Would you vote for this manifesto?

[LA]

Hello there,

So, here is a manifesto that I discovered on the interweb - I am just curious as to how many individuals would vote for it. I have included a poll

Note: No real research was done into the above rather it is a manifesto of policies we would like to see. When voting please assume this manifesto is entirely viable.

Economy
1/ Deficit: All budgets will face cuts excluding the Defence and Universities budgets which will both be increased.
2/ Deregulation: We would seek to deregulate the economy to ensure that businesses can thrive in the United Kingdom. We would make it easier for businesses to establish themselves and to expand abroad and into new sectors of the market
3/ Bank of England: We would scrap the Financial Services Authority and return the powers back to the Bank of England. We would give the Bank of England powers to review the banking industry to ensure sound practises and transparency. We would give the Bank of England the power to nationalise banks that are on the brink of bankruptcy or collapse.
4/ Commission for Fiscal Responsibility: We would establish a commission to review budgetary expenditure in the United Kingdom to ensure that sound practices are being applied. It will provide an independent audit of all government expenditure and provide vital information to parliament to hold the government to account
5/ Investments Authority: We would establish an authority with an initial budget of around £20bn to purchase shares and operate the stock markets in foreign markets to seek long term assets and investment returns. Money gained from this venture will be used to pay off debt and to pay for general infrastructure projects.
6/ Quangos: We would engage in a systematic review of Quangos with the aim of merging or withdrawing Quangos. At an estimated cost of nearly £64bn in 2006/07, this is a great place to make cuts.


Business and Taxation
1/ Taxation Allowance: We would set to increase the Taxation Allowance to £11,500 and would seek to further increase it.
2/ 10% band: We would reintroduce the ten percent tax band
3/ 30% band: We would introduce a thirty percent tax band
4/ 40% band: We would abolish the forty percent tax band
5/ 50% band: We would abolish the fifty percent tax band
6/ Inheritance Tax: We would abolish Inheritance Tax
7 Marriage: We would recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system by a transferable tax allowance.
8/ Corporation Tax: We would cut corporation tax to 15p for small companies and 20p for larger companies.
9/ Tax Delay: To assist new businesses we will temporarily delay corporation taxes for one year as well as national insurance contributions for the first 10 members of staff.
19/ Relocation and Expansion: We will assist foreign businesses with low interest loans to relocate operations to the United Kingdom. We will assist domestic businesses with low interest loans to establish a presence in foreign and emerging markets. This will be done through the establishment of a National Investment Bank.

Education
1/ Independence: We believe that individuals, charities and businesses should be able to set up and establish their own schools. This should be matched by existing schools having the ability to opt out of direct state control.
2/ Assistance: Students from poor income families that achieve a level of academic brilliance shall receive financial assistance so that they can attend private institutions and receive the best academic opportunities.
4/ Targets: We will begin removing targets placed on schools. We believe that rather than meeting targets, schools should be focusing on providing excellent education in the way they believe is best.
5/ Exam board: We believe schools should have freedom to adopt the examination board of their choice.
6/ Universities: We believe that institutions that cannot provide Bachlors, Masters and Doctorates as well as research facilities should no longer be able to classify themselves as Universities.
7/ Colleges: We believe that certain institutions should be available to people who wish to focus on one aspect of academic study. For example, colleges that merely deals in Sciences, Technology or Language.
8/ Selection: We believe in academic selection and will ensure that schools can apply what they believe is an adequate criterion for admittance into that school
9/ Grammar schools: We believe in grammar schools and would like to see at least one grammar school in every county.
10/ Age: We believe that education should be available to anyone regardless of age. That is why we believe individuals should be able to return to school at any level of study.
11/ Vouchers: We would look into the possible adoption of the Swedish voucher system whereby each child is given a voucher valued at a standard education to be used at any educational facility - state, public or private.


Defence
1/ Budget: We believe that the military budget should be increased so that we can afford the best equipment, the best resources and ensure that no military personnel need to put themselves to any financial hardship to operate within the armed forces.
2/ Nuclear Deterrent: We will abolish the trident nuclear deterrent in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent.
3/ Expeditionary: We believe that the United Kingdom should maintain an expeditionary navy
4/ Review: We will undertake a proper review of the British Armed Forces to ensure that all needs are met and that all funding required is in place
5/ Interest: We believe the armed forces should serve the interests of the United Kingdom. Use of the military should only be done so on the premise that it serves the national interest and not the interests of other countries.
6/ Projection: We believe that our armed forces should be able to project themselves at any location around the world; upon multiple fronts, without shortages or tactical issues.
7/ Diverse: We believe that our armed forces should be able to combat an increasingly diverse range of threats whether it is piracy, terrorism or unstable regions and countries. We also believe that the armed forces itself should be quite diverse in the equipment and tactics that it uses during training and operations.
8/ Spending: We would like to increase the Defence budget by 40% to ensure that all required equipment, facilities and operational tools are available to troops immediately.


Energy and Environment
1/ Sustainable: We believe in sustainable development and believe that the focus for development should focus on all forms of sustainability not just environmental. We will ensure that energy generation meets the need of the population whilst having no adverse affect on the environment.
2/ Research: We will ensure that vital research into alternative and sustainable energy sources is continued on a large scale to ensure that the United Kingdom is a world leader in the research and development of alternative energies and technology.
3/ Subsidy: We will end subsidies to any particular form of alternative energy and will instead rely on our competitive tax policies to see innovation and development. We believe low tax and tax breaks is more of an incentive than subsidies.
4/ Recycling: We wish to see much more waste recycled and will so offer companies tax incentives to engage in the recycling of waste whether independently or in cooperation. We will also look at a litter deposit scheme to reward the collection and recycling of waste/litter.
5/ Incineration: We believe that all waste that cannot be recycled should be incinerated to relieve pressure from land fill. Waste incineration will also allow for further energy production and combined with an incentivised tax system, should ensure energy companies take up the opportunity.
6/ Reliance: We do not believe a reliance of coal and gas is either desirable or sustainable. We wish to see the United Kingdom remove its reliance on imported coal and gas with a greater focus on nuclear and alternative energies.
7/ Environment: We believe that more money should be put aside for the restoration of the British Environment. We wish to ensure that all new developments are built in convergence with the environment and not built against the environment.
8/ Coastal Erosion: We believe that saving Britain’s coast lines is of vital importance and will put more money into their protection and hopefully their expansion.


