Not serious enough for GD - it’s Saturday night, and I’ve had a few pints, after all.
However, recent threads have inspired me to put together a list of what I’d like to see in the ideal UK political party. Does one exist? Probably not. However, if it did, these policies would get my vote.
Re-legalize smoking in public places.
Re-legalize fox-hunting and hare-coursing.
Repeal all recent laws that restrict free speech. Allow protests in Parliament Square, at arms-dealer’s conventions, outside animal research laboratories.
Rigourously enforce existing laws on intimidation, incitement to murder, incitement to racial hatred. That should cover objections to the previous point.
Repeal recent legislation allowing indefinite detention without trial. Get a derogation from Article 3 if you have to. But, it’s in the f****** Magna Carta, for Christ’s sake.
“LOSE THE QUOTES!” ™. Gay marriage should be just that, not gay “marriage”. The same ceremony, the same rights, the same name.
Abolish the Obscene Publications Act and the Video Recordings Act. And, fuck it, the Protection Of Children Act. Looking at pornography, however unpleasant others may find it, shouldn’t be illegal. By all means keep “obscene” material away from the public gaze. But let it be there for those who want to see it.
And any residual laws regarding blasphemy.
Think about more sensible laws regarding drugs. Full legalization of cannabis, for starters. Regulate its sale, yes, but let people buy it legally - we already do illegally, and that money is invisible to the tax system.
Renationalize the railways.
Increase taxation as necessary to ensure a solid healthcare and educational infrastructure.
Prefer nuclear power to windfarms.
Move the burden of taxation from indirect to direct. Increase the top rate of income tax back to 106% - or, at least, as much as necessary.
While I’m A) American and thus not part of the UK, and B) not necessarily in agreement with some things you’d like to see happen; I do applaud your choice to actually figure out what it is you want. It’s something I’ve been endeavoring to do as well in an effort to figure out just where I stand politically.
You start out with some libertarian ideas which is good because I am am libertarian but then you make wild swerves towards communism, socialism, and fascism (at least Mussolini made the trains run on time).
I cannot wrap my American mind around any coherent philosophy that could generate such a list of things. You seem to hate capitalism which is bad because it is the ONE TRUE SYSTEM that simply follows natural law rather than being one of several made up and unworkable human intrusions on the laws of nature.
I love to visit Europe but I have to say better all of you than me.
Not that I know much about UK politics. I like the renationalize the trains, but you lose me on your position re Protect the Children.
But, I’m American–we hold our trains in contempt and worship the automobile and play a stupid game with porn(nudge, nudge).
I envy you your NHS (yes, I do) and your schools (which actually seem to have some standards that haven’t been dumbed down.) and your cops are more polite.
sorry, wandering OT…
I agree. I’m very right-wing on issues of freedom and personal rights, I’m very left-wing economically. So, I’ll go on refraining from voting until everyone else agrees with me.
OK, this is very controversial, and I accept any denigration that may fall on me because of it.
I do not approve of child pornography. I agree that anyone involved in its creation should be subject to appropriate, severe, penalties. I do not think, however, that it should be illegal merely to look at it.
I dunno about the minority, but I certainly don’t agree with it. Where do you think the pics come from? Those are real kids in those pics/videos etc. It’s a crime and it should remain a crime and be more harshly punished than it is.
Apologies for the incoherence - alcohol must be blamed for that.
I would say that my two core political values are:
The State should not interfere in anything that its citizens want to do, unless what they want to do is damaging to other citizens or the State as a whole.
The fundamental duty of the State is to ensure the best quality of life for all its citizens, not just a limited subset of them.
thanks, What you said is makes it clearer, but i still can’t see the consistency.
Explain this too me:
It’s Friday night and MissX has had a hard week. So, she decides to take lots of Drugs, which are legal. However, superdrug wont except her card because her disposable income has been taken up by taxes used to pay for a jobless person to go hunting.
I’m not arguing that ether of the two principles are wrong, but rather pointing out that with redistribution of wealth comes redistribution (and some removal) of liberty. Of course, not having redistribution of wealth leads to inequalities anyway, just a different kind.
Redistribution of wealth and positive freedom i can see, but i don’t understand how redistribution of wealth and negative freedom are compatable. If you can, let me know!
I fail to see the contradiction here, I’m afraid. Or, rather, I don’t see that there’s any contradiction between her being entitled to buy drugs and being unable to buy drugs, because she has no money. “I am free to do this” shouldn’t imply “The State should supply me with sufficient resources to enable me to do this.”
I suppose the heart of your objection is - “Justice is open to everyone.” “As is the Savoy Grill.”. I’m not so idealistic as to suppose that there’s a possible society in which the wealthy don’t have an advantage, and, even if there is, it probably isn’t one I’d like to join. I’m all in favour of the rich being able to enjoy themselves more than the rest of us; I just ask that (a) they contribute proportionately towards the general well-being of society, and (b) there are no barriers apart from money that are put up against those of us who want to have fun in unorthodox ways.
I also wouldn’t describe myself as an advocate of redistribution of wealth. I believe that people should, in an ideal world, earn their money rather than being given it, either by the State or their ancestors. However, I also believe that every citizen has a duty to contribute to the well-being of the country, and those with more money should contribute more than those with less.
(Would it be too much to ask for a clarification of the distinction between “positive” and “negative” freedom, just in case I’ve missed your point entirely? Thanks.)
Oh dear, we cant seem to understand each other at all!
Hope I’m not taking over this thread (i haven’t even written what i personally think!) but…
By your taxation stuff, i just assumed you were supporting redistribution of wealth to some extent. Sorry.
Positive and negative freedom were defined by Berlin. Basically, negative freedom is freedom from (the removal of something) whereas positive freedom is the ability to (make it possible to do something). I think of it like this: Billy goat gruff is trying to cross the bridge. Someone distracts the troll, giving him negative freedom but the person that teaches him to walk gives him positive freedom. Hope this makes my point clearer!
Why renationalise the trains? Maybe I’m sheltered, but whenever I use the trains (Edinburgh Waverly to Wigan North Western, west coast main line via Virgin Rail), they are clean, new and punctual. It seems the problem with the trains is the ridiculous amount of work that’s always being done on the lines, not with the companies themselves.
Certainly, from what I remember of BR, their trains were more like cattle sheds than public transport.
I’m with Tevildo up to point 9, but there we part company. Renationalise the railways? There’s no way I’d want to go back to the bad old days of BR.
As for point 11, I’d get rid of the state education system entirely. The government has no business educating children: that way lies indoctrination. Instead, the government should subsidise and monitor the education of children. The Tories had, for once, the beginnings of a good idea with their voucher scheme. And if the school feels it has to charge more than the government rate, well, it should offer scholarships or lose its charitable status.
As for point 13, you’d see the highly paid leaving in droves. Give us a simple - probably flat - tax, cut the subsidy of local government right back and free them to tax as they wish, and apply the principle of subsidiarity to government. For instance, why not emply a private company to do the work of the CSA? <Contd p 97ff>
