Turn on thread page Beta

V233 - Poverty Abolition Bill watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this Bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    52.78%
    On the contrary, No
    36.11%
    Abstain
    11.11%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    As I see it there are two ways of measuring equality or fairness. We could either consider that it is only fair for everyone to be treated the same by the State (equality of opportunity) or else consider it only fair that everyone have the same stuff (equality of outcome). The two are mutually exclusive. Since the Lib Dems, as far as I know, do not support equality of outcome they must support equality of opportunity or else be left without any real guiding light.
    Yes, we do support equality of opportunity. But I don't think you're accurately using either of those terms; equality of opportunity will not necessarily come from the State treating everyone equally, and equality of outcome is more complicated than how much stuff you have (although obviously, this is pretty much the main factor).
    Anyway, T&J, your point here is void. Your argument is that we need unfair taxation to help the poor. I think this Bill adequately shows that we do not.
    Not that that was the point I was making, but I don't think this fairly vague bill does show that, actually. I'm aware of the fact that you want the administrators of this scheme to work out the details, but since you haven't bothered to set any parameters I don't think you can credibly claim that this bill shows anything much.
    And here's one for the supporters of taxing the rich not only more but at a higher rate because they won't miss the money as much - should the rich be given lighter prison sentences than the poor because they'll miss their home comforts more? Unless you can answer yes to that last question I think your position becomes untenable.
    Are you seriously trying to use this analogy? I mean, really?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Any explanation or just a vague dismissal?
    I explained my distaste during the readings of the bill, and little has changed. Except to add the fact that I am astonished by the support of this bill, I'll go for a vague dismissal on this occassion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Yes, we do support equality of opportunity. But I don't think you're accurately using either of those terms; equality of opportunity will not necessarily come from the State treating everyone equally, and equality of outcome is more complicated than how much stuff you have (although obviously, this is pretty much the main factor). Not that that was the point I was making, but I don't think this fairly vague bill does show that, actually. I'm aware of the fact that you want the administrators of this scheme to work out the details, but since you haven't bothered to set any parameters I don't think you can credibly claim that this bill shows anything much.Are you seriously trying to use this analogy? I mean, really?
    Call me cynical, but you spent a long time discussing this Bill and now, about 15 minutes after big RobbieC wades in with the word "vague" you use it for the first time. :hmmm:

    And yes, I happen to think that stuff the State does is stuff the State does. I like to be consistent and rather think everyone should be if they are making decisions based on some reasoning rather than whim.

    Whatever, I hope the Lib Dems feel proud to be the only TSR Party in which not a single member voted for this Bill.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    I explained my distaste during the readings of the bill, and little has changed. Except to add the fact that I am astonished by the support of this bill, I'll go for a vague dismissal on this occassion.
    Ah yes, you're one post in the two readings the contents of which was thoroughly destroyed by Drogue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And here's one for the supporters of taxing the rich not only more but at a higher rate because they won't miss the money as much - should the rich be given lighter prison sentences than the poor because they'll miss their home comforts more? Unless you can answer yes to that last question I think your position becomes untenable.
    And here's one for the supporters of taxing the rich the same as the poor because it is "fairer" - should rapists and thieves get the same sentences because they have both committed a crime? Unless you can answer yes to that last question I think your position becomes untenable.

    STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS ANALOGIES.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Ah yes, you're one post in the two readings the contents of which was thoroughly destroyed by Drogue.
    I don't believe 'you're' is appropriate here. Can we consider you destroyed now, so you can go away and cease being a petty, incompetent, argumentative little thing?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    And here's one for the supporters of taxing the rich the same as the poor because it is "fairer" - should rapists and thieves get the same sentences because they have both committed a crime? Unless you can answer yes to that last question I think your position becomes untenable.

    STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS ANALOGIES.
    I see what you did there. Using capitals to make your argument stronger. Good one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    I don't believe 'you're' is appropriate here. Can we consider you destroyed now, so you can go away and cease being a petty, incompetent, argumentative little thing?
    If you like.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Call me cynical, but you spent a long time discussing this Bill and now, about 15 minutes after big RobbieC wades in with the word "vague" you use it for the first time. :hmmm:
    Or I'm referring to the criticisms I made in the second reading, which you've already explained that you ignored deliberately and, I believe, foolishly. Although thinking about it I probably did use that specific word on seeing it, how interesting the human mind is etc etc

    And yes, I happen to think that stuff the State does is stuff the State does. I like to be consistent and rather think everyone should be if they are making decisions based on some reasoning rather than whim.
    Perhaps I'm slow today; what?

    Whatever, I hope the Lib Dems feel proud to be the only TSR Party in which not a single member voted for this Bill.
    If you really want to know, that's because several members of the party expressed severe dislike for this bill and thus MPs were encouraged to vote against it. However, because I felt that the intentions of the bill were admirable, and because we generally don't whip against opposition bills, I refused several requests to whip. Also I think Birchington voted for this, but I may be mistaken there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Or I'm referring to the criticisms I made in the second reading, which you've already explained that you ignored deliberately and, I believe, foolishly. Although thinking about it I probably did use that specific word on seeing it, how interesting the human mind is etc etc

    Perhaps I'm slow today; what?

    If you really want to know, that's because several members of the party expressed severe dislike for this bill and thus MPs were encouraged to vote against it. However, because I felt that the intentions of the bill were admirable, and because we generally don't whip against opposition bills, I refused several requests to whip. Also I think Birchington voted for this, but I may be mistaken there.
    You're right, he did. I apologise.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    You're right, he did. I apologise.
    No problem. Like I say, good intent behind the bill, I just don't like the way it goes about its aims. But this being imaginary politics, I don't want to be the kind of leader who enforces my will on everyone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I see what you did there. Using capitals to make your argument stronger. Good one.
    Well I noticed you didn't rebuff my claim, so i'll take it as a given that you used a fatuous analogy. Cool.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Well I noticed you didn't rebuff my claim, so i'll take it as a given that you used a fatuous analogy. Cool.
    I didn't realise you wanted a response that challenged your claim. Would you like one?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    damn should of voted for abstain :o:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!
 
 
 
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: January 17, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

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.