Benefits and Welfare
1/ Reorganisation: We will seek to reorganisation and simplify the benefits system. We will review those on disability benefits and job seekers allowance to root out those who are given work but refuse.
2/ Refuse: Those that refuse work will lose benefits.
3/ Disability: Those with a genuine disability that prevents them working in any reasonable circumstance will remain on disability benefits. Those that have disabilities but can still work but refuse will also lose benefit.
4/ Work: Those on benefits who cannot find work due to economic circumstances will be put into community projects so that whilst they receive benefits they will gain valuable experience whilst helping the local community. This system will be operated by local councils who can utilise the human capital for projects such as land maintenance, litter picking and graffiti removal.
5/ Support: We find the current system fails those who only need a safety net. We will ensure that those who need benefits temporarily to support themselves due to illness, loss of work or other reasons receive the help they need.
6/ Contradiction: We will remove all benefits for reasons that contradict national law. Currently individuals with multiple wives can receive benefits accordingly. We will end this situation.
7/ Citizens: We believe that only citizens of the United Kingdom and the European Union are entitled to benefits. Any immigrant who cannot survive without state help will not be granted immigration into this country.
8/ Child benefit: We will merge all child benefits into an enhanced Child Benefit Payment for the first three children of any British citizen.
9/ Nursery: Whilst we wish to encourage the development of British families with at least two children, we recognise that work obligations can restrict family development. As a result, we will introduce benefit payments for nursery schools so that parents can develop a family whilst still meeting their work obligation.
10/ Marriage: We will remove the marriage penalty in the benefits system.

Health
1/ Independence: We will give hospitals freedom over their budgets. This means that hospitals can freely spend their finances in any way they see fit. We believe this is beneficial because certain hospitals in certain regions of the United Kingdom may have to deal with issues that do not affect other regional hospitals and this allows for flexibility in dealing with local issues.
2/ Independence: We believe that hospitals should be able to free themselves from the state and join independent not-for-profit organisations. We also believe that non profit organisations and businesses should be able to enter the market to offer health care. We will also support the establishment of local cooperatives in healthcare.
3/ Targets: We will abolish targets that overwhelm the health service and allow local hospitals to instead focus on patient care. We want the patients to be the judges and the patients to set the rules not central government.
4/ Point of need: We believe that the health service should be free at the point of need for all British citizens or foreign nationals who have appropriate insurance. We do not, however, believe that foreign nationals should have free access to our health service; we believe that they should pay the market rate for their healthcare.
5/ Smoking: We will abolish the smoking ban which has choked pubs of service. We will alter the law so that businesses must ensure that smoking rooms are sufficiently ventilated but are otherwise free to allow smoking within its premises. The smoking ban would; however, remain in effect in all public buildings.
6/ Voucher: Introduce health credit vouchers to allow people to opt out of the NHS if they so choose.


Constitutional Affairs
1/ Electoral Reform: We will review the issue of electoral reform with a debate and free vote within Parliament for the adoption of either the single transferable vote, the additional member system or alternative vote plus.
2/ House of Lords: We believe in the House of Lords and will maintain its unelected nature. We will also restore the Law Lords and give them a vote on legislation in the House of Lords.
3/ England: As the majority of Westminster business is spent on dealing with policies that affect England only we do not believe in the establishment of an English parliament. Rather we will merely prevent any non-English MP voting on any legislation at any stage that only affects England.
4/ Royal Prerogative: We would strip the Prime Minister of the royal prerogative powers over signing treaties and declaring war and give them to Parliament where they belong.
5/ Monarchy: We fully support the Monarchy and oppose the disestablishment of the Church. We believe that the Monarch should remain Defender of the Faith and will restore public oaths of allegiance to the Monarch and not the state.
6/ Sunset clause: We wish for the sunset clause to be introduced into all new criminal legislation.
7/ Unions: We will ensure that all political donations by Unions are approved by an overwhelming majority of members. This will stop the political donations to any party by default and would require Unions to follow the interest of their members.


Immigration and Asylum
1/ Language: We believe that all immigrants in Britain should speak English to a sufficient degree.
2/ Society: We believe that all immigrants in Britain should accept the morals and values of British society.
3/ Amnesty: We believe that an amnesty for illegal immigrants contradicts the Rule of law and such a policy will not be entertained.
4/ Citizens: We believe that only citizens of the United Kingdom should have access to free health care, education or benefits. As a result, immigrants from outside the European Union will have to pass the national citizenship test to gain free access. Non EU citizens will have to pay the market rate for education and health and will have no claim to any benefits provided by the state.
5/ Asylum: We support the right of any asylum seeker to locate in the United Kingdom in reference to international treaties governing asylum seekers. However, their claim for asylum will only be accepted if they present themselves at a UK border, declares their nationality/origin and any other information required by the border forces. Refusal to provide any information that is asked for or required will result in immediate deportation.
6/ Asylum: Any asylum seeker that comes to England from any safe country will be immediately deported back to that country.
7/ Records: We believe that records on databases should be maintained of all individuals entering and leaving the country.
8/ Free movement: We believe and stand by the free movement of peoples from countries of an equal standard of living. We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course for all future EU enlargement countries. We will also seek to establish the free movement of peoples with other countries, in compliance with EU law, who maintain a high standard of living and little; if any, relative poverty.
9/ Points based system: For all immigrants wishing to enter the United Kingdom from outside the European Union or countries with reciprocal free movement agreements, a points based system will be in place. This system will ensure that only wealthy, experienced or educated individuals settle in the United Kingdom
10/ Work permits: We believe that work permits should be expanded to ensure that businesses within the United Kingdom and temporarily import workers who meet the requirements for skills that cannot already be found in the United Kingdom. We will ensure that work permits work in the interest of business and society and that the permits are strict enough to prevent fraudulent entrance but loose enough to ensure genuine workers are admitted.


Law and Order
1/ Home: We believe home owners have every right to protect their property even at the injury of the intruder. We believe the law should allow the home owner to defend their property but not to the extent of grossly disproportionate actions.
2/ Prisons: We will expand the prisons within the United Kingdom. We believe there is a shortage of prisons and this needs rectifying. We will also establish a number of “off shore” prisons for the most dangerous prisoners.
3/ Discretion: We believe that the judiciary knows what sentence is best and will ensure that all new and old legislation reflects this.
4/ Human Rights: We will scrap the human rights act and ensure that prisoners have no claim to use any rights legislation within a court of law.
5/ Thought: We do not believe that thought, opinion, belief or speech is a crime. We will repel any law that affects individual’s rights to freedom of thought, opinion, religion and speech. We do not, however, tolerate speech that aims at causing violence.
6/ ID Cards: We will abolish ID cards.
7/ DNA Database: We will ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any innocent citizens DNA being recorded on the database. We do, however, believe that individuals alleged to have committed serious offenses remain on the database for a maximum period of a year.



Note: No real research was done into the above rather it is a manifesto of policies we would like to see. When voting please assume this manifesto is entirely viable.

[Borderscot]

I think I recognise this manifesto - from the UKIP - a former participant in AOL Message Boards. Certainly not a Conservative Party manifesto. Could be Labour because theyv are all over the place - seem to change their views from one day to another.

[LA]

I think I recognise this manifesto - from the UKIP - a former participant in AOL Message Boards. Certainly not a Conservative Party manifesto. Could be Labour because theyv are all over the place - seem to change their views from one day to another.

It is not a manifesto of any party.

[Streetwalker]

It is not a manifesto of any party.

And thats why the bloke in the street dosnt feel he is being listerned to

[LA]

And thats why the bloke in the street dosnt feel he is being listerned to

The average bloke doesn't feel listened to because the above is not a party manifesto?

[DC]

It's a good manifesto, my only issues are that the incoming and outgoing database seems a bit over the top, and that there isn't a European policy in there.

[Kiwi 1691]

Some is interesting, some is pathetic.

[DC]

Some is interesting, some is pathetic.

Which parts?

[Streetwalker]

The average bloke doesn't feel listened to because the above is not a party manifesto?

I would say so. Everyone knows what we want but none will give it to us. Why ?

[LA]

It's a good manifesto, my only issues are that the incoming and outgoing database seems a bit over the top, and that there isn't a European policy in there.

We used to have a database of all those entering and leaving. It is necessary to ensure exactly what our population is and to try and crack down on those over staying their visas.

[Kiwi 1691]

2/ House of Lords: We believe in the House of Lords and will maintain its unelected nature. We will also restore the Law Lords and give them a vote on legislation in the House of Lords.

Retaining unelected leaders, that's very democratic.

5/ Monarchy: We fully support the Monarchy and oppose the disestablishment of the Church. We believe that the Monarch should remain Defender of the Faith and will restore public oaths of allegiance to the Monarch and not the state.

"Defender of the faith"? WTH, that's raising religion far higher than it should be, and public oaths of allegiance to an unelected leader over an elected state?

2/ Society: We believe that all immigrants in Britain should accept the morals and values of British society.

Morallity is based on an individual persons beliefs, there is no such thing as "British Morals" each individual person in society has their own moral beliefs.

4/ Citizens: We believe that only citizens of the United Kingdom should have access to free health care, education or benefits.

I presume that non-citizens then exempt from taxation then? If not than that is a silly idea.

2/ Prisons: We will expand the prisons within the United Kingdom. We believe there is a shortage of prisons and this needs rectifying. We will also establish a number of “off shore” prisons for the most dangerous prisoners.

How will building more prisons make things any better?

4/ Human Rights: We will scrap the human rights act and ensure that prisoners have no claim to use any rights legislation within a court of law.

Human rights are universal.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Retaining unelected leaders, that's very democratic.

Ah, but so very British.

"Defender of the faith"? WTH, that's raising religion far higher than it should be, and public oaths of allegiance to an unelected leader over an elected state?

The UK is a traditionally and historically Christian country whose law, culture and cultural traditions are based on Judeo-Christian teachings and understandings, I for one see no reason for changing the current situation.

Morallity is based on an individual persons beliefs, there is no such thing as "British Morals" each individual person in society has their own moral beliefs.

But individual morality is informed by and indeed secondary to mainstream morality, consequentlythere probably is a thing such as "British Morals" or morality, or at least a mainstream morality.

I presume that non-citizens then exempt from taxation then? If not than that is a silly idea.

Not really such a silly idea - after all, the non-citizen is still making money through there temporary residency in the UK. Rather than seeing it as unfair to treat non-citizens differently from citizens, I find the reverse to be unfair.

How will building more prisons make things any better?

They'll keep criminals off the streets. Such a policy, though undoubtedly necessary in the short-term, needs re-examining though; many community based punishments are more effective at preventing re-offending and earlier intervention with high-risk families would also be of greater benefit to all than simply locking-up offenders.

Human rights are universal.

thats the theory anyway.

[LA]

Retaining unelected leaders, that's very democratic.

Ancient Athens wasn't democratic either but people call it the only home of direct democracy -_-
The fact is, the House of Lords is a fantastic body and we should keep it for that reason amongst others.

"Defender of the faith"? WTH, that's raising religion far higher than it should be, and public oaths of allegiance to an unelected leader over an elected state?

The Monarch should always remain defender of the faith as has always been.

Morallity is based on an individual persons beliefs, there is no such thing as "British Morals" each individual person in society has their own moral beliefs.

There are certain beliefs and morals that are universal amongst society - that isn't to say that some disagree or do not follow those morals - but that the majority respect them. One obvious example is the treatment of women in this country compared to that of others such as Middle Eastern countries - There are morals ingrained into society that everyone generally follows.

I presume that non-citizens then exempt from taxation then? If not than that is a silly idea.

Nope - The idea behind it was clearly to tackle the current issue of foreigners coming to Britain using the NHS then leaving or accessing benefits just to send them back home whilst they are working then leaving.

How will building more prisons make things any better?

We won't have a shortage of prison places -_- Though as The Untalented Mr Ripley pointed out we do need to resolve the issue because far too many people are going to prison. There should be a review into all the new criminal legislation passed by this government and we can then make a judgement as to whether or not we keep them. This should also be matched by a sunset clause to ensure that only sufficient and required criminal legislation survives in the long term.

Human rights are universal.

Maybe but they get in the way of the judicial process. The most annoying one being not able to deport illegal immigrants or immigrants that commit serious crimes because their rights may be infringed if they are sent away. Frankly, they should have thought about that before they committed the crime or entered illegally.



Kiwi, as this is a manifesto of my views you will probably find I will agree with it all 100%

[Kiwi 1691]

Ancient Athens wasn't democratic either but people call it the only home of direct democracy -_-
The fact is, the House of Lords is a fantastic body and we should keep it for that reason amongst others.

Why not go further and out law democracy LA?

The Monarch should always remain defender of the faith as has always been.

Call that ***** Liz the "defender of the faith" almost justifies religion, that is not acceptable.

There are certain beliefs and morals that are universal amongst society - that isn't to say that some disagree or do not follow those morals - but that the majority respect them. One obvious example is the treatment of women in this country compared to that of others such as Middle Eastern countries - There are morals ingrained into society that everyone generally follows.

