Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    The MHoC Leader's Debate 2015

    Hello and welcome to the Big Leader's Debate.

    The TSR Model House of Commons is currently holding a general election, which takes place every six months.

    This debate will allow all TSR party leaders to answer your questions in the run-up to the announcement of the election results on Monday.

    All party leaders will make a 100 word opening statement, discussing their political priorities and why you should choose their party.

    6 varied questions will then be asked of both campaign leaders, whose answers will be posted in a random order.

    Introducing your party leaders and deputy leaders:



    TSR Conservatives

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Leader
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Deputy Leader

    TSR Green Party

    (Original post by Aph)
    Acting Leader

    TSR Labour Party

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Leader
    (Original post by junaidk7)
    Deputy Leader

    TSR Liberal Party

    (Original post by Jarred)
    Leader
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Deputy Leader

    TSR Socialist Party

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Commissar for External Affairs
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Commissar for Internal Affairs (CI)

    TSR UKIP

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Leader
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Deputy Leader

    Once all pre-submitted questions have been answered, the thread will be opened up to give people a chance to ask your own questions.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Opening Statement

    TSR Conservative and Unionist PartyThe Conservative and Unionist Party has a long tradition of upholding conservative values and maintaining high levels of activity within the Model House of Commons. Last term, we were the most active party in terms of voting, had the stablest membership and passed 15 out of 16 Acts covering issues from economy to leisure activities. We have a range of members with many different opinions who are enthusiastic about politics and the more seats we have, the more members can fully engage.

    Help us strengthen our position in the House and have greater influence by leading the government. Vote Conservative.


    TSR Green PartyWe are the Green Party, the first thing you should know about us is that we aren't our real life counterparts. We support nuclear power and GM crops, so long as they aren't released into the wild. We seek to protect the environment first and foremost but we also seek to protect the people. We are a group of people who actually care about the issues and we believe we are best placed to help people. The reason you should vote for us is that you care about people.

    We believe in people and we believe in the TSR electorate.


    TSR Labour PartyLet's be frank. The world is changing and while other parties deal in fear we deal in hope. TSR Labour is one of the MHoC's biggest, most active parties - with us you know you'll have tireless representatives fighting for you. Our policies represent the economic, social and environmental outlook that 21st century Britain needs. We offer a brighter future, a compassionate government and a radical vision. It is possible - I've seen it in the historical reforms my party has passed this term and in our pledges for the future.

    This is a better kind of politics.
    Join our movement.


    TSR Liberal PartyTSR Liberals are in politics for one reason; to deliver moderate, pragmatic policies based on reason rather than unrelenting ideology. In our eight point vision, we haven’t been afraid to channel ideas from both the Left and Right, because our priority is to implement the things that actually work.
    We’ve already repealed Sunday Trading Laws and worked on a graduate tax to replace fees. But now, we want to do more to get you the best deal.

    If you want a liberal Britain based on centrist policies, this is your opportunity. Work with us, and together we’ll accomplish amazing things.


    TSR Socialist PartyThe Socialist Party stands for a more equal society, where no-one is written off or deprived of the opportunity to succeed due to the circumstances of their birth - be it economic status, race, gender, sexuality or nationality. We stand for the rights of workers and the public, opposing the exploitation of both people and vital resources such as water.

    For a democratic socialist society run in the interests of the people, not the millionaires. For bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment.

    A vote for the Socialist Party is a vote for a fairer, more democratic world - a vote for putting the people first.


    TSR UKIPUKIP is a party that believes in low taxation, enterprise, fairness, and a powerful Britain on the world stage. Our economic policy and spending commitments are rooted in the savings we will make from cutting the bloated overseas aid budget, reviewing the unfair Barnett Formula, cancelling vanity projects, controlling the welfare budget, and introducing fair taxes on business. Britain is a great country, we do not believe there is any shame in patriotism: UKIP celebrates Britain and will promote a unifying British culture. We condemn the philosophy of multiculturalism because it has failed by emphasising separateness instead of unity.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 1

    The availability and cost of housing is arguably the greatest crisis currently facing young people. What solution do you propose to tackle this crisis and ensure everyone has access to an affordable roof over their head?


    Green PartyIn the Green Party we intent to take a 3-pronged approach to the housing crisis. One we will scrap the right to by which only inflates housing prices and can only cause a crash. Two we will create a second homes tax along with a cap on buy-to-let purchases which cause artificial increases in house prices. This will lower the cost of buying houses and make it easier for first time buyers to get onto the property ladder. And third we will focus on in building in cities whist protecting the green belt.


    UKIPI see housing as a problem with two large cornerstones to it; unused housing and the demand for houses outstripping supply. Unlike the other parties who want to focus on one of the issues, UKIP wants to focus on both of them. There are over 700,000 vacant houses in the UK that need to be used to help solve the housing crisis. To return these vacant houses to use UKIP will end taxes on renovations of empty houses, cut stamp duty on the purchasing of empty houses, and increase council tax on empty houses to tax the homes back into use. These tax incentives will be extended to developers looking to build new houses, and funding will be made available for local authorities looking to expand their portfolio of social housing.

    House prices will not fall immediately when new houses are built, research reveals house prices are more dependent on local or national trends than the supply of housing. To combat the climbing prices UKIP will look to control the demand for new houses by restricting the net migration of people to one area of the country that will inevitably increase housing prices in that area, and working to decrease net migration to Britain.


