The more I offer replies to disputes put forward, the more it feels like I'm reaching out to some intangible ideal - but what is politics if it's not about aspiration?
"Immigration will always be detrimental in my view," he says. "Either you have to give them a job (if there are any available) so they can support themselves, which means taking a job off a British citizen, or cause more strain on the housing market to give them somewhere to live. Australia is the best place to live; based on a points system and without benefits."
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, including Oz; in my opinion it wouldn't be a very cultural place to live with so many restrictions in place. Diversity is good.
Immigration is just tough, in terms of how you manage it. At the moment the country needs more time to heal itself and we should probably work towards a system closer to Holland's, where you need to put so much in before you can get any out. This would also help us in the short term to revitalise the economy. After that, we could look at where we stand. Just closing the borders full stop turns it into a moral and ethical debate about basic human rights, which should transcend borders. Families could be split, diversity would be lost, and so on.
"So you want free university for everyone?" he asks. "And those that earn over 43k you wanna tax 50% What about all the others that obtain meaningless degrees that are good for nothing? Who pays for all the students who are 20k in the red without a job? Or is that the rich man again? The working man (us) will always pay for everything because we are 90%, the overall majority."
On education, it should be a basic human right, especially in an advanced society like ours. You're doing what so many do which is penalise the many because of a few. You manage anybody/anything that looks to take advantage, close loop holes and so on, but you shouldn't restrict the ability of someone who wants to further their education. An educated society is a good thing; again, the majority of people will be on courses that are actually beneficial, you shouldn't penalise them just because of the few.
50% tax on 43k seems high to me, personally I'd raise the threshold, while perhaps just upping it a percentage or two lower down. Again though I have to stress you think it's the working families, working hard, who have to pay for this. There is so much more money the government could get from corporations (facebook paid £5k last year in tax, the daily express HQ is in some offshore island) - close all the loopholes and that would raise millions/billions. Of course that's why so much mainstream media is biased, because they're controlled by people who will end up paying what is due.
There's also money to be saved on the nuclear issue (we are actually legally obliged to work with other countries on reducing nuclear reliance, but lets ignore that). Money could be saved from bailing out bankers (who get ridiculous bonuses) and on sending aid we give to places that we really shouldn't; just so much that could be saved without really having to hit the pockets of working people.
Basically a lot of this just comes down to a sense of idealism, but if you don't reach for it, then what's the point of politics anyway?
Either way, I would hope you wouldn't vote Tory on ethical principals since Cameron has just broken his promise over tax cuts (a lying politician, no surprise there, but it's in the open) - even though UKIP are just extreme Tory. At least with a socialist Labour you'd know the NHS was safe, social care for your parents, for you, and that the basic infrastructures were all being supported.
Did the expenses scandal pee you off? Corbyn has consistently been among the lowest claimants throughout his tenure (since 1983) sometimes even the lowest. Just good ethics, man.