The government and militaries first priority is to mintain our soverienty and security. Do you have a grudge against the Falklands?

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

The government and militaries first priority is to mintain our soverienty and security. Do you have a grudge against the Falklands?

All our overseas sovereignty is a wrong of history that needs putting right. That's why i'd impose independence on the falklands, Bermuda etc. etc. and then help them join the UN where they should be protected under international law. If the argentians invaded then it'd be the UN's problem not ours.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

All our overseas sovereignty is a wrong of history that needs putting right. That's why i'd impose independence on the falklands, Bermuda etc. etc. and then help them join the UN where they should be protected under international law. If the argentians invaded then it'd be the UN's problem not ours.

You might well be right in the pointing out the 'wrongs' of history viewed from our contemporary perspective, however they weren't wrong at the time, when society and the world were both very different. Surely ducking out of our overseas obligations in the way you suggest, however those obligations were acquired, is little more than passing the buck then washing our hands of our responsibilities?

Originally Posted by Midas

You might well be right in the pointing out the 'wrongs' of history viewed from our contemporary perspective, however they weren't wrong at the time, when society and the world were both very different. Surely ducking out of our overseas obligations in the way you suggest, however those obligations were acquired, is little more than passing the buck then washing our hands of our responsibilities?

The Falkland islands are more trouble than they're worth. What do you think we should do have another war over them if the Argentinians invade them again? We've got obligations to military personnel not to throw their lives away on a few poxy little islands, not to mention the taxpayer who'd have to fund it all again. I think the Falklanders and the Argentinians are just being petty and stubborn and need to grow the **** up. Plus, we wouldn't be abandoning them irresponsibly because they'd be protected by international law.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

All our overseas sovereignty is a wrong of history that needs putting right. That's why i'd impose independence on the falklands, Bermuda etc. etc. and then help them join the UN where they should be protected under international law. If the argentians invaded then it'd be the UN's problem not ours.

Oh really? So basically that's just leaving the people of the Falklands to the hands of the Argentinians? The UN is spineless organisation that's only good as a forum and solving health issues. There's no way it'll save any nation from another unless it has US backing, and I don't think the US is going to bother with the Falklands. Independence from imperial rule has 9 times out of 10 resulted in disaster, for a variety of reasons. The people of the Falklands wish to remain British, and as such they should remain part of Britain until that changes. It's just a spineless cop out to say 'the UN will handle it'.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

The Falkland islands are more trouble than they're worth. What do you think we should do have another war over them if the Argentinians invade them again? We've got obligations to military personnel not to throw their lives away on a few poxy little islands, not to mention the taxpayer who'd have to fund it all again. I think the Falklanders and the Argentinians are just being petty and stubborn and need to grow the **** up. Plus, we wouldn't be abandoning them irresponsibly because they'd be protected by international law.

Not that we should abandon UK subjects anywhere in the world but if you want to talk worth, haven't there been rumours of oil being found down there?

Originally Posted by DC

Oh really? So basically that's just leaving the people of the Falklands to the hands of the Argentinians? The UN is spineless organisation that's only good as a forum and solving health issues. There's no way it'll save any nation from another unless it has US backing, and I don't think the US is going to bother with the Falklands. Independence from imperial rule has 9 times out of 10 resulted in disaster, for a variety of reasons. The people of the Falklands wish to remain British, and as such they should remain part of Britain until that changes. It's just a spineless cop out to say 'the UN will handle it'.

i prefer to think of it as a pacifistic policy rather than spineless cop out.

Originally Posted by ryoden

Not that we should abandon UK subjects anywhere in the world but if you want to talk worth, haven't there been rumours of oil being found down there?

i wondered if that'd get mentioned. I think this country's lost enough lives as it is in pursuit of that commodity, don't you?

LAW AND ORDER
The Freedom party is
-commited to maintaining law and order in all aspects of and all areas of life in our country. To ensure this we will raise revenue through taxation to employ a strong, resourceful and determined police force.
-commited to mainting a fair legal system and to incarcerate all citizens found guilty of crimes as decided by the law courts.

