The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) This is just an idea - I'm not actually trying to recruit members for a political party of my own creation. Yet... With the popularity of the Liberal Democrats in single figures and their credibility shot, the Greens being a bit too similar in appearance to enviro-nuts, Labour being phenomenally uninteresting and still tarnished by Blair/Brown and the Conservatives being the Conservatives, the UK is currently without a political party for anyone who's liberal, progressive, economically moderate, has any sympathy for students and thinks are 'democratic' system is buggered. As such, I propose a (unfinished) manifesto for a potential new party - The Progressive Party: Reveal hidden contents Progressive Party Manifesto Taxation Public Sector workers will pay no income tax. They will receive a comparable wage cut, leaving them with more money in their pocket, but cutting the need for expensive bureaucracy in the UK. 90% of the per-tax payer cost of the NHS will be cut from each tax payers’ income tax bill. (See ‘Health’ section) Corporate tax for manufacturing will be sliced to 5%, in order to attract car manufacturing back into Birmingham, steel back to Sheffield, and ship building to Belfast, Merseyside, the Clyde and Tyneside. This will increase private sector-generated income tax from the thousands of new private sector jobs they will create. Crime & Policing The use of civilian Police Staff for the more bureaucratic aspects of police work is to be encouraged. This allows the Police Officers to spend more time out on the streets, preventing crime and catching offenders. Due process and swiftness must be observed - charges must be pressed within 24 hours, unless a convincing case can be made to a judge that more time to gather evidence is needed. Cannabis is to be decriminalized. Heavy, tobacco-style taxes and licensing laws are to be put in place. Dutch-style licensed cafés, were smoking pure marijuana indoors is permitted, will be allowed, but without the parallel sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco. Heavy penalties for crimes committed whilst under the influence of marijuana will be put in place, similar to existing alcohol laws (for example, driving under the influence). Smoking it in the street is to be discouraged by the police as it is now. All other drugs will be decriminalised (and taxed and regulated) over time. Softer drugs, such as mushrooms, will be available commercially, whilst substances such as heroin will be available only on prescription from a GP. These drug law reforms will prevent the criminalization of hundreds of thousands of British people whose only crime is the possession or use of drugs, freeing up prison spaces and saving millions of pounds per year on policing, trials and punishment costs. This will free up law enforcement to deal with more serious crime. By taking drug revenue away from gangs and into the hands of businesses and the government will effectively cripple such gangs. Much of gang-related violence is attributed to drug-selling territory, and that which isn't is funded by drugs. Once organized crime ceases to be profitable, it falls apart (alcohol prohibition in the USA between 1919 and 1933, and the self-evident link with the rise and fall of criminal gangs is an excellent example of this). The reduction in gang numbers, crime and revenue will allow the police and courts to shift their focus onto ‘tribal’ gangs. People accused of serious crimes (such as murder, rape or paedophilia) will be granted anonymity until convicted. It does nothing to serve the public interest to irreversibly damage the lives of innocent people who have, in various cases, been dismissed from work or socially ostracised on the basis of being arrested for such crimes, but later found to be innocent without being convicted. Education Reduction of student-contributed fees from £9000 to pre 2010 rates, with an aim to further reduce them when viable. Maintenance loans will now be increased to an average of £5000 per year, with a further increase for students in more expensive areas, such as London and the South East. Grants will be abolished - the need for them at the moment is not because students from poorer backgrounds need them to go to University, but because too little information is made readily available about cost of living and the maintenance loan. EMA, however, will be reinstated. Health Everyone will be required by law to obtain health insurance. Those that fall under a lower income limit will pay have insurance provided by the state. Health insurance must be available to all at equal cost regardless of pre-existing medical conditions or lifestyle. Hospitals will mostly be sold off to private health companies, but all must adhere to certain government regulations, such as accepting people regardless of insurance provider (even the state), and standards of quality of care. All medical or technical staff must have their positions and pay retained for a minimum of 5 years after the transfer of a hospital from state to private ownership and operation. Organ donation should switch to an opt-out system, in order to increase the number of donors to decrease the gap between supply and demand. Social Progress & Peoples’ Rights Any two consenting adults have the right to marry and have a family. Those who choose not to marry but are in a long-term relationship may opt to have a status identical to marriage all but name with regards to partners’ rights, etc recognized. All people have the