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

TSR MHoC General Election April 2011 Watch

  • View Poll Results: TSR MHoC General Election April 2011
    Results hidden until poll closes.

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty sure that sending PMs to get people to vote to abyone except party members is against MHoC rules, no?

    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    x
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Voted Conservative, unsuprising since i am a member of the party.

    Just curious as to what the TSR party positions are on AV? I intend to go against the RL Conservatives in voting Yes, but only because i see it as the only plausable way to get PR after the 2020 election.

    Good look all but to people reading this, your only logical choice is VOTE FOR THE TSR CONSERVATIVE PARTY!
    With regards to AV, I can see potential merits with it. I won't vote for it as I don't think that it is a good system, but when a party, let's take UKIP, can get 1 million votes, but no seats, there is a problem. To solve the problem you would need to really remove constituencies because I can't see how you could do it on a local level really. The difficulty is how to get around it with regards to constituencies because suddenly MPs will no longer have that personal relationship with their constituents when they are campaigning on national not local levels. So I do support some change in principle, but I struggle to see how we can do it in reality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    How can you say if people get incredibly poor they won't be able to afford £7.50 at £22,000/year? Seems to make no sense - you stop paying if you stop earning over £21k.

    You're seriously suggesting we hire a private security firm? Do you have any idea the cost of them? To send them into foreign countries to protect aid workers on behalf of the government would cost billions. I agree that we need to reform how aid is given and how aid workers are kept safe whilst in third world countries. But it is a very difficult situation - especially with the economy in the state it's in and government cutting. But the majority of problems arise from the corruption of government in these countries and while they're in power there is not a lot we can do apart from lobby the UN to enforce sanctions.
    The PMC was just a suggestion, but the aid to foreign countries needs to be a government-driven operation, not just charities only, or mainly.

    Yes, many people will not. You have some who will not be able to pay off other debts, so this may all rack up to one massive cost.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Voted Conservative, unsuprising since i am a member of the party.

    Just curious as to what the TSR party positions are on AV? I intend to go against the RL Conservatives in voting Yes, but only because i see it as the only plausable way to get PR after the 2020 election.

    Good look all but to people reading this, your only logical choice is VOTE FOR THE TSR CONSERVATIVE PARTY!
    With regards to AV, I'll be following the party line with a No vote. Because not only is AV a shoddy system, but I don't believe that Labour or the Conservatives will follow it up in a few years with more electoral reform. As you can probably see from my sig, I'm a supporter of real proportional representation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    With regards to AV, I can see potential merits with it. I won't vote for it as I don't think that it is a good system, but when a party, let's take UKIP, can get 1 million votes, but no seats, there is a problem. To solve the problem you would need to really remove constituencies because I can't see how you could do it on a local level really. The difficulty is how to get around it with regards to constituencies because suddenly MPs will no longer have that personal relationship with their constituents when they are campaigning on national not local levels. So I do support some change in principle, but I struggle to see how we can do it in reality.
    I also think it is a pretty poor system (although i do like the idea of the person actually having 50%+ of the vote), however i think that it is the best chance of keeping the Liberal Democrats in power which is nessesary if we are to get a push for PR. Once Nick Clegg goes then the electorate should warm to them.

    In regards to PR, the best way to do it i think would be to have much bigger constituencies, with muliple representatives. An example would be taking somewhere the size of West Yorkshire and having 20 MP's representing it based on the share of the vote (a party with less than 5% of the vote would not get an MP). Within those 20 MP's, they can then come to an agreement that x will represent the people of x town which would allow them to maintain a local link. Possibly a poor idea, so feel free to dispute.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    The PMC was just a suggestion, but the aid to foreign countries needs to be a government-driven operation, not just charities only, or mainly.
    I agree that the government has an obligation to provide aid. But what I'm saying is that the way in which the government gives aid is flawed and we need to work with aid workers and work with the UN to get rid of the corrupt governments stopping the money donated from having an effect.
    Yes, many people will not. You have some who will not be able to pay off other debts, so this may all rack up to one massive cost.
    Do you have any idea of how the repayment scheme works? It doesn't seem like it. You pay 9% of every pound over £21k; it comes out of your wages like National Insurance and income tax - so, really, you're not going to notice it when setting out a budget. You can't default on it, you won't get bailiffs round if you don't earn over £21k - you'll never pay more than the 9% over £21,000. It is essentially a graduate tax with either a time or payment limit - whichever comes first (30 years, or however much you borrowed).
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I also think it is a pretty poor system (although i do like the idea of the person actually having 50%+ of the vote), however i think that it is the best chance of keeping the Liberal Democrats in power which is nessesary if we are to get a push for PR. Once Nick Clegg goes then the electorate should warm to them.

