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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Labour was founded on the principle of helping the working everyday man. Ed Miliband, in my opinion has repercussed these desires. Someone who has been so outspoken against the atrocious Iraq war and wants to raise the minimum wage, to me, is a reasonable person and realises what's what. This is a great opportunity for Labour to put some socialism back in the party... the one thing that would make this country, and the world work again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a shame Ed Miliband won. I think he's just not the right person to rebrand labour - he's too left wing and he still opposes many of the coalition's cuts. David miliband is a figure for change in the labour party, someone who is realistic and not too radical, ready to perhaps have a government that doesn't end in a recession.

    Under Ed i doubt Labour won't be able to secure support from many outside of Labour's core support base.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    so you define fairness as having grandiose visions of what would be best for other people, and using force to extract the money to pay for your fantasies?
    You should be a spin doctor, that's possibly the best way of making socialism sound evil that I've ever read.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    But you must realise that these freedoms are subjective?




    This doesn't back up your argument whatsoever. Why isn't the welfare state justified?
    to have a free society (who cares if the society is defined subjectively?) you need certain things to protect it like an army. in order for the society to survive you do not need a welfare state, as the society would continue to function without one, and more freely than it would with one. similarly the society would function more freely without the things i've said like an army, however without these necessities the society would not survive, so there is a distinction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    thankyou

    i felt the need to reply as it's strange that i am up and happened to check tsr at this strange hour right after you quoted me xD
    Strange hour? This is the best time of the day :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amiparanoid)
    So basically, a load of people who aren't in the Labour Party have chosen a leader that the Labour Party didn't select, and won more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placed votes overall?

    What's more, he only seems to have won because of 'block' union support, in return for further left-wing policies which seem to have been written to appease unions rather than help the vast majority of people?

    It smacks of complete lunacy. In fact, it's enough to put a lot of people off the Labour Party, including me.

    What's more, everyone on this thread can see this.

    Just, why.
    This.

    (Original post by Teveth)
    I see already Ed is being attacked left, right and centre. Anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head, no doubt.
    :mmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    to have a free society (who cares if the society is defined subjectively?) you need certain things to protect it like an army.
    Well, no you don't. There are numerous occasions throughout history when a nation had no standing army. The early US springs to mind.

    As for your other point, society being subjective is entirely important and forms the base for most political theory on that subject. You must first define and justify your society before you talk about armies.

    in order for the society to survive you do not need a welfare state, as the society would continue to function without one, and more freely than it would with one.
    This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean by more freely? Freedom is not simply the freedom from central government. How about my freedom to walk on the land that you call your garden? Or the grounds of a contry club golf course? You haven't even began to justify why certain individuals and a government are allowed to stop me with the use of violent force from walking on certain parts of this earth.

    Then we can move on to the inequality this uneven distribution of land creates, it is that inequality which justifies the welfare state. The welfare state did not just come into being because people wanted hand outs. It was a reaction to the vast gulf between rich and poor in a society that you would define as 'more free'. That kind of society is in reality not very free at all, it is essentially darwinian and unjust.

    similarly the society would function more freely without the things i've said like an army, however without these necessities the society would not survive, so there is a distinction.
    Well i have proven you wrong on this count with a simple example from history that does not even take into account the global situation today in which a European nation without a standing army would be far more secure than the early US was.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hope he does really well and that he comes up with a decent economic opposition plan
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can't help but smile. He looks a bit like David Cameron and Nick Clegg, yet is an utter liability for the party. Can anyone actually see him winning an election? His brother, maybe; him, no.

    (Original post by Mann18)
    You should be a spin doctor, that's possibly the best way of making socialism sound evil that I've ever read.
    I don't think you need someone to make socialism sound evil...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    I see already Ed is being attacked left, right and centre. Anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head, no doubt.
    LOL! Interesting spin.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't think you need someone to make socialism sound evil...
    :gunfire:









    :laugh:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I can't help but smile. He looks a bit like David Cameron and Nick Clegg, yet is an utter liability for the party. Can anyone actually see him winning an election? His brother, maybe; him, no.



