Your five top policies (if you were granted then)

Here are mine

1- Force websites to choose between being publishers (responsible for content) or content providers (not responsible for content). Grant protections to hold big tech giants accountable for censorship if they choose to be a content provider.

2- Legalise prostitution and provide adequate safeguards eg being able to decline clients etc.

3- make Bitcoin an official currency alongside the Pound

4- Scrap the Equality Act 2010

5- pardon Julian assange and release all documents contained under the official secrets act (and give 24 hour notice)

Some rather dangerous policies there. Especially the one about release all
Documents under the official secret act

Bitcoin as a currency.

I’d agree with the legalisation of prostitution.
Why spend money policing it and allowing criminals to exploit it when you can save money of policing it, generate tax revenue from it and exclude the criminals. (Although those involved in it now would still probably be involved in it, but they’d have to legitimise themselves.)

That's a liberal argument used to justify damaging society with drugs etc ,(which j don't support legalisation of) . I support prostitution as a necessary evil to protect society.

In what way is legalising prostitution (it's legal already?) a necessary evil to protect society compared to the proven benefits of de-criminalising drugs. Both in terms of crime and harm reduction the latter has evidence behind it. I cant say ive ever heard someone describe prostitution as protecting society though..?

De-criminalise drugs (the current policy is risible)
Raise the minimum wage to a living wage (forcing people to work for slave wages is innately cruel)
Actually tax the big american tech firms (tax dodging *******s who provide no social good whatsoever)
Revoke Brexit and jail the charlatans who lied to get it done (or hang them, either or)
As to a fifth... ban universities from flogging non-subjects to students and having the cheek to charge such outrageous amounts of money for it.

1: Women will need to offer men something more than sex in a relationship and will therefore create better wives and a more harmonious relationship and end women's monopoly on sex.

That's a rather circuitous way of informing everyone that you struggle with women.

Dangerous to who? I think this will shine a much needed ray of light upon our rulers. As they say: if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.

As for International Relations I'm on favour of minding our own business.




Why would that be dangerous? The Pound will still be our main unit of currency. We will just be granting additional legitimacy to bitcoin.



That's a liberal argument used to justify damaging society with drugs etc ,(which j don't support legalisation of) . I support prostitution as a necessary evil to protect society.

1: Women will need to offer men something more than sex in a relationship and will therefore create better wives and a more harmonious relationship and end women's monopoly on sex.

2: Single men particularly young men will get an outlet for their needs whilst they concentrate on their career

3: women that sleep around can at least get paid for it.

There are things that need hiding from the public. They wed hiding from the public, because once they’re in the ‘public domain.’ It’s not just the public that know about them. Our enemies know about them. That’s why information is protectively marked.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Security_Classifications_Policy

Having worked extensively in jobs that require me to sign the officials secret act. There’s nothing special in there. All the act does is remind people that are dealing with that kind of information that there are legal repercussions if they don’t follow the rules. (I’ve seen people threatened with it for losing laptops. It’s just a government stick for data protection.

People seem very happy to allow Facebook to hoover up all your personal information and sell it. What’s your problem with a government that has a high degree of overview doing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

All snowden did was give away capabilities so the bad guys changed how they operated. Nobody in government cares what p*rn sites you’re on.

I'm not too sure why you want prostitution legalised but I can guess why. I don’t have any ‘liberal’ concerns in mind. We pay to olive it. Whilst it’s illegal criminals will abuse it and abuse those in it. We can tax it.

Because 'Equality*' makes the demonstrably false assumption that we are all 'equal' * and when the outcome it favours does not transpire it will come up with further laws to achieve this end usually in the form of equality of outcome which is actively discriminatory, pushes identity politics and is anti meritocratic as well as requiring state intervention. People are different and compliment each other in different ways.

That's a rather circuitous way of informing everyone that you struggle with women.

Due to some mad administration error (or whatever) you have been granted the ability to ennact five policies which are legally enforceable for one week only and may be overturned by parliament afterwards.

You will remain completely anonymous and cannot do anything to directly benefit you (eg become dictator or give yourself money)

You cannot kill/arrest/ deport anyone although you may bring back the death penalty. Declarations of war will probably be unsuccessful with an almost certain risk of mutiny as will attempts to destroy democracy. Controversial positions will almost certainly be overturned eg turning the UK into a Soviet style state.

For Instance

Nationalise railways
Legalise euthanasia
Introduce proportional representation
Calling a general election
Declaring war
Criminalising Abortion
Privatise the BBC
Declaring Amazon a criminal entity
Declaring Antifa terrorist organisation

You're confusing "equality" with 'sameness'. The Equality Act only prohibits discrimination based on sex, colour, religion, etc. It does not mandate equality of outcome. What you're basically saying is that people should be free to discriminate against people, which is wrong.

Do you think that my employer should be able to, say, fire me because I am bisexual? How would that be meritocratic?