If you had a year in power- What changes/policy or actions would you make?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

Marcum

Original post by MichGaughan97

No problem

I'd vote for you. :biggrin:

Reply 81

meenu89

Original post by MichGaughan97

No problem

Out of interest, what would the tax rate be? Also, how do you define 'the rich'?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 82

anarchism101

Original post by MostUncivilised

I don't see that as being a problem. I much prefer this system to the American system of elected judges and political appointments to the judiciary.

Tbh, I don't think the American judiciary is so politicised because of the way they appoint judges, but because of what the judges have to do. If the US either didn't have a codified constitution at all, or had one with a relatively simple amendment process (such as Ireland, for example), I don't think judges would be so political.

Reply 83

Al-Mudaari

To name a few...

- Ban fornication/adultery
- Ban gambling/alcohol
- Ban prostitution
- Ban drugs and put major limitations on tabaco/smoking
- Ban infanticide (abortion) with strict capital punishments
- Ban immodest dress attire/sexual objectification - compaigns to encourage self-respect/worth
- Ban sexualisation of children
- Ban "putting down animals because they have weaker genes" (disgraceful). May need to review how animals are treated/kept in Zoo's.
- Ban hunting animals "for sports".
- Make education free and more accessible to the poor
- Change the economy system so there's more stability, interest would be banned, so things like loan sharks etc. would also be banned.
- Disband the Army, or at the very least, ensure it doesn't involve itself in business that doesn't concern it.
- Increase child benefits
- Ban high salaries as motivation for governance. People would be strongly judged on their moral character and intentions to help the nation, just as much as their skills.

Reply 84

No Man

- Hold a referendum on the EU
- Hold a referendum on Scottish independence
- Jail rogue City bankers and impose a 50% tax on bonuses
- Scrap the House of Lords
- Scrap the PC laws for minorities that puts them at an advantage over the majority (i.e no excuses/exceptions for crimes by women against men or 'religious patrols')
- Force low-skilled workers (i.e builders, cleaners, etc) from outside of the UK out and force long-term unemployed native workers (i.e chavs) to participate in said jobs
- Bring back grammar schools
- Improve trade relations with the Americas and Africa (Specifically Nigeria,Ghana and South Africa) if the vote to get out of the EU is yes
- Impose a 50% fat tax on junk food/drinks
- Legalise euthanasia and make it available to anyone with the consent of their parents (if said person still lives with them)/partner (if they have one)/kids (if they have any and they still live with them)
- Impose a policy where parents can't have more than 2 kids (or a 50% tax increase) and give an extra 50% in wages for those that don't have kids if their combined income is less than 40k a year.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 85

username1155226

Original post by meenu89

Out of interest, what would the tax rate be? Also, how do you define 'the rich'?

A tax system which would increase the top rate of taxation and would reduce the tax burden on those with low incomes.

The earners would be split into groups of "Poor", "Average" and "rich" and would be taxed according to which they are considered to be.

I would define the rich as those who earn over £95,000 per year.

Reply 86

meenu89

Original post by MichGaughan97

Last question, did you agree with the Government taking the threshold at which you pay tax to £10,000?

You may be interested to read this from the IFS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10620555/UK-tax-system-is-punishing-success-says-Institute-for-Fiscal-Studies.html

You have exactly the same political leanings as my Husband.

Reply 87

username91207

Original post by Al-Mudaari

For both sexes? Or just women?

Reply 88

username1155226

Original post by meenu89

If taxes are used correctly, for example, on Health and Education then yes I am in favour of it.

That is an interesting read actually, thanks for providing the link.

Reply 89

username1155226

Original post by Marcum

I'd vote for you. :biggrin:

Thanks haha!

Reply 90

meenu89

Original post by Al-Mudaari

To name a few...

- Ban fornication/adultery

How?

Reply 91

OMGWTFBBQ

Original post by MostUncivilised

Disagree with you based on facts on logic, not a vague feeling that common law is being made against the "will of the people".

Your inability to cite even a single case with which you disagree is fairly damning to your argument.

As a lawyer you see argument where there isn't one. This is what I would do if I was in power for the year. End of.

Reply 92

MostUncivilised

Original post by anarchism101

I would respond to that in two parts. The first is that it is true that a codified constitution places considerably more power in the hands of judges and hence confers a degree of unsought politicisation, I think I already pointed this out in an earlier post.

Second, It's true that in the federal court system, while politicised (think about Supreme Court nomination hearings in the Senate), tends to be less political in the application of the law and are jurists of high quality (Harvard law professors and so on)

But have you not heard of state judge elections? You literally have judges running on a platform of executing more people, it is utterly barbaric. As is the American system of having juries to try civil cases, and decide on damages (hence you have ludicrous judgments giving millions in punitive damages, as opposed to the more compensatory English system)

Reply 93

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by anarchism101

Most Protestants want to stay in the UK. Most Catholics used to want reunification but in recent years they don't care that much any more because they've now largely achieved political rights and social equality within Northern Ireland.

I think you kind of missed my point, I was referring to the original message where the poster said to re-unite Ireland, I was just asking what if the people didn't want to be re-united.

Reply 94

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by MichGaughan97

It would of course be a referendum, I think that the majority actually want to stay in the UK but I believe they should have the choice.

So your policy would be to have a referendum and not in fact to reunite Ireland?

Reply 95

username1155226

Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen

So your policy would be to have a referendum and not in fact to reunite Ireland?

Yes, sorry if I did not make that clear in the first place.

Reply 96

anarchism101

Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen

I think you kind of missed my point, I was referring to the original message where the poster said to re-unite Ireland, I was just asking what if the people didn't want to be re-united.

It may sound a bit of a cliched question, but which 'people'? This is a more contentious point on the Northern Ireland issue than you might think.

Reply 97

anarchism101

Original post by MichGaughan97

It would of course be a referendum, I think that the majority actually want to stay in the UK but I believe they should have the choice.

I think positions on this might have changed a bit since 1997, but historically the attitude of nationalists towards this is that such a referendum would be meaningless, as the borders of Northern Ireland were drawn specifically to include the largest possible area that could sustain a Unionist majority.

Reply 98

Lord_Mediocre

Original post by Lord Jon

I like a lot of what you're saying but some of that stuff doesn't add up financially given the mess we are already in and in effect most of those policies are not viable. Some of the policies are actually terrible and do nothing but split society and or suppress any problems we have.

Also there seems to be a heavy bias in your policy provision which maybe isn't the great feature in a policy maker or political party( A problem we seems to be going through right now)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 99

nixy49

I'd ban violence especially of threats by the state. This means people would not be coerced to pay tax.

People need to, at least try, to think this through. It means true freedom.

If you like to test how free you are, try withholding taxes for a month or two and see how long it is before the nice men coming knocking with threats.

Of course the notion of land 'ownership' needs to be brought into question. I own a house...... I used to believe I owned the land.

Imagine the first settlers to, say, America ..... the land belonged to NO ONE.....then a bloke come along and says "I own this land" ...... does this sound reasonable? ..... or just a bit mental?

'course, most have chosen oppression.

(edited 10 years ago)