Not, that long ago there was alot of oppression of women, so don't get so high and mighty LA.

Nope - The idea behind it was clearly to tackle the current issue of foreigners coming to Britain using the NHS then leaving or accessing benefits just to send them back home whilst they are working then leaving.

So, people who are not citizens would have to pay taxes and not be legally allowed to get anything for it?

We won't have a shortage of prison places -_- Though as The Untalented Mr Ripley pointed out we do need to resolve the issue because far too many people are going to prison. There should be a review into all the new criminal legislation passed by this government and we can then make a judgement as to whether or not we keep them. This should also be matched by a sunset clause to ensure that only sufficient and required criminal legislation survives in the long term.

Building new prisons won't fix anything though, if the govt puts money into reducing crime, then you won't need as many prisons.

Most prisoners are either illiterate or have a low level of literary, could resolving that possibly help in reducing crime. Or fund charities that actively work to reduce crime.

Kiwi, as this is a manifesto of my views you will probably find I will agree with it all 100%

Well you are a damn Tory aren't you

[LA]

Why not go further and out law democracy LA?

Because I hold the view that democracy is a balance game - Too much democracy is as bad as too little. You need to get the balance just right and I think the UK's system has the makings of the right balance we just need to disperse the power a little bit more from government; and specifically the prime minister, to parliament.

Call that ***** Liz the "defender of the faith" almost justifies religion, that is not acceptable.

The Monarchy has always been the defender of the faith and should remain as such. There is nothing problematic with organised religion, the issue comes when extremists use religion as a tool for tyranny.

Not, that long ago there was alot of oppression of women, so don't get so high and mighty LA.

I am not getting high and mighty I am merely pointing out that there is a difference in the treatment of women.

So, people who are not citizens would have to pay taxes and not be legally allowed to get anything for it?

They get the use of many services, however, I don't believe health and benefits should be included. However, upon thought I may remove education from that... Though I am not sure yet.

The issue is immigrants are granted the right to permanently settle in the United Kingdom thus they it provides a great incentive to gain citizenship. What is the point in permanently living in a country without having the citizenship? So it really isn't that much of a problem.

Building new prisons won't fix anything though, if the govt puts money into reducing crime, then you won't need as many prisons.

Most prisoners are either illiterate or have a low level of literary, could resolving that possibly help in reducing crime. Or fund charities that actively work to reduce crime.

Building new prisons will fix the current problem of prison shortages. However, as I and Mr Ripley have pointed out, we of course need to address the root cause. If this requires putting them into education or other rehabilitation then so be it.

Well you are a damn Tory aren't you

Indeed.

[JacquesMagique]

Economy
1/ Deficit: All budgets will face cuts excluding the Defence and Universities budgets which will both be increased.

I'm not sure any ringfencing is viable, particularly defence (trident?)

2/ Deregulation: We would seek to deregulate the economy to ensure that businesses can thrive in the United Kingdom. We would make it easier for businesses to establish themselves and to expand abroad and into new sectors of the market

yep

3/ Bank of England: We would scrap the Financial Services Authority and return the powers back to the Bank of England. We would give the Bank of England powers to review the banking industry to ensure sound practises and transparency. We would give the Bank of England the power to nationalise banks that are on the brink of bankruptcy or collapse.

Why?

5/ Investments Authority: We would establish an authority with an initial budget of around £20bn to purchase shares and operate the stock markets in foreign markets to seek long term assets and investment returns. Money gained from this venture will be used to pay off debt and to pay for general infrastructure projects.

If this went wrong then the political impact could be horrific. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with government playing this particular role in the economy.

6/ Quangos: We would engage in a systematic review of Quangos with the aim of merging or withdrawing Quangos. At an estimated cost of nearly £64bn in 2006/07, this is a great place to make cuts.

Reasonable if done at a sensible pace to allow the private sector to adjust to the necessary redundancies and market gaps which would emerge.

Business and Taxation
1/ Taxation Allowance: We would set to increase the Taxation Allowance to £11,500 and would seek to further increase it.
2/ 10% band: We would reintroduce the ten percent tax band
3/ 30% band: We would introduce a thirty percent tax band
4/ 40% band: We would abolish the forty percent tax band
5/ 50% band: We would abolish the fifty percent tax band

Allowance yes, the 50 should definitely go, not sure about the rest.

6/ Inheritance Tax: We would abolish Inheritance Tax

Undecided.

7 Marriage: We would recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system by a transferable tax allowance.

No. As an individual I shouldn't have to pay more tax to subsidize married couples. This reeks of social engineering and also risks penalising single parents.
I would add that i agree with the need to remove the couple penalty in the benefits system.

8/ Corporation Tax: We would cut corporation tax to 15p for small companies and 20p for larger companies.

Yes

9/ Tax Delay: To assist new businesses we will temporarily delay corporation taxes for one year as well as national insurance contributions for the first 10 members of staff.

Maybe.

19/ Relocation and Expansion: We will assist foreign businesses with low interest loans to relocate operations to the United Kingdom. We will assist domestic businesses with low interest loans to establish a presence in foreign and emerging markets. This will be done through the establishment of a National Investment Bank.

Again, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this kind of intervention.

Education
1/ Independence: We believe that individuals, charities and businesses should be able to set up and establish their own schools. This should be matched by existing schools having the ability to opt out of direct state control.

Undecided. I'm not sure information and education should be commodities.

2/ Assistance: Students from poor income families that achieve a level of academic brilliance shall receive financial assistance so that they can attend private institutions and receive the best academic opportunities.

Maybe

4/ Targets: We will begin removing targets placed on schools. We believe that rather than meeting targets, schools should be focusing on providing excellent education in the way they believe is best.
5/ Exam board: We believe schools should have freedom to adopt the examination board of their choice.
6/ Universities: We believe that institutions that cannot provide Bachlors, Masters and Doctorates as well as research facilities should no longer be able to classify themselves as Universities.
7/ Colleges: We believe that certain institutions should be available to people who wish to focus on one aspect of academic study. For example, colleges that merely deals in Sciences, Technology or Language.

4Xyes

8/ Selection: We believe in academic selection and will ensure that schools can apply what they believe is an adequate criterion for admittance into that school

For every institution???

9/ Grammar schools: We believe in grammar schools and would like to see at least one grammar school in every county.
10/ Age: We believe that education should be available to anyone regardless of age. That is why we believe individuals should be able to return to school at any level of study.

Both seem generally reasonable.

11/ Vouchers: We would look into the possible adoption of the Swedish voucher system whereby each child is given a voucher valued at a standard education to be used at any educational facility - state, public or private.

I'm undecided on the benefits of the voucher concept.

Energy and Environment
1/ Sustainable: We believe in sustainable development and believe that the focus for development should focus on all forms of sustainability not just environmental. We will ensure that energy generation meets the need of the population whilst having no adverse affect on the environment.
2/ Research: We will ensure that vital research into alternative and sustainable energy sources is continued on a large scale to ensure that the United Kingdom is a world leader in the research and development of alternative energies and technology.
3/ Subsidy: We will end subsidies to any particular form of alternative energy and will instead rely on our competitive tax policies to see innovation and development. We believe low tax and tax breaks is more of an incentive than subsidies.
4/ Recycling: We wish to see much more waste recycled and will so offer companies tax incentives to engage in the recycling of waste whether independently or in cooperation. We will also look at a litter deposit scheme to reward the collection and recycling of waste/litter.
5/ Incineration: We believe that all waste that cannot be recycled should be incinerated to relieve pressure from land fill. Waste incineration will also allow for further energy production and combined with an incentivised tax system, should ensure energy companies take up the opportunity.
6/ Reliance: We do not believe a reliance of coal and gas is either desirable or sustainable. We wish to see the United Kingdom remove its reliance on imported coal and gas with a greater focus on nuclear and alternative energies.
7/ Environment: We believe that more money should be put aside for the restoration of the British Environment. We wish to ensure that all new developments are built in convergence with the environment and not built against the environment.
8/ Coastal Erosion: We believe that saving Britain’s coast lines is of vital importance and will put more money into their protection and hopefully their expansion.

Generally agree

Benefits and Welfare
1/ Reorganisation: We will seek to reorganisation and simplify the benefits system. We will review those on disability benefits and job seekers allowance to root out those who are given work but refuse.
2/ Refuse: Those that refuse work will lose benefits.
3/ Disability: Those with a genuine disability that prevents them working in any reasonable circumstance will remain on disability benefits. Those that have disabilities but can still work but refuse will also lose benefit.
4/ Work: Those on benefits who cannot find work due to economic circumstances will be put into community projects so that whilst they receive benefits they will gain valuable experience whilst helping the local community. This system will be operated by local councils who can utilise the human capital for projects such as land maintenance, litter picking and graffiti removal.
5/ Support: We find the current system fails those who only need a safety net. We will ensure that those who need benefits temporarily to support themselves due to illness, loss of work or other reasons receive the help they need.
6/ Contradiction: We will remove all benefits for reasons that contradict national law. Currently individuals with multiple wives can receive benefits accordingly. We will end this situation.
7/ Citizens: We believe that only citizens of the United Kingdom and the European Union are entitled to benefits. Any immigrant who cannot survive without state help will not be granted immigration into this country.
8/ Child benefit: We will merge all child benefits into an enhanced Child Benefit Payment for the first three children of any British citizen.
9/ Nursery: Whilst we wish to encourage the development of British families with at least two children, we recognise that work obligations can restrict family development. As a result, we will introduce benefit payments for nursery schools so that parents can develop a family whilst still meeting their work obligation.
10/ Marriage: We will remove the marriage penalty in the benefits system.

Again generally agree.

Health
1/ Independence: We will give hospitals freedom over their budgets. This means that hospitals can freely spend their finances in any way they see fit. We believe this is beneficial because certain hospitals in certain regions of the United Kingdom may have to deal with issues that do not affect other regional hospitals and this allows for flexibility in dealing with local issues.
2/ Independence: We believe that hospitals should be able to free themselves from the state and join independent not-for-profit organisations. We also believe that non profit organisations and businesses should be able to enter the market to offer health care. We will also support the establishment of local cooperatives in healthcare.
3/ Targets: We will abolish targets that overwhelm the health service and allow local hospitals to instead focus on patient care. We want the patients to be the judges and the patients to set the rules not central government.
4/ Point of need: We believe that the health service should be free at the point of need for all British citizens or foreign nationals who have appropriate insurance. We do not, however, believe that foreign nationals should have free access to our health service; we believe that they should pay the market rate for their healthcare.

All reasonable.

5/ Smoking: We will abolish the smoking ban which has choked pubs of service. We will alter the law so that businesses must ensure that smoking rooms are sufficiently ventilated but are otherwise free to allow smoking within its premises. The smoking ban would; however, remain in effect in all public buildings.

My personal approach to this would be to allow pubs to have unmanned smoking rooms.

6/ Voucher: Introduce health credit vouchers to allow people to opt out of the NHS if they so choose.

Not an idea I had heard of before. An interesting one nonetheless.

Constitutional Affairs
1/ Electoral Reform: We will review the issue of electoral reform with a debate and free vote within Parliament for the adoption of either the single transferable vote, the additional member system or alternative vote plus.

Yes

2/ House of Lords: We believe in the House of Lords and will maintain its unelected nature. We will also restore the Law Lords and give them a vote on legislation in the House of Lords.

Undecided. What do you think about hereditary peers?

3/ England: As the majority of Westminster business is spent on dealing with policies that affect England only we do not believe in the establishment of an English parliament. Rather we will merely prevent any non-English MP voting on any legislation at any stage that only affects England.

4/ Royal Prerogative: We would strip the Prime Minister of the royal prerogative powers over signing treaties and declaring war and give them to Parliament where they belong.[/quote]Yes.

5/ Monarchy: We fully support the Monarchy and oppose the disestablishment of the Church. We believe that the Monarch should remain Defender of the Faith and will restore public oaths of allegiance to the Monarch and not the state.

I disagree, probably not the best place to go into this though.

6/ Sunset clause: We wish for the sunset clause to be introduced into all new criminal legislation.
7/ Unions: We will ensure that all political donations by Unions are approved by an overwhelming majority of members. This will stop the political donations to any party by default and would require Unions to follow the interest of their members.

Yes

Immigration and Asylum
1/ Language: We believe that all immigrants in Britain should speak English to a sufficient degree.

Even wealthy businesspeople?

2/ Society: We believe that all immigrants in Britain should accept the morals and values of British society.

Depends on your understanding of "accept".

3/ Amnesty: We believe that an amnesty for illegal immigrants contradicts the Rule of law and such a policy will not be entertained.
4/ Citizens: We believe that only citizens of the United Kingdom should have access to free health care, education or benefits. As a result, immigrants from outside the European Union will have to pass the national citizenship test to gain free access. Non EU citizens will have to pay the market rate for education and health and will have no claim to any benefits provided by the state.

Both maybes

5/ Asylum: We support the right of any asylum seeker to locate in the United Kingdom in reference to international treaties governing asylum seekers. However, their claim for asylum will only be accepted if they present themselves at a UK border, declares their nationality/origin and any other information required by the border forces. Refusal to provide any information that is asked for or required will result in immediate deportation.
6/ Asylum: Any asylum seeker that comes to England from any safe country will be immediately deported back to that country.
7/ Records: We believe that records on databases should be maintained of all individuals entering and leaving the country.

All reasonable

8/ Free movement: We believe and stand by the free movement of peoples from countries of an equal standard of living. We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course for all future EU enlargement countries. We will also seek to establish the free movement of peoples with other countries, in compliance with EU law, who maintain a high standard of living and little; if any, relative poverty.

Not something I was expecting; generally agree.

9/ Points based system: For all immigrants wishing to enter the United Kingdom from outside the European Union or countries with reciprocal free movement agreements, a points based system will be in place. This system will ensure that only wealthy, experienced or educated individuals settle in the United Kingdom

Low-skill low-wage migrant workers are amongst the most important members of our economy.

10/ Work permits: We believe that work permits should be expanded to ensure that businesses within the United Kingdom and temporarily import workers who meet the requirements for skills that cannot already be found in the United Kingdom. We will ensure that work permits work in the interest of business and society and that the permits are strict enough to prevent fraudulent entrance but loose enough to ensure genuine workers are admitted.

Not sure I agree about having to look for skills in the UK.

Law and Order
1/ Home: We believe home owners have every right to protect their property even at the injury of the intruder. We believe the law should allow the home owner to defend their property but not to the extent of grossly disproportionate actions.

Proportionality is key. That guy who chased his intruders and beat them up with a cricket bat I have little sympathy with.

2/ Prisons: We will expand the prisons within the United Kingdom. We believe there is a shortage of prisons and this needs rectifying. We will also establish a number of “off shore” prisons for the most dangerous prisoners.
3/ Discretion: We believe that the judiciary knows what sentence is best and will ensure that all new and old legislation reflects this.

Yes

4/ Human Rights: We will scrap the human rights act and ensure that prisoners have no claim to use any rights legislation within a court of law.

No!

5/ Thought: We do not believe that thought, opinion, belief or speech is a crime. We will repel any law that affects individual’s rights to freedom of thought, opinion, religion and speech. We do not, however, tolerate speech that aims at causing violence.
6/ ID Cards: We will abolish ID cards.
7/ DNA Database: We will ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any innocent citizens DNA being recorded on the database. We do, however, believe that individuals alleged to have committed serious offenses remain on the database for a maximum period of a year.

Yes.

[LA]

Before I comment, I will assume that all yeps and yes' mean you agree.

I'm not sure any ringfencing is viable, particularly defence (trident?)

Defence is currently at £34bn a year. The French Government spends more on defence than we do and yet our military is much more active. We must increase military expenditure.

Why?

Because the Financial Services Authority has failed and its powers should be returned to the Bank of England.

If this went wrong then the political impact could be horrific. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with government playing this particular role in the economy.

The Government wouldn't run it directly.
It can be very successful as Qatar proves. If I am not mistaken, they gain 60bn from this scheme.

Reasonable if done at a sensible pace to allow the private sector to adjust to the necessary redundancies and market gaps which would emerge.

Of course. You couldn't do this quickly, you need to ensure that everyone knows what is happening when the quango is removed. It would take years to resolve this quangocracy.

Allowance yes, the 50 should definitely go, not sure about the rest.

I believe that paying 40% of your income in taxation is ridiculous. Naturally such a policy could only be undertaken if there is sufficient revenue to allow it. If not, you would have to wait until it can be done.

Undecided.

I don't see why successful parents should be punished for passing something onto their children. Though the government denies it, many not so wealthy families are impacted by this because they own a home which has gained considerable value.

Naturally; due to revenue, you would probably have to phase this in.

No. As an individual I shouldn't have to pay more tax to subsidize married couples. This reeks of social engineering and also risks penalising single parents.
I would add that i agree with the need to remove the couple penalty in the benefits system.

Currently our tax and benefits system penalises married couples - We should remove this. However, and I admit, this policy goes a somewhat beyond the penalty into a bonus.

Maybe.

We need to ensure that Britain is a country that actively encourages entrepreneurship and business. This will help individuals establish their business before they are burdened with paying tax. During the first few years, a business doesn't aim to make a profit, you aim to survive. By delaying taxation, we can help that survival happen.

Again, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this kind of intervention.

Many many countries; including those that deem themselves free market, currently assist businesses in this kind of manner. Germany has a rather large investment bank and as we know, Germany has a huge manufacturing base whereas Britain has very little manufacturing.

Through these sorts of policies, we can enlarge the manufacturing industries in Britain. This solves the issue of being reliant on finance as well as resolving unemployment issues in the North of England, Wales and Scotland.

Undecided. I'm not sure information and education should be commodities.

If people wish to pay for education that should be their right. However, that doesn't mean the state shouldn't improve state schools and the facilities such as libraries and museums.

Maybe

Some private schools have a reputation for brilliance - We believe that even poor students should have the right to attend them - Equality of opportunity.

4Xyes

For every institution???

A school with brilliant facilities and teachers (etc) will have much higher selection criteria than a school with basic facilities and reasonable teachers (etc).
Those students that are not bright academically (poor at academic study) shouldn't attend academic schools, rather they should attend vocational schools.

My personal approach to this would be to allow pubs to have unmanned smoking rooms.

But then their is the issue of the staff working there amongst other things... I also recall; before the ban, pubs and organisations representing pubs agreed that they would be willing to create ventilated rooms for smoking.

Not an idea I had heard of before. An interesting one nonetheless.

The reason behind this is because the NHS does have an issue with ensuring people get surgery or consultation quick enough. This policy allows people to get their treatment through a different organisation.

It releases pressure off of the NHS.

Yes

Upon further reading, I am not too sure about AV+...

Undecided. What do you think about hereditary peers?

I personally believe the House of Lords is a fantastic institution and one that we should preserve. It provides adequate checks and balances on the Government, as well as publishing tonnes of reports on various issues such as the economics of climate change or the true costs of immigration.

In regards to the hereditary peers I am not sure - Though I have concerns over these people making laws, in my support of a monarch, it is clear I have no issue with the hereditary principle. However, I would probably remove them.