The Freedom party will
-Hold an amnesty for prisoners convicted of drug offences and repeal all drug prohibiton
-Transfer all prisoners to HMP jails and terminate contracts with private sector co. inv. In jails
-restructure prison regimes and remove all prisoners’ luxuries while maintaing a good standard of civilised treatment of prisoners
-introduce legislation to increase to life without parole the following crimes-
• rape,
• any crime involving sexual behaviour with or towards a chid of any kind whatsoever
• pre-meditated murder.
-review all existing laws and repeal and/or refine any existing laws deemed unnecessarily prohibitive and/or restrictive

Originally Posted by TheMixer

i prefer to think of it as a pacifistic policy rather than spineless cop out.

A pacifist policy is where you seek to avoid conflict, and don't attack anyone. A spineless policy is where you surrender you own people or your own values to the enemy. Chamberlain had the same idea.

Originally Posted by DC

A pacifist policy is where you seek to avoid conflict, and don't attack anyone. A spineless policy is where you surrender you own people or your own values to the enemy. Chamberlain had the same idea.

W/e the policy would be enacted and if the falklanders wanted to move to the u.k they can do that. We don't need the falklands...we don't need any overseas territory. We just need a good strong national defence service to repel invaders. The sooner all nations recall there forces back to within their own boarders the better it is for everyone and after my Freedom party get's in power that's what we'd be pushing for diplomatically and we couldn't do that if we didn't recall all our forces...obviously, we'd be hypocrites.

I'll agree with you that more freedom is needed , but certainly not for the reasons you mention. It's far more likely to be through a realisation of the damage that Labour's economic, immigration, education and other policies, like the invasions of privacy and restrictions of personal freedom, have done to the fabric of our society.

ECONOMY
The Freedom party will
-ensure the national currency remains solvent
-abolish inheritance tax
-reduce income tax by 90%
-abolish V.A.T
-abolish all tax levies on fuel
-Sell in entirety the following of the nation’s assets
• NHS
• All govevernment owned stock in banks purchased by the previous and discredited socialist government
• All roads, streets, motoerways
• All land not being used for governmental purposes
• State schools
• The British broadcastin corporation
• The natural trust
• The British museam and all other government owned leisure and tourist assests
• The former estates and properties of the monarchy

notes
- The fact is that we live in a world where people do not feel compelled to make any and all sacrifice’s , even of luxuries, necessary in order to save the destitute, those suffering an epidemic of disease/s or even the starving. This selfishness in human behaviour is something other political parties have failed to exploit for the nations economic benefit. The Freedom party will not make this mistake. In the event of large scale destitution and even famine it is highly probably that most productive people will continue to remain productive. This means that we can dismantle the welfare state, in it’s entirety. The Freedom party government will then massively reduce government expenditure and consequently taxation and still have a greatly successful nation.
The potential rise in crime would be somthing of considerable concern but would not, in of itself, be a sufficient reason not to enact this policy. There would be no excuse for criminal activity and any such behaviour can and will be countered with the full force of the law. Unproductive citizen’s welfare will be left solely to charitable and philanthropic programmes.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

LAW AND ORDER
The Freedom party will
-
-introduce legislation to increase to life without parole the following crimes-
• rape,
• any crime involving sexual behaviour with or towards a child of any kind whatsoever

Would this law include concentual sex between 16+ and a pre 16 teenager? what if the adult thought the person was 16+ ( met in a night club for instance).

Originally Posted by TheMixer

ECONOMY
The Freedom party will
-ensure the national currency remains solvent
-abolish inheritance tax
-reduce income tax by 90%
-abolish V.A.T
-abolish all tax levies on fuel
-Sell in entirety the following of the nation’s assets
• NHS
• All govevernment owned stock in banks purchased by the previous and discredited socialist government
• All roads, streets, motoerways
• All land not being used for governmental purposes
• State schools
• The British broadcastin corporation
• The natural trust
• The British museam and all other government owned leisure and tourist assests
• The former estates and properties of the monarchy

This was the state of the country in the 16th, 17,th, 18th & 19th centuries and led to a two class state thows with rights, education, jobs and money Bourgeoisie and thows who had no rights, no education extremely badly paid jobs barely enough money to live on let alone pay for health and then many had to resort to crime to live.

