The Student Room Group

Voting Labour is dangerous

How can anyone be seriously considering to vote Labour?

Here are the key problems:

1) Nationalisation. This categorically does not work as the civil service is known to be extremely inefficient and generally crap. Without free-market competition, there is no drive to be innovative. Beyond that, post is declining so why bother with nationalising the Royal Mail? Also, where is the money going to come from to buy back companies, and what happens to existing tenders? It'd be certain legal chaos.

2) HS2. Categorically keeping this is a staggering waste of money (and more proof of the incompetence of the civil service). Keeping it shows someone who hasn't done their homework.

3) Diane Abbott. Here is a woman who hates white people and refuses to denounce the IRA. Putting her in charge of national security seems blatantly dangerous.

4) When the majority of homeless people have a drink or drug problem, how is it fair to give them housing over this generation of young workers who are struggling to buy a house?

5) No more zero hour contracts? Bye-bye Uber and Amazon deliveries.

The only honest person who has done their research and would vote Labour is this guy:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by retardis
How can anyone seriously consider voting Conservative?

(enter lots and lots of facts and figures)


No one here has mentioned the Conservatives, and 5/10 for the deflection. :h:
Reply 2
Original post by PQ
Thread title: "convince me"
OP: "let me convince you you're wrong and my mind cannot be changed "

TSR: :rolleyes:


Deflection score: 3/10

Try harder.
Original post by geoking
No one here has mentioned the Conservatives, and 5/10 for the deflection. :h:


Agreed, just thought it would be fun to mock your title. Surely 11/10 for banter.
Reply 5
I agree with you on Diane Abbott.

As for the zero hour thing - you may want to see just how Amazon became rich by having shady employment practices - tantamount to abuse of workers. The zero hour nullification is there to help ordinary people ahead of large corporations. Of course the corporations will try to paint a different picture to scare the public - self interest.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 6
You just want people to come here and defend labour but they way you've laid it out immediately puts labour supporters at a disadvantage.

Nice bait but the fallacy here i rate 4/10, you're not getting the debate you want.

Simple answer: To make sure the lying frauds that are the conservatives dont get in power.
Original post by mashbbk
I agree with you on Diane Abbott.

As for the zero hour thing - you may want to see just how Amazon became rich by having shady employment practices - tantamount to abuse of workers. The zero hour nullification is there to help ordinary people ahead of large corporations. Of course the corporations will try to paint a different picture to scare the public - self interest.


So then make better employment laws rather than just killing off zero hour contracts as many people actually like them e.g. Uber, many in the IT sector etc.

But that is Labour for you isn't it. Simplify complex problems and claim it has a solution! :rolleyes: It's terrifying how the young don't see through Labours Trump style bs.



Original post by nited2
You just want people to come here and defend labour but they way you've laid it out immediately puts labour supporters at a disadvantage.

Nice bait but the fallacy here i rate 4/10, you're not getting the debate you want.

Simple answer: To make sure the lying frauds that are the conservatives dont get in power.


So you're going to ignore everything OP says? Wow, echo chamber denial much.

Also how are the Tories lying frauds? Last time I checked Labour is the one that got us into this mess.......
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by mashbbk
I agree with you on Diane Abbott.

As for the zero hour thing - you may want to see just how Amazon became rich by having shady employment practices - tantamount to abuse of workers. The zero hour nullification is there to help ordinary people ahead of large corporations. Of course the corporations will try to paint a different picture to scare the public - self interest.


While some companies (Sports Direct comes immediately to mind) take advantage of zero hour contracts, others like Uber are a massive benefit to their employees as it allows taxi drivers to work outside of their scheduled hours with other firms. Abolishing zero hour contracts seems lazy and extremely heavy handed; the actual solution would be to ensure certain rights for them, which would allow the best of both worlds.


Original post by nited2
You just want people to come here and defend labour but they way you've laid it out immediately puts labour supporters at a disadvantage.

Nice bait but the fallacy here i rate 4/10, you're not getting the debate you want.

Simple answer: To make sure the lying frauds that are the conservatives dont get in power.


