|
On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level.
So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head)
My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities?
To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this:
Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities.
Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why.
With the total benefit reduction, with the scrapping of fuel duty and a VAT reduction everythings price in the economy should fall pretty dramatically, of course i do not want to leave people who cannot cope on their own financialy to themselves.
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc.
I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that.
|
On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut.
Oo
Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead.
1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that.
Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education?
A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old.
Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine.
I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy.
"Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran?
An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this.
Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that
|
On December 09 2011 11:03 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut. Oo Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead. 1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that. Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education? A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old. Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine. I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy. "Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran? An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this. Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that
Getting rid of the bad universities should enhance degrees, The iran one i just threw in because I dont think a country as irresponsible as iran should come close to nuclear weapons as the world tries to disarm.
As ive said the tax reductions should cover the benefit reductions at least and help the private sector to create more jobs than the public sector had in the first place.
|
On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that.
Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot.
|
On December 09 2011 11:08 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that. Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot.
I would agree the final mark counts alot obviously but a first in Philosophy i believe is valued the same as a first in economics by many institutions.
|
OK im going to go to sleep now, ill continue to reply to people tommorow.
|
On December 09 2011 11:07 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 11:03 Psychobabas wrote:On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut. Oo Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead. 1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that. Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education? A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old. Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine. I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy. "Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran? An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this. Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that Getting rid of the bad universities should enhance degrees, The iran one i just threw in because I dont think a country as irresponsible as iran should come close to nuclear weapons as the world tries to disarm. As ive said the tax reductions should cover the benefit reductions at least and help the private sector to create more jobs than the public sector had in the first place.
Ah, the topic is too interesting to resist.
Yes degress will be enhanced in the very long run, after dealing with the consequences, which are far too great to list here in a paragraph. Just think of how many institutions depend on Universities, language schools are just 1 example. You must realise that the UK exports education.
But that's not the problem that students face. It's the crippling fees + living costs, massive competition not just from fellow graduates but more importantly, from professionals who lost their job during these times, have multiple experience in the field and potentially have degrees themselves, completely shutting down any hopes of graduates competing. Companies at the moment are focusing on survival, not expansion, which puts graduates at a huge disadvantage since graduate-level jobs tailored for the inexperienced young indiviudal have plummeted.
Make a policy for a job market reform, stimulating companies to hire inexperienced graduates and I will agree on that for sure.
|
On December 09 2011 11:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 11:08 Psychobabas wrote:On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that. Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot. I would agree the final mark counts alot obviously but a first in Philosophy i believe is valued the same as a first in economics by many institutions.
Yes that is true. I was referring about the University rank or "prestige".
|
Ha. No. You are a dreamer whose dreams are build on idealist machinations that college students all have (I had and somewhat still have). Your active and activist policies will be far too radical for most of the British voters (if they decide to turn up to vote anytime soon -_-)
NHS could be improved, but British healthcare will not be better on a whole with a privatised NHS unless you value efficiency more than healthy lives for all.
"Good" unis already get enough money from alumni donations, their own investments, oversea students. As for bad unis, you are basically eliminating them by cutting their funding or making their education even worse, neither of which is as desirable as actually increasing their funding to make them produce better education, assuming your overall target is one of a better educated workforce?
Taxes, meh, seems reasonable except some factors may be seen as regressive (capital gains, corporation, inheritance, highest tier income tax, fuel duty (which scales with income somewhat, but also is subject to non-distributional factors such as commute time and line of work and hobbies)), I think the revenues would be lower than current standards, which would probably mean you have to cut education and healthcare... -_-
Defence? Why? Iran? Why? UK isn't a superpower anymore, stop pretending that you are, and your "special relationship" with USA is pretty BS anyway, it's a one-way street and you are getting boned every time! Stop being lead around on their leash, and playing a bigger part with your European neighbours would do more good than sucking up American ass can ever do. Also, who are you to judge whether Iran is responsible or not? Ahmadinejad disliking Western culture and diplomacy and being Islamic is no reason for an invasion even if they are nuclear, and invasion is both costly (money and lives) and bring unnecessary hostility (ie terrorism) to British shores. Don't the Islamic world hate NATO enough? Stop provoking them needlessly.