    Liberal PartyIt’s obvious that we need to build some more houses to cope with demand. Pure and simple, it is an issue of supply and demand. That’s why house prices are so disastrous in London for instance. The demand isn’t going to come down so we have to approach it from the supply side by building more houses. That has to be led by both the state and the market if possible. I think a great way to start that is to make it much easier to build on greenfield sites, as things are getting very desperate and we need to reduce the barriers to homebuilding quickly. We’ll also give local councils more powers over their local housing policy so they can consider options like subsiding private homebuilding too.

    From there, we have to consider social housing. We want to keep the Right-to-Buy as owning one’s home is a fantastic provider of social mobility. But we need to make sure that we are at least maintaining sensible levels of social housing to meet the requirements in their respective areas. So we’ll make sure to invest in social housing such that this is the case.


    Conservative PartyWe recognise the issues associated with housing as well as the particularly vulnerable position of young people – our peers – in this context. While we're prepared to provide incentives for the private sector to build affordable housing and introduce tax cuts to help young families move into new homes, I believe that rather than pouring money directly into housing, artificially regulating the market and creating these ‘social housing’ hotspots, we should address the issue more generally, for example through education, job opportunities and affordable mortgages.


    Labour PartyHousing is a huge concern for us which is why we're making it a priority. More homes is one of our 5 key manifesto pledges. Not only do we want to build more social housing - we also want to scrap the 'right to buy' - an outdated Thatcherite policy that didn't work then is completely inadequate for today. However the state won't be able to solve this problem on its own. That's why we'll cut stamp duty on brownfield sites to encourage more building in the private sector. We feel this two-pronged approach is the best way forward.

    Owning your own home shouldn't be some unattainable dream. With Labour it won't be.


    Socialist PartyEnd the right to buy scheme which has caused rising inequality and the housing crisis itself.
    Rent control now: Democratic rent councils to decide fair levels in each area.
    A mass programme of council house building and renovation to meet demand.
    Bring all ex-council housing association stock and housing services back in-house.
    Housing benefits that reflect the real cost of renting.
    Councils should use their compulsory purchase powers on long term empty properties and use them as council housing.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 2

    Who should lead the way in stimulating the economy and paying for large infrastructure projects (such as railways and high-speed broadband): the state or private investors?


    Liberal PartyThis question is two separate questions really. In terms of stimulating the economy, we much prefer the market to handle all of that. It is not sustainable or desirable for the state to play a much bigger part in the economy than it does now. The state exists to provide the services that the private sector cannot reasonably provide well, so it’s the classic ‘Mixed Economy’ that works wonders across the entire world and has done for years that we advocate. Obviously the government should play a bigger part in stimulating the economy during times of economic emergency (eg: recessions) but otherwise things ought to proceed as they are now,

    In terms of investment in infrastructure, that’s a slightly different question. The answer is fairly similar though - it has to be a mix of the two and it largely depends on the type of infrastructure. You’ll see in one of our other questions (housing) that we’ve already backed measures that involve both market and state in similar measures. We are committed to a mass investment in our broadband infrastructure over the next parliament as well. We would like this to be backed partly by state money, partly by private money and partly by bringing some liberalisation into the market. Making it easier/ more viable to become a service provider for example. And I am personally considering whether it is worth forcing Virgin Media to open up its own network to private competitors like BT does through Openreach, but don’t take this as ‘official party policy’ just yet because it’s a very recent idea.

    I actually think investment in a ‘digital economy’ (i.e.: an internet enabled economy with world leading broadband infrastructure) is a bigger priority right now than traditional infrastructure projects like rail and the roads. But these are the ones which need to be approached differently. I think the roads are an obvious one where it has to be pretty much completely state-led. On rail we’ve unveiled our policy to allow the state owned operator to compete for franchises to guarantee the best of privatisation and nationalisation - and we’d expect rail investment to come largely from whoever is operating each line.

    So yes, in summary it really depends on what we’re talking about.


    Conservative PartyAs we know, the state isn't the best manager, which is why I believe that the involvement of private investors is essential to ensure that all of us can enjoy modern technology at a reasonable cost while maintaining a bilaterally profitable relationship, however the state must provide scrutiny in areas which are ‘not very important’ to most private investors such as environmental responsibility or long-term planning and compatibility. Additionally, private projects should be maintained privately and vice versa.


    Socialist PartyIt is the responsibility of the state to stimulate the national economy:
    Re-nationalise all rail, bus and ferry services to build an integrated, low-pollution public transport system. Take Royal Mail back into public ownership to guarantee our postal services. Bring prisons, probation, and all other parts of the justice system back into the public sector.
    For a high-quality, free National Health Service under democratic public ownership and control.


    UKIPNational infrastructure projects would ideally be funded by private investors but state funding cannot be ruled out. UKIP will seek to massively expand Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport, construct more A roads to ease traffic congestion around busy cities, and support high-speed broadband across the country. Out of these projects the expansion of airport will be met by private investment, building roads will be funded by the state, and high-speed broadband will be covered by a mixture of private and state investment.