Considering how the majority of people who voted in the poll here are supporting Labour, yes I'd like to see how they can defend the above. That's not a fallacy, that's called explaining your logic :h:

Also, you can't really think jeopardizing national security and wasting billions is better than having Conservatives in power. There are more than two parties you can vote for...
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by Jimbo1234

So you're going to ignore everything OP says? Wow, echo chamber denial much.

Also how are the Tories lying frauds? Last time I checked Labour is the one that got us into this mess.......


Yes, yes I am because this debate is not a fair one, it's rigged against me and Im far too intelligent to waste my time on it.

When did labour get us into this "mess" you moron? The tories borrowed more than Labour did. And how do they lie? One word. Deficit.
Reply 10
Original post by geoking


Considering how the majority of people who voted in the poll here are supporting Labour, yes I'd like to see how they can defend the above. That's not a fallacy, that's called explaining your logic :h:

Also, you can't really think jeopardizing national security and wasting billions is better than having Conservatives in power. There are more than two parties you can vote for...


Yes, the majority of TSR is for Labour because we're intelligent. However this thread and the way you laid it out is rigged against labour.

No one is going to attack us and labour has a plan to fight terrorism. The only two with a realistic chance of power is tories and labour, labour in many cases is a strategic vote.
Reply 11
Original post by nited2
Yes, the majority of TSR is for Labour because we're intelligent. However this thread and the way you laid it out is rigged against labour.

No one is going to attack us and labour has a plan to fight terrorism. The only two with a realistic chance of power is tories and labour, labour in many cases is a strategic vote.


It's not rigged, it's showing significant flaws in their manifesto :lol:
Now, you have to show how "being intelligent" means you can show that the rest of the manifesto outweighs those issues (from what I can see, it doesn't), or maybe rethink your views? :h:

No one is going to attack us? Good to see you're privy to national intelligence briefings.
Original post by nited2
Yes, yes I am because this debate is not a fair one, it's rigged against me and Im far too intelligent to waste my time on it.

When did labour get us into this "mess" you moron? The tories borrowed more than Labour did. And how do they lie? One word. Deficit.


Pahaha, no buddy, this IS a debate.

OP posted facts, it is now your job to post facts that prove the opposite/your view point.

If you can't, then what would it take for you to change your mind as clearly facts are not enough! :facepalm:


And sorry, you are far from intelligent if you don't know that Labor got us into this mess.
Categorically, they did.
Just like how Corbyn is promising to spend spend spend, Blair did that in all sectors and guess what? We couldn't afford it.
And before you spout crap about the coalition borrowing more - that is how interest works. Either borrow more or go bankrupt. Thanks Labour! :rolleyes:
Reply 13
Original post by Jimbo1234
Pahaha, no buddy, this IS a debate.



Wrong.
Original post by nited2
Wrong.


But
it
is.

It is now your turn to post facts and figures.....not shout everyone down who disagrees with you like Diane Abbott.
But then again maybe you like shouting people down and that's why you're voting Labour! :rofl:
Reply 15
Original post by geoking
How can anyone be seriously considering to vote Labour?

Here are the key problems:

1) Nationalisation. This categorically does not work as the civil service is known to be extremely inefficient and generally crap. Without free-market competition, there is no drive to be innovative. Beyond that, post is declining so why bother with nationalising the Royal Mail? Also, where is the money going to come from to buy back companies, and what happens to existing tenders? It'd be certain legal chaos.

2) HS2. Categorically keeping this is a staggering waste of money (and more proof of the incompetence of the civil service). Keeping it shows someone who hasn't done their homework.

3) Diane Abbott. Here is a woman who hates white people and refuses to denounce the IRA. Putting her in charge of national security seems blatantly dangerous.

4) When the majority of homeless people have a drink or drug problem, how is it fair to give them housing over this generation of young workers who are struggling to buy a house?

5) No more zero hour contracts? Bye-bye Uber and Amazon deliveries.

The only honest person who has done their research and would vote Labour is this guy:



It's ironic that you're (claiming to be) concerned about young people not being able to buy a house. In same breath you're complaining that zero hour contracts, which are one of the exploitative measures that companies use to avoid paying people fair wages, will stop you being able to get Amazon packages and take an Uber.