    In regards to PR, the best way to do it i think would be to have much bigger constituencies, with muliple representatives. An example would be taking somewhere the size of West Yorkshire and having 20 MP's representing it based on the share of the vote (a party with less than 5% of the vote would not get an MP). Within those 20 MP's, they can then come to an agreement that x will represent the people of x town which would allow them to maintain a local link. Possibly a poor idea, so feel free to dispute.
    Totally agree with that, but still larger constituencies means poorer constituent/ MP relationships.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Totally agree with that, but still larger constituencies means poorer constituent/ MP relationships.
    It does remove the personal touch although there are positives to that. Under the current local MP system, you can get some real idiots (a prospective Conservative MP in 2005 near me being a good example) and as a result some people voted for Labour because they liked the person despite not liking the policies. If we were to have multiple representatives then you would get a much better feel for the actual parties fighting for your vote.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It does remove the personal touch although there are positives to that. Under the current local MP system, you can get some real idiots (a prospective Conservative MP in 2005 near me being a good example) and as a result some people voted for Labour because they liked the person despite not liking the policies. If we were to have multiple representatives then you would get a much better feel for the actual parties fighting for your vote.
    I mean more in the sense of being in touch with their community and their constituency.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I'm pretty sure that sending PMs to get people to vote to abyone except party members is against MHoC rules, no?
    It is, but I think they're talking about mass PM'ing their party usergroup, which would be within the rules. If anyone receives an unsolicited PM telling them to vote for a particular party, they should get in contact with me so I can look into it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I agree that the government has an obligation to provide aid. But what I'm saying is that the way in which the government gives aid is flawed and we need to work with aid workers and work with the UN to get rid of the corrupt governments stopping the money donated from having an effect.

    Do you have any idea of how the repayment scheme works? It doesn't seem like it. You pay 9% of every pound over £21k; it comes out of your wages like National Insurance and income tax - so, really, you're not going to notice it when setting out a budget. You can't default on it, you won't get bailiffs round if you don't earn over £21k - you'll never pay more than the 9% over £21,000. It is essentially a graduate tax with either a time or payment limit - whichever comes first (30 years, or however much you borrowed).
    Yes I know, you start paying once you earn over £21,000. But what if the person is already in lots of debt? And worst still, they come from a poor family that cannot support him financially? Should he rot away like you, the tories want him to? NO! Socialism gives him a helping hand, and will bring equality and freedom to all.

    As for the matter with foreign aid (this is all my view), the UN is a pointless organisation that was once set up for a very good cause, but this just dissolved after the half-century it has been in existence. I'm not saying we should abolish the UN, but we should give them more power, and allow them to command corrupt governments, rather than condemn some small civil war somewhere. They should order them to stop, allow the international committee to vote on what to do next, then act.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Yes I know, you start paying once you earn over £21,000. But what if the person is already in lots of debt? And worst still, they come from a poor family that cannot support him financially? Should he rot away like you, the tories want him to? NO! Socialism gives him a helping hand, and will bring equality and freedom to all.
    You really don't get the repayment system do you? If you lose your job, take a pay cut or anything else that means you no longer earn £21,000 you stop paying. And I'd really question the financial capability of someone is in loads of unmanageable debt (excluding a student loan) shortly after graduating. The loan repayments come out like any other income related tax - it's nothing like a bank loan. No one can end up on the verge of bankruptcy because of student loans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Massive lolage at Labour recycling the manifesto i wrotey for the last election. Pity that, it shows stagnation.
    To be honest much of our success the term before last was down to you. And due to Parliament being quiet and all last term, well, not much has changed!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    You really don't get the repayment system do you? If you lose your job, take a pay cut or anything else that means you no longer earn £21,000 you stop paying. And I'd really question the financial capability of someone is in loads of unmanageable debt (excluding a student loan) shortly after graduating. The loan repayments come out like any other income related tax - it's nothing like a bank loan. No one can end up on the verge of bankruptcy because of student loans.
    But what if their parents had recently passed on, and their debts went on to them through no fault of their own?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    But what if their parents had recently passed on, and their debts went on to them through no fault of their own?
    Debts aren't transferred to kids after a death. Any debts will be taken out of the deceased estates (their assets and savings) but a company cannot take the children to court for the money.

    Conversely, what if they win the lottery?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Debts aren't transferred to kids after a death. Any debts will be taken out of the deceased estates (their assets and savings) but a company cannot take the children to court for the money.

    Conversely, what if they win the lottery?
    What if they win the lottery? Well well done to them.

    But I thought that unpaid debts are sent downwards...?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    What if they win the lottery? Well well done to them.

    But I thought that unpaid debts are sent downwards...?
    Well then surely as a socialist you should be saying it's unfair that they have their student debt paid off when everyone else still has to pay it.

    Unpaid debts are not transferable downwards.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In RL, the Conservative party and Labour are on the authoritarian side as well as being centre right (Labour more so since 1994). The Libertarian Party do not contend most constituencies and i do not think the Centre Party or Socialist party exist at all. The Liberal Democrats are centre right but Liberal still and UKIP is even further to the right than the Conservatives although Liberal.
    On the contrary, about a million Socialist parties exist, each one nuttier than the last It's a hard life, being a Socialist. If only the country were like TSR :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why did that deserve neg? I still find the new system weird.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right I have 151 posts, now why won't it let me vote. I've been on TSR since May 10 so I meet both the criteria. I understand the aims is to prevent unfair methods but it is really obstructive to n00bs who are legitimately interested.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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.