    Green PartyWe believe that the state should make it easier for the private sector to drive the economy. We will achieve this by making sure everyone earns a minimum living wage and put money back into people's pockets whist at the same time investing in social progress and making the quality of life for ordinary people a decent one. This will put more money into the economy and ensure that everyone benefits from it not just the rich.


    Labour PartyThe question here is more a matter of economics than policy. Let's be completely clear - the private sector is ill equipped to provide us with the infrastructure we need to grow the economy and create better lives for people. The sunk costs surrounding large infrastructure projects and the low profit incentives mean that time and time again the private sector fail to deliver. This doesn't mean the private sector is useless nor that it has no place in infrastructure rather it means that to secure the best for Britain the state must take the lead and a TSR Labour government will do so. We want to pursue a economic policy with a foundation of investment in infrastructure and the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer will be given scope to establish goals and pursue them. The neo-liberal parties want to create the impression of fiscal irresponsibility but what we are offering is economic common sense. We must invest to grow and the rewards will be there to reap in the future.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 3

    The evolution of modern conflict and warfare has moved beyond the nation state with the increased involvement of stateless organisations. With this in mind, do you believe Britain’s nuclear weapons have become an outdated, unnecessary relic or a vitally important part of our defence strategy?


    UKIPBritain should aim to have the most powerful armed forces in Europe which includes having an independent nuclear deterrent. UKIP is committed to doubling the size of the navy, replacing Trident, hugely expanding the army, increasing the fleet of RAF aircraft, undertaking a modernisation programme for all equipment, and spending 3% of GDP on defence; Trident’s replacement will not be funded by the defence budget.


    Green PartyAs long as we remain in NATO if there is a military strike against us both the USA and France are bound to counter strike for us. All it means is that we don't have first strike ability. Trident won't solve the Middle East and it won't solve any conflict. Indeed all it does is give us the ability to attack another country after they have attacked us and cause massive civilian casualties and result in a bloody war.


    Liberal PartyTrident is absolutely not a relic at all, we in the TSR Liberals are 100% committed to maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent. For as long as the rest of the world has nuclear weapons, Britain needs to be on that same level and have some sort of safeguard in place to have a solid defence of her people. In fact, we promise not only to protect our nuclear deterrent but also that any Liberal budget will spend 2% of GDP on defence. Though we also think it would be worth considering a cheaper implementation of our nuclear deterrent, for example with one less submarine than currently used. That is something we will have to investigate when in government based on the circumstances. Still, the main point is whatever happens, we'll protect that nuclear deterrent and ensure it is fit for purpose.

    We are a multilateralist party though, that is only if the entire world can agree to disband their nuclear arms systems mutually then of course we will happily comply but I can’t see this happening any time soon. The sad fact is that the world is an increasingly unstable place, and I think a lot of people feel safer knowing that should anyone try to make a strike against us, they have to do it in the fear that the same unforgivable act could be enacted on them.

    But the really important thing is that this isn’t just about mutually assured destruction or national defence. It goes beyond that. It’s all about our place in the world as a military power. It’s a sad thing but having nuclear weapons also gives us a voice among the crowds of other countries with nuclear technology like the USA and Russia - and this allows us to play our very important role in the world as a moderating influence on the other world military powers. No-one else is going to sit around the table with America and try to calm them down a bit with their overzealous desire to meddle, and I don’t want to even discuss the horrors of Russia’s military approach. There's nothing unethical about having a moderating, claiming influence on the world stage, even if it is ironic that this is achieved with a strong defence. Put simply we need to keep our place on the world stage because someone else will get it wrong.

    On a similar note, keeping our nuclear deterrent and ensuring it is fit for purpose also allows us to maintain more military independence from other nation states. We don’t want to have to rely on America for something as desperately important as this.

    We also have to consider the impact on our economy, and the huge numbers of jobs that come out of Trident and the submarine industry as a whole. Abandoning our nuclear deterrent, or attempting to replace it with a system that is not a like-for-like replacement will result in a huge knock to manufacturing jobs whilst also costing us a key pillar in our defence plan. Sorry, it might make you feel good to say you don’t have nuclear weapons but it is terrible policy making to do away with them when the world is the way it is.


    Socialist PartyCut the unnecessary nuclear weapons that will sit in their silos gathering dust - divert this spending to make public services more efficient.


    Labour PartyOur nuclear weapons are more a symbol of power than a viable weapon and the rest of the world knows it. The fact of the matter is that Trident has become outdated since the Cold War. Now the most likely triggers of nuclear disaster are terrorists or accidental usage for which Trident is not a deterrent. Our possession of nuclear weapons has not made us invulnerable to attack from the enemies of the modern day. The threats we face we face with conventional weapons and strategies. A TSR Labour government will keep our military well equipped and of a world class standard. I am very concerned that the renewal of the Trident system is being viewed as inevitable without a proper look at the facts. There's a lot of misconceptions surrounding nuclear weapons which we would like to have cleared up. As such a Labour government will commission a comprehensive report looking at options for disarmament and strategic alternatives. Our ultimate goal being the diplomatic pursuit of multilateral disarmament in the not-too-distant future.


