General Election 2017

[Lewis 1,276]

5 minutes ago, Mintlou said:

1) Also Nick Clegg having personality?!

2) I really don't understand how you think that you can be some kind of underdog, who really knows what's going on behind all of the shit, Lewis. What are they actually doing for you?  

1) Were you alive during the 2010 election?

2) Who said I was voting for conservative?

[VENGA BUS 2,027]

15 minutes ago, Lewis said:

2) Who said I was voting for conservative?

You said this in the whatsapp you fucking troll LOL

[Lewis 1,276]

In all seriousness, labour:

1) I'm not a proponent of the fact that rich people who have worked to get into that position should have to pay for benefits scroungers, people who don't know what condoms are, the lazy, the idle. Frankly, this isn't the middle ages where you're born into CONSIDERABLE wealth for the duration of your life. Although that still happens on occasion, in a modern, capitalist world the SIGNIFICANT majority of people have worked hard to earn a high income for their family. A large part of Corbyn's manifesto is dedicated to taxation and increasing it. That's just a right wing-left wing fundamental divide, nothing wrong with that, millions believe either way. The rich have always been forced to pay more tax, something we deal with, but he's taking it to an extreme. As someone who hopes to have a high salary job in life, I oppose this.

2) Immigration - Doesn't want any cap on people coming into the country. Some middle eastern person with 10 kids, no problem, let's pay for them all! Hopefully something you agree on Mint, as a strong supporter of UKIP who's - arguably second - most important principle is restricting migrant imports. As the 3rd? most populous country in Europe, and as someone who worries about world population levels, I don't advocate a policy which could see 80-90 million people in the country in just a few decades.

3) Oppose tuition fee abolishment for obvious reasons. Think in the grand scheme of things about how this is going to be paid for. Increased tax. Sure, you get university free (even though you don't pay it back anyway most of the time) - now you have to spend 50 years of your life paying for others to go to uni, cool.

4) Oppose lowering the voting age to 16. Most 18-25 year olds are already clueless on politics, why would I want this? Labour thrives off its youth vote, the ONLY reason it wants 16-17 year olds to vote is for the easy votes, not thinking about political matters at all. As someone who could lean either way, I don't want a bunch of youth robots propelling a labour government in the future when it could possibly be the wrong choice.

5) Wants 10,000 more police on the streets. Again, something where the sub 100 IQ just instantly think GOOD IDEA. If you've researched into crime / criminal law in recent years you'd know that just shoving more police on the streets is actually a negligible deterrent for crime. Certainly not worth the money. 

6) Lax on ISIS. Nty.

 

It's fairly clear that Labour created this manifesto with no hopes to win, so just shoved in a bunch of awesomeness to try and gain support (how much of this will go through? Not a lot). If you'd studied political history in any detail you'd be aware this is a common tact, furthermore if you spoke to an ambivalent Corbyn in 20 years time he'd tell you this was certainly the case. I think the support he's received and the damaging reputation of May has been fairly unprecedented. Sooner or later he'll realise that implementing this garbage is gonna be difficult.

There's no money tree for Corbyn Mintlou, vote for him and get disappointed by 2020 lad.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Lewis

[Jak 1,381]

1 hour ago, Mintlou said:

http://www.strawpoll.me/13090008

No option for spoiling your vote? nt

[Lewis 1,276]

7 minutes ago, VENGA BUS said:

You said this in the whatsapp you fucking troll LOL

Just baiting around bro.

I'm voting for green, only party that makes sense.

[Fluxy 1,660]

Lewis have absoloutly no idea what your talking about if you think people won't be happy if corbyn wins. I don't think your quite grasping the revulsion that surrounds the Tories right now.

or your baiting, one or the other 

[Danny 1,225]

5 minutes ago, Lewis said:

3) Oppose tuition fee abolishment for obvious reasons. Think in the grand scheme of things about how this is going to be paid for. Increased tax. Sure, you get university free (even though you don't pay it back anyway most of the time) - now you have to spend 50 years of your life paying for others to go to uni, cool.

Isn't this literally the NHS.

Please be baiting.

[Lewis 1,276]

2 minutes ago, DannyS said:

Isn't this literally the NHS.

Please be baiting.

the nhs needs to go.

[Fluxy 1,660]

1 hour ago, Lewis said:

5) Wants 10,000 more police on the streets. Again, something where the sub 100 IQ just instantly think GOOD IDEA. If you've researched into crime / criminal law in recent years you'd know that just shoving more police on the streets is actually a negligible deterrent for crime. Certainly not worth the money. 