How do you plan to fund the military with no taxes?
And with entirely privately owned roads held by people who hold all wealth and power in estates that don't get taxed' how are people going to travel and live in houses and owned shops of the own; simply remain independant from gaint corporations and no subservient to fuedal lords.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

ECONOMY
The Freedom party will
-ensure the national currency remains solvent
-abolish inheritance tax
-reduce income tax by 90%
-abolish V.A.T
-abolish all tax levies on fuel
-Sell in entirety the following of the nation’s assets
• NHS
• All govevernment owned stock in banks purchased by the previous and discredited socialist government
• All roads, streets, motoerways
• All land not being used for governmental purposes
• State schools
• The British broadcastin corporation
• The natural trust
• The British museam and all other government owned leisure and tourist assests
• The former estates and properties of the monarchy

This was the state of the country in the 16th, 17,th, 18th & 19th centuries and led to a two class state thows with rights, education, jobs and money Bourgeoisie and thows who had no rights, no education extremely badly paid jobs barely enough money to live on let alone pay for health and then many had to resort to crime to live.How do you plan to fund the military with no taxes?
And with entirely privately owned roads held by people who hold all wealth and power in estates that don't get taxed' how are people going to travel and live in houses and owned shops of the own; simply remain independant from gaint corporations and no subservient to fuedal lords.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Would this law include concentual sex between 16+ and a pre 16 teenager? what if the adult thought the person was 16+ ( met in a night club for instance).

well. the law will get refined a bit but certainly people out of the teens with under 16's will have a lot more to think about esp. with pre-teens.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

How do you plan to fund the military with no taxes?
And with entirely privately owned roads held by people who hold all wealth and power in estates that don't get taxed' how are people going to travel and live in houses and owned shops of the own; simply remain independant from gaint corporations and no subservient to fuedal lords.

Well on your first point income tax and corporation tax

Selling the rds. is going to be a bit trickier than most other things but with some imagination it can be made to work but that's a very long term plan.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

This was the state of the country in the 16th, 17,th, 18th & 19th centuries and led to a two class state thows with rights, education, jobs and money Bourgeoisie and thows who had no rights, no education extremely badly paid jobs barely enough money to live on let alone pay for health and then many had to resort to crime to live.

Boo hoo...we've got better policing now and my political party will fund them more. Plus people are gonnna have to cut back on luxuires. Plus all the advances in technology etc. since means any comparison to back then is pretty flawed argument. Truth is we don't know what would happen if a more free market economy was unleashed on the country. We could try and control it a bit so people aren't so at the mercy of big buisness or small buisness.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

Boo hoo...we've got better policing now and my political party will fund them more. Plus people are gonnna have to cut back on luxuires. Plus all the advances in technology etc. since means any comparison to back then is pretty flawed argument. Truth is we don't know what would happen if a more free market economy was unleashed on the country. We could try and control it a bit so people aren't so at the mercy of big buisness or small buisness.

It would still lead to greater disparity between rich and poor so the poor would get less of those advantages than rich and end up in extreme poverty again, it happened in Kenya when it turned capitalist.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

Well on your first point income tax and corporation tax

Selling the rds. is going to be a bit trickier than most other things but with some imagination it can be made to work but that's a very long term plan.

The tax available would only fund a small all service military making our country vunreble to attack and we wouldn't be able to respond to attacks from out site our country.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

It would still lead to greater disparity between rich and poor so the poor would get less of those advantages than rich and end up in extreme poverty again, it happened in Kenya when it turned capitalist.

well people would be working for a living that's the main thing. Anything but letting people sponge off the state. Plus it doesn't matter. Other peoples lives aren't important. If they were then all these people on the dole even though there's jobs out there don't care about the starving millions in Africa so why should we care about them. That's what I hate about the unemployed, and I know some of them would work but there's a vast # of them who just have this resentment at having to work and I'm just sick to death of it. I don't care how calous it sounds. If they can and do sponge off the dole and use that money for drink and drugs, like they do, while people are starving to death then they can damn well be left to fend for themselves and to hell with them.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

The tax available would only fund a small all service military making our country vunreble to attack and we wouldn't be able to respond to attacks from out site our country.

not if we unleash the full force of the free market on the contry. Scarp the miminum wage, lower corporation tax, encourage inward investment. All it needs, if and when we survive the loans crisis is a ruthless devotion to the free market and this country can be turned into the biggest, per capita, wealth producing factory the worlds ever know.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

The tax available would only fund a small all service military making our country vunreble to attack and we wouldn't be able to respond to attacks from out site our country.

not when you consider that there would be a massive reduction in gov. spending after privatising the schools and hospitals and dismantling the welfare state.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

not when you consider that there would be a massive reduction in gov. spending after privatising the schools and hospitals and dismantling the welfare state.