You can't have it both ways.

In addition, keeping homeless people homeless is a drain on resources. The police have to deal with homeless people rather than attending real crimes. In what world is having homeless people inside, warm, less likely to become ill and/or turn to drink and drugs to numb the depression of sleeping in doorways worse than having them outside, constantly having to be moved on, freezing to death under a bridge or killing themselves?

The railways are crying out for nationalisation because they can't exist in a free market economy. There's no way to allow competition, because you can't choose which service you use. You get whichever train you have to get so there's no incentive for companies to provide a good service. They just provide the bare minimum and if they're cancelled or late then **** you because they know you're just going to try again tomorrow. Rail fares are intentionally complicated so people who don't know any better end up paying more than they need to.

If the Royal Mail stays private, then it's just going to get more expensive as demand lessens. Zero hour and part time contracts will increase with in the service (although you seem to be in favour of driving poor people in to the dirt for no money) and fees for other Royal Mail services will increase as they try to keep themselves afloat. If it's nationalised then any money earned will go back in to public services, and people working for Royal Mail will remain on a Civil Service pay-rate which is far more fair than that of whichever private companies take it over.

Otherwise, you just seem to have started another thread in which the OP isn't actually interested in debate and would rather just post their opinion and tell anyone who replies to shut up. The only thing I agree with you about is Diane Abbot, but she's the Labour Party's answer to Boris Johnson. At worst she's just incompetent; the labour party has it's fair share of incompetence, but what it has less of is incompetence paired with vindictiveness which seems to be rife in the Tories.
(edited 6 years ago)
Amen, I was looking for something like this. Everyone on TSR seem to support labour, or if not, go extreme right with UKIP
Reply 17
Original post by geoking
How can anyone be seriously considering to vote Labour?

Here are the key problems:

1) Nationalisation. This categorically does not work as the civil service is known to be extremely inefficient and generally crap. Without free-market competition, there is no drive to be innovative. Beyond that, post is declining so why bother with nationalising the Royal Mail? Also, where is the money going to come from to buy back companies, and what happens to existing tenders? It'd be certain legal chaos.

2) HS2. Categorically keeping this is a staggering waste of money (and more proof of the incompetence of the civil service). Keeping it shows someone who hasn't done their homework.

3) Diane Abbott. Here is a woman who hates white people and refuses to denounce the IRA. Putting her in charge of national security seems blatantly dangerous.

4) When the majority of homeless people have a drink or drug problem, how is it fair to give them housing over this generation of young workers who are struggling to buy a house?

5) No more zero hour contracts? Bye-bye Uber and Amazon deliveries.

The only honest person who has done their research and would vote Labour is this guy:



I can't convince you labour isn't dangerous under Corbyn but I'm sure others can. I can however convince you Theresa May IS dangerous, towards social care, your education, your health and our security. Have you seen the impacts of police cuts? Police forces are now reduced to be reactionaries and cannot be pro active forces on the streets. It's extremely rare to see police roaming the streets even in town centres you just don't see them anymore. We've LOST almost 20k police officers in England and Wales since 2010, our population has grown by millions, threats have increased but at a time when the police force should be growing its shrunken and been squeezed.
Reply 18
Also New Zealand has banned 0 hours contracts and Amazon have recently launched prime there, I support the idea of zero hours contracts since that kind of employment is crucial to the gig economy but I think it should be reworked to provide a minimum guarantee of hours as the law is in Ireland. Would it really be that hard for employers to pay a base of 10-5 hours a week as a guarantee?

Also, even in private ownership how do single operated lines face competition exactly? The only motive on the railways by private firms is profit motivation, but to be honest I'm not a fan of nationalisation. I support shared public-private ownership for Royal Mail and railways with active operations in Royal Mail but just a shareholder in the railways (no operating!)
(edited 6 years ago)
OP you can't seriously expect a serious debate when you've set up the thread to be deliberately aimed at mocking people with opposing views, expecting left wing people to defend Corbyn not from the perspective of policy and ideology, but on the basis of the character assassination that's been raged against him by the conservatives and the right wing media (like most labour leaders).

Quick Reply

Latest