Banning smoking everywhere is a bit 1984, legal recreational drugs is good IMHO (revenue + reduced crime) but older people may find it objectionable and not vote for it , good luck operating the Magic Formula (it's how it should be, I'm an econs grad as well so I agree, but the way the budget and economy are it's going to be heck of a job). Not sure what to think of polygamy, but probably won't end well.
|
On December 09 2011 10:26 Tomazi wrote: I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations? Exactly, what I thought, since I took a course on that recently. I have to say I don;t agree with most of your points, as they will make the situation messy...
|
Seems everyone and their mother would make the next best Prime Minister.
At least you're spitting ideas out there. Better than doing nothing.
|
Honestly I voted No, not because they are bad ideas but more like (I think) its ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish all of these reforms without some form of backlash or inefficiency from the reforms themselves. I'm not exactly sure if there is a referendum of any kind in the UK but.... if there was we would hear about it quick after you were elected prime minister by your party.
|
On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
|
On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
Basically I see no evidence that benefits are too high or warrant a 15% decrease.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
|
Zaros:
Your the first person I've met in the UK who saw what George Bush did to America and decided that you want to do that to the UK.
1) You've seen the world leading healthcare and life expectancies offered by the government run schemes of Western Europe, and decided you would prefer the lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality of the US while it costs them a greater a proportion of their GDP and people go bankrupt from their medical expenses.
2) Because your studying economics, you know that we currently have a deficit in the region of £100 billion a year. Your budget amounts to a colossal tax cut for the rich and would collapse tax revenues to the treasury. This would have the double effect of causing our debt to spiral out of control while investors/bond markets would lose faith in our ability to pay back our debt, meaning this massive pile of debt would have hugely higher interest rates.
3) Your pulling out of the single market which is our largest export market, making it more difficult for manufacturers and businesses to deal with the EU.
4) Your pulling a George Bush lunatic adventure in Iran, the result of which would be oil prices doubling at the least, causing a recession in the Western world.
The only debate is whether it would take six or eighteen months before your right-wing, simplistic, "lower taxes iz gud" thinking causes an economic disaster.
|
On December 09 2011 18:01 Ph4ZeD wrote: Zaros:
Your the first person I've met in the UK who saw what George Bush did to America and decided that you want to do that to the UK.
1) You've seen the world leading healthcare and life expectancies offered by the government run schemes of Western Europe, and decided you would prefer the lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality of the US while it costs them a greater a proportion of their GDP and people go bankrupt from their medical expenses.
2) Because your studying economics, you know that we currently have a deficit in the region of £100 billion a year. Your budget amounts to a colossal tax cut for the rich and would collapse tax revenues to the treasury. This would have the double effect of causing our debt to spiral out of control while investors/bond markets would lose faith in our ability to pay back our debt, meaning this massive pile of debt would have hugely higher interest rates.
3) Your pulling out of the single market which is our largest export market, making it more difficult for manufacturers and businesses to deal with the EU.
4) Your pulling a George Bush lunatic adventure in Iran, the result of which would be oil prices doubling at the least, causing a recession in the Western world.
The only debate is whether it would take six or eighteen months before your right-wing, simplistic, "lower taxes iz gud" thinking causes an economic disaster.
1) Why does everyone think every private healthcare system = US, there are plenty of other private healthcare systems that a many times better than the US. Im not going to leave people to die waiting in hospital corridors because they dont have insurance.
2) As ive stated privatising the NHS will be around a 15% reduction in expenditure, the reduction of taxes will not proportionally decrease revenue, due to less people avoiding and increased growth from all the tax reductions.
3) As ive stated I would like to keep free-trade and immigration with all these countries and extend it to other countries, so i think your over exaggerating.
4) Why is it George Bush like to fear a genuine nuclear threat from a nation that has effectively attacked our embasy and preeches death to israel.
|
On December 09 2011 12:22 iSometric wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:26 Tomazi wrote: I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations? Exactly, what I thought, since I took a course on that recently. I have to say I don;t agree with most of your points, as they will make the situation messy...
As ive replied before, state your problems with my policies and I will try to defend them, dont just say im wrong and move on.
|
stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year....
|
|
|
|