(Original post by xXedixXx)
Luxuries for improving the quality of their own life.
Like what? And what logic dictates that these things improve someones quality of life more than, for example, the ability to travel across london. Why not make chocolate free, or holidays free. If it's so important for you to 'improve the quality...' and for people to spend their 'hard earned' on it then it strikes me that you're approaching it from the wrong end. Why not make luxuries free?
The only viable argument here would be [and ill help you out by stating it] that you can't know what people consider luxuries. If this is the case though then how can you know what you're freeing people up to do. Do you not also think that the things you will have to take money out of to fund these things can be broadly said to improve everyones quality of life rather than assuming something improves some - the police, NHS etc.
There is an economic argument for not making massive cuts, and it's well known, but where is the argument for increasing spending without increasing jobs or anything.
On a final note, and a question, do you not think you're more 'Social Democrat' as a party than 'Socialist' - you seem to favour reform and this is partially promoted by the way things are on TSR, either way please also provide some justification as I'm interested in your opinion paertaining to the nature of TSR Socialists post-leadership change.
I'm just not really sure of the direction of your party. It just all seems a bit strange. You consider the marginal use of increasing access to the tube for example but this doesn't seem like the highest priority allocation of that kind of funding which is surely better off being put into healthcare and education for the greatest utility. Now I'm not even nearly proficient enough to go into the economics of all this but I'm just highlighting that I can't quite work out your direction as a party.
I'm yet to have my morning coffee as well so the abovemay not even make sense