The Student Room Group

My Policies To Make Britain Great Again!

Scroll to see replies

Ok Michael Gove.

Just to point out there are no real answers here to generational inequity, climate change and housing. Maybe these aren't problems in Scotland but they are in the UK.
Much of what you wrote seems to have been culled directly from various manifestos and position statements, ScottishBrexitor. What is sadly lacking in a great deal of mainstream political debate are reasoned arguments for policy decisions - and your piece contains the same dearth of reasoned arguments..


Why do we want a British Bill of Rights? What is wrong with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights that sits behind it? What is wrong in your view, based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Please don't just give me a sovereignty argument - or if you do, it would help if you go into what you understand sovereignty to be and how it is engaged here. (If you hadn't guessed, I'm a final year law student who has completed the constitutional and public law part of his degree).

Personally, I don't think the current European Convention on Human Rights is badly broken. Some elements of the body of case law are imperfect, but that is true of any body of case law.


There are arguments for a non-political upper house - and for being a constitutional monarchy, not least as the Parliament Acts ensure the supremacy of the elected House of Commons. I don't think the current House of Lords is perfect, but I'm not sure an elected senate would be a step forwards.


Your arguments for separate Supreme Courts for each of the devolved nations ignores the way that law often crosses those boundaries. Except in devolved areas, the law and legal system in England and Wales is identical.

Judges are no longer made members of the House of Lords on taking judicial office. Many (is it still all?) of the current Justices of the Supreme Court are peers because they were law lords in the days when the House of Lords was the court of last instance - but even in those days the law lords did not get involved in politics. After the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which amongst other things created the Supreme Court, those judges who are peers do not serve as active members of the House of Lords (they are on the ineligible list), preserving the separation of powers between the legislature and executive.


Your welfare policies are hopelessly simplistic and ignore that some of the benefits you mention are already being migrated to Universal Credit. Indeed, it seems to hearken to the notion that there are deserving and undeserving poor.


Jerusalem is a great piece of music with atrocious words from an imperial exceptionalist past. "And did those (Jesus':wink: feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountain's green?" No. The answer to every single question in Jerusalem is "no". It's an exclusive thing, focusing on England and Christianity, not the diverse nation that we are in 2017. I am white, English, a practising Christian and I have led services as a lay preacher. I would never pick anything like Jerusalem for any of the churches in which I have led worship.


Most of your agenda seems to be straight from Donald Trump, updated for the UK. It is very much right wing in nature. How about ditching the slogans and putting up reasoned arguments for what you propose, as I said at the beginning of this response?
Original post by Davij038
Agreed with or at least sympathetic to a good chunk of it. Here's where I disagree:

All of the federal devolution stuff. Nope. Waste of money and just encourages the nationalists.

Wouldn't give our police Constables handguns

Tripling prison sentences for all crimes seems excessive

Wouldn't lower drinking or driving age. Keep things as they are.

Wouldn't devolve taxes

Keep Bank of England name

Cut Vat not raise it


Welfare policies not realistic

Education policies likewise (I'd just ban Muslim and possibly Jewish faith schools)


It would actually put the nationalists' money where their mouth is imo. It would also lead to more sensible spending of the devolved administrations as they are making their own revenue than getting a huge block grant from Westminster and would also shut up folk about this Barnett formula crap from all four countries.

I meant the maximum sentences, not every criminal would get a triple sentence but I feel sentences need to be a lot tougher, especially for gang related stuff.

Most drink at that age anyway, most parents seem fine with it too so might as well let businesses make money off the teens. Don't see the harm in 16s driving if they have a license.

Devolving taxes creates an economically competitive (in good nature) UK which I feel is needed, I would go even go further by eventually devolving taxes to cities at one point, works well in other federalist countries, notably the US and Germany which are economic powerhouses.

Original post by AperfectBalance
From a quick read quite a few of them seem reasonable or at least better than the current system. why not Rule Britannia for the anthem?


Jerusalem would be the national anthem just for England, mainly used for English national events like England football games and such as opposed to using the UK anthem, you could also have Land of Hope and Glory but that isn't as nice and a bit hooligan for some I guess. I'm all for Rule Britannia being the anthem as it represents the whole of Britain than just the Queen.

Original post by stoltguyboo
Thoroughly support this.

Can't imagine why people would want a Republic.

I think i'd be paddling away on a boat from the shores of this great nation if Jeremy Corbyn or another socialist got in as President.