right to freedom of expression and practice, and all people have the right to support, criticise or comment on such expressions or practices with limitations where the rights of others are infringed. The state shall in not censor any form of media, with the exception of that which is exploitive of those unable to decide on fend for themselves (such as child pornography). Temporary holds of critically sensitive information such as covert military operations or police raids may be put in place, but only for as long as they are necessary. Libel laws will be reformed to prevent ‘libel tourism’, and similar unfair practises. Certain laws will remain in place to protect against genuine libel (or slander). Democratic Progress 3 steps are to be taken to improve the quality of democracy in this country, and give voters a political system they deserve - one which represents what they want. Step 1: STV-elected House of Commons Members of Parliament will now be elected by Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is a voting method in which every vote counts, and every vote is important. Constituencies will be merged into groups of 3 into larger, new multiple-member constituencies. Each constituency elects 3 MPs using STV. The system works by letting voters rank candidates in order of preference (you can rank as few or as many as you want). When a candidate passes the number of seats to get elected, all their ‘spare’ votes are distributed evenly by 2nd preference. Then, when another candidate has enough votes, they become elected, and all their ‘spare’ votes are distributed amongst the remaining candidates. By now, there will likely be no 1st preference candidates with enough votes to get elected. The lowest-placed candidates votes will be redistributed by 2nd preference to the other candidates, and, if still no one has enough votes, the lowest-place candidate has their votes redistributed, and so on until the 3rd seat is filled. This system is a great improvement over are current, first-passed-the-post system as it reduces the number of ‘wasted’ votes - anyone who lives in an ‘safe seat’ constituency at the moment will understand this, as if you vote for or against the ‘safe’ MP, it makes little difference, and it effectively renders your vote worthless. STV changes this. Step 2 - Elected House of Lords At the moment, the House of Lords is a combination of people whose qualification for political office are being friends of politicians, being born into a particular family or being priests. Most hold the position for life, and are totally unaccountable to the general population. This, clearly, is totally unfair on everyone, and not fitting for a democracy. We propose an democratically elected House of Lords, voted for using a method know as Party List. It is very like the method used in the European elections, except half of the seats will be up for election every two years, with the other half every other two years. Step 3 - An Elected Head of State We believe that every adult person of British citizenship has the right to become a candidate for head of state. We believe that the Head of State should be chosen by the People, from the People. We believe that the qualifying factor for the office of head of state should not be that you are simply the eldest child of the previous Head of State. We believe that the monarchy should be removed, and that this country should instead have a democratically elected, non-executive President. We believe this country should be a secular, constitutional democratic republic. The Future of The State. For bills concerning matters exclusively effecting England (such as education), only MPs/Lords for English constituencies may vote. MPs/Lords for non-English constituencies may still debate on such bills. With regards to Northern Ireland, reunification with the Republic of Ireland must be the ultimate, long term goal. The Republic, however, must make certain changes to its constitution and laws with regards to ensuring the rights of non-Catholics and British Citizens. Scottish independence is a long term goal, as self-determination is a clearly necessary right. Energy More nuclear power stations must be built to keep up with energy demand. Modern nuclear power stations are extremely safe, and fail-safes and waste storage has increased in quality dramatically since the days of Three Mile Island and Pripyat. To supplement nuclear-produced electricity, renewable sources must be invested in - this country has abundant tidal, wave and wind energy harnessing potential. As some people are resistant to construction of such facilities, anyone with a certain distance of a energy-gathering station, or a new nuclear power station, will be entitled to free electricity. Research into the feasibility of setting up a hydrogen-based infrastructure must be done. TLDR? Key principles: Voting reform (read that bit at least), legalise drugs, change health care to compulsory insurance model. I want to know what you think, what bits you like, what bits you don't like. I'd like to hear suggestions for stuff. Go! Edited January 21, 2011 by The fish
MoogleViper Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Agree with a lot of it. Disagree with the health stuff. I disagree with the bit about cannabis in licensed pubs. People can't smoke tobacco in pubs, why should they be allowed to smoke cannabis? I think (if it were legalised, I'm not decided on that one) that it should only be permitted in your own home. May give more later when I'm not (supposed to be) revising.
The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) MoogleViper said: Agree with a lot of it. Disagree with the health stuff. I disagree with the bit about cannabis in licensed pubs. People can't smoke tobacco in pubs, why should they be allowed to smoke cannabis? I think (if it were legalised, I'm not decided on that one) that it should only be permitted in your own home. The health stuff is because the NHS has, quite frankly, limited motivation. Serious competition would help improve things a hell of a lot, if most other developed nations are anything to go by. As for cannabis in licensed venues, I intend to mimic the Dutch coffeeshops, where you can't buy or consume alcohol or tobacco, only cannabis. EDIT: Also, as for people in said venues, Cannabis smoke is a lot less dangerous as secondary smoke than that of normal cigarettes. Edited January 21, 2011 by The fish
MoogleViper Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Well I still disagree with that. And what about smoking it in public? I assume that would be illegal?
Ramar Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Heroin from a GP? How does that work exactly? "Hey doc sort me out my next hit!"... What Doctor would want to be prescribing such a dangerous drug to their patients.
The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) MoogleViper said: Well I still disagree with that. And what about smoking it in public? I assume that would be illegal? I think for public use something similar to the current "now you shouldn't be doing that, don't let us catch you doing it again" system would work well, or just a straight-up copy of the Dutch model - illegal to smoke in street, legal in designated places, private homes and land which is part of said premises. Ramar said: Heroin from a GP? How does that work exactly? "Hey doc sort me out my next hit!"... What Doctor would want to be prescribing such a dangerous drug to their patients. It's how it used to be! It only really stopped when the US brought in it's jolly old War on Drugs, and lent on its allies to follow suit. Having it by prescription only is the most effective way to regulate it, and ensure anyone wanting to use it has access to someone who knows about it and can discuss issues with them. It also means they don't go to a dealer in the street, funding crime and having to steal for it as they're ostracised from society. As for having it legal at all, I fundamentally am against the idea of restricting what an adult can do with themselves. If you've got a better idea, or any suggestions at all, I'd like to hear them (that's kind of the idea). Edited January 21, 2011 by The fish Automerged Doublepost
MoogleViper Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 The fish said: I think for public use something similar to the current "now you shouldn't be doing that, don't let us catch you doing it again" system would work well, or just a straight-up copy of the Dutch model - illegal to smoke in street, legal in designated places, private homes and land which is part of said premises. But if it was legal in streets then you could be near someone smoking it, take it in through second hand smoke and inadvertently become under the influence. (And then go drive a car or something.)
The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) MoogleViper said: But if it was legal in streets then you could be near someone smoking it, take it in through second hand smoke and inadvertently become under the influence. (And then go drive a car or something.) To inhale enough for it to have a significant effect on someone in an open space, you'd have to be very close to them for a very long time. Needless to say, a better option might be 'at home/licensed venues only'. By way of example, I've seen/smelt many people walking down the street smoking joints as it is here in the UK, and have yet to get stoned off it. I know it's basically an anecdote, but you get my point. EDIT: As a result of this discussion, I'll amend said point to specifically in a private home/garden or inside a Dutch-style coffee shop (ie no alcohol or tobacco). Carrying it is of course legal, but selling it when not a licensed vendor is a crime, as is selling tobacco in the UK presently. Edited January 21, 2011 by The fish
Dan_Dare Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Ramar said: Heroin from a GP? How does that work exactly? "Hey doc sort me out my next hit!"... What Doctor would want to be prescribing such a dangerous drug to their patients. basically: Clean heroin is much, much safer than street heroin (brick dust, anyone?) so if addicts could get it on the NHS, they would be unlikely to OD or catch STDs (clean needles etc) Also, it's been proven that methadone is an incredibly poor means of getting off heroin. If doctors were allowed to prescribe actual clean heroin instead, they could reduce quantity gradually and get more people clean.
The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 Dan Dare said: basically: Clean heroin is much, much safer than street heroin (brick dust, anyone?) so if addicts could get it on the NHS, they would be unlikely to OD or catch STDs (clean needles etc) Also, it's been proven that methadone is an incredibly poor means of getting off heroin. If doctors were allowed to prescribe actual clean heroin instead, they could reduce quantity gradually and get more people clean. Dan's head is screwed on better than it looks. Which is fortunate. :wink:
jayseven Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Education needs to be more forward thinking. Tuition fees is, frankly, secondary to ensuring we are training up the next generation of workers with skills and knowledge that is needed. Not sure how much reinvigorating the steel industry in sheffield would be -- that city's changing its outlook and trying to concentrate on computer-based ideas. I'd like to run for education minister. I have lots of stupid/awesome ideas. I think we need to start from the root. I'd also suggest we bring back national service -- focusing primarily on volunteering in the community. Maybe even go far as to suggest a compulsory system - most certainly those on benefits should be given voluntary jobs -- relevant to the field they wish to work in.