    Conservative PartyMaintaining our own nuclear deterrent is a part of our election manifesto because we believe that the UK should indeed possess these ultimate weapons which a) greatly discourage potential attackers and b) can be used in the worst of situations that we can't rule out. The world is changing and it's better to be safe than sorry, especially given the relatively low cost. We seek to replace the Trident programme with a modern alternative at a reasonable value and commit 2% of our GDP to defence alone.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 4

    Who is more important for our future economic prosperity, and who should receive most support from the government: an apprentice or a graduate?


    Labour PartyThe question is an interesting one however it implies a conflict that just isn't there. The government needs to support apprentices and university students alike and whilst the last TSR government (a Green-UKIP-Liberal coalition) attempted to cut education in favour of increasing military spending we propose a National Education Service to provide education throughout your working life. Its these innovations that will secure our future economic prosperity. A highly skilled workforce is integral to Labour's economic vision.


    Socialist PartyBoth the apprentice and the graduate are equally important to our economy. There is no either/or situation.


    Conservative PartyThe answer to this question isn't straightforward, but the current surplus of graduates – especially of those in humanities and art – indicates that it would be unwise to encourage this trend. We should aim to raise the criteria for graduates, and make apprenticeship and the resulting careers more lucrative while tackling the opinion that not getting into college is a failure.

    While it is difficult to predict the future, the recent advancements in robotisation suggest that we may witness a dramatic transformation of the job market in the next ten to twenty years, likely meaning that graduates will become the engine of the economy, however since evolution isn't likely to keep up, we will be faced with issues regarding those whose skills aren't necessary any more and who lack the potential to adapt. We shall address these in due time based on data rather than presumptions.


    UKIPAn apprentice can learn skills that allow them to manufacture a product or complete a job, but that product could not be designed, or the job not complete if a graduate did not utilise their skills. Both are equally important to the future of society making it important both are supported equally. UKIP support the concept of grammar schools to push the academic students, and technical colleges to teach skills to people more suited to work involving their hands. An emphasis on science funding, medical healthcare training, technological industries, and life-long technical skills will allow Britain to build a sustainable, balanced economy suitable for the twenty-first century.


    Green PartyNo-one is more important. It takes all sorts to drive the economy. I think that apprentices need more support then they already get and we should get more people choosing the apprentice route but we also need to support graduates, especially those who go on to post-graduate study.


    Liberal PartyAs part of our huge investment into education we’d really like to see more apprenticeships, and I’d like to see a shift away from pushing non-academic students into poor quality degree courses when they have more appropriate options for their skillset. It is incredibly important that we have a modern more tailored approach to training our young people because a degree doesn’t suit everyone, nor does it suit every job. Industry-backed vocational options where employers have a direct involvement in crafting the training are something that need to be the focus of students in Post-16 who maybe aren’t doing A-Levels or maybe aren’t getting good enough grades for an academic discipline.

    That’s not to say I want to abandon degrees either though. I’m doing one and it was definitely the right option for me. But we definitely want to shift the focus slightly away from getting everyone into uni, and have it so that many more people are considering the alternative options in near equivalent measure. Part of it is a cultural problem though, a high-level apprenticeship ought to be considered just as prestigious as a degree. Perhaps with mass expansion this will become a reality.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 5

    Should immigrants and refugees be forced by the state to adapt to British cultures, laws and customs, or should the British people exercise more compassion and tolerance to achieve social cohesion?


    Conservative PartyYes, I believe that those who come to live in the UK or indeed any other country should adapt to the local way of life including values, customs and the practice of religion (e.g. the prudery based on religious values in Saudi Arabia or the lack of emotional behaviour in Japan). We're not asking to abandon everything they're used to but the British culture should take precedence.

    The British people have already offered compassion and tolerance, yet our hospitality is often met with ingratitude and attempts to sabotage the British way of life (Bradford riots, Anjem Choudary, attempts to enforce Sharia law, hundreds of traitors leaving to fight with islamic extremists against us, countless other examples). Furthermore, many immigrants send us a clear message that while they happily enjoy the benefits of our economy and social system, they don't want to associate with us and create close-knit communities such as Savile Town which is 95–100% Asian Muslim.

    We now know that multiculturalism doesn't work so while this ‘social cohesion’ may appear as an appealing concept, it doesn't work in practice and we need to be reasonable. Perhaps one day humanity will either evolve to adopt ‘tolerant pacifism’ or expand to new horizons, but it isn't now nor in the foreseeable future.


    Labour PartyA very topical question but one that seems to be slightly confused. Everyone living in Britain must obey British laws. There are no exceptions, including the tax-dodging corporate bosses that we've set our sights on. As for our customs and culture? These are not things that can be forced on people for that is not the nature of custom or culture. As much as I love our country's history and traditions I would hate to see a Britain that forced immigrants to dance around the maypole or eat fish and chips. The concept of state enforced culture is a joke and if implemented would quickly be revealed to be one. It is not how you achieve social cohesion. Of course anyone wether they be a migrant, a refugee or someone born here should display a proper respect for our country, a respect that every resident should expect to be returned to them. My party will always take the fight to the xenophobes as we have always done in the past.


    Socialist PartyWe oppose racism and oppression. This policy is similar to the Stalinist regime's policy of 'Russification' and would infringe on human rights.