I would actually be ok with a referendum on the issue after the Queen dies, which probably won't happen until 2027 at the earliest given how invincible the Windsors are. But it's not a priority right now imo Queen Elizabeth II is too popular right now, even Malcolm Turnbull said that Republicans didn't stand a chance in Australia with Elizabeth at the helm.
Reply 23
I agree with a bit, but fir me, this is the stand out policy that I support:

'- One child policy for families/individuals on universal credit and whose income is less than £20,000 per annum from 2020.'
Reply 24
Original post by Tomm98
I agree with a bit, but fir me, this is the stand out policy that I support:

'- One child policy for families/individuals on universal credit and whose income is less than £20,000 per annum from 2020.'


That would mean hardly any arts graduates will have more than one kid so thats excellent.
Reply 25
Original post by Maker
That would mean hardly any arts graduates will have more than one kid so thats excellent.


Why bring graduates into it - jealous that you got kicked out of sixth form and didn't make the cut for Uni yourself?
Reply 26
Original post by Tomm98
Why bring graduates into it - jealous that you got kicked out of sixth form and didn't make the cut for Uni yourself?


I went to uni before you were born.
You've suggested cutting benefits by 50%. That means people over 25 on JSA would be living on less than £40. Have you tried living on that before bills? It's difficult enough now living on £73.10 a week.
Original post by Tiger Rag
You've suggested cutting benefits by 50%. That means people over 25 on JSA would be living on less than £40. Have you tried living on that before bills? It's difficult enough now living on £73.10 a week.


pfft... £40! That's plenty! I mean, you can eat porridge oats for breakfast, dinner AND lunch instead!

Capture.PNG

/endsarcasm
Original post by ScottishBrexitor

- Privatise rail infrastructure, allow private companies to build rail lines provided they get consent from the Cabinet Secretary of Transport in their respective nation, or the Secretary of State of Transport in the UK Govt. if the rail line crosses borders between England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland
)


Last time that happened, things didn't go so well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash
Original post by james813
How are you measuring success? He has brought hundreds of thousands of jobs already.


Which jobs? I'd like some evidence.
Original post by Tiger Rag
You've suggested cutting benefits by 50%. That means people over 25 on JSA would be living on less than £40. Have you tried living on that before bills? It's difficult enough now living on £73.10 a week.


Fine then, keep it as it is, but no tax credits! We survived fine before Brown introduced them!
> Abolish the license fee

Say no more fam.
Original post by jambojim97
Britain was never 'Great' in the first place.


You can leave, then, if you don't like it here.
Original post by ByEeek
I really wish people would look at recent history when considering proposals for the future.

In 1986, Thatcher privatised gas. More competirion would be a good thing, they said. Firstly, the government made a massive loss by under valueing the price giving a windfall to private investors. Then the fun began with door-to-door con men signing people up for contracts that were sold as cheaper but were not. Meanwhile, prices went up regardless of underlying wholesale price.

We are now in the position where 6 companies follow suit on pricing and the former British Gas pockets around £1 billion a year in profits. So that is British Gas customers paying £1 billion more than they need to for their gas.

With that in mind, how is a privatised, competitive NHS a good thing? Do you really want to be treated at A+E by the lowest bidder?


The NHS would still exist as an insurance scheme, paying all healthcare for under 18s, the disabled, the elderly, war veterans and most aspects of healthcare for adults earning less than £40,000 a year. Capitalist free markets allow competition which gives us a successful economy and you can't have a successful NHS without a successful economy, competitiveness makes everything better.
Original post by ScottishBrexitor
Fine then, keep it as it is, but no tax credits! We survived fine before Brown introduced them!


How would someone feed their child if they've just been made redundant and their only other income is JSA? You can't feed an adult and a child on £73.10 a week and pay bills.

We managed fine because we had tax allowances.
I like a small numbers of things, but a lot of this is downright regressive and quite frankly pointless.

- A Union Jack and a picture of Lizzy, swearing oath etc. in classrooms - absolutely not. This isn't North Korea.

- No need for the police to routinely carry handguns. The threat just isn't there.

- Fundamentally disagree with more privatisation. It's not something I can support.

- Seems unnecessarily harsh on immigrants if I'm honest.

- Disagree with HS2 in its entirety.

- We should be encouraging people to learn modern languages not moving away from it. We have a major shortage of multi-linguals in this country as it is.

- Welfare plans seem extremely unrealistic and excessively harsh especially on immigrants.

- Begging should not to be illegal. Beggars have it bad enough as it is. They don't need the Police on their case as well.

- Against civilian gun ownership, just look at the US... enough said.

- Strongly against the death penalty. The state should not have the power to end someone's life like that.

- Against policing what people can and can't wear. (Provided it's not dangerous or extremely offensive in some way)

- The US is not a brilliant example to base your system off of when it comes to prisons. No idea why you want to copy them.