I disagree, probably not the best place to go into this though.

Well, this is a policy that doesn't actually impact anything it is more nostalgic than anything else.

Even wealthy businesspeople?

If they wish to emigrate to the United Kingdom they must either speak English to sufficient degree or be willing to high a translator at their cost.

Depends on your understanding of "accept".

In some cases respect, in others abide by.

Both maybes

I don't believe illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because it is a contradiction to the rule of law. Those illegal immigrants who enter illegally should be deported and those that overstay their visa should be deported - both with bans in place on entering again for a determined period of time.

Not something I was expecting; generally agree.

You weren't expecting it?

Remember immigration between Britain and wealthy European countries like Germany is quite balanced thus there is no real problem. The complication comes about when you try and apply it with EU law in mind.

Low-skill low-wage migrant workers are amongst the most important members of our economy.

Work permits. You should always have a flexible system of work permits to ensure that business can bring in workers when required. You could also create a system whereby consistent workers (i.e. those that continually renew their permit to work) are eventually offered permanent residency.

Proportionality is key. That guy who chased his intruders and beat them up with a cricket bat I have little sympathy with.

I will give you two examples. Someone breaks into my home and I stab them in the knee or lock them in a closet for a few hours until the police arrive, or maybe knock them out. That should be acceptable.

If I didn't act on impulse, but rather hunted them down and beat them... that is very different.

No!

Again, the courts would have greater discretion so could apply the most appropriate sentence.




Jacques, I must admit, you seem to agree with quite a lot of this - I am somewhat surprised. From memory, you always seemed to be lefty/liberal. Out of curiosity, how did you vote in the poll?

[Citizen Smith]

.......Yuck

[JacquesMagique]

Because the Financial Services Authority has failed and its powers should be returned to the Bank of England.

But why would the BoE do a better job?

The Government wouldn't run it directly.
It can be very successful as Qatar proves. If I am not mistaken, they gain 60bn from this scheme.

I can see why it is an attractive idea but i don't really think it is the state's place to tax people money for this kind of investment.

I don't see why successful parents should be punished for passing something onto their children. Though the government denies it, many not so wealthy families are impacted by this because they own a home which has gained considerable value.

I'm not sure, 2 sides of my conscience are at play here, liberty versus equality of opportunity. It's a little like my attitude towards private schooling.

Currently our tax and benefits system penalises married couples - We should remove this. However, and I admit, this policy goes a somewhat beyond the penalty into a bonus.

Exactly, it should be removed, the tax system should recognize people simply as individuals.

Many many countries; including those that deem themselves free market, currently assist businesses in this kind of manner. Germany has a rather large investment bank and as we know, Germany has a huge manufacturing base whereas Britain has very little manufacturing.

Through these sorts of policies, we can enlarge the manufacturing industries in Britain. This solves the issue of being reliant on finance as well as resolving unemployment issues in the North of England, Wales and Scotland.

I'm not somebody whom the idea of "rebuilding the manufacturing base" appeals to. I consider the transition to an economy based largely around services, media, research and retail to be development.

If people wish to pay for education that should be their right. However, that doesn't mean the state shouldn't improve state schools and the facilities such as libraries and museums.

Some private schools have a reputation for brilliance - We believe that even poor students should have the right to attend them - Equality of opportunity.

See Above. Also it's not really equality of opportunity if it's only for a handpicked few.

A school with brilliant facilities and teachers (etc) will have much higher selection criteria than a school with basic facilities and reasonable teachers (etc).
Those students that are not bright academically (poor at academic study) shouldn't attend academic schools, rather they should attend vocational schools.

But that basically condemns less able students to a poor learning environment.

But then their is the issue of the staff working there amongst other things... I also recall; before the ban, pubs and organisations representing pubs agreed that they would be willing to create ventilated rooms for smoking.

I don't know exactly what you mean about the 'issue of staff working there' but I think they should be unmanned because noone should have to face poisonous smoke in the workplace.

Well, this is a policy that doesn't actually impact anything it is more nostalgic than anything else.

I meant I generally disagree with support of the monarch.

If they wish to emigrate to the United Kingdom they must either speak English to sufficient degree or be willing to high a translator at their cost.

I'm not sure I agree. If I do then it is for practical rather than cultural reasons.

In some cases respect, in others abide by.

How do you enforce respect?
Well they should have to abide by laws, but otherwise I'm not entirely sure how they should be forced to abide by a set of morals ad values which change so constantly and vary so wildly depending on the individual.

You weren't expecting it?

See the very bottom of this post.

Work permits. You should always have a flexible system of work permits to ensure that business can bring in workers when required. You could also create a system whereby consistent workers (i.e. those that continually renew their permit to work) are eventually offered permanent residency.

I'm not a big fan of any controls on immigration but this seems to be among the most reasonable.

I will give you two examples. Someone breaks into my home and I stab them in the knee or lock them in a closet for a few hours until the police arrive, or maybe knock them out. That should be acceptable.

If I didn't act on impulse, but rather hunted them down and beat them... that is very different.

It's a difficult issue. For instance, imagine you come across an intruder and in a moment of shock and fear beat them to death. Is that disproportionate? It's a very complex legal issue which I'm not really sure I'm able to understand well enough to comment on.

Again, the courts would have greater discretion so could apply the most appropriate sentence.

But a right is a right, I feel they should be universal and inaliable. I'm not sure I understand your original point fully.

Jacques, I must admit, you seem to agree with quite a lot of this - I am somewhat surprised. From memory, you always seemed to be lefty/liberal.

My views are generally in a state of flux, the most consistently applicable term would probably be 'liberal' (in the British sense). I don't have particularly strong views about economics and how the means of production could be organised, so my views do tend to waver between being libertarian and being marxist. My strongest views tend to revolve around my hostility towards the concepts of nationality and nationalism (hence my opposition to most forms of immigration control, the monarchy, protectionism etc., and my support for supranational cooperation and globalization). In terms of civil liberties I'm very much in favour of decriminalisation of drug use and prostitution, both of which often put me at odds with both left and right.

Out of curiosity, how did you vote in the poll?

I voted No - I dislike certain policies in major areas of concern. Admittedly this was before I read the whole thing, so may have been somewhat preemptive.

I'm very strongly against some of the proposals such as the marriage in the tax system and your attitude towards human rights. Having said that the whole post is a lot more liberal than I would expect from you.. I was particularly surprised not to see a huge paragraph of anti-EU stuff.

[LA]

But why would the BoE do a better job?

