(Original post by UniOfLife)
THM you're efforts are valiant but doomed.
Heh. Maybe we should be a political party without policies? Then we'd be more successful.
The fact that you practically cannot implement it doesn't make it a less valid criticism. Your aim is one day to force everyone to be carbon copies of each other. Your stated aim is to ensure that no child gains an advantage over any other. This necessitates moulding every child in the country to be identical save for themselves. As Dan pointed out, influences over them come from everywhere and the only way to ensure equality is to take away any and all uncontrolled influences. This is what is normally referred to as totalitarian and is frankly sickening.
Utterly ridiculous. Did Skipper write that passage for you? We don't want everyone to be carbon copies of each other. We want everyone to have equal opportunities. That isn't actually possible in the current climate, but that
doesn't mean we can't reduce
the inequalities between how children are educated. Your argument is analogous to: "Well, world peace is impossible, so who cares if we bomb thousands of innocent people?"
I think it's pathetic that when we say: "We don't want some people to go to Eton and live in mansions will others live in abject poverty", you translate that to, "ZOMGZ, UR TRYNA MAKE US ALL TEH SAME!"
As for private transport, yes it does impact on public transport. If the best drivers drive private minicabs they are not driving public buses.
Again, logically ridiculous: we have surplus of bus drivers.
If the best designers are designing private cars they are not designing public transport.
So, poor people have to walk because the people who engineer the best buses were too busy making cars? That's laughable. Therefore, I shall laugh. *laughs* The same people manufacture them, and the PT operators by their vechiles and car companies by their cars.
And if people spend money on private transport they are not helping out public transport. And if people are clogging the roads with their private cars that impacts on public transport.
Slightly more reasonable point, but still not a good one. Poor people drive cars, too; the roads are for public use. Cars are a part of how society operates, and PT is not practical in every circumstance. It's like saying, "No one should eat brown bread because this damages the white bread industry."
And you skipping ahead of me to get major surgery is slightly different to you holding up my bus while on your way to work, wouldn't you say?
Still, as a socialist, I think we should be encouraging people to use the PT available to them, when possible. (Bus lanes and such are good examples.)
If private healthcare is "paying to skip the queue" surely private transport is even more so!
No, it's paying to get in your car and drive somewhere on the same roads as the buses. (Also, rail services are entirely separate from the private vechiles.)
I really think you're intelligent enough to see the distinctions here...
If these are Socialist Party policies I sincerely hope no one ever votes for you. Your vision is a totalitarian state in which no one has any freedom because their choices impact on others and only the select few decide what everyone else must do. All in the sickeningly Orwellian notion of equality.
LOL. And you're racist, homophobic, sexist snobs, who want to see the poor suffer while you sip tea in you mansions and invade little countries to rob them of their oil.
And you all look like Michael Howard.
Yay for intelligent debate.