Turn on thread page Beta

TSR General Election September 2014 – VOTE HERE! watch

  • View Poll Results: Cast your vote in the TSR General Election:
    TSR Conservative & Unionist Party
    104
    16.64%
    TSR Green Party
    157
    25.12%
    TSR Liberal Party
    57
    9.12%
    TSR UKIP
    88
    14.08%
    TSR Socialist Party
    58
    9.28%
    Matthew_Lowson, Independent
    14
    2.24%
    TSR Labour Party
    109
    17.44%
    TSR Libertarian Party
    20
    3.20%
    Spoilt Ballot
    18
    2.88%

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    I believe the state has a duty to provide freedom to live to everybody, beyond that people should have the freedom to make of themselves what they want - free from excessive government interference.

    What evidence do you have that I, or my party, are not trying to promote freedom elsewhere?
    that's a very limited view of what freedom is/should be, surely giving people any freedom requires government interference as well?

    well I don't know many on the Right who support things like foreign aid or an ethical foreign policy so...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    that's a very limited view of what freedom is/should be, surely giving people any freedom requires government interference as well?

    well I don't know many on the Right who support things like foreign aid or an ethical foreign policy so...
    I sincerely hope someone nominated you for the best debater prize.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    UKIP:
    Do you intend to hold a EU referendum next term, and at what cost would this be with regards to the potential monarchy referendum?
    Would you implement Australian points system immigration policy like your RL counterpart?

    Conservative:
    Would you restore the monarchy through a bill, or hold a refeendum?

    Greens:
    What are your environmental policies?
    Regarding Tory environmental policy its again worth noting that it is the Tories who have put in place measures to end our reliance on fossil fuels by 2030. It is the Tories who have prohibited industrial trawling to allow our decimated fish stocks to recover.

    (Original post by Blue Meltwater)
    I'll let you tell the Welsh they're now part of England!

    But it's not always about the first safe country. Refugees may have friends or family they're trying to get to in Britain, or a country they have connections to, but harsh regulations regarding asylum traps them in a country alien to them. And when you have a crisis as large as in Syria right now all the nearby safe countries are being stretched to breaking point. We can't rely on the likes of Turkey or Lebanon to take on everything themselves.

    Oh, right. I'm not really an expert enough in either RL or TSR laws to say. I do think means-testing often results in people falling through the cracks
    Given that Welsh Labour have had them fall back I imagine many could be glad.

    If we tied it to the tax system there's not a chance and we could save tens of billions.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by adam9317)
    We would need to discuss within the party about a referendum, but one was held previously, so we would need to consider

    We did out out a bill this term with the Australian points system!




    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Do you mind me asking why would you pledge the referendum and then say that you'd need consider.

    Would a referendum be a simple in-out referendum?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    that's a very limited view of what freedom is/should be, surely giving people any freedom requires government interference as well?

    well I don't know many on the Right who support things like foreign aid or an ethical foreign policy so...
    By interfering in people's live, you slowly erode their personal freedom. The basic income (or sustenance allowance, as I think it should be called - and reduced in amount to be in line with) - allows for people to take control over their own lives if somebody doesn't want to work they have the freedom to, if somebody would prefer to become a missionary or to lie in bed all day - they have the freedom to.

    I support foreign aid, if individuals independent of the state pay for it. By cutting taxes - partly through removing foreign aid from the state's budget, people are more likely to be willing/able to spend their own money on foreign aid. This is real freedom, giving individuals the freedom to chose whether they want to make a difference.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I sincerely hope someone nominated you for the best debater prize.
    sarcasm? or are you serious? lol, not sure anyone would haha
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    sarcasm? or are you serious? lol, not sure anyone would haha
    Serious - you're putting the LibSoc case very well.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    By interfering in people's live, you slowly erode their personal freedom. The basic income (or sustenance allowance, as I think it should be called - and reduced in amount to be in line with) - allows for people to take control over their own lives if somebody doesn't want to work they have the freedom to, if somebody would prefer to become a missionary or to lie in bed all day - they have the freedom to.