It did it before the financial services authority so why not return it.

I can see why it is an attractive idea but i don't really think it is the state's place to tax people money for this kind of investment.

However, the returns can be great. You can use it to pay for infrastructure projects without taking in debt or you can pay off debt.

Exactly, it should be removed, the tax system should recognize people simply as individuals.

It doesn't recognise marriage equally. It works against marriage. Call it social engineering but I believe we should reward commitment.

I'm not somebody whom the idea of "rebuilding the manufacturing base" appeals to. I consider the transition to an economy based largely around services, media, research and retail to be development.

Okay then, consider it a policy to assist the diversification of business into other areas of the economy to ensure that we are no longer dependent upon the financial sector.

See Above. Also it's not really equality of opportunity if it's only for a handpicked few.

Give everyone the same opportunity. If they fail to reach the required level then they will have to choose another path.

But that basically condemns less able students to a poor learning environment.

It provides less able students to a learning environment best suited to their abilities.

I don't know exactly what you mean about the 'issue of staff working there' but I think they should be unmanned because noone should have to face poisonous smoke in the workplace.

How would you have an unmanned pub? It wouldn't be right even if plausible.

I'm not sure I agree. If I do then it is for practical rather than cultural reasons.

It is a very practical reason. If you move to a country with a language different to your own you will face problems - You need to speak the language if you intend to live there.

It's a difficult issue. For instance, imagine you come across an intruder and in a moment of shock and fear beat them to death. Is that disproportionate? It's a very complex legal issue which I'm not really sure I'm able to understand well enough to comment on.

In my view, assuming they reacted on impulse they shouldn't be jailed. However, due to the complex nature of law, this is why I prefer the courts to have discretion as they understand the law whereas politicians and ordinary folk are more unlikely to.

But a right is a right, I feel they should be universal and inalienable. I'm not sure I understand your original point fully.

The problem with the human rights act and certain rights contained within is it gives criminals a piece of legislation which to prevent certain punishments. Now, I am not suggesting that we void all rights, of course they should have the rights; whilst in the United Kingdom, to be free from torture, death etc, however, the other rights should not impact the courts ability to deport them or pass other sentences.

My views are generally in a state of flux, the most consistently applicable term would probably be 'liberal' (in the British sense). I don't have particularly strong views about economics and how the means of production could be organised, so my views do tend to waver between being libertarian and being Marxist. My strongest views tend to revolve around my hostility towards the concepts of nationality and nationalism (hence my opposition to most forms of immigration control, the monarchy, protectionism etc., and my support for supranational cooperation and globalization). In terms of civil liberties I'm very much in favour of decriminalisation of drug use and prostitution, both of which often put me at odds with both left and right.

That is very odd. Hmm maybe your views will stabilise. Do you know why your views change so radically? I know that my views change slowly and usually due to learning more about it or considering alternatives. The European Union being the absolute prime example - First hostile, then learnt more and became more pro EU (though still considered Eurosceptic).

I'm very strongly against some of the proposals such as the marriage in the tax system and your attitude towards human rights. Having said that the whole post is a lot more liberal than I would expect from you.. I was particularly surprised not to see a huge paragraph of anti-EU stuff.

Yes, I will agree that in regards to certain views, I can be considerably conservative such as with religion or marriage. In regards to human rights I would like to clarify that I am a believer in rights and human rights, however, I do not believe convicted criminals should have the same rights - There rights should be somewhat diminished to ensure adequate punishment.

A lot more liberal? Wow that is not a label I am ever called -_-

Yes, I ignored the EU and foreign policy because my views; as stated above, aren't that stable. Certain views I held on the EU are out dated, with the prime example being CAP. What I knew about CAP was severely out dated (by at least 7 years) and I blame the media for that. However, since I learnt more about CAP I am not hostile to it really... Maybe because I agree with the eurocrats or because I am trying to build a career in politics I don't know However, I would still consider myself Eurosceptic.

[JacquesMagique]

However, the returns can be great. You can use it to pay for infrastructure projects without taking in debt or you can pay off debt.

I'm not denying that, but I still don't think it's an appropriate use of tax.

It doesn't recognise marriage equally. It works against marriage. Call it social engineering but I believe we should reward commitment.

It shouldn't work against marriage, but nor should it reward it. I don't consider it the state's place to decide whether people should be committed or not. Furthermore, single parents, those who are most likely to struggle financially should not be penalised.

Okay then, consider it a policy to assist the diversification of business into other areas of the economy to ensure that we are no longer dependent upon the financial sector.

Better, but I'm still not sure I agree with it.

How would you have an unmanned pub? It wouldn't be right even if plausible.

I meant just an unmanned smoking room, but I guess there would still be security issues.

It is a very practical reason. If you move to a country with a language different to your own you will face problems - You need to speak the language if you intend to live there.

But if it was considered that much of a problem then people would feel the need to learn English before they got here. So few expats learn the language of the country which they move to, so this is not a policy which I am sold on at all.

That is very odd. Hmm maybe your views will stabilise. Do you know why your views change so radically? I know that my views change slowly and usually due to learning more about it or considering alternatives. The European Union being the absolute prime example - First hostile, then learnt more and became more pro EU (though still considered Eurosceptic).

It's not so much that they change a lot, it's that I keep an open mind. There is a lot of conflicting evidence which paints very different pictures.
On the other hand, those issues which I feel most strongly about are more moralistic and as such It would take a huge change in my perception of life and the world lot for me to look at them in a different way.

[LA]

It shouldn't work against marriage, but nor should it reward it. I don't consider it the state's place to decide whether people should be committed or not. Furthermore, single parents, those who are most likely to struggle financially should not be penalised.

It doesn't penalise any group it merely recognises marriage in the tax system which almost every country does. Single parents need help (sometimes) to look after their child(ren) and though I haven't mentioned it, I support UKIP policy in this area. All child benefits should be merged into one enhanced benefit for the first three children someone has.

But if it was considered that much of a problem then people would feel the need to learn English before they got here. So few expats learn the language of the country which they move to, so this is not a policy which I am sold on at all.

There is a slight difference, however, most expats go to countries where English is widely spoken by the populace so there are no difficulties in the same way as someone coming here.

It's not so much that they change a lot, it's that I keep an open mind. There is a lot of conflicting evidence which paints very different pictures.
On the other hand, those issues which I feel most strongly about are more moralistic and as such It would take a huge change in my perception of life and the world lot for me to look at them in a different way.

Interesting.
Taking a moralistic approach may seem the most pleasing, however, it may not be the most practical.