If I formed a political party......

a reply to: bastion

Disabled UK citizens or tax and NI paying Immigrants of 5 years would not be effected as they would get a NHS and Welfare card by default. All UK Citzens and tax paying residents of 5 years would carry on like now except they would have to show a NHS ID card at reception.

Only people effected would be illegal immigrants, foreign tourists (who should have travel insurance) and new arrived immigrants and the prices the NHS would charge would be at a "reasonable" rate to cover the costs not to make profit with fair instalment plans like with current student loans.

originally posted by: bastion
However there's the interesting story today that Parliament has been caught shredding these documents

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, I shredded many a document prior to the 1994 'Code of Practice on Access to Official Information' statutory laws came into effect, anyone who doesn't think such things happen in a calculated way is naive at best. You can see more here if you're remotely interested:
Who else shredded govt dept files on UK citizens before the 1994 Access to Information code?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Interesting.

One thing im thankful for is the UK doesn't have dozens of alphabet agency yet all doing the same thing Certainly sympathise with your stance to merge or abolish many of them1

a reply to: crazyewok

Ahh I agree with all that - sounds fair and easy to implement.

Very interested in the shredded documents stuff (as an ex journalist).

As for alphabet agencies, we have at least 18 I'm aware of (so I imagine the real figure is more like 100) - they just do a better job of keeping hidden.

a reply to: crazyewok


Actually, I'd go a step beyond with warfare.

It probably would be wrong to force a relative into war as they may violently disagree with their elder.

However, I do think we should return to the oldest system of all, by law.

The commander in chief of the military (be it king, president, prime minister)
must be on the battle field with the troops
and lead the first charge in all major battles

After all the person who declares war to be necessary should take complete and full responsibility and be the first to put their life on the line.

For an ongoing war, the final decider of whether or not to go to war should be on the actual battlefield, in battle, on the front line at least 2 times per year for a minimum of a fortnight.

This would violate no ones civil rights, the person who is the final arbitrator of the decision takes full responsibility for the decision with his/her own life.

Better yet, allow for countries to mutually decide if they so agree to allow the top leaders of the land to do battle to the death and the victor wins for their entire country. This is the most humane method and the leaders who feel war is so necessary are the only ones to put their lives on the line.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The problem is if the PM ect is beyond the age f military service. Sending a 70 year old off to war is just going to get in the way and I certainly dont want them to "lead" id rather leave that to the experts.

Though makeing leader do one to one duels would be intersting though it would make the USA trillion dollar military pointless as Putin would kick Obama and our pm's Camrons arse both at the same time!

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: grandmakdw

The problem is if the PM ect is beyond the age f military service. Sending a 70 year old off to war is just going to get in the way and I certainly dont want them to "lead" id rather leave that to the experts.

Though makeing leader do one to one duels would be intersting though it would make the USA trillion dollar military pointless as Putin would kick Obama and our pm's Camrons arse both at the same time!

I understand the age issue. However, I think that if someone is healthy enough to lead a country they are healthy enough to lead a battle. There are plenty of 70 year olds that I personally know who would do quite well leading a battle.

The issue is to make the person making the final decision personally involved and understanding that their life is on the line along with the troops they are leading.

Age is not an issue in this instance, I think.

You are right about Putin, he'd really kick .... on Obama, don't know about Camron, think Camron would whop Obama though.

It's certainly an improvement over anything we have now. Particularly..... the one which says lobbyists must go. We should have foreseen what was going to happen with that, and prevented it from the outset.

But I do still believe if someone is ill and we have the treatment to help them, we should give it.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
It's certainly an improvement over anything we have now. Particularly..... the one which says lobbyists must go. We should have foreseen what was going to happen with that, and prevented it from the outset.

But I do still believe if someone is ill and we have the treatment to help them, we should give it.

Well here in the UK that's not a issue but that a very controversial debate for the USA I wont touch without a flame proof suite

21) Abolish the house of lords and instead appoint a mixture of Judges and long serving magistrates as these will be the best qualified people to look over new laws.

How about maybe an elected upper house, it is the house of review; should it not speak for the people? Judges make laws thru courts and not parliament, this is fundamental to the common law system.

a reply to: RifRAAF

Well my view is you already have a elected lower house. What the point of two elected houses?

Just double the trouble. As party's will form in both. And each party will pass the laws of the lower house according to its party's wished even if they are dumb ass laws. Just like now but worse.

May as well have only one house but that risks all sorts of BS laws passing through.

If like my way you have a democratically elected house that makes the laws then the upper house would be made up of randomly selected people as well as legal experts who would not be able to make the laws but vet them for stupidity in a hopefully non biased way free from party influence or as free as you can get with randomly selected people.

The whole point is to put a breaker on the lower house free of party influence.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: RifRAAF

Well my view is you already have a elected lower house. What the point of two elected houses?

Ok, you see my earlier comment where I mentioned "house of review"? The beauty of a bicameral system is that if for some electorial oversight that some dickhead born in another country, loyal to that country, gets elected as PM (due to inherit problems with the electorial process, and not due to democracy), is that we have a senate to block his more draconian reforms...

Just double the trouble. As party's will form in both. And each party will pass the laws of the lower house according to its party's wished even if they are dumb ass laws. Just like now but worse.

So lets just appoint both houses? As flawed as our voiting systems are, do we really want to give up sufferage just because we currently have a bunch of dickheads in power? Is this not actually a gripe at our 2-party system and not our bi-cameral system?

May as well have only one house but that risks all sorts of BS laws passing through.

So you see the problem with what you propose.

If like my way you have a democratically elected house that makes the laws then the upper house would be made up of randomly selected people as well as legal experts who would not be able to make the laws but vet them for stupidity in a hopefully non biased way free from party influence or as free as you can get with randomly selected people.

Ok, I think I know where we are not meeting. Without giving you the benefit of 2 years of a Laws degree, I will try not to be too condensing. We have these legal experts (judges, magistrates) scrutinising our laws, they do it in the courts, its "common law". To take that power and place it back within the legislature is a step backward for our legal and democratic system.

The whole point is to put a breaker on the lower house free of party influence.

Then ban political parties, dont reduce representation. Honestly Ewok, I get what you want, but I dont think you fully understand the systems in place.

a reply to: RifRAAF

You cant "ban" partys.

Party s are just group's that's form with similar ideas. Even if you banned party in name cliches with still form and that's not necessarily a bad thing but there power needs weakening.

My idea would not inference with democratic representation as the unelected upper house would not be able to make laws or change processes. They job will be to make sure the laws passed in the lower house are legal and comply with a constitution.

O and yes the UK would be given a constitution.


Right now the upper house is already a bunch of unelected fossils with peerages. May as well boot the aristocracy out and randomly pick who sits in the upper house for a fairer representation of society.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: RifRAAF

...

My idea would not inference with democratic representation as the unelected upper house would not be able to make laws or change processes. They job will be to make sure the laws passed in the lower house are legal and comply with a constitution.

This is the problem tho, without giving them the power to change/review bills sent to them they are effectively a room full of Governor-Generals (you have to understand my Aussieness in approaching this), only there to provide "Royal assent". It makes the whole thing redundant.

From here on we are in total agreement:

O and yes the UK would be given a constitution.

Right now the upper house is already a bunch of unelected fossils with peerages. May as well boot the aristocracy out and randomly pick who sits in the upper house for a fairer representation of society.