    I support foreign aid, if individuals independent of the state pay for it. By cutting taxes - partly through removing foreign aid from the state's budget, people are more likely to be willing/able to spend their own money on foreign aid. This is real freedom, giving individuals the freedom to chose whether they want to make a difference.
    life interferes with people's lives & "personal freedom" is only possible within a society...without social structure & interaction, humans tend not to do so well "sustenance allowance" jesus, that sounds very over-scientific, these are people we are talking about here, not lab rats...how much control do people have over their own lives in a society anyway? surely to live with other humans we must by nature agree to give up certain "freedoms" in order to gain social "freedoms" instead?

    what if the state is best placed to deliver that aid (I agree this is not always the case btw, but in some places it might well be) should we bypass them purely because you don't like the state? a state that btw keeps most societies ordered in a way that allows them to function. people spend their own money mostly on themselves because they want to survive & prosper & because society tells them to do this, how do you think most consumer based industry exists? it's not because people chose to give all their money away I can tell you. not to mention individuals can rarely deliver help as effectively as a group of them can, humans are by nature a social species, we work with other humans in order to survive, we are co-dependent on others in fact, without them most humans would not survive very long at all, even hunter gatherers formed tribes in order to provide for each other...

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Serious - you're putting the LibSoc case very well.
    thanks well my own views are somewhere between the Far Left of the Green party & Libertarian Socialism, I generally support very localized democratic control, though I stop short of opposing all hierarchy, I think a voluntary/democratic form of hierarchy is often beneficial as a way of assigning tasks/power within a society.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)

    thanks well my own views are somewhere between the Far Left of the Green party & Libertarian Socialism, I generally support very localized democratic control, though I stop short of opposing all hierarchy, I think a voluntary/democratic form of hierarchy is often beneficial as a way of assigning tasks/power within a society.
    Pretty much my stance, I'm not one for the more anarchic libsoc ideas - but I firmly believe freedom and equality can go hand in hand. Furthermore I believe in the need for democratic structures to bring about change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    life interferes with people's lives & "personal freedom" is only possible within a society...without social structure & interaction, humans tend not to do so well "sustenance allowance" jesus, that sounds very over-scientific, these are people we are talking about here, not lab rats...how much control do people have over their own lives in a society anyway? surely to live with other humans we must by nature agree to give up certain "freedoms" in order to gain social "freedoms" instead?
    Actually one of the major flaws of Basic Income is it is not tied to inflation, meaning that it could easily become the equivalent of a pound a week once the market reacts, the benefit of a sustenance allowance is it can be tied to inflation and real life prices.

    what if the state is best placed to deliver that aid (I agree this is not always the case btw, but in some places it might well be) should we bypass them purely because you don't like the state? a state that btw keeps most societies ordered in a way that allows them to function. people spend their own money mostly on themselves because they want to survive & prosper & because society tells them to do this, how do you think most consumer based industry exists? it's not because people chose to give all their money away I can tell you. not to mention individuals can rarely deliver help as effectively as a group of them can, humans are by nature a social species, we work with other humans in order to survive, we are co-dependent on others in fact, without them most humans would not survive very long at all, even hunter gatherers formed tribes in order to provide for each other...
    The state should put the interests of it's own citizens before the interests of foreign citizens, in the hope/knowledge (let's not argue that point right now) that people will then be more inclined to put the interests of foreign citizens first now they have more disposable income.

    My view is taxes and laws should cover the bare minimum for a functioning society (don't kill each other, everybody can eat a have a home).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Pretty much my stance, I'm not one for the more anarchic libsoc ideas - but I firmly believe freedom and equality can go hand in hand. Furthermore I believe in the need for democratic structures to bring about change.
    definitely, I support a state in so much as I think society needs some kind of system to order itself democratically, I don't think we can ignore how humans work, I think we are social creatures myself, if you look at how much people struggle or suffer on their own I think that tells you a lot, people need personal freedoms, of course, but we also need social freedoms in order to prosper not only as individuals but within society as a whole (if that makes sense, I have aspergers so I get lost in my own thoughts sometimes lol )
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Do you mind me asking why would you pledge the referendum and then say that you'd need consider.

    Would a referendum be a simple in-out referendum?
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    UKIP:
    Do you intend to hold a EU referendum next term, and at what cost would this be with regards to the potential monarchy referendum?
    Would you implement Australian points system immigration policy like your RL counterpart?
    Coming from our internal discussions we plan an in-out referendum at some point in the next term. However, from the beginning of day one we will be advancing on our plans to draw up our vision of a Britain post-EU. We will not hold a referendum if we do not have a clear plan of where we would like to take Britain. The recent Scottish referendum highlights the vitality of a strategic plan for a country post independence. The people of Scotland rightly rejected a plan which did not address the biggest questions about uncertainty. We do not expect the people of TSR to vote in a referendum where one issue will give uncertainty. Unlike David Cameron wanting to negotiate a better deal from within, opting out of what is not in Britain's interest, we would like to negotiate a better deal for Britain from outside the EU opting in to what is in Britain's interest. We believe Britain's current balance of payments, economy, market size, and significance of a strategic transport point in Europe will give Britain an advantage in negotiations. We don't want to pull up the drawbridge and be isolated, far from it, we want a Britain who trades with Europe, who cooperates with Europe, but is not ruled in a political union by Europe.

