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

Ed Miliband pledges to put Labour back on path to socialism Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Socialists always run out of other people's money to spend. A socialist government would destroy this country both economically and socially especially with Labours love of eroding civil liberties in the name of the common good.
    I am not going to be rude because I have seen you post quite a few smart posts. But I really hate it when people copy one liners that prominent politicians have said.

    Also, I fail to see how you can moan about the erosian of civil liberties when so many people are up in arms about potential threats to this country and crime?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    I am not going to be rude because I have seen you post quite a few smart posts. But I really hate it when people copy one liners that prominent politicians have said.

    Also, I fail to see how you can moan about the erosian of civil liberties when so many people are up in arms about potential threats to this country and crime?
    I know the quote was quite stupid could't resist posting it.

    Anyway London is one of the most watched cites on the planet not really sure how each person being caught on CCTV something like 20 times a day stops terrorists? Or even regular crime?

    Many of the Anti-terror laws are used by councils to spy on people for things that have nothing to do with terrorism.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...g-walkers.html

    The right to protest outside parliament was banned for two years. Was there really any point to this law as protesting outside parliament is seen as a very symbolic act.

    Many of these laws were brought in to help combat terrorism yet they seemed to have been regularly used as a way to spy on regular people.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Referee)
    Newsflash - they may only make up ~10% of the population, but they pay ~50% of the income tax already. Why should they be paying more?

    Do you honestly think that state owned companies would be more efficient and better managed that privately owned? It's another layer of interference and more red tape!

    You seem to have this rose tinted view of socialism that I find completely inexplicable. For some reason I always get the feeling that you hate those who have money, status or both...maybe I'm doing you a disservice there but it's the impression you give.
    Do not commit the mistake of assuming without a second thought that that is necessarily the case. In many cases, state-run companies work to a much more efficient degree than their privately owned counterparts. While a government monopoly on a service may seem on paper like a disadvantage, this often leads to cheaper and better run companies - essentially it allows services to remain services, instead of a means of profit for unscrupulous companies. The idea that competition drives down prices does not ring true when it comes to issues such as transport; often particular transport companies will eventually gain a stranglehold on service to particular areas; causing monopolies which are more dangerous than that of the government as prices tend to increase further, since, don't forget, each company wil want to make the highest amount of profit possible. To see my arguments in an actual real-world context, I'd suggest that you look at the transport system in this country and then compare it to such organisations like the SNCF in France - a nationalised organisation considered one of the finest transport systems in the world. Said "red tape" doesn't seem to be holding back state-run transport systems in other countries, yet the lack thereof in Britain seems to have created a system beset by the inefficiencies you so associate with nationalised companies. What I suggest that you take from this is to rethink your arguments in a way which helps you to avoid simply throwing around sweeping terms like "red tape", which deserve no place in intelligent debate, and see further into the matter at hand, instead of simply taking a superficial glance and reaffirming your own, arguably erroneous, beliefs to yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Who the hell disagrees with the NHS and state education?

    About 2% of the population, perhaps.
    People who aren't economically illiterate?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silly Goose)
    By voting "against Thatcher", do you mean voting for someone other than the Conservatives? If so, could you point out a single PM in recent political history that managed to achieve over 50% of all votes?
    That's kinda my point. Saying that the UK has non-socialist tendencies because someone got elected with ~45% of the vote in the 80s, ignoring both the non-voting population and the extenuating circumstances that led people to vote for Thatcher (Falklands, lack of credible opposition, etc) is somewhat of a fallacious argument.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by </Tom>)
    People who aren't economically illiterate?
    Not everything has to be thought of in terms of the economy, in terms of how much money can be saved or gained from each service. The fact that you consider the NHS and state education to be economical phenomena suggests an inability to consider them in the terms they most merit. The NHS and state education are social constructs whose benefit to those who aren't hugely wealthy is enormous. I honestly believe that I would rather have social structures in place such as the NHS and state education to the slight disadvantage of the economy than to have an economy in which the rich are even more rich and those without comparable fortune are left to languish without healthcare and a means by which to educate their children.

    I would also put it to you that the assumption that without said systems in place everyone would be able to have access to private education and health care, or if not, that their inability to gain an education is of economic benefit, is more of a sign of your proposed economic illiteracy than the support for structures which allow inequality to remain as low as it is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    Do not commit the mistake of assuming without a second thought that that is necessarily the case. In many cases, state-run companies work to a much more efficient degree than their privately owned counterparts. While a government monopoly on a service may seem on paper like a disadvantage, this often leads to cheaper and better run companies - essentially it allows services to remain services, instead of a means of profit for unscrupulous companies. The idea that competition drives down prices does not ring true when it comes to issues such as transport; often particular transport companies will eventually gain a stranglehold on service to particular areas; causing monopolies which are more dangerous than that of the government as prices tend to increase further, since, don't forget, each company wil want to make the highest amount of profit possible. To see my arguments in an actual real-world context, I'd suggest that you look at the transport system in this country and then compare it to such organisations like the SNCF in France - a nationalised organisation considered one of the finest transport systems in the world. Said "red tape" doesn't seem to be holding back state-run transport systems in other countries, yet the lack thereof in Britain seems to have created a system beset by the inefficiencies you so associate with nationalised companies. What I suggest that you take from this is to rethink your arguments in a way which helps you to avoid simply throwing around sweeping terms like "red tape", which deserve no place in intelligent debate, and see further into the matter at hand, instead of simply taking a superficial glance and reaffirming your own, arguably erroneous, beliefs to yourself.
    SNCF will not be a state funded company for much longer it seems due to EU regulation http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...s-in-question/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i hope he does return Britain to socialism but that won happen because he is a puppet of the the establishment and the bourgeoisie...I mean who is gonna pay for his election campaigns
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    SNCF will not be a state funded company for much longer it seems due to EU regulation http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...s-in-question/
    Whether the EU want to change it or not, my point remains valid that nationalised companies can work better than their private counterparts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    lol "its my personal form of socialism"

    I'm guessing that personal form of socialism doesn't involve rocking the establishment, Ed.

    I expect by socialism he means a higher minimum wage and keeping the 50% tax rate. Which is probably the form of socialism the Coalition will deliver over the next few years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I know the quote was quite stupid could't resist posting it.

    Anyway London is one of the most watched cites on the planet not really sure how each person being caught on CCTV something like 20 times a day stops terrorists? Or even regular crime?

    Many of the Anti-terror laws are used by councils to spy on people for things that have nothing to do with terrorism.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...g-walkers.html

    The right to protest outside parliament was banned for two years. Was there really any point to this law as protesting outside parliament is seen as a very symbolic act.

    Many of these laws were brought in to help combat terrorism yet they seemed to have been regularly used as a way to spy on regular people.
    Fair enough. I always find that quote a bit misleading. I mean surely she meant it in the context of a society like ours rather then an actual socialist state?

    But yeah, I would say CCTV has more to do with combating crime. Tabloids are always publishing these overbloated crime figures, trying to whip up outrage amongst the public, so the Government need to be seen to be doing something. From what I have seen, CCTV is **** quality and helps few crimes, but it does act as a deterant for certian criminal behaviour and also acts as a token solution to a problem largely invented by the media.

    Im sure some anti terrorism legislation has been abused, but I wouldnt say that was its purpose when labour introduced them?

    Surely the right to protest outside parliament has something to do with security fears and also disturbing any events inside?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    Fair enough. I always find that quote a bit misleading. I mean surely she meant it in the context of a society like ours rather then an actual socialist state?

    But yeah, I would say CCTV has more to do with combating crime. Tabloids are always publishing these overbloated crime figures, trying to whip up outrage amongst the public, so the Government need to be seen to be doing something. From what I have seen, CCTV is **** quality and helps few crimes, but it does act as a deterant for certian criminal behaviour and also acts as a token solution to a problem largely invented by the media.

    Im sure some anti terrorism legislation has been abused, but I wouldnt say that was its purpose when labour introduced them?

    Surely the right to protest outside parliament has something to do with security fears and also disturbing any events inside?

    Labour should have stamped on any council that abused it and given the widespread abuse should have changed the legislation much sooner.
    Also what about this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm
    The fact that any government would consider holding anyone without trial sets a very worrying precedent.

    Even if it does the right to protest is one of the clearest ways for citizens to show their anger to the government surely if people feel so ignored by the state that they feel the need to march to parliament then MP's should not be able to avoid public anger by saying it interferes with their work? Protests also always have a high police presence and bar a few people who only show up to cause trouble most tend to be peaceful. Its not like they are a mob going to burn down parliament.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    More people voted against Thatcher than did. And many also didn't vote.
    Only 24% of the electorate voted for Labour in the 2005 election. Due to our election system, Labour came top as Thatcher came top. Also remember, Labour has been voted out, Thatcher was never voted out by the country :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Ask people if they agree with state funded healthcare, education, libraries, train travel, energy etc and they will tell you yes. That is socialism.

    all the things youve said are not socialism they are mainstream politics which are supported by the Current Coalition Government

    apart from state funded Energy which no one supports

    The Lib dems are the true face of Progressive Politics , id rather Vote Lib dem so they can get more policies in to government than vote Labour so they can carry on denying the deficit in Opposition .

    Most people in Labour are not socialist thats why Ed Lost the vote for MPs and Party Members . New Labour is not dead its just gone to the back benches for now

    Ed really needs to stop bashing the bankers and forget about Increasing taxes and welfare payments and the Graduate Tax
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    My thoughts exactly. Responsible socialism means providing good services and welfare and establishing a society which is about the benefit of the many, not the few. People broadly agree with this conceptually, but are put off by the word 'socialism'. I hope that Ed Miliband is able to overturn popular misconceptions about socialism and make people realise it's an idea of considerable value, because if he does and carries through with it we could be in for a good next government.


    This.


    80% of users in this thread...LEARN TO SOCIALISM!


    I doubt any of the right wingers (bar the OP) have actually read about the kind of socialism Ed is reffering to (There is more than one kind darlings )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James10000)
    all the things youve said are not socialism


    Yes actually they really are :lolwut:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Ed Miliband has pledged to reintroduce his personal form of socialism to the Labour Party.

    In an interview on Wednesday, the new Labour leader said that he wanted to take the party on the path back to his form of socialism.
    Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown rarely referred to “socialism” amid fears it would alienate voters who were fearful of the Left-wing Labour agenda in the 1980s.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...socialism.html
    :p: Tories in power for more than one parliament? or will the country buy socialism?
    In practical terms socialism is manifest in things like universal free (or near-free) health care and universal free (or near-free) education. If the Tories were so confident that the voting public hated socialism then they'd be scrapping both of these things in their first term, yet they're not doing so. Will the Tories ever scrap the NHS? Indeed, if the Tories were so confident that the voting public hated socialism they'd be scrapping all forms of wealth redistribution through taxation, they'd put an end to public libraries and legal aid, two of many possible examples. Obviously, in the era of capitalism, there has been some success in generating a popular sense that 'socialism' is a dirty word - but it only takes a little thought to see through the propaganda.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by James10000)
    ...

    The Lib dems are the true face of Progressive Politics...
    No, they're just opportunists who, despite losing seats at the General Election, couldn't resist the chance to sit at the big table with uncle Dave and help him axe through all the services which the most vulnerable in society rely upon.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Only 24% of the electorate voted for Labour in the 2005 election. Due to our election system, Labour came top as Thatcher came top. Also remember, Labour has been voted out, Thatcher was never voted out by the country :woo:
    Quite. But I'm not the one looking to election results as proof of the social bent of the UK's population.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    This.


    80% of users in this thread...LEARN TO SOCIALISM!


    I doubt any of the right wingers (bar the OP) have actually read about the kind of socialism Ed is reffering to (There is more than one kind darlings )
    Very well, who shall I give your money to first?
 
 
 
  • 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.