There's probably one or two things I missed, but most other things I agree with/have no opinion on for whatever reason.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dot.Cotton
You can leave, then, if you don't like it here.


Never said that.
Original post by cbreef
I like a small numbers of things, but a lot of this is downright regressive and quite frankly pointless.

- A Union Jack and a picture of Lizzy, swearing oath etc. in classrooms - absolutely not. This isn't North Korea.
Nothing wrong with a little bit of patriotism, that isn't confined to North Korea, the US and probably other countries follow this conduct too.

- No need for the police to routinely carry handguns. The threat just isn't there.
I think if our police are properly armed and trained then tackling the likes of hooligan behaviour will be handled better.

- Fundamentally disagree with more privatisation. It's not something I can support.
The most successful countries are the ones with the most free markets like USA, China and Japan. The most privatisation the better.

- Seems unnecessarily harsh on immigrants if I'm honest.
Tougher stances on immigration like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan make Britain look more prestigious, so many still want to immigrate to those countries despite the grueling process.

- Disagree with HS2 in its entirety.
Might as well catch up with the rest of the world in terms of trains and expand it across the country, there's no going back now

- We should be encouraging people to learn modern languages not moving away from it. We have a major shortage of multi-linguals in this country as it is.
We should but it shouldn't be required at S4 level. Not too sure about England but the Scottish modern languages exams are much more grueling than others with three different types of exams which take excessive time to revise for, some people aren't up for it and shouldn't be required to do it if there crap at it and can focus on maths, chemistry and such.

- Welfare plans seem extremely unrealistic and excessively harsh especially on immigrants.
We need to be tough on welfare, can't have a system in which people can just live life on benefits if they don't need to be. It's not like I'm cutting stuff for the disabled or anything.

- Begging should not to be illegal. Beggars have it bad enough as it is. They don't need the Police on their case as well.
Imagine kids in London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Nottingham just living their lives and suddenly a tramp comes at them begging for cash, happened to me and it was extremely traumatizing and individuals shouldn't put up with it. What they should do is spend their JSA wisely. It's all about sensible spending.

- Against civilian gun ownership, just look at the US... enough said.
Look at Switzerland, lots of gun ownership and no shootings. Look at the US states of Vermont and Maine, lots of gun ownership and none of these so called shooting occurred. Please don't rely on bias news stories by BBC, ITV and Sky which shows gun ownership as bad business. It should be pointed out that the Nazis banned gun ownership in Germany and look what happened. If Anne Frank and her family had the right to bear arms they might have escaped. Plus my plans require a license to own a gun meaning individuals who get them and also there would be a registry agency which gun owners would need to sign up to. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, just like they do here with knives and cars!

- Strongly against the death penalty. The state should not have the power to end someone's life like that.
I believe in the bible, and I also believe that capital punishment fits in with British culture whether you're in Hackney, Sunderland, Swansea, Truro, Brighton, Leeds or Argyll or Londonderry. The three biggest economies are USA, China and Japan. Why are they the biggest economies? I think it's God's gift to them for having capital punishment.

- Against policing what people can and can't wear. (Provided it's not dangerous or extremely offensive in some way)
France do it well. Most of these items of clothing are a symbol of female oppression. We need to fight back against it.

- The US is not a brilliant example to base your system off of when it comes to prisons. No idea why you want to copy them.
We need tougher prison sentences, especially for gang behaviour and such. Imagine if some sectarian in Glasgow which was a case of a Rangers FC supporter who was 20 brutally beat up a Celtic FC supporter who was 13, in Scotland (and probably England & Wales too) they'd likely only get 6 months, under this system the lad could get 50 years which is needed as he is a big threat to society.

There's probably one or two things I missed, but most other things I agree with/have no opinion on for whatever reason.


Happy you agree with my other policies :smile:
Original post by ScottishBrexitor
The NHS would still exist as an insurance scheme, paying all healthcare for under 18s, the disabled, the elderly, war veterans and most aspects of healthcare for adults earning less than £40,000 a year. Capitalist free markets allow competition which gives us a successful economy and you can't have a successful NHS without a successful economy, competitiveness makes everything better.


But that simply isn't true. In the energy market, 6 companies mirror each other as if they were one. And they are one. Where is the differeniation in their offering given they all buy and distribute the same raw material? Similarly with Health. How do you do health cheaper? You still have to pay the same doctors and nurses and provide a hospital. Only instead of the current system you also have to skim off a chunky profit.

I put it to you - would you have your surgery provided by the lowest bidder who was Sodexo or G4S?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending