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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Thats how 20% of our GDP is created, through gambling on the stock market..... would you like to erradicate banking and then be without 20% of GDP?

    Hey guess which political party caused the recession? The democrats in the US when they forced banks to provide mortgage to poor people. The mortgages were defaulted on -> sub prime credit crunch.

    Need any more proof of how stupid left-wing ideologies are?
    Republican ideological deregulation actually, just for the record.

    Remember how it all started when Bush was in office?
    Remember how Bush is a republican?

    The above should be read in an incredibly high pitched and extremely patronizing tone of voice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I really dont get the media's attack on the Trade Unions at all, they represent ordinary working class people, which many of their members are, so to me it just seems like the media are attacking the notion that anyone should represent the working class...which given that much of the UK is working class, seems pretty tactless and insulting, the Daily Fail and the Torygraph I understand why they hate the Unions, but whats with the BBC being so hostile towards them?
    The problem I have is that the Trade Unions (along with the other affiliates) overuled the wishes of the Labour MPs and ordinary Labour members. They exist for a reason and need to retain a certain amount of influence, but they do not deserve the same amount of influence as the ordinary (often working class) members of Labour.

    I also mean working class as in people who work and earn the average wage or less, which is what, 90% or so of the UK population.
    I'm sorry but, contrary to popular belief, the middle and upper classes do not make up 10% of the population. It also seems to be a surprise to many people that most middle class families don't send their kids to private education.

    As I recall, the average wage is around £24,000. If I recall the figures of a Yougov poll correctly, 10% of the population earn over £40,000. Lots and lots and lots of people earn around the mid-£20,000s and the £30,000s - these people are the true middle class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    I said i didnt want Labour electable to Government, i didnt say there shouldnt be good opposition to the tories.

    But a bunch of nut-jobs hell bent on an ideology (equality) which isnt in nature is just bonkers!
    Essentially being good opposition entails being electable. Not entirely I know but thats the way I see it anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FynnAB)
    Don't you realise that the Premier League is watched all over the world, and that you don't have to be working class to like football?
    Do the working class go to football matches, even though they dont have much money and constantly remind us of it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan656)
    Republican ideological deregulation actually, just for the record.

    Remember how it all started when Bush was in office?
    Remember how Bush is a republican?

    The above should be read in an incredibly high pitched and extremely patronizing tone of voice.
    Im talking about Bill Clinton's presidency...... not Obama's
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    only if they are entitled to them and need them, like any citizen.
    They shouldnt be entitled to them is my point!!!!!!!



    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    ********, football was just as popular with the working class, if not more so when the footballers were on much, much lower wages
    You havent dis-proved the working class contribute towards the wages of millionaire footballes through their own choice when they constantly moan about having no money.....
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I really dont get the media's attack on the Trade Unions at all, they represent ordinary working class people, which many of their members are, so to me it just seems like the media are attacking the notion that anyone should represent the working class...which given that much of the UK is working class, seems pretty tactless and insulting, the Daily Fail and the Torygraph I understand why they hate the Unions, but whats with the BBC being so hostile towards them?
    Judging by what the unions are saying they seem completely out of touch with the world. Many people have lost their jobs yet the RMT go on strike because a 2% pay increase is not good enough? They are not even fighting for their workers they are striking because they hate the tories. Labour was going to cut as well yet the unioins were silent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The worst thing the coalition could do is to underestimate him.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan656)
    Republican ideological deregulation actually, just for the record.

    Remember how it all started when Bush was in office?
    Remember how Bush is a republican?

    The above should be read in an incredibly high pitched and extremely patronizing tone of voice.
    It was deregulation that caused it? ********, the opposite. It was governments with the likes of Brown and his FSA and the fed that were keeping interest rates held below the market equilibrium that set up the tinderbox. The sub-prime crisis was just the spark that set it off.

    It's crazy that people blame the banks. If you want to blame someone then blame the people who created the credit bubble in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EdwardCurrent)
    It was deregulation that caused it? ********, the opposite. It was governments with the likes of Brown and his FSA and the fed that were keeping interest rates held below the market equilibrium that set up the tinderbox. The sub-prime crisis was just the spark that set it off.

    It's crazy that people blame the banks. If you want to blame someone then blame the people who created the credit bubble in the first place.
    I don't blame the banks as such,

    Banks will always act purely on a profit motive, government has to keep them in line, ensuring that they can't go too far.

    All the current rhetoric, spouted largely by Vince Cable, that we have to split off investment banks from normal banks is crazy - it's nothing to do with it - it's just his way of channeling the hate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyWannabe)
    Yes, because Gordon Brown's public image was helped massively by the constant focus on his appearance.

    Are you stupid enough to think that people in this country vote on policy?

