If you vote for multiculturalism, you should be forced to live with it. Watch

TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Why isn't this a policy for Trump?

Segment the voting population based upon those who voted for parties which favour multiculturalism, then direct all of the worst migration to the towns and villages of those who quite clearly support the world's biggest social experiment (rather than placing them amongst the working classes and the poor).

Enforce possession orders for homes, if need be (only from those who vote in favour). I mean, we need to make space for our guests and it's only fair we send them in the direction of the people who want them.

Or, if you vote for multiculturalism, you must be compelled to live on a street with a disproportionate number of migrants; at least 50%. People should be made to live with the consequences of their decisions - let's start redirecting the traffic.

Simple.
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Segment the voting population based upon those who voted for parties which favour multiculturalism
I'm pretty sure that this would break voting laws related to secret ballots.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Hydeman)
I'm pretty sure that this would break voting laws related to secret ballots.
Ignoring whether or not it is enforceable (it's borderline impossible), do you agree with the fairness of the principle?

More to the point, do you feel it would change people's perspective on multiculturalism were they forced to live on the same street as, say, 50 Syrian refugees, all with inclinations towards homophobia, misogyny, polygamy and enforcement of Sharia law?

In my view, multiculturalism - at its worst - needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it.
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Ignoring whether or not it is enforceable (it's borderline impossible), do you agree with the fairness of the principle?

More to the point, do you feel it would change people's perspective on multiculturalism were they forced to live on the same street as, say, 50 Syrian refugees, all with inclinations towards homophobia, misogyny, polygamy and enforcement of Sharia law?

In my view, multiculturalism - at its worst - needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it.
And in equal measure, let us only charge students who voted Conservative, or in the absence of their vote, students whose parents align themselves with the Conservative Party, tuition fees of £9,000 a year.

Furthermore, let us make the required public spending cuts to only Tory led councils, whilst leaving others untouched.


After all, it "needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it".


"We're all in this together, except when we aren't all in this together".
3
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Ignoring whether or not it is enforceable (it's borderline impossible), do you agree with the fairness of the principle?
I could just about reconcile myself with the principle itself, because I don't see it as any different to anything else in terms of trying to get the best deal for individual voters as possible.

But no, I don't think that I'd agree even if it was enforceable, owing to the system of representative democracy (implemented by a defunct voting system) that we have in the UK. I cannot tell, based on how people have voted, whether they actually voted in favour of multiculturalism or whether they actually disagreed with that policy and simply voted for the least bad alternative, in their view.

Given that a fair number of people are voting for such parties for reasons outside of their control or for single issues (like my mum -- voted Labour because they were the only ones promising a tuition fee reduction) or because they agree with most of the manifesto (or perhaps more accurately, the summary they read on Facebook) but not that one particular policy, I don't think there's a convincing case for it.

Not to mention that, should we transition to a system of direct democracy, you would either have to move people against their will or impose multiculturalism on those who didn't vote for it in regions where a majority voted for it, neither of which I can agree with.

More to the point, do you feel it would change people's perspective on multiculturalism were they forced to live on the same street as, say, 50 Syrian refugees, all with inclinations towards homophobia, misogyny, polygamy and enforcement of Sharia law?
Maybe -- I don't deny that there are people who hold views because they're fashionable rather than because they have any real political convictions, but I don't think I can make predictions about people that I don't know.

Edit: TheArtofProtest also makes a good point.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
And in equal measure, let us only charge students who voted Conservative, or in the absence of their vote, students whose parents align themselves with the Conservative Party, tuition fees of £9,000 a year.

Furthermore, let us make the required public spending cuts to only Tory led councils, whilst leaving others untouched.


After all, it "needs to be brought closer to the people who keep voting for it".


"We're all in this together, except when we aren't all in this together".
That's fine, providing you are happy to remove all Conservative voters tax contributions to tuition fees (i.e., grants, scholarships, and block funding sent north of the border). Better yet, identify Conservative contributions as a share of public income, and as a share of public spending in relation to tuition fees (in all their forms, across the UK), and deduct accordingly.

Further, if free tuition is imposed latterly, only those who vote in favour of it should have to pay for it. I imagine that would kinda suck, considering those who want free money have typically made **** all in the way of a contribution.

In gist, I'm happy with this. Seems fair.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Hydeman)
I could just about reconcile myself with the principle itself, because I don't see it as any different to anything else in terms of trying to get the best deal for individual voters as possible.

