And nudists aren't happy being nude?! Bold accusation.
    You're deluded mate. You trying living on the street for the rest of your life with no money and try to stay happy. You should be grateful for the home and life you have at the moment. Money is required in today's world for a good standard of living. Fact. We need to do more to help the poor, yes, but that doesn't mean abolishing our entire social structure that has made the majority of people richer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I really want to vote Green, but does anyone else feel like if they vote for any of the non 3 major parties and they get in they'll be all like

    Attached Images
     
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 10001)
    You're deluded mate. You trying living on the street for the rest of your life with no money and try to stay happy. You should be grateful for the home and life you have at the moment. Money is required in today's world for a good standard of living. Fact. We need to do more to help the poor, yes, but that doesn't mean abolishing our entire social structure that has made the majority of people richer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I shouldn't need money I people should help out of kindness.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I shouldn't need money I people should help out of kindness.
    That doesn't answer my question. I never said we shouldn't help people but if you don't think we should have money, give all yours away and live rough. See how you like it. Appreciate what you've got.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 10001)
    That doesn't answer my question. I never said we shouldn't help people but if you don't think we should have money, give all yours away and live rough. See how you like it. Appreciate what you've got.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Without money we would still have houses and no one would live rough so I don't see what relevance this has.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Without money we would still have houses and no one would live rough so I don't see what relevance this has.
    IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS SERIOUSLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU!!!!! YOU MAKE NO SENSE. YOU CLEARLY ARE CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY WORKS!!!!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 10001)
    IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS SERIOUSLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU!!!!! YOU MAKE NO SENSE. YOU CLEARLY ARE CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY WORKS!!!!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think I understand economics better then some guy who thinks that there is limitless growth in this world.
    as for society I know how it works and I want to change it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I think I understand economics better then some guy who thinks that there is limitless growth in this world.
    as for society I know how it works and I want to change it.
    When did I ever say you could have limitless growth. Find me that quote of mine ( you'll be looking for ever). And the only way there will ever be a peaceful society is when Jesus comes back and makes the world perfect again. Until then, all attempts by humans are futile and they have got the wrong idea if they think a multicultural and tolerant society of all religions is the right way.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Per)
    I really want to vote Green, but does anyone else feel like if they vote for any of the non 3 major parties and they get in they'll be all like

    That image probably represents about 90% of people who vote for the Green Party.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 10001)
    When did I ever say you could have limitless growth. Find me that quote of mine ( you'll be looking for ever). And the only way there will ever be a peaceful society is when Jesus comes back and makes the world perfect again. Until then, all attempts by humans are futile and they have got the wrong idea if they think a multicultural and tolerant society of all religions is the right way.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You said that zero growth is ludicrous.

    OMG you're some religious extreemist. It's that kind of atitude we don't need. It is the right way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andinet)
    That image probably represents about 90% of people who vote for the Green Party.
    I'd like to vote Green as some of their proposed plans are actually good - but then you see the other things they plan to implement and I'm just like no.

    Either the Conservatives or Labour, probably the latter.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.