As someone who has just finished a 4 year Criminology degree this is actually laughable. I would LOVE to see what your basing this off. 

The police are currently so understaffed and stretched that they are actually having to hire G4S security contractors to help take some of the strain. Putting police work in the hands of private companies, dunno what could go wrong there? 

Or how about the fact that many police forces across the country are depending on PCSOs (that means Police Community Support Officer) who are for all intents and purposes civilians wearing a police uniform and given some special powers. The initial idea of these guys was to bolster pressurized police forces and maintain beats/patrols/neighborhood work that kinda stuff. However since they are much cheaper to hire and train they have started to make up larger and larger parts of the overall police force. Sits around 6% atm. 

Anti-social behavior is being accelerated in areas that have low tangible police presence through a process known as "broken windows" theory. You can look it up if you want for a more detail explanation but to TL,DR it. Low police presence in certain neighborhoods or areas, in the UKs case caused by cuts, allows small crimes to take place, i.e squatting, drug abuse, graffiti, vandalism and so on. While these crimes are not a big deal as single isolated incidents they contribute towards overall area degradation and attract bigger more serious criminals, which in turn as the effect of dissuading further police intervention as these are then branded "problem areas" deemed too expensive to deal with.      

I know your likely baiting but honestly bro

 

come on. 

[Lewis 1,276]

@Fluxy Not only does it increase public anxiety seeing more police in your area, but increased police presence attracts criminals for the potential assets it has. Less police, while arguably not beneficial either, at least doesn't advertise that crime in the area is of concern. Potential criminals perceive there to be someone/something in the area worth targeting.

When you approach this topic, you need to think about cost/reward base. Although the reward can at times be higher in preventing crime, the cost of 10,000 police, all on £30,000 salaries, before you even get into the cost of resources supplying those people, is simply not worth as much as you'd like to think it is. Resources become wasted in areas that don't need them. 

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement as meaning we shouldn't be doing anything to tackle crime. That's not the case at all. The money dedicated to combating crime is much better spent in other areas. Things like street lighting, speed bumps, safety buses, CCTV cameras, community cleanups - these are things that help a lot more, things that can passively prevent crime without a policeman needing to be there in a modernising world. I'm sure I don't need to go and find the stats for you - but the amount of rapes that take place in pitch black VS the amount of rapes that take place in street lighted areas, you do the thinking. Rehabilitation programs, another big one - re offending rates of criminals are HUGE without rehabilitation. Why invest thousands for a policeman to keep telling off an imprisoning a man who'll never learn, when you could dedicate trained therapists/counsellors etc for 6 months to Burglary Bob which would significantly reduce his risk of reoffending?

I'd be very surprised if the main principle for deterring crime your lecturers/readings have advocated is just pouring police onto the streets to stand around and look intimidating. Those PSCOs or w.e, and even volunteers, are perfect to do that job, you don't need a trained police officer to stand around. You need them in the office ready to respond to crimes, which there isn't really a demand for thousands more. I highly doubt there's times in the country where there has been no police officers available to respond to murders/rapes/armed robberies - sure they may take some time due to geographical area, but not simply because they can't.

Fluxy, 10,000 police officers - perhaps he even wants more in the long run? Is 300 MILLION pounds JUST of salary a year, unless I've fucked my maths up at 1am. 300 MILLION, Fluxy. I argue that could do much more good in the long run, by investing in other crime deterrent areas.

I'm sure we both agree that there needs to be more money invested into crime, I just think the money can be used for more long term, structural and psychological improvement factors, in comparison to throwing more police out there. If you fundamentally disagree, there's no point replying, that doesn't mean I've 'won' the argument, just there's not much more to discuss, unless of course you find something factually incorrect.

 

@DannyS In all seriousness. The national HEALTH service is a bit different from Stacy and Chelsea getting their non compulsory hairdresser qualifications from lincoln university. IK u really wanna join in debate, and u use the GIFs to try and do that, but it doesn't often hide the stupidity, bro. 

[Quinn 643]

@Lewis

KEY

BLUE = idiot no life kid

RED = king of logic chris lord

"Not only does it increase public anxiety seeing more police in your area, but increased police presence attracts criminals for the potential assets it has. Less police, while arguably not beneficial either, at least doesn't advertise that crime in the area is of concern. Potential criminals perceive there to be someone/something in the area worth targeting." 

Baseless conjecture. The idea that crime will go up in an area because of more police is utterly ludicrous, the argument that more policing of specific areas would be wasteful because of diminishing returns would be a lot better for you to use here, but unfortunately we are absolutely miles away from a point where we have 'too much police'.

"When you approach this topic, you need to think about cost/reward base. Although the reward can at times be higher in preventing crime, the cost of 10,000 police, all on £30,000 salaries, before you even get into the cost of resources supplying those people, is simply not worth as much as you'd like to think it is. Resources become wasted in areas that don't need them. "

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/inspectorate-police-engaging-dangerous-practices-austerity-cuts-diane-abbott

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21684822-police-get-more-control-over-their-budgets-different-forces-are-taking-very-different

http://www.apccs.police.uk/latest_news/budget-cuts-will-radically-change-policing/

http://www.apccs.police.uk/apcc-communications/email/?email=11092

The information is there if you want to look at it. You're not a stupid guy, you have no business being this naive.

"Perhaps you misunderstood my statement as meaning we shouldn't be doing anything to tackle crime. That's not the case at all. The money dedicated to combating crime is much better spent in other areas. Things like street lighting, speed bumps, safety buses, CCTV cameras, community cleanups - these are things that help a lot more, things that can passively prevent crime without a policeman needing to be there in a modernising world."

People do anything because on balance the alternatives are worse. If you want to passively prevent crime in a "modernising world" then you need to modernise people's living standards, prevent poverty and encourage acceptance and diversity throughout society. What you've listed largely will have NO effect on crime whatsoever.

"I'm sure I don't need to go and find the stats for you - but the amount of rapes that take place in pitch black VS the amount of rapes that take place in street lighted areas, you do the thinking."

The amount of rapes that happen in general is incredibly low. Even lower is the amount of rapes that happen under either of the circumstances you've described. The overwhelming majority of rapes occur between people that already know each other, in houses, not on the streets.

"Rehabilitation programs, another big one - re offending rates of criminals are HUGE without rehabilitation. Why invest thousands for a policeman to keep telling off an imprisoning a man who'll never learn, when you could dedicate trained therapists/counsellors etc for 6 months to Burglary Bob which would significantly reduce his risk of reoffending?"

Burglary Bob isn't going to get a chance to be rehabilitated if he's never caught due to record low levels of police now is he? Crime like robbery would see a dramatic decrease by a rise in living standards and reduction in poverty, something that a Conservative government will not provide.

"I'd be very surprised if the main principle for deterring crime your lecturers/readings have advocated is just pouring police onto the streets to stand around and look intimidating. Those PSCOs or w.e, and even volunteers, are perfect to do that job, you don't need a trained police officer to stand around. You need them in the office ready to respond to crimes, which there isn't really a demand for thousands more. I highly doubt there's times in the country where there has been no police officers available to respond to murders/rapes/armed robberies - sure they may take some time due to geographical area, but not simply because they can't."

There are multiple mentions of a decline in response rate due to cuts in my previous links. Murders/rapes/armed robberies rarely ever happen, the majority of police work is spent dealing with petty crime or misbehaving youths and these things do need an increase of police to be managed.

"Fluxy, 10,000 police officers - perhaps he even wants more in the long run? Is 300 MILLION pounds JUST of salary a year, unless I've fucked my maths up at 1am. 300 MILLION, Fluxy. I argue that could do much more good in the long run, by investing in other crime deterrent areas."

So you'd rather the Conservatives NOT raise that 300 Million so it could be better spent on NOTHING? You're line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Regardless of how much Labour policy you disagree with on an ideological or fundamental level you should still vote Labour, austerity is killing the country, we need economic investment. If you think another 5 years of economically illiterate Conservative policy is better than sound economic policy from Labour combined with areas of policy that you don't agree with then you need to wake up.

"I'm sure we both agree that there needs to be more money invested into crime, I just think the money can be used for more long term, structural and psychological improvement factors, in comparison to throwing more police out there. If you fundamentally disagree, there's no point replying, that doesn't mean I've 'won' the argument, just there's not much more to discuss, unless of course you find something factually incorrect."

I don't fundamentally disagree with the first part of your statement at all, no one does, that's a pathetic straw man argument. No one is talking about "throwing more police out there". You need more police to meet a growing population, it's not choose between modern police or more police, you can choose both.

VOTE LABOUR 2017

try listening to Fluxy, the guy that did a degree on what ur talking about lewis you utter tosser

[Fluxy 1,660]

 

Putting my money where my mouth is. 

 

Wish me luck kids. 

[Jak 1,381]

10 minutes ago, Fluxy said:

 

Putting my money where my mouth is. 

 

Wish me luck kids. 

Oof. Still, better odds than that knife you spent a fortune looking for...

[M1nt-l0u 1,235]

That's quite a good bet. Mine is for Labour to win the most seats.

[Lewis 1,276]