    Green PartyI think that this is a hard question. Firstly we believe that everyone in the UK should follow British laws but culture and customs? What are 'British customs' I think it's something that is so hard to identify maybe it doesn't exist? I mean if you look at London and somewhere in the Scottish highlands they are fairly different places with different traditions and culture. So maybe British culture and customs are about being diverse? In which case yes, they definitely shouldn't come over and be intolerant of us, but should they be completely 'British'? I think that we would be loosing something if we did that.


    Liberal PartyWe don’t like the idea of pushing things like social attitudes or culture onto the people of the country. Of course we expect migrants to follow our own laws but we celebrate a person’s right to engage in their own culture, and believe that the induction of other cultures into Britain greatly enriches our own. This has been evident across history, our culture has informed many others across the world and some have also informed ours. Quite simply, we take a very libertarian attitude to it, people from abroad and from home should have the right to live how they want for as long as they don’t harm others, I have no interest in playing the ‘Culture Police’. We don’t think it is right for any government to suddenly get all protective over this natural process anyhow.


    UKIPIf a person wants to move to Britain that person should adapt to British culture, laws and customs, if the person does not like British laws, customs and culture that person should find a different place to live. Living in Britain is not the right of any person in the world, it is a privilege that should be afforded to those who want to integrate fully in Britain. Britain should be respectful of different religions but making English a requirement of people looking to move to Britain, and rejecting the construction of an unofficial legal system by different communities will improve social cohesion in Britain.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Question 6

    How do you propose to safeguard the UK’s domestic energy production from the threat of aging power plants and the instability of importing fuel?


    Socialist PartyCurrently, we believe nuclear power to be the safest, most efficient and relatively sustainable stand-in while other renewable energies are researched to ultimately replace non-renewable resources for a cleaner, greener society.


    Liberal PartyThe TSR Liberals think a big part of decreasing our reliance on foreign oil/ gas and guaranteeing our energy-security down the line will come from helping growing the use of cleaner energies in the country - that obviously means supporting wind power, solar and all of the usual renewables. We’ll happily allow onshore wind farms despite the protests of nimbys, and we’ll allow for more of them than currently planned. We’ll continue the subsidies and tax breaks for these sectors to encourage their use whilst also implementing a Pigovian tax against carbon emissions which among other things will help drive a private sector led investment in cleaner sources.

    At the same time, being able to completely rely on renewables is obviously a huge way off and we have to be realistic about that. We need other serious, viable solutions for the short term. This is why we will push for nuclear power to play a larger part in our energy policy over the next 20 years than it does right now. It will help in the fight against climate change and help us reduce our reliance on the more traditional energy sources. We are also happy to invest in slightly more modern nuclear technologies like Thorium energy and fusion if it becomes more viable.

    The final pillar in a sensible energy plan that can deliver results in the short term is to continue with plans to extract shale gas in the UK - it’s a bit controversial in some circles but we’ve looked at the evidence and its a sensible idea. Even the UN has said it could be part of the solution to climate change if used to radically reduce our reliance on coal - so this idea burns two coals with one fire! As a nation we have to be prepared to consider every possible option without fear of nimbyism persuading us away from otherwise sane and sensible options.


    Labour PartyAs we compiled our manifesto pledges, thinking about what was crucial for Britain's future success the question of energy production weighed heavily on our minds. Britain is already a world leader in marine power and we want to build on this by investing in technologies such as 'tidal lagoons' which the CEBR estimate could provide up to 8% of our energy needs. Wave and tidal energy can provide an additional 20% according to the DECC. Labour hope to oversee the building of the world's first tidal lagoons in 2016. This investment will not only help safeguard our domestic energy production but also create jobs and entire industries which will form part of the fabric of our economy. The other parties have allowed environmental issues to fall to the back of the agenda. We are keen to bring them to the fore again. Though we prepared an ambitious energy transition bill for the term just passed we withheld it as it was unlikely to pass and we did not think we could put together an environmentally minded, progressive majority. That's why we need your support in this election to get Labour MPs on the benches fighting for our future.


    Conservative PartyWe support investments into research and development of novel, effective, renewable and safe energy sources but until then, nuclear power remains a perfectly viable option, as does geothermal, wind or tidal energy. The whole world realise that with the inevitable exhaustion of non-renewable resources, energetics will become perhaps the most important and profitable industry of the upcoming decades, hence it's important to make good investments and become one of the key players in this field while also contributing to international research efforts.


    UKIPNuclear energy, fracking, and investment in new forms of renewable energy is the way for Britain to become self-sufficient in energy. UKIP would cut the green taxes that drive up energy bills but would look to invest in researching renewable energy, and using the tides of Britain as a way to generate electricity.


    Green PartyLike we stared in our manifesto we the greens will import hydrogen made via geothermal energy from Iceland to burn. This is a completely clean fuel and will help secure our energy future. We will also invest in solar technology and wave power. Furthermore we intend to build more nuclear power plants as a reliable sorce of power for the future.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Open Questions
    I'll now hand the debate over to you. Ask as many questions as you like - please try to keep things relevant to TSR politics as the political parties here are not affiliated to their RL counterparts.

    For background information to the TSR MHoC, click here.

    Can I thank everyone involved in the debate for taking the time to prepare answers and responses.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Vote Conservative. :holmes: If you have any questions, quote me. Our manifesto is here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Let's jump headlong into this, I think I shall format this by party (in the order of the opening statements) and then within that by question:

    Tories: Life_peer mobbsy91
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: How does better education actually solve the housing 'crisis' at all, sure, it may increase the wages of some, but at the same time that will just boost demand exacerbating the problem, with inflation perhaps largely countering that increased earning, while making affordable housing even less accessible to those who didn't move up, either because they did not want to, or, more importantly, for one reason or another are unable to? Further, you declare that you are willing to offer incentives to boost house building, but this is very vague, what is it that you would do to this end?]

    Q2: The question appears to have been avoided, and while you declare that the private sector provides these things to the masses cheaply, surely looking into the real world this is somewhat questionable. Our rail infrastructure is slowly deteriorating, being mostly privately funded, and projects are being "suspended" whilst prices keep rising beyond inflation. The roll out of high speed internet is sporadic, areas of the nation still not having broadband, even under the old, slower definition. Meanwhile, some rural areas are still lacking fiber lines whilst in minor cities gigabit infrastructure is being rolled out to homes, surely this highlights failings in the system as it stands?

    Q3: You declare nuclear weapons should be there for the worst of situations that cannot be ruled out, what such situations are these 'worst of', and how likely do you see them becoming reality in our lifetime?

    Q4: Two points, first, why is it that you so willingly dismiss the value of graduates that study the humanities? Second, somewhat more significantly, surely, if citing automation, the more valuable would be the apprentice, not the graduate. The jobs that are most at risk from mechanisation are two fold, first, many of the unskilled jobs, second, and more importantly, many of the graduate jobs. Whilst some, such as law, will still require humans to be involved, more and more high skilled jobs come under risk of automation, with minimal human intervention; on the other hand, when are we likely going to see robots replacing our plumbers, electricians, or builders?

    Q5: You seem to be putting forwards a rather extreme message here, suggesting that the actions of the minority are those of the majority. Is this really the best image to be putting forwards of the party?

    Q6: No questions.
    Greens: Aph
    Spoiler:
    Show

    As an opening aside, is it not somewhat concerning that the very first Green words on the page are denouncing the national party? That aside, Question Time.

    Q1: In your response you make three statements, do you have any evidence to support the first two statements, and as for the third, what capacity do you believe there to be for expansion within cities, and what of the rural population and members of the public that wish to move to the countryside that, it appears, you wish to ignore?

    Q2: Please answer the question Aph, I know that we're pretend politicians, but that doesn't mean doing the RL politician thing of being asked a question and answering the vaguely related question that you want to be asked. I shall also point out that this is in effect a non answer given that what you say you will do is already on our statute book.

    Q3: You do realise that trident is primarily a second strike weapon anyway? And I believe the same is true of the French deterrent so there is not much point in bringing that up in the opening statement. You also assume that in the case of nuclear war that the United States, and the other NATO members, will actually honour their ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty. Let me ask you this: if you were the president of the United States and little old England were attacked by a nuclear power, with no indication that the US would also be a target, would you drag your 300m+ countrymen into a nuclear oblivion over a piece of paper with a country that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists?

    I also imagine this will be a bit of a trend with my responses to Q3, do you believe that there will not be another large scale conflict within our lifetime?

    Q4: Again, you didn't really answer the question, to make the declaration nobody is more important than another for the economy is a load of liberal hogwash. Tell me, what do the homeless on the street, for instance, contribute to the economy? On the other hand, what do the working population, whether that be stacking shelves at Tesco or being on the board of a massive multinational, contribute to the economy, and are they the same?

    Q5: Just because different parts of the country have slightly different customs and cultures means that there are no British customs? Surely this is likely to be the same for the places where many of these immigrants will be coming from, but we are just too ignorant to know these differences.

    Q6: What I am reading here is that you want to first use a highly inefficient method to generate some power, using energy to create hydrogen, just to then transport it, and then react it again to generate power again, energy being lost at all stages, would it not be more efficient just to import the electricity from Iceland in the first place? You then want to continue investing in expensive and inefficnet technology in the form of Solar, and what do you know of the potential and potential hazards of wave?
    Labour RayApparently junaidk7
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Much like my response to the Greens, do you have any evidence that right to buy is a failure, or is it merely more baseless rhetoric? As for the reduced stamp duty on brownfield, for how long would the stamp duty be reduced?

    Q2: No questions

    Q3: The anticipated trend seems to be being maintained, so I shall ask the same as with the Greens, again, from your statement are we to take is that you do not see inter state conflict on a potentially large scale a possibility during our lifetime, as much as none of us wish to see it actually happen?

    Q4: Having just gone and had a look at their excuse for a budget, you're actually making a defamatory statement, the typo aside, the did not actually cut the education budget, in fact, the education spending was actually slightly higher than our RL equivalents.

    Q5: No questions

    Q6: I shall open this by pointing out that, once again, you are making false statements as there are already active tidal lagoons in the world. I shall also, again, echo the comments to the greens and question the downsides of such projects and add that, we may be able to get 8% of our current consumption, but at what cost, both financially and aesthetically? I shall also add, given how little power generation you are covering here, does this mean that you are introducing a policy of blackouts over huge swathes of the country?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Liberal Jarred PetrosAC
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Why is it that you focus in your answer on destroying the greenbelt, despite in many cities there being very large brownfield sites, much of which can be developed on?

    Q2: Unless you believe that, for all intents and purposes, the public sector should not exist beyond the civil service, on what basis can you reasonably make the claim that "the state exists to provide services the private sector cannot reasonably provide well"?

    Q3: a sound answer, no questions.

    Q4: Now you're starting to make me think I should defect, no questions.

    Q5: No questions

    Q6: Okay, maybe not defecting now, no questions.
    Socilaists Stiff Little Fingers DaveSmith99
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Same as Gren and Lab, you declare Right to buy to be part of the problem and a failure, on what basis is this claim made?

    Q2: How much will this program cost first to take control of these industries, and then to run them at public sector levels of inefficiency? May I also remind you that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare in this country, that is unless somehow you don't pay any taxes at all.

    Q3: There are no British nuclear weapons gathering dust in Silos.

    Q4: The question asks about future economic prosperity, and to make the statement that both the graduate and the apprentice as equally valuable can, I imagine, be extended in this instance to every single person in this country, something that is patently absurd, do you deny it?

    Q5: Which human rights?

    Q6: No questions.
    UKIP Nigel Farage MEP Unown Uzer
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: No questions, might want to corrent your first line though to say supply outstripping demand though.

    Q2: No questions

    Q3: Can further details be given on the plans for the expansion of the armed forces?

    Q4: No questions

    Q5: No questions:

    Q6: No questions
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Local government in my view has been gradually strangled and restricted over the last 30 or so years. How would the parties seek to reverse this trend?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Liberal Jarred PetrosAC
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Why is it that you focus in your answer on destroying the greenbelt, despite in many cities there being very large brownfield sites, much of which can be developed on?

    Q2: Unless you believe that, for all intents and purposes, the public sector should not exist beyond the civil service, on what basis can you reasonably make the claim that "the state exists to provide services the private sector cannot reasonably provide well"?

    Q3: a sound answer, no questions.

    Q4: Now you're starting to make me think I should defect, no questions.

    Q5: No questions

    Q6: Okay, maybe not defecting now, no questions.
    Socilaists Stiff Little Fingers DaveSmith99
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: Same as Gren and Lab, you declare Right to buy to be part of the problem and a failure, on what basis is this claim made?

    Q2: How much will this program cost first to take control of these industries, and then to run them at public sector levels of inefficiency? May I also remind you that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare in this country, that is unless somehow you don't pay any taxes at all.

    Q3: There are no British nuclear weapons gathering dust in Silos.

    Q4: The question asks about future economic prosperity, and to make the statement that both the graduate and the apprentice as equally valuable can, I imagine, be extended in this instance to every single person in this country, something that is patently absurd, do you deny it?

    Q5: Which human rights?

    Q6: No questions.
    UKIP Nigel Farage MEP Unown Uzer
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Q1: No questions, might want to corrent your first line though to say supply outstripping demand though.

    Q2: No questions

    Q3: Can further details be given on the plans for the expansion of the armed forces?

    Q4: No questions

    Q5: No questions:

    Q6: No questions
    We would focus on building on brownfield sites wherever possible but we accept that some building will have to be done on greenfield sites to cope with the soaring demand of houses.

    I'm going to leave Q2 to Jarred. He'll answer it a lot better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    In Response to Question 3
    you state you will double the size of the Royal Navy and increase the size of the RAF Aircraft Fleet

    How will you do this and how much will it cost
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I'll try and do one for each party

    Q1. Conservatives - "we should address the issue more generally, for example through education, job opportunities and affordable mortgages." This is a surprisingly vague answer, other parties have suggested distributing workers more evenly, changing right to buy or simply building more homes. Your answer suggests that you back right to buy, leaving it open to free market economics and private lending. How does "education" benefit low wage earning Londoners who have to nurse the hospitals, sweep the streets etc,

    Q2. Liberals - supporting a "mixed economy" is a good argument, however, in the instance of increased internet access, how do you plan on running this, allow private firms to invest in cities thus giving them super fast broadband and leaving rural areas lacking, or will you back nation wide roll out of improved access to internet everywhere?

    Q3. Socialists - as I understand it, you support cutting our defence budget immensely, never mind cutting Trident, but are additional defense cuts truly justifiable while Putin continues to push his agenda in Ukraine and Syria, is a totally pacifistic attitude fair, and how will we protected?

    Q4. Labour - you back apprenticeships in equal measure as degrees, however, while graduate unemployment rises, is it not fair to say that apprenticeships need further investment, while we should be simultaneously tackling high graduate unemployment? How would you do the latter?

    Q5. Greens - you support the right of individuals to have their own choice about the values that they hold. However, in communities where clear divides exist, where there are concerns about the inability to integrate, due to language, religion or personal choice. We have different communities co-existing, but not integrating. Is it not fair that people raise concerns on this, rather than simply saying "everyone is different?"

    Q6. UKIP - we still have coal, oil prices are at their lowest level, why should we risk millions investing in renewable energy, when we can continue to produce energy cheaply and regulate the energy firms. Are you a Green party in disguise?