Jon Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I think your Health Policy needs some serious work. You can't have have cost efficient insurance for everyone, when everyone is so different, especially if you're not taking into account pre existing conditions like you say. I like the views on Organ donation, totally agree with that. It seems like a very US system and it's not something I agree with at all. Privatising hospitals is not a good idea, how closely would they follow government guidelines? Private hospitals won't make much money if they have to treat everyone basically as they already do as you're saying everyone will be entitled to Health Insurance. I see it collapsing fairly quickly. I am a staunch NHS supporter and having had experience of the misery of other's countries medical systems, people in this country don't know how good they have it, in terms of health care.
The fish Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 jayseven said: Education needs to be more forward thinking. Tuition fees is, frankly, secondary to ensuring we are training up the next generation of workers with skills and knowledge that is needed. Not sure how much reinvigorating the steel industry in sheffield would be -- that city's changing its outlook and trying to concentrate on computer-based ideas. I'd like to run for education minister. I have lots of stupid/awesome ideas. I think we need to start from the root. I'd also suggest we bring back national service -- focusing primarily on volunteering in the community. Maybe even go far as to suggest a compulsory system - most certainly those on benefits should be given voluntary jobs -- relevant to the field they wish to work in. When I rise to power, you're my Education Minister. These are the issues I will point to myself - education is just such a tricky one to work out. One particular idea I like is that of slicing the number of University places and boosting the number of places and funding (and maintenance/tuition loans) of apprenticeships. The steel in Sheffield was literally an example of now-dead industry in the UK that sprung into my mind. The main things would by shipbuilding and manufacturing of vehicles and things like house hold appliances. Designing these things is good, but actually building them is even better for the economy. JonSt said: I think your Health Policy needs some serious work. You can't have have cost efficient insurance for everyone, when everyone is so different, especially if you're not taking into account pre existing conditions like you say. I like the views on Organ donation, totally agree with that. It seems like a very US system and it's not something I agree with at all. Privatising hospitals is not a good idea, how closely would they follow government guidelines? Private hospitals won't make much money if they have to treat everyone basically as they already do as you're saying everyone will be entitled to Health Insurance. I see it collapsing fairly quickly. I am a staunch NHS supporter and having had experience of the misery of other's countries medical systems, people in this country don't know how good they have it, in terms of health care. Like education, my health care policy is a bit of a loose wheel. I too am a staunch supporter of the NHS, but I can't think of any other ways to get it closer to somewhere like France's (regarded as the best in the world by the WHO).
Jon Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 The fish said: When I rise to power, you're my Education Minister. These are the issues I will point to myself - education is just such a tricky one to work out. One particular idea I like is that of slicing the number of University places and boosting the number of places and funding (and maintenance/tuition loans) of apprenticeships. The steel in Sheffield was literally an example of now-dead industry in the UK that sprung into my mind. The main things would by shipbuilding and manufacturing of vehicles and things like house hold appliances. Designing these things is good, but actually building them is even better for the economy. Like education, my health care policy is a bit of a loose wheel. I too am a staunch supporter of the NHS, but I can't think of any other ways to get it closer to somewhere like France's (regarded as the best in the world by the WHO). I think i'd be more inclined to see a reform of the NHS before scrapping it. You talk to doctors and nurses and they always say the same thing, too many management and bureaucracy. If we could put an end to that, perhaps we'd see patient care improve and waiting times decline. There's definitely a lot that could be done too improve the NHS, i've always just seen it as being such a defining feature of being British. That's obviously not a reason too keep something but I just think it's part of the national identidy. I am however not blind enough to think it's perfect.
mcj metroid Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Come to Ireland. We barely even have a government anymore
Debug Mode Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 The mini drug debate further up the topic has reminded me of a discussion a lot of my friends had regarding the whole 'Lib Dems will legalise cannabis if they win the election' rumour. The way I see it is it just shows the corruption in Governments. A bit of a drastic thought, I know, as there are many reasons as to keep it illegal: Social impact Worker inefficiency (any one who's tried cannabis will know that this will just create a larger lazy class of people) Addiction factors etc But, for a lot of drugs, why are they illegal? They can't tax it? I'm sure they can if a real agreement is constructed. If they make some of the stuff legal, you can hit two birds with one stone. More tax for government spending to help our deficit problems and stamping out the majority of gang related crimes. It just makes no sense. They bust ring after ring, remind people how not only are they harming themselves by buying the stuff(hurrr durrr buy tobacco and alcohol to poison yourself with plz), they are fuelling the underworld with cash which involves, death, corruption and so on. So would the most logical conclusion be that the government is run by the gangs? It just makes no fucking sense in my eyes.
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Dan Dare said: catch STDs (clean needles etc) What kind of kinky sex do you get into?
Ellmeister Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 EEVILMURRAY said: What kind of kinky sex do you get into? I'm not sure where that was a failed joke or you really think STDs can't be caught by needles just as easy. Fish, some of your ideas have some promise, I'm not sure how well fund-able they would be in practical use but obviously no-one would! I do however think your reform of the House of Lords is partly wrong. The amount of people with life long terms in the HoL has vastly decreased, so whilst I agree they should be gotten rid of, the rest who are the leaders in their various areas (including religion) should still be there. The HoC are full of politicians doing what they can for their constituency so only when the HoL with actual specialists get to look at the proposed bill that strong scrutiny can take place. Errrr yeah, think that's it.
Emasher Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I agree with most of the stuff discussed. We need a lot of those changes in Canada just as desperately as you do in the UK. jayseven said: I'd also suggest we bring back national service -- focusing primarily on volunteering in the community. Maybe even go far as to suggest a compulsory system - most certainly those on benefits should be given voluntary jobs -- relevant to the field they wish to work in. Why not have some sort of national service for highs school drop-outs (if that's an issue in the UK)? Or perhaps people who have been on unemployment benefits for over a certain period of time must do national service to continue receiving them. I can see the idea of national service being incredibly annoying for people who know what they want to do in life, and have a way of achieving it. In a way, it would be taking away their freedom.
Debug Mode Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 National Service for those receiving unemployment benefits is a fucking stellar idea. I've been on Job Seekers allowance before and it sickened me how they essentially pitted every one on the same job, not helping the unemployment problem, and the over all attitude of the people around me. It was pretty much "Alright now lets go to the pub!" attitude after the fortnightly meetings, as to a lot of people it's just extra cash to get pissed as they popped out a baby purely to pay the rent.
Supergrunch Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 How do you intend to approach non-higher education, which is frankly far more important? How about immigration? Research funding? Copyright law? Euthanasia? As it is, your manifesto is far too idealistic to actually get anywhere, especially given the inclusion of fairly unimportant things like scrapping the monarchy. Nonetheless, I do agree with many points, although by no means everything. And some points need a lot more fleshing out - while many people are against libel tourism, you can't just say you'll get rid of it without giving explicit proposals for a new libel system. (and it's first-past-the-post, plus there's a typo in health "will pay have insurance," assuming you're using this for anything)
gaggle64 Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I'll vote for any party that's prepared to challenge the notion that raising taxes even slightly will result in the unholy collapse of all known civilisation. Previous generations have tried to have it both ways, low taxes while maintaining high levels of public services funded by the apparently notional taxes collected of the imaginary profits from genius bankers and their mystical debt products. Now that the combined mights of Basic Reality and Common Sense have pulled the plank from under everyone's feet and started beating them with it, we have a choice of paying the taxes for our public services or we can start selling it off or simply let it rot. As it is we seem to have a government falling over itself towards the latter so as not to offend the sensibilities of the few who don't need them at the expense of the many that do. I appreciate the economy is still on shaky ground for a tax rise right now, but when it does recover we're going to have to make the choice and I don't trust any of the main parties in their current state to fully recognise the wider public need - partially because most of it's members are members of the few themselves.
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Ellmeister said: I'm not sure where that was a failed joke or you really think STDs can't be caught by needles just as easy. Probably a failed joke. If you consider catching a disease from sharing a needle sexual then you must be down with some kinky shit. But if you're wanting to backtrack you need to go all the way back and blame God. He's the mastermind behind it all.
Recommended Posts