Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I've thought about it and i think Labour is a better choice over the Tories. Here are my reasons.

    1. Both Tories and Labour believe in Keynesian Economics.

    The difference is the Tories want to expand the money supply by storing it in first time buyer homes as equity against debt. Labour on the other hand want to expand the money supply by building social housing which will reduce the need for a high housing benefit.

    The fiscal methods are pretty much the same but Labours plan benefits the tax payer and the working classes rather than benefiting the needs of the few.

    2. Labour want to abandon the economic model of the Tories which evolves around high private debt, low wages and cookie cutter services. Instead Labour wants to focus on becoming the Green-manufacturing center of the world and encourage a high tech manufacturing boom.

    I am on board with this. There are a lot of products which can be built if we invest in renewable energy technology. It means changing the way Universities and Colleges do things but with the combination of automation and high-tech hands on jobs we could become the next Germany.

    3. Its worth reminding the Tories that Labour achieved the lowest unemployment rate at 4.8% in the last 30 years. The Tories are struggling to achieve this even when they've tweaked the Job Center figures.

    The 4.8% figure was achieved in 2004 3 years after the recession of 2001 and a couple years after Tax Credits where introduced.

    When you look at the unemployment statistics from 1980 on wards your see Labour are the best choice the working class have in terms of getting a job and having a income.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate

    Look for yourselves.
    The UK never experienced recession in 01 and Labour arguably rode a wave. Even Blair admitted that the Tories had left them a "golden economy".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Corbyn is not an extremist. He's a centre-left politician

    Hahahah, funniest thing i've read, center-left lol.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well Cameron is a terrorist sympathiser so...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by NoPunInThisName)
    Well Cameron is a terrorist sympathiser so...
    .......
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Hahahah, funniest thing i've read, center-left lol.
    He barely wants to raise income tax or corporation tax, his views on in-work welfare are obscure and his renationalisation program looks to be limited. That's not far left by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, he has some nutty views on foreign policy which correlate to the views of many leftists, but foreign policy doesn't form a part of the left-right spectrum.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    .......
    Sorry, I forgot he's exempt from such descriptions despite his regular arms deals with Saudi Arabia who then distribute them to all sides of the conflict in the middle-east..

    Err...... I meant Corbyn, bleedin' loonie that man I tell ye! There, normal service resumed. :yy:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Really a question of whether you want to destroy the country in 2020 or not...

    If Trump fixes America I might vote for Corbyn and the leave and laugh at all the leftards .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nyet, Komrade.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    .......
    Not a terrorist sympathizer but certainly an islamic extremism sympathizer given his close ties with saudi arabia and the fact he boasts about all the weapons we give them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not a terrorist sympathizer but certainly an islamic extremism sympathizer given his close ties with saudi arabia and the fact he boasts about all the weapons we give them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That may be the silliest thing you've ever said.

    We sell to Saudi because they are rich and for the moment important and because if we don't, somebody else will. What they use those weapons for is immaterial as things stand.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That may be the silliest thing you've ever said.

    We sell to Saudi because they are rich and for the moment important and because if we don't, somebody else will. What they use those weapons for is immaterial as things stand.
    It's totally irrelevant. Whether you prop up a tyrannical Islamist dictatorship for money, or because you believe in what they do, the end result is the same. We give arms to and prop up an extreme Islamic dictatorship, i'd say that counts as being sympathetic.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Komrade Korbyn in 2020 ? with Putin in power in Russia ... pull the other one
    Are you talking about the same corbyn who despises everything Putin is doing, and wants to dramatically expand our military?

    You must be confused. Are you having a senior moment?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No. Corbyn is an extremist and they deserve to lose for making him leader.
    Ideologically it would make sense for me to just vote Lib Dem since I would vote Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn, but I will vote Tory just to make sure they win an absolutely majority and do not have to give ground to anyone who even has a whiff of Corbyn's aftershave on their collar.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Never under Corybyn. His views on foreign policy, migration and nationalisation are absolutely ridiculous.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by XMaramena)
    Are you talking about the same corbyn who despises everything Putin is doing, and wants to dramatically expand our military?

    You must be confused. Are you having a senior moment?
    What on earth makes you think he wants to expand the military. He won't even commit to the current 2% and that's woefully low.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I will do what I have always done and pick out the best candidate in my opinion regardless of party ( My local labour candidates are all sensible people ). All the party leaders are pretty hopeless in my opinion. Although I don't see him being PM I could relatively trust a labour government so long as Corbyn is sufficiently muzzled by Watson, Benn and others. I think he will have to compromise to the extent that he will no longer be the darling of the left and is weakened to an extent that he could be replaced by somebody without his warped views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We sell to Saudi because they are rich and for the moment important and because if we don't, somebody else will. What they use those weapons for is immaterial as things stand.
    Maybe i'm too much of a leftie, but I strongly disagree.

    1: On the money side, I think there's a part where ethics plays a role in international affairs. Maybe in Machiavelli's day such things could be reasonably be justified but in the globalized post 9/11 world of today actions like that have far reaching consequences.

    As for the role of selling stuff- should we really base those decisions on the fact if we don't supply say, torture instruments to Saudi then North Korea will instead? Where do we draw the line? If ISIS becomes an established power should we sell guns and tanks to them?

    2: Propping up these types of regimes will only breed greater resentment of the west in the future. As you know, I don't believe western policy is the main reason why groups like ISIS exist, but i think this sort of thing can lead to long term grievances.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What on earth makes you think he wants to expand the military. He won't even commit to the current 2% and that's woefully low.
    Perhaps his policies on - you guessed it - expanding and strengthening our armed forces with a minimum of £2 bn a year, by taking the money spent on Trident and putting into troops on the ground. As a member of NATO, and an additional treaty with the US, we have hundreds of nuclear missiles already acting as a deterrent in the UK's favour. Cameron wants to spend £100 billion on new nukes when we effectively have more than enough anyway. Corbyn wants to spend £100 billion on strengthening the real armed forces. Not a last resort apocalypse-bringer big red button (because that's all it is - as soon as we start sending nukes out, you can pretty much kiss your arse beddy bye bye time!), but an immediate, measurable strength, an actual show of force and expansion of our military.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XMaramena)
    Are you talking about the same corbyn who despises everything Putin is doing, and wants to dramatically expand our military?

    You must be confused. Are you having a senior moment?
    the same Komrade Korbyn who wants to gut our Military ...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Maybe i'm too much of a leftie, but I strongly disagree.

    1: On the money side, I think there's a part where ethics plays a role in international affairs. Maybe in Machiavelli's day such things could be reasonably be justified but in the globalized post 9/11 world of today actions like that have far reaching consequences.

    As for the role of selling stuff- should we really base those decisions on the fact if we don't supply say, torture instruments to Saudi then North Korea will instead? Where do we draw the line? If ISIS becomes an established power should we sell guns and tanks to them?

    2: Propping up these types of regimes will only breed greater resentment of the west in the future. As you know, I don't believe western policy is the main reason why groups like ISIS exist, but i think this sort of thing can lead to long term grievances.
    But the thing is, we need an ally in the middle east. No one thinks the way saudi arabia is governed is good, but the middle east is a shitstorm right now. Having a stable country in the middle east, allied to the western powers, is hugely important to our attempts to try and ride out this mess. And Israel is of little and less use as all the other middle eastern countries hate them.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.