starcraft said:
SciFiBoy said:
starcraft said:
SciFiBoy said:
kowenicki said:
@scifiboys
and the "better" liberal policies are? |
here's a few you can start with:
pull out of the war
abolish tuition fees
proportional representation
proggressive taxation
more funding for the NHS/Education system
abolish faith schools
legalise less dangerous drugs
close tax loopholes
better public transport (trains, buses, etc)
abolish the monarchy
make the lords elected (if not fully, then atleast like 75%)
proper action on climate change (more renewable energy, no nuclear either, its not safe or viable from what ive read, we probably dont need nuclear weapons either, so they can go too)
|
I'm not going to get into the question of whether the war was a good decision, other than to say that if you abandon the Afghans now when they need you the most you would fundamentally contradict your professed liberal ideologies (helping those in need). thats only relevant if you help everyone, we cant help every nation, certainly not by bombing them and hoping there corrupt government is somehow gonna make things better for them (please read my other posts, i have several other objections)
Now as for abolishing tuition fees, progressive taxation, funding for NHS and public transport, I have this too say. All of these things require shitloads (read: SHITLOADS) of money. Right now, the UK does not have it. Furthermore, getting some sort of (likely inefficient) progressive taxation scheme going will likely in the medium and long term REDUCE rather than increase disposal income for the government, simply by making the economy less efficient. So ultimately your liberal agenda would supply less, rather than more services. 1) we already have a form of PT now, just a fairly mild one, 2) okay, that may be, why not cut the areas that arent as important in order to have the money?, 3) how? even if you suggest that, its speculation, i could just as easily say "it will give us much more money"?
What on earth is wrong with people having faith schools if they want them? As long as they stick to a standardized curriculum and have their extra teachings monitored (i.e. monitoring creationism in Christian schools and extremism in Islamic schools for example) why can parents not send their children there if it is their choice? again, you must also pander to every other group and all must be done fairly, can you? where are the Labour and Conservative schools then? its an unfair and biased system, it acheives nothing other than segregation of children.
I have no opinion on the lords.
Why would you want to abolish the Monarchy? Speaking both as an outsider and as a student of economics, I can say that the Monarchy is a symbol of great United Kingdom prestige. And in addition to the massive tourism money Kowennicki mentioned it bringing in (which I am sure FAR outweighs what it costs to keep the royal household going), representatives of the royal house are frequently (and successfully) used to negotiate lucrative trade deals that benefit the UK greatly (especially Charles). wow, you really dont read anything i post did you? tourists dont meet them, they look at the sites, turn them into museums and you keep that, charles is a twat
Based on currently available technologies and realistically projected technologies (note: most renewable technologies currently espoused by the left wing are and for the forseeable future will be in the realm of fantasy) nuclear is your best (read: only) option for reducing carbon emissions beside the (possible) introduction of clean coal technology. Of course sometimes clean coal seems as far of (and produced by the coal industry) as mass-renewables. Of course it is damned sure to come sooner than economically sustainable and technologically sufficient renewables. Also, the vast majority of the evidence suggests that modern, Western-produced (France and the USA are VERY good at this) nuclear reactors are very safe. They produce FAR less pollution than coal or gas. Having said that I can see how the UK's lack of available land could be an issue for waste disposal. like i said, im coming round to that idea
As for nuclear weapons, I can see both sides of the coin. The UK has the advantage of maintaining a very credible (but small) nuclear deterrent. It costs them nowhere near what it costs Russia and the USA to run and maintain. That said, all nuclear weapons are expensive to keep. Having said that, if the shit ever truly hit the fan, don't expect the USA to come running unless their was a tactical advantage to the UK's protection in that very moment. It took them years (and the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to properly get involved in WWII, and their global dominance is less credible now than it was then. again, please read my other posts, i shouldnt have to do this for every new right wing poster in this thread
|
I am seriously gonna have to make the same points to every single one of you? did you not read my other posts?
sigh, fine if youre gonna be lazy, responses are in bold
|
I will go back and view your other posts but first I will respond to your responses. I apologise for not reading the whole thread originally, I was on a dial-up computer at the time.
Afgahnistan: Any argument you have over why the war started, should or should not have started, or who's fault it was is entirely moot. It started, it was started by a left wing British government, and the bombing happened. Cutting and running now is the lowest form of humanity. I totally agree that you cannot help everyone, but you're obliged to help them. My country Australia would love to not be there as well, and I wasnt for the war when it started (so get off this right-wing labelling stuff). But now it has started, their country is fucked. And we can make the argument that it was more fucked before we arrived but at least it was stable. If we leave now and it falls to pieces their blood isnt just part of the everyday blood that gets spilled around the world, it is on us. wrong, its on the US, they were the ones who insisted we go there, we have 0 obligation to them, i have no problem with us sending aid or sancitoning there enemys but we have no bussiness policing that nation, the US/UK/Nato arent there to police evey problem, largely because it would not be possible to do so. erm, going to a war like this is only a right wing idea, no true left wing liberal would have gone there.
Taxation and services: The PT the UK has now is mild for a reason. Make it any higher and you're going to see seriously stifled investment, which in turn results in lower growth, less jobs and less money for all. What "non-important" services are you suggesting the government cuts to bring about the enormous (and I do mean enormous) costs your education, transport and taxation ideas would impose? But you're correct, you could just as easily say that you will make more money. The difference is you'd be saying it because you wish it to be true. I'd be saying you'll make less in the long run because economic modelling and examples in other parts of Europe state it to be true. sorry, i find that hard to believe, you can surely make it a little higher at the very least, your just fearmongering here
Tourists don't care if the Monarchy actually exists? Do you honestly think half of the tourists that visit Europe for the Monarchy relics would visit if the monarchy was abolished? You bring up the Roman example, but tell me, how many tourists do you think Roman relics received 5, 10, 50 years after the fall of the empire? Bugger-all would be the answer I suspect. As for Charles being a twat? I'd agree, but that in no way diminishes the fact that he has accomplished much by way of humanitarian and trade progress on behalf of the British people. we have other diplomats, id rather have an elected representetive doing that than an annoying aristocratic twat, i think you grossly over exagerrate the monarchy's impact, most nations comedy shows MOCK the UK for still having them, id rather we get past that steretype tbh.
|