So in your dream utopia, only the rich would be able to educate their children, creating generations of adults unable to read and write? Stupid idea!

Originally Posted by TheMixer

i wondered if that'd get mentioned. I think this country's lost enough lives as it is in pursuit of that commodity, don't you?

Ah but that war was for someone elses oil, this is oil in our waters I believe, hence Argentina getting all bolshy again. I think that we should protect our own assets.

Originally Posted by ryoden

Ah but that war was for someone elses oil, this is oil in our waters I believe, hence Argentina getting all bolshy again. I think that we should protect our own assets.

Also, you know, British people.

Honestly I think this Freedom Party has lost all credibility since it intend to legalise drugs.

Originally Posted by DC

Honestly I think this Freedom Party has lost all credibility since it intend to legalise drugs.

Frankly I need the drugs to find it credible

Originally Posted by Opinionated

So in your dream utopia, only the rich would be able to educate their children, creating generations of adults unable to read and write? Stupid idea!

the idea is to increase per capita wealth for everyone so the poor would still be able to afford to educate their kids. It would all depend on what business's spring up.

Originally Posted by ryoden

Ah but that war was for someone elses oil, this is oil in our waters I believe, hence Argentina getting all bolshy again. I think that we should protect our own assets.

The other thing is. when the freedom party unleashes the full force of the free market on the nation it wouldn't be long before we turn into one of the great economic powerhouses and we'd be able to use 'soft power' to do things that are unthinkable under this stiffled mixed market economy.

Originally Posted by uncon

Frankly I need the drugs to find it credible

It's not really meant to be credible...it's meant to wreak as much havoc as possible to wreck british society so something less despicable can grow from the ashes.

CONSTITUTION ISSUES
We will abolish the monarchy. This will be done without further consultation with the British people via a referendum
We will replace the current parliamentary system with a Presidiential system of government accompanied By 2 elected houses, senior and junior, for legislatorial purposes and to grant authority to Presidential decisions. The snr. House will also act as the countries impeachment authority should impeachment proceeding be commenced against the President.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

not if we unleash the full force of the free market on the contry. Scarp the miminum wage, lower corporation tax, encourage inward investment. All it needs, if and when we survive the loans crisis is a ruthless devotion to the free market and this country can be turned into the biggest, per capita, wealth producing factory the worlds ever know.

Getting rid of theh mininum wage would create jobs that you couldn't live off, as was the case in late 19th and early 20th century as Roundtree pointed out the slums were created because people were working every hour god sent but didn't have enough to live off. It would create crime which you would blindly and sevierly punish without addressing its courses making policing more expensive and prisons enormous.

As private education would stop most people in Britian from being educate their would be a massive shortage of skill and academically trained workers which most modern British jobs depend on, as we don't have mannual labour industries anymore.
This would also increase crime as people with no hope of getting a job through lack of education would turn to crime for a living and for women it would mean prostitution, from an early age.

Encouraging inward investment without encouraging foriegn investment is totally flawed in a modern global world and would loose Britian a lot of money.

Incidentally to was this type of society Communism was meant to deal with.

Originally Posted by TheMixer

the free market and this country can be turned into the biggest, per capita, wealth producing factory the worlds ever know.

So the rich and economists could jack off over the the fusty and down jones and the financial times while the rest of society is plunged in to poverty, exploitation and opression?

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Getting rid of theh mininum wage would create jobs that you couldn't live off, as was the case in late 19th and early 20th century as Roundtree pointed out the slums were created because people were working every hour god sent but didn't have enough to live off. It would create crime which you would blindly and sevierly punish without addressing its courses making policing more expensive and prisons enormous.

As private education would stop most people in Britian from being educate their would be a massive shortage of skill and academically trained workers which most modern British jobs depend on, as we don't have mannual labour industries anymore.
This would also increase crime as people with no hope of getting a job through lack of education would turn to crime for a living and for women it would mean prostitution, from an early age.

Encouraging inward investment without encouraging foriegn investment is totally flawed in a modern global world and would loose Britian a lot of money.

Incidentally to was this type of society Communism was meant to deal with.

all of that is based on what happened centuries ago. We could do it better now in all kinds of ways.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

So the rich and economists could jack off over the the fusty and down jones and the financial times while the rest of society is plunged in to poverty, exploitation and opression?

I think your taking a very overly dramatic view of the potentiality of the free market.