But no, I don't think that I'd agree even if it was enforceable, owing to the system of representative democracy (implemented by a defunct voting system) that we have in the UK. I cannot tell, based on how people have voted, whether they actually voted in favour of multiculturalism or whether they actually disagreed with that policy and simply voted for the least bad alternative, in their view.

Given that a fair number of people are voting for such parties for reasons outside of their control or for single issues (like my mum -- voted Labour because they were the only ones promising a tuition fee reduction) or because they agree with most of the manifesto (or perhaps more accurately, the summary they read on Facebook) but not that one particular policy, I don't think there's a convincing case for it.

Not to mention that, should we transition to a system of direct democracy, you would either have to move people against their will or impose multiculturalism on those who didn't vote for it in regions where a majority voted for it, neither of which I can agree with.



Maybe -- I don't deny that there are people who hold views because they're fashionable rather than because they have any real political convictions, but I don't think I can make predictions about people that I don't know.

Edit: TheArtofProtest also makes a good point.
Fairly simple then: a separate referendum on multiculturalism. We never voted for it, it was forced upon us.

Better yet, a confederation. Those which want migration can have as much as they like, those that don't can do without. Or, internal migration can be controlled at the local authority level. Where the local communities have determined there's a need, it should be permitted. Where there isn't, it's halted.

Yes, ridiculously outlandish. But with the divide and rule being imposed upon us currently, I can see it being a realistic consideration a century from now.
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
That's fine, providing you are happy to remove all Conservative voters tax contributions to their tuition fees.
Completely agreeable to that.

Let's also slash tax rates, close to nil as possible, and instead start borrowing to underwrite vital public services, but only for those that didn't vote Tory.

Those that voted Tory, can remain ideological and go private.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
Completely agreeable to that.

Let's also slash tax rates, close to nil as possible, and instead start borrowing to underwrite vital public services, but only for those that didn't vote Tory.

Those that voted Tory, can remain ideological and go private.
Again, fine with that. Again, remove all Conservative tax contributions. If you did...well, you wouldn't have an NHS. Poor people, who love voting for free money, making the requisite tax contributions for their own medical care. Yeah, that will work.

As far as 'borrowing to underwrite vital public services' goes, haven't we done that already? Have you heard of PFI? The Labour Party loves it - what's it costing us now? About £300bn, right? Yeah, only Labour voters - lovers of other people's money and great imposers of moral codes they don't have to live by - should have to pay that debt.

As an aside, you do realise I'm not a Tory voter, right?

I also can't but wonder how quickly all of Labour's celebrity endorsements would fall by the wayside when they became disproportionately responsible for footing the bill for 9 million citizens. I actually think this is a great idea.

Pay for what you vote for. Genius. We could create cards, a Labour Card, and a Conservative Card. The former will get you into Stop the War meetings, downtrodden NHS services, faith-based secondary schools and will come with a monthly coupon delivery, like 20% off groceries at Lidl (funded by your local celebrity), the latter will get you into swanky hotels, 'Russell Brand/Owen Jones is not permitted entry' nightclubs, private healthcare, grammar schools and top-class higher education establishments (all paid for by Tory taxes).
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Again, fine with that. Again, remove all Conservative tax contributions. If you did...well, you wouldn't have an NHS. Poor people, who love voting for free money, making the requisite tax contributions for their own medical care. Yeah, that will work.
As I said, no one will have to pay any tax but public service infrastructure will remain, it will just be borrowed money instead of general taxation and only applicable or be used to serve those who didn't vote Tory.

As far as 'borrowing to underwrite vital public services' goes, haven't we done that already? Have you heard of PFI? The Labour Party loves it - what's it costing us now? About £300bn, right? Yeah, only Labour voters - lovers of other people's money and great imposers of moral codes they don't have to live by - should have to pay that debt.
Cameron and Osborne will have to find other ways of funding their salaries and their office expenses. I'm sure some of the Tories could have a whip-around.

As an aside, you do realise I'm not a Tory voter, right?
No point in referencing UKIP as they haven't a snowball's chance in hell in getting into power.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
As I said, no one will have to pay any tax but public service infrastructure will remain, it will just be borrowed money instead of general taxation and only applicable or be used to serve those who didn't vote Tory.
No it won't.

We'll consult historic voting patterns. All contributions made by Tories will be deducted from the asset value of all public holdings which form part of national infrastructure (as utilised by the New Health Service, and all other services deemed 'vital public services').

Further, all additional tangible assets (MRI scanners, blood pressure monitors, ventilators and even stethoscopes, etc.) should be divided up in accordance with tax contributions, too. As well as any retained profits. We could probably ignore the intangible. All PFI debt will be flung in the direction of the Labour voters.

Labour voters then make a contribution to Tory coffers, to the tune of trillions of pounds, to retain control over public infrastructure. Then we'll be square.

Just as an aside, how do you suppose the credit rating of the new L-UK will fair without Tory tax contributions? I presume it will take a massive hit. Planning on printing some new L-GBP?
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
No it won't.

We'll consult historic voting patterns. All contributions made by Tories will be deducted from the asset value of all public holdings which form part of national infrastructure (as utilised by the New Health Service, and all other services deemed 'vital public services'.

Further, all additional tangible assets (MRI scanners, blood pressure monitors, ventilators and even stethoscopes, etc.) should be divided up in accordance with tax contributions, too. As well as any retained profits. We could probably ignore the intangible. All PFI debt will be flung in the direction of the Labour voters.

Labour voters then make a contribution to Tory coffers, to the tune of trillions of pounds, to retain control over public infrastructure. Then we'll be square.

Just as an aside, how do you suppose the credit rating of the new L-UK will fair without Tory tax contributions? I presume it will take a massive hit. Planning on printing some new L-GBP?
Ridiculous. Tory policies that are voted for will apply to only Tories, whilst those from other parties, and current policies towards those that are non-Tories will remain untouched.


It will be the responsibility of the Tory government to keep all current services going, the funding of which will be the responsibility of the Tory Government. Whether they start taxing their supporters heavier, or start borrowing larger amounts of money will make no difference to the services that they are obliged to provide.

It's the only fair way.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
Ridiculous. Tory policies that are voted for will apply to only Tories, whilst those from other parties, and current policies towards those that are non-Tories will remain untouched.


It will be the responsibility of the Tory government to keep all current services going, the funding of which will be the responsibility of the Tory Government. Whether they start taxing their supporters heavier, or start borrowing larger amounts of money will make no difference to the services that they are obliged to provide.

It's the only fair way.
You don't seem to understand.

As you've stated, Tories can remain ideological and go private (where it states in the Tory manifesto that the Tories don't want the NHS I don't know, however I digress) - only Labour voters can access the NHS. Fine. Therefore they (Tories) won't be using the New Health Service.

However, they have spent decades investing in the NHS, and their investments should be returned to a 'Tory pot.' As should the value of all tangible assets they've invested in. The debt (PFI) amassed to prop up the NHS - by Labour Governments - should become the sole responsibility of the voters, and political party, which facilitated it (Labour).

I'm more interested in Hydeman and his perspective on whether Tory's who don't vote for tuition fees should have to make tax contributions towards paying for them on behalf of voters of other parties (as he agreed with your initial point), or any corresponding educational fees (scholarships, grants, student loans, and free tuition north of the border, or latter implementations of free tuition in England).

I'm all for this. I think the country would be far better off if we siphoned all the actual tax contributions, and removed the incentivisation for people to vote for 'free money.'

Tories can live in their heartlands, stick up a big wall to stop the sick and the poor getting through, and celebrities, the pathologically altruistic, the identity ideologues (the majority of women will obviously want to stay on the other side of the wall, alongside the poor, migrants, etc. They can take public sector jobs, they like those), the religious conservatives, and the likes, can enjoy their utopia together, while leaving Tories who actually believe in individualism and individual liberty (oh, and working for a living, and being responsible for your own actions) in peace.
0
reply
Wooop
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
The major European parties, also called establishment parties all support the European project that is

Democracy (when it suits them)

Tolerance (tolerating immigration that destroys the White population)

Freedom and of course they're doing everything to destroy all our freedoms


It is hard for new parties to gain power as they don't have the money and media behind them.
0
reply
Katie Hopkins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Multiculturalism has led to devils sneaking in through our front door. Just look at the Paris attacks. Inadequate passport checks, no holding centres—all to appease a multicultural ideal sold to us by certain elements of our state and its agencies. We don't all love multiculturalism. We don't all want equality the way you see it. We don't want to live where we are second-class citizens in our own country. And I blame you. I blame you and every other zealot who tells me race is not an issue. I blame you who tell me all migrants are welcome. I blame you who tell me I am a racist when all I am is proud of my people.
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
You don't seem to understand.

As you've stated, Tories can remain ideological and go private (where it states in the Tory manifesto that the Tories don't want the NHS I don't know, however I digress) - only Labour voters can access the NHS. Fine. Therefore they (Tories) won't be using the New Health Service.

However, they have spent decades investing in the NHS, and their investments should be returned to a 'Tory pot.' As should the value of all tangible assets they've invested in. The debt (PFI) amassed to prop up the NHS - by Labour Governments - should become the sole responsibility of the voters, and political party, which facilitated it (Labour).
Whether someone has paid in a million or nothing at all, it is irrelevant as we are starting a new chapter.

Whichever way you look at it, the Tories (and right-wingers) will get screwed and will continue getting screwed.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
Whether someone has paid in a million or nothing at all, it is irrelevant as we are starting a new chapter.

Whichever way you look at it, the Tories (and right-wingers) will get screwed and will continue getting screwed.
Haha, satirical. You tried to reverse my logic thinking it would put me on the defensive, it fails spectacularly and it turns out I support your logic.

A new chapter? Is that Brand's revolution? Who's your leader? Owen Jones? He's a millionaire now, right?

The last people who would be screwed in this situation are the Tories. Why would they need the non-existent tax contribution of people who want free money? So much of the youth vote, and poor vote, goes towards the Labour Party - it's the nature of the beast.

We don't need it, you're all just clinging to people who actually make money for a living and decimating individual liberty in the process. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, the human should be dehumanised, turned into a category of people and be responsible for everyone around him. How does that ideology work in a nation of freeloaders? Oh, it doesn't.
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Haha, satirical. You tried to reverse my logic thinking it would put me on the defensive, it fails spectacularly and it turns out I support your logic.
Our logic, in the positions taken on in this thread, is one and the same.

A new chapter? Is that Brand's revolution? Who's your leader? Owen Jones? He's a millionaire now, right?
I nominate you to be the one to drive this forward.

The last people who would be screwed in this situation are the Tories. Why would they need the non-existent tax contribution of people who want free money? So much of the youth vote, and poor vote, goes towards the Labour Party - it's the nature of the beast.
Because the Labour Party will just borrow, borrow, borrow and the Conservatives will have to do the same for the Labour voters.

Oddly enough, such a proposal may end up making the UK a far more equal place, albeit a much poorer nation overall.

We don't need it, you're all just clinging to people who actually make money for a living and decimating individual liberty in the process. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, the human should be dehumanised, turned into a category of people and be responsible for everyone around him. How does that ideology work in a nation of freeloaders? Oh, it doesn't.
The Labour Party is there to use the assets of the state to serve the people, not to simply promote individual wealth.

Having said that, I am also an advocate of minimal taxation, preferably 0% PAYE tax.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
What about if you vote for parties that favour not controlling levels of pollution and CO2 emissions.

Build a nice power station at the end of their road and they can enjoy breathing the pollution and see the effect on the value of their property.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
What about if you vote for parties that favour not controlling levels of pollution and CO2 emissions.

Build a nice power station at the end of their road and they can enjoy breathing the pollution and see the effect on the value of their property.
CO2 is an essential gas. We need a concentration of 240 ppm to sustain all plant life. We're currently at 400 ppm. There have been times, throughout history, where it has been as high as 8,000 ppm, and we didn't witness any problems. Throughout most of history it averaged out in the low thousands.

If anything, we're in famine. Global temperatures, dependent on the measures you utilise, have barely shifted in about two decades. Further, there's demonstrable evidence of tampering with local weather stations to try and make it look as though the local climate is warmer than it actually is.

To refer to global warming (now referred to as 'climate change', for obvious reasons) as anything even resembling a problem is an absolute fallacy. So, in gist, it doesn't matter what your point is, the anti-carbon jihad is full of it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What offers have you received from universities?

Unconditional (35)
18.04%
Unconditional if firmed (14)
7.22%
Unconditional if insurance (2)
1.03%
Both unconditional and unconditional if firm/insurance (5)
2.58%
No unconditional offers (138)
71.13%

Watched Threads

View All