    Yes, we believe a points system is the simplest and most fair way of ensuring only those with skills or a trade can live or work in Britain. We support reducing asylum to reduce net migration into Britain.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    QFA
    I'm quoting you as Acting Labour Leader

    Given the Universal Free School Meals legislation which has been brought in by the RL coalition do you think that a stringent cap on school dinner prices for children aged over seven years is necessary?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    Actually one of the major flaws of Basic Income is it is not tied to inflation, meaning that it could easily become the equivalent of a pound a week once the market reacts, the benefit of a sustenance allowance is it can be tied to inflation and real life prices.

    The state should put the interests of it's own citizens before the interests of foreign citizens, in the hope/knowledge (let's not argue that point right now) that people will then be more inclined to put the interests of foreign citizens first now they have more disposable income.

    My view is taxes and laws should cover the bare minimum for a functioning society (don't kill each other, everybody can eat a have a home).
    why not just tie the RI to inflation then? the name change seems pointless other than to dehumanize it somewhat.

    not really, states must work with others in order to do things like the pooling of resources, the disposable income of a state relies almost always on the states ability to pool it's resources with other states and to work with other states for trade & such, otherwise individual states would just run out of resources, certainly they wouldn't have enough to provide for the kind of living standards you would I assume want people to have.

    that's the thing though, societies tend not to function very well when they are limited like that, humans are an aspirational species, we want to better ourselves, we cannot do that if we hold ourselves back through narrow self interest, be it by putting ourselves as individuals first or by putting our own state first.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    definitely, I support a state in so much as I think society needs some kind of system to order itself democratically, I don't think we can ignore how humans work, I think we are social creatures myself, if you look at how much people struggle or suffer on their own I think that tells you a lot, people need personal freedoms, of course, but we also need social freedoms in order to prosper not only as individuals but within society as a whole (if that makes sense, I have aspergers so I get lost in my own thoughts sometimes lol )
    :congrats:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    why not just tie the RI to inflation then? the name change seems pointless other than to dehumanize it somewhat.

    not really, states must work with others in order to do things like the pooling of resources, the disposable income of a state relies almost always on the states ability to pool it's resources with other states and to work with other states for trade & such, otherwise individual states would just run out of resources, certainly they wouldn't have enough to provide for the kind of living standards you would I assume want people to have.

    that's the thing though, societies tend not to function very well when they are limited like that, humans are an aspirational species, we want to better ourselves, we cannot do that if we hold ourselves back through narrow self interest, be it by putting ourselves as individuals first or by putting our own state first.
    Because the RI is already too much, or too little - nobody actually knows. It's based on the Joseph Roundtree Foundation figures, which include things like petrol and car tax, so it's almost certainly too much.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMacho)
    Because the RI is already too much, or too little - nobody actually knows. It's based on the Joseph Roundtree Foundation figures, which include things like petrol and car tax, so it's almost certainly too much.
    "nobody actually knows" that's encouraging given it's such a central thing here...yes, because it's not like we still live in a nation where people need to travel by car or anything...oh wait, we do...if you are saying we should look to invest heavily in better public transport so people do not need cars then I am all ears though
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I'm quoting you as Acting Labour Leader

    Given the Universal Free School Meals legislation which has been brought in by the RL coalition do you think that a stringent cap on school dinner prices for children aged over seven years is necessary?
    Did it urgently need to be done? I personally haven't experienced the problem.

    Am I glad that it was done? Yes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Did it urgently need to be done? I personally haven't experienced the problem.

    Am I glad that it was done? Yes.
    Do you not think it was rather arbitrary and against conventional economic wisdom to do so? Price controls very rarely achieve what they set out to do and the figure seemed to be randomly picked out of nowhere too :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    "nobody actually knows" that's encouraging given it's such a central thing here...yes, because it's not like we still live in a nation where people need to travel by car or anything...oh wait, we do...if you are saying we should look to invest heavily in better public transport so people do not need cars then I am all ears though
    In a world with Residents Income people don't need cars as cars are only necessary (as in necessary, not preferable) because people need them to commute to places of employment/study. With a sustenance allowance, being in employment would be a choice - a luxury per se - and thus a car becomes a luxury.

    With my (not a party policy yet) Sustenance Allowance proposal you would be able to calculate exactly how much it is. Note it would be paid in cash not goods so recipents could spend the whole lot on legal weed if they wanted to.
 
 
 
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: October 6, 2014
The home of Results and Clearing

2,522

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.