    :rolleyes:
    Touche. He didn't have John Major's bewitching charm, that's for sure.

    From what I can make out, Ed's policy portfolio stretches as far as saying nothing specific. He's at the left of labour in the centre ground of politics. That's what I've ascertained so far. The poor British public don't have the option of voting on policy.

    Can you imagine Christmas with the Milibands this year though? That's gonna get messy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've got to be honest. I'm not amazingly happy about Ed Milband's election. It remains to be seen if he is actually as Left as the majority of the media has made out but I am very pensive about the whole affair. One doesn't like to criticise the (slim) majority of the Labour Party but I am struggling to comprehend how the Party hopes to win in 2015.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I was really quite shocked by the result, I know Ed became the favourite a couple of days ago but I was convinced David would edge it. Conference looked pretty shellshocked.
    The 'red Ed' moniker is laughable, when Tony Blair became leader the tabloids dubbed him 'Bambi Blair' - does anyone remember that now? No, because it didn't resonate. Ed Miliband is not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. To the majority of people in this country that don't closely follow the ins and outs of Labour politics, he is a blank canvas. That's an advantage. I don't find it worrying that he doesn't look the very model of a potential prime minister right now, as back in 2005 Cameron didn't either. He'll grow into the role.
    No one can predict the electoral fortunes of Labour in years to come. If a week is a long time in politics, five years is an age.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This is a new dawn for Labour. I can feel it. Ed will lead us into political glory once again...and this time it'll be for the right reasons. The first thing I will do tomorrow morning is walk over to university library to pick up a book by Ralph Miliband in Ed's honour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    an army is necessary.

    Why? You keep saying this without any justification. Why is an army necessary but a welfare state isn't/ Just like there are alternatives to a welfare state which you laud, there are alternatives to a standing army.

    I am afraid you have no ground to stand on.


    i understand the double standard you point out, but i already explained that i only support central force (in theory) for things necessary to maintain a free society, e.g. anti-monopoly laws, police, etc.

    Then do you see how ridiculous it is to call taxation for a welfare state theft? You support coercive taxation, you support the enforcement of property rights by potentially deadly force. What is necessary is entirely subjective.

    inequality is inherent in society,
    Rape, murder and incest are inherent in nature. What is your point?

    what you said is the only emotive rubbish here. i have the good fortune of being born to a middle-class british background and am reasonably fit etc and have some talents, whereas someone else may be born retarded in somalia without much useful natural ability- the army didn't cause this, nature did, and i happen to agree with seeking to give all people freedom of oppurtunity, but this will not create equality, because equality is not natural.

    So you support a purely darwinian society? Survival of the fittest etc.. You believe that life should be ruthless and violent. Because of course the freedom you are talking about is not freedom whatsoever in any way. In fact it is freedom for the rich and strong, who form the minority in our society. But not freedom for the poor and weak who are the majority.

    So perhaps you can change your selling point here. You support freedom for the rich, not for the poor. 'Freedom of oppurtunity' is just a subtle way of saying this.

    if we are cavemen and i can gather 300 berries and you can gather 700, you may want to help me out and give me 200 of yours, that'd be cool, but what central authority should get to force you to give me berries? maybe i'm just lazy and don't deserve them? i think you're the one dodging the fundamental issue, because your philosophy is at its heart an arrogant and violent one in that you assume you know best for others and use force to meet your visions. why don't you explain who on earth should be making these far-reaching decisions, what group of smartasses would you assemble to rule the world? they had hundreds of thousands working away under stalin setting millions of prices; interventions never have and never will work (on the whole.)


    This is a ridiculous and simplistic example. Those in society who own land which is beyond their individual means to maintain owe a debt to society. They also owe something to those other indivdiuals who they have taken the land from.

    Why should one person be able to force me off a certain piece of the Earths surface? I would agree with your criticisms of central authority if the distribution of land was more even. But it is not and that is a fact which becomes evident when one observes the distribution of wealth worldwide. Roughly 10% of the worlds population own 90% of the wealth.

    How can you justify that? And if you have no problem with it, then your claims to be for "freedom" simply become false and intellectually dishonest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    it's like talking to a brick wall! you may disagree, but in my opinion, some form of defence is necessary for our people to be safe and to be able to live freely within our established laws. i believe the army is the best way of providing a deterrent to others so they don't invade us, if an alternative defence that i saw as superior to this were put forwards, i would support that instead.
    Youre missing the point again. I am not arguing that there should be no army. I am refuting your insinuation that an army is neccesary and that therefore taxation is justified.

    I am showing that an army is not as necessary as you seem to believe which in turns highlights your calling taxation for other projects as 'theft' ridiculous, hypocritical and emotive.


    it is simple. as a man in england, to live within our laws freely you have to be free from a german bombing you, free from a chav stabbing you, and free from a monopoly/monopsony exploiting you. to live freely within our laws you do not require some smartass bureaucrat to force money out of your pocket and invest it in the fantasies of his political superiors.
    A word of advice, this severely reduces the quality of your argument. Now if i try and wade through the unlettered rhetoric the point you seem to be making is that helping the poor is not necesary for freedom?

    So you seriously do not believe that poverty lessens the freedom of an indvidual? Or lack of healthcare?

    so in other words tax should always be seen as theft and bad,
    Why should it? You keep making these normative claims without any explanation. You still haven't adressed my point about the unequal distribution of land which is where the need for a welfare state stems.


    the sky is blue in nature, do you plan on changing that? inequality is inevitable.
    Don't try and dodge my point. You are commiting a logical fallacy here. An appeal to nature.

    A occurs in nature therefore A is inevitable.

    Rape occurs in nature therefore rape is inevitable.

    Perhaps you should change your argument?


    lol freedom of oppurtunity=freedom for the rich. how did you work that one out?
    Are you saying that the poor have the same means to be free as the rich? You are talking about liberty which is a different thing. I for instance am at liberty to jump out of my window, flap my arms and fly. But I lack the means to do so and thereby lack the freedom to do so.

    The freedom of oppurtunity you speak of is really the freedom of those who have the means. Which ergo is the freedom of the rich.

    i'm not sure exactly where i stand on this, but for example as a temporary (and by temporary i mean perhaps longer than our life-times) measure i think government should subsidise the worst off people at a young age in education terms etc.
    So you support the government stealing my hard earned cash to fund the education of some lazy kid?

    Can you not see the hypocrisy here. You position is so shaky.

    i love your descriptions of the rich and poor. first of all, the parts of the world that produce abundantly more than the others (invariably thanks to capitalistic freedoms) tend to have more wealth than others.
    They also tend to have more inequality.

    holy cow how unfair, what would you have us do? work for nothing so some communist dictator had a more equal share of the global economic pie even though his economic system is all that inhibits his people from being as productive as any other?

    Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions about my political leanings? Your lack of knowledge on the subject in general makes you seem a little silly.

    also secondly, socialists love to talk about "the rich" and "the poor" as fixed social groups- especially in the west, this is not the case, as people constantly move up and down bands, e.g. at 16 you may earn £5 an hour and by 60 you may earn £50 an hour.
    Are you seriously suggesting that there is no gap between rich and poor in the west? :lolwut:

    Just because a few people move between these groups does not make up for the vast gulf that exists between them. This is probably the worst argment in favour of mass inequality i have heard.

    a very very very small percentage of people remain within one wealth/income bracket for their whole life. also thirdly when you talk about poverty, 1. it barely exists in the west,
    Well again you are a little uninformed (Poverty doesn't exist largely because of our welfare state. There is certainly poverty in the US) but lets go with this. So if poverty doesn't exist. Why do we have the levels of crime and social unrest that we do? If there is no need to steal food to eat etc.. Then why do people steal and commit crime to make money.

    Could it perhaps have something to do with....inequality?

    Mao kills 45 million chinese in 4 years (ww2 killed only like 10m more in 6 years including the holocaust etc) and yet when china introduced some mild liberalisations millions of citizens were able to pull themselves out of poverty per year, and why? thanks to incentives! it was a constant embarassement to the Soviets that their most productive land was the private plots they discouraged and limited but afforded farmers some time to work on.
    If you seriously believe that all there is to socialism or the left is Maoism then you really need to do some reading fast.

    If I was to debate like you I would say that all there is to capitalism was the great swlump of the thirties and all the cataclysmic consequences that came of that. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:


    The membership of the Labour party clock on quick don't they?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    I see already Ed is being attacked left, right and centre. Anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head, no doubt.
    Do you cry 'racist' every time someone disagrees with you? How very Labour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1992)
    PS/ i want to ask you another quick question. could you describe basically the nature of your ideal society in terms of its economic functioning. keep in mind this society is an unrealistic ideal utopia.

    I think i'll stop here. You don't seem to be able to grasp the basic concepts I am talking about in relation to society and the question of property, the perceived differences between liberty and freedom, whether taxation is theft, wether the current distribution of land is justified etc... Not once have I tried suggested what I believe in, or contrasted your views with whatever mine might be. Instead I have simply made objective and well known criticisms of your position. (The above positions are not my own. They are theories and questions formulated by the great political and philosophical minds of the 20th century)

    For all you know I could be a follower of Ayn Rand who is merely interested in some thought provoking discussion. But more than once you have made assumptions that I am a leftist, a maoist a stalinist etc..etc...

    It is all quite immature and rather tiring. So, like I said i will leave it here.

    As for my own ideological position. I'll keep you guessing.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.