The Student Room Group

What would be the ONE policy would you vote for?

Everyone has a number of issues that they are voting for, but which policy would you like to see implemented (be it part of any current manifesto or not)?


What is the ONE policy you care about the most?


Personally, above all, I would like to see a referendum on the First Past The Post voting system, because I feel the current system misrepresents A LOT of people, and undermines the UK's democratic status. For instance, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservatives gained 36.05% of votes, Labour gained 28.99% of votes and Lib Dems gained 23.02% of the votes, however Conservatives gained 47.08% of the seats, Labour gained 39.69% of the seats and Liberal Democrats gained only 8.77% of the seats. This is mainly down to the First Past The Post system and it needs to be reformed.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by UkeHarvey
Everyone has a number of issues that they are voting for, but which policy would you like to see implemented (be it part of any current manifesto or not)?


What is the ONE policy you care about the most?


Personally, above all, I would like to see a referendum on the First Past The Post voting system, because I feel the current system misrepresents A LOT of people, and undermines the UK's democratic status. For instance, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservatives gained 36.05% of votes, Labour gained 28.99% of votes and Lib Dems gained 23.02% of the votes, however Conservatives gained 47.08% of the seats, Labour gained 39.69% of the seats and Liberal Democrats gained only 8.77% of the seats. This is mainly down to the First Past The Post system and it needs to be reformed.


Definitely agreed on a referendum on PR. However the one caveat would be polling beforehand - it would be a once in a generation question and should only be asked when there's a really good chance of it passing.
The abolition of the welfare state.
none

politics is about passion and personality
The abolition of the post of Secretary of State for Justice and the re-instatement of the Lord Chancellorship in the House of Lords.
Original post by St. Brynjar
Definitely agreed on a referendum on PR. However the one caveat would be polling beforehand - it would be a once in a generation question and should only be asked when there's a really good chance of it passing.


totally disagree

first past the post gives quality

not quantity
Universal Basic Income if done properly it would eliminate absolute poverty in the UK.
Restoration of Grammar Schools to every local authority so that bright poor kids would have some reasonable chance of social mobility like they used to years ago, as opposed to the current system where their potential is so often wasted in mediocre or dire comprehensives which are ill equipped to help them fulfill their potential.
Major reform of the Welfare State: benefits for 6 months, then you must go into education/apprenticeship/work schemes or you get no benefits.
2% GDP on defence. Minimum.

Not negotiable. I will not vote for any party that does not put that as a priority. Regardless of other policies.
Original post by Dalek1099
Universal Basic Income if done properly it would eliminate absolute poverty in the UK.

No it wouldn't.
Original post by Europhile
No it wouldn't.


Yes it would everyone gets £70 a week so they at least get an income where as at the moment we have homeless people, people who have been benefit sanctioned and people who have had their disability benefits took off them living on often £0 a week for periods of time £70 a week would keep them above international absolute poverty lines.
Original post by a320airbus97
Major reform of the Welfare State: benefits for 6 months, then you must go into education/apprenticeship/work schemes or you get no benefits.


Thats how the current system works:confused:(you don't just get the money for free and you can get put on schemes at any time on benefits whether you have been on benefits 6 months or less) my mam has to do forced volunteering to get her benefits.
Original post by Dalek1099
Yes it would everyone gets £70 a week so they at least get an income where as at the moment we have homeless people, people who have been benefit sanctioned and people who have had their disability benefits took off them living on often £0 a week for periods of time £70 a week would keep them above international absolute poverty lines.

Where's the money coming from to fund it? All you would have is everyone living in poverty going against your initial aims of combatting poverty. In an ideal world your viewpoint is wonderful but in the real world it's nothing but a pipe dream.

The best way to combat poverty is to streamline the public sector and invest in a thriving private sector. As the economy grows and the private sector thrives increase public sector expenditure to be a % of money made whilst leaving a reserve to invest in other areas. Of course, our government doesn't want to run on this system because it benefits from the borrowing policies and so does its friends in big business.
Reply 14
Banning faith schools. You go to school to learn, not to become sheeple.
Original post by jenkinsear
Restoration of Grammar Schools to every local authority so that bright poor kids would have some reasonable chance of social mobility like they used to years ago, as opposed to the current system where their potential is so often wasted in mediocre or dire comprehensives which are ill equipped to help them fulfill their potential.


rubbish

if you are intelligent, you will do well regardless
Original post by Europhile
Where's the money coming from to fund it? All you would have is everyone living in poverty going against your initial aims of combatting poverty. In an ideal world your viewpoint is wonderful but in the real world it's nothing but a pipe dream.

The best way to combat poverty is to streamline the public sector and invest in a thriving private sector. As the economy grows and the private sector thrives increase public sector expenditure to be a % of money made whilst leaving a reserve to invest in other areas. Of course, our government doesn't want to run on this system because it benefits from the borrowing policies and so does its friends in big business.


Those who earn average incomes or more would pay it back in extra taxes anyway and simplifying the benefits system would save billions so it could actually save money.

We wouldn't have everyone living in poverty as everyone would get at least £70 a week(or at least not absolute poverty which was what I was talking about).

Boosting the Private Sector doesn't help things you always lose out due to loads of money being lost due to profit motives, public services are always much more efficient and pay much fairer wages so less money is lost paying extortionate wages.
Original post by Dalek1099
Thats how the current system works:confused:(you don't just get the money for free and you can get put on schemes at any time on benefits whether you have been on benefits 6 months or less) my mam has to do forced volunteering to get her benefits.

There are thousands of people who have been on benefits all of their lives and have not contributed to society. They claim that they are 'sick' or even 'disabled' and are given a home, a car and other benefits. They do not have to volunteer etc. Why is it that in the Conservative manifesto they want all 18-21 year olds on benefits for more than 6 months to be forced to get an apprenticeship/work scheme etc? Your claim would suggest that all unemployed people on benefits have to 'work' for their money: they do not.
Original post by Exon
Banning faith schools. You go to school to learn, not to become sheeple.


Yes completely agree with this the whole idea of a faith school discriminates against other religions, I also think children should be learnt about the truth with well documented evidence not some possible theories with no real evidence, I could create some mad theory(invisible undetectable chairs, they are invisible so you can't tell they aren't there) with no evidence and why isn't that taught in a faith school?
Original post by a320airbus97
There are thousands of people who have been on benefits all of their lives and have not contributed to society. They claim that they are 'sick' or even 'disabled' and are given a home, a car and other benefits. They do not have to volunteer etc. Why is it that in the Conservative manifesto they want all 18-21 year olds on benefits for more than 6 months to be forced to get an apprenticeship/work scheme etc? Your claim would suggest that all unemployed people on benefits have to 'work' for their money: they do not.

The problem is that loads of young Brits have 'illnesses' or long term disabilities (laziness for a lot of them) and would rather not work. It's far easier to get the little Jezebel down the road knocked up than it is to go to work early in the morning and earn a living, for these people. They love the protection the welfare state gives them.

That's why I'm a minarchist and would love to see the abolition of the welfare state. Years ago, if you didn't work, tough ****. That was it. You earned a living or you went without. Not my problem if you're too lazy to get off your arse and earn a living.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending