If you were Prime Minister, what policies would you implement?

Scroll to see replies

2) They should find jobs. There are plenty of jobs available.
6) No. The US funded the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These groups will eventually turn on us or join IS. Several members of the FSA and Peshemrga are joining ISIS.

2 - we're still coming out of a recession and there are good reasons why people struggle to find jobs. You pretty much want to punish people harshly for being the victims of an economic crisis.

6 - you want to defeat ISIS, which I agree on, yet you don't want to fund or supply the groups doing the fighting on the ground?

By the way, the US didn't actually fund the Taliban - the Taliban didn't emerge until after the Soviet withdrawl. The US funded Afghan rebel groups, members of which may have found their way into the Taliban later, but the US never directly funded or supplied the Taliban.

Reply 41

Golden State

Original post by 34908seikj

So how would univeristys, y' know pay for ****? And also fund their research... Lower income people is still quite a significant proportion of the populous.

I'm sure they'll be fine. Plus, non-uk students will have to pay, so that will make up a large portion of their money, and they will also receive an endowment.

Reply 42

umar39

Make it illegal to have the toilet paper under rather than over :judge:

Reply 43

Trapz99

Original post by RF_PineMarten

I just got a part time job at a shop. And I'm 17. My aunt can barely speak English and landed a job at a factory. It's not that hard.

I'm just saying that we can't trust anyone in Syria. There is a long history of countries funding rebel groups which fail and then turn against us. Instead, we should send more air strikes and aim to defeat ISIS ourselves.

Reply 44

34908seikj

Original post by umar39

Make it illegal to have the toilet paper under rather than over :judge:

What's it like, being you know a ****ing inbred degenerate who as no friends?

OVER > UNDER

:boxing:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 45

umar39

Original post by 34908seikj

What's it like, being you know a ****ing inbread degenerate who as no friends?

OVER > UNDER

:boxing:

That's literally what I said dummy! :biggrin:

(RTQ!!)

Spoiler

Reply 46

34908seikj

Original post by umar39

That's literally what I said dummy! :biggrin:

(RTQ!!)

Spoiler

whoopsie I didn't read it correctly lol

Reply 47

Zamestaneh

Original post by Trapz99

So you want laws derived from Islam in a country where 96% of the people are not Muslim? Most people like drinking alcohol and the problems with it aren't that bad- alcohol is a part of the economy and our culture. I would reform the country's economy, not its culture and values.

It doesn't matter where the laws are derived from, rather only the implications - and the benefits are greater than the weak reason that 'people like drinking alcohol'. It will save many peoples lives from alcohol related deaths, injuries, illnesses, irrevokable mistakes made whilst drunk, and reduce public damage, subsquent costs to the government and strain on the NHS etc - this is for the benefit of the country.

Reply 48

Legendstatusxoxo

All memes must be dank, otherwise you should get rekt

Reply 49

JamesN88

I'd call Putin's bluff and start supplying lethal aid to the Ukrainians.

Reply 50

RF_PineMarten

I'd do quite a few things.

We would be leaving the EU, and therefore I would take the opportunity to completely overhaul the CAP to reduce spending overall and rebalance it towards the environment and towards smaller farmers. I'd like to see much more focus on woodland planting and regeneration. I'd also like to see things like beavers reintroduced more widely, and laws would be altered to encourage this further.

Spoiler

While we're on the environment, I'd also make sure that ancient woodland gets specific and stronger protection in the planning system. At the moment, it's got some protection with the usual caveat of "unless the benefits of development outweigh the costs", which is downright stupid as ancient woodland is valuable for wildlife and cannot be replaced.

Planning appeals would be restricted to 1 appeal for each side. At the moment, opponents cannot appeal against planning permission being granted, but developers can appeal again and again against refusals. It should be 1 appeal to the planning inspectorate each, with further appeals only possible through the courts system if the correct processes have not been carried out and there is evidence to back this up.

I'd reform the House of Lords in some way. Not sure exactly what route to take, but at the very least I would want something to stop the party in power from stuffing the place full of party donors like the Conservatives have been doing since 2010. Maybe even it would become elected, I'm not quite sure.

I would introduce some form of PR, in order to give smaller parties a fair chance at influencing politics and having their voice heard (15% support should get roughly that % of seats, not less than 1%). Again, not quite sure exactly what PR system I would introduce.

I'd legalise some drugs like cannabis, and would regulate and tax them. Far better to have it legal and regulated than have the trade entirely in the hands of criminals. And the tax could be useful.

I'd have heavier restrictions on party spending during election campaigns, to level the playing field a bit and stop the big corporate funded parties from outspending smaller parties as much.

There are probably others that I'm missing.

Reply 51

sleepysnooze

Original post by Grand High Witch

What victimless acts?

recreational/medical drug use/production/distribution, euthanasia, all kinds of (adult) marriage (polygamy, hypergamy, incest, etc), prostitution/brothels, gambling (I'd actually get rid of the age restrictions seeing as it's completely arbitrary to age-limit gambling seeing as it's just games), public drunkenness/intoxication, "hate speech", I'd end censorship in the media (violence, language, nudity, etc) and I'd abolish inheritance, corp. and property (council) taxes seeing as they're just more victimless penalties in a way

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 52

username2312801

More jobs and no smoking in public

Reply 53

username1969391

•

Slash annual net migration figure to below 10,000

•

Halt the influx of refugees (after the 20,000 we are already resettling)

•

Immediately trigger article 50

•

Deport migrants that don't meet a certain criteria (e.g. a wage threshold)

•

Implement a strict points based immigration system

•

Focus on trade and FTAs with fast developing economies and the Commonwealth

•

Cut foreign aid spending from 0.7% of GDP to ~0.2%

•

Scrap HS2

•

Ban Sharia courts

•

Increase NHS funding

•

Increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP

•

Stop military intervention in Syria (and the Middle East in general)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 54

99_Problems

Original post by Trapz99

I'm not saying you weren't the best person for the job but, you see, there are advantages in hiring people under a certain age.... Same with people who can't speak much English there are advantages. A company I used to work for used a cleaning agency where all the cleaners were from South America and couldn't speak English so they were easily exploitable, vulnerable and wouldn't complain about wages..