    I don't think you need someone to make socialism sound evil...
    Well, he's got 5 years, so im pretty sure in that time, hell have the sense of getting a decent haircut and a well fitted suit.

    His speech last night, when i watched it again, was quite decent tbh- and yes he made a few stutters, but perhaps that could work in his favour. On almost every politics blog ive read since the election, people have always commented that they wanted a normal person in politics. Ok, so ed isnt exactly 100% normal (as his father was ofc ralph mili) but perhaps his flaws might give the impression that he was normal. Im pretty sure that is waht propelled cleggy anyway.

    I have my doubts of him winning an election ofc- in fact i unfortunately predict a tory majority as the lib dems will get *****slapped this time round. But 5 years is an awfully long time, and if he can politik well, im quite sure he could be a match for david cameron.

    Besides, it seems more people like Ed than they do David anyway.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    to have a free society (who cares if the society is defined subjectively?) you need certain things to protect it like an army. in order for the society to survive you do not need a welfare state, as the society would continue to function without one, and more freely than it would with one. similarly the society would function more freely without the things i've said like an army, however without these necessities the society would not survive, so there is a distinction.
    Yeah, er no.

    The closest thing to a free society in this world is probably somalia. No government interefering with your ****, no taxes and goods and services 3 x the price than if it was under government reign. Market forces at its finest eh

    As for the army- an army is needed in times of war, and really thats it. In fact, destroy the welfare state and open the free market, and you might actually cause a civil war !
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    I'm not wasting my time/effort to educate you.

    The mere fact you failed to answer the first questions means you don't have the appropriate knowledge for the issues that exist.

    I'll debate it further with you when you do.
    God, that is funny.

    Honestly - do you read the Daily Mail?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ed Miliband)
    Great success. Many thanks to those who voted for me.
    You aren't Ed Miliband, are you ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad Ed Miliband won, besides the fact I have a picture with him, David was too Blair with a mask on.

    It will be interesting to see how his cabinet pans out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    Yeah, er no.

    The closest thing to a free society in this world is probably somalia. No government interefering with your ****, no taxes and goods and services 3 x the price than if it was under government reign. Market forces at its finest eh

    As for the army- an army is needed in times of war, and really thats it. In fact, destroy the welfare state and open the free market, and you might actually cause a civil war !
    lol, i accepted the need for govt to provide the basics, which includes an army and police force. the army was one example. i don't think the government has no role. if somalia was properly policed and had a different history things would be very different there.

    when has making things freer resulted in a country getting worse off? history is pretty clear on the effectiveness of freedom, compare north korea with south, east germany with west (when split), USA with USSR (in cold war) etc etc
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    lol, i accepted the need for govt to provide the basics, which includes an army and police force. the army was one example. i don't think the government has no role. if somalia was properly policed and had a different history things would be very different there.

    when has making things freer resulted in a country getting worse off? history is pretty clear on the effectiveness of freedom, compare north korea with south, east germany with west (when split), USA with USSR (in cold war) etc etc
    You cant use extreme examples in the case of britain though. Despite many youtube videos, britiain under labour wasnt exactly the USSR- in fact, it only came close to that after 7/7 with the serious reduction of civil liberties. Then again, that has also presented other attacks occuring. Ofc i am for the renewal of civil liberties, however we need to look at its reduction in context of what other governments would have done in such a situation.

    what i beleived you advocated in your first comment was that a government only needed to provide an army. So shall private companies give healthcare ? Should they run schools and universities ? Should they be the ones running housing areas ? There are many areas where i am somewhat hesitant of privitisation, and 'the basics' is quite a broad term. So when advocating a 'free society' as many libertarians seem to do, perhaps we should look toward the free-est of them all- somalia.

    I personally beleive that people are not responsible enough to have total freedom. its a sad thing, but its one of those things that is nice in idealism but piss poor in practice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I preferred David, But I like the Miliband brothers i'm glad at least one has the labour leadershup!
 
 
 
  • 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.