    Soz guys, tried my best to challenge you all on one question each. GL
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I'll try and do one for each party

    Q1. Conservatives - "we should address the issue more generally, for example through education, job opportunities and affordable mortgages." This is a surprisingly vague answer, other parties have suggested distributing workers more evenly, changing right to buy or simply building more homes. Your answer suggests that you back right to buy, leaving it open to free market economics and private lending. How does "education" benefit low wage earning Londoners who have to nurse the hospitals, sweep the streets etc,

    Q2. Liberals - supporting a "mixed economy" is a good argument, however, in the instance of increased internet access, how do you plan on running this, allow private firms to invest in cities thus giving them super fast broadband and leaving rural areas lacking, or will you back nation wide roll out of improved access to internet everywhere?

    Q3. Socialists - as I understand it, you support cutting our defence budget immensely, never mind cutting Trident, but are additional defense cuts truly justifiable while Putin continues to push his agenda in Ukraine and Syria, is a totally pacifistic attitude fair, and how will we protected?

    Q4. Labour - you back apprenticeships in equal measure as degrees, however, while graduate unemployment rises, is it not fair to say that apprenticeships need further investment, while we should be simultaneously tackling high graduate unemployment? How would you do the latter?

    Q5. Greens - you support the right of individuals to have their own choice about the values that they hold. However, in communities where clear divides exist, where there are concerns about the inability to integrate, due to language, religion or personal choice. We have different communities co-existing, but not integrating. Is it not fair that people raise concerns on this, rather than simply saying "everyone is different?"

    Q6. UKIP - we still have coal, oil prices are at their lowest level, why should we risk millions investing in renewable energy, when we can continue to produce energy cheaply and regulate the energy firms. Are you a Green party in disguise?

    Soz guys, tried my best to challenge you all on one question each. GL
    We will back a nation wide roll out of internet access as no one should be left behind.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    We will back a nation wide roll out of internet access as no one should be left behind.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you will guarantee even the most remote areas will have acceptable internet access, at what could be regarded as incredibly inefficient spending?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So you will guarantee even the most remote areas will have acceptable internet access, at what could be regarded as incredibly inefficient spending?
    It's something to be evaulated in government to ensure it is cost-effective. We could perhaps be looking at private companies investing in towns and cities and the state investing in rural areas. The details have to be looked at before making a miliband-style written in stone pledge. So no, I can't guarantee it, but it's something we would support if it could be done well, and in a cost-effective manner.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jammy duel)
    Q1: In your response you make three statements, do you have any evidence to support the first two statements, and as for the third, what capacity do you believe there to be for expansion within cities, and what of the rural population and members of the public that wish to move to the countryside that, it appears, you wish to ignore?
    Well it's common sense, having less houses on the market because people buy them to rent will force up house prices. It is simply supply and demand but also as I recall there is a lot of research into that which when I work out where to find it I will cite. And we will build out wards as well, so long as it blends into the rural area(underground houses will be looked upon more favourably for example).

    Q2: Please answer the question Aph, I know that we're pretend politicians, but that doesn't mean doing the RL politician thing of being asked a question and answering the vaguely related question that you want to be asked. I shall also point out that this is in effect a non answer given that what you say you will do is already on our statute book.
    I answered the question. It shouldn't be one or the other but both.

    Q3: You do realise that trident is primarily a second strike weapon anyway? And I believe the same is true of the French deterrent so there is not much point in bringing that up in the opening statement. You also assume that in the case of nuclear war that the United States, and the other NATO members, will actually honour their ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty. Let me ask you this: if you were the president of the United States and little old England were attacked by a nuclear power, with no indication that the US would also be a target, would you drag your 300m+ countrymen into a nuclear oblivion over a piece of paper with a country that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists?I also imagine this will be a bit of a trend with my responses to Q3, do you believe that there will not be another large scale conflict within our lifetime?
    if America wouldn't as you are suggesting then we might as well leave NATO but i belive that America would honour the treaty. Also if the country 'no longer exists' then what would be the point of launching trident? To get a small amount of vengeance?

    Q4: Again, you didn't really answer the question, to make the declaration nobody is more important than another for the economy is a load of liberal hogwash. Tell me, what do the homeless on the street, for instance, contribute to the economy? On the other hand, what do the working population, whether that be stacking shelves at Tesco or being on the board of a massive multinational, contribute to the economy, and are they the same?
    i stated that graduates aren't more important then apprentices. And yes they are. Because if it wasn't for the low paid shelf stackers the highly paid office executives wouldn't be have a job. The economy is run by the everyday working person not the rich.

    Q5: Just because different parts of the country have slightly different customs and cultures means that there are no British customs? Surely this is likely to be the same for the places where many of these immigrants will be coming from, but we are just too ignorant to know these differences.
    there is no British culture or British identity. Nothing that is uniquely British.

    Q6: What I am reading here is that you want to first use a highly inefficient method to generate some power, using energy to create hydrogen, just to then transport it, and then react it again to generate power again, energy being lost at all stages, would it not be more efficient just to import the electricity from Iceland in the first place? You then want to continue investing in expensive and inefficnet technology in the form of Solar, and what do you know of the potential and potential hazards of wave?
    geothermal energy provides Iceland with almost all of its energy. And it wouldn't because it's easier to lay a hydrogen pipeline under water then masses of electrical cables which could harm wildlife by changing local magnetic field lines. As far as I understand the hazards of wave power are low because there will always be waves it's just a case of someone hitting the waves barrages. The country has the capacity to go 100% renewable.
 
 
 
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 19, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.