It is vital to restore an honest and high standard educational system;Present levels of aspiration are deplorable and offend hte civil rights of every child in the public sector.selective schools for academic children ,technical(practiacal skills-based schools), properly equipped(old secondary moderns were not) with apprenticeships to follow,business-orientated schools.Appropriate worthwhile qualifications as valued by employers.Education policy has not been thought through for decades and is now chaotic and most foreigners receive a far better education. Parents should insist on these rights.
Why is this idea important?
It is vital to restore an honest and high standard educational system;Present levels of aspiration are deplorable and offend hte civil rights of every child in the public sector.selective schools for academic children ,technical(practiacal skills-based schools), properly equipped(old secondary moderns were not) with apprenticeships to follow,business-orientated schools.Appropriate worthwhile qualifications as valued by employers.Education policy has not been thought through for decades and is now chaotic and most foreigners receive a far better education. Parents should insist on these rights.
We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.
Why is this idea important?
We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.
We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.
Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.
This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK"
And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.
The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!
STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!
Why is this idea important?
We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.
Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.
This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK"
And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.
The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!
STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!
Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:
-
Infringement upon another person or company
-
Infringement upon another person or company's land
-
Infringement upon another person or company's property
-
Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)
Why is this idea important?
Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:
-
Infringement upon another person or company
-
Infringement upon another person or company's land
-
Infringement upon another person or company's property
-
Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)
I believe that an anomally exists within community groups and projects whereby members do not have to acknowledge their allegiance to a political party as a card carrying member. Also those that are involved with secretive organisations such as the Masonic Lodge and Opus Dei should declare their involvement as well as agencies of Government and Organisations declaring an interest as their agenda could be contrary to a Community's wishes., as acknowledgement of thes would be done in Government itself.
Why is this idea important?
I believe that an anomally exists within community groups and projects whereby members do not have to acknowledge their allegiance to a political party as a card carrying member. Also those that are involved with secretive organisations such as the Masonic Lodge and Opus Dei should declare their involvement as well as agencies of Government and Organisations declaring an interest as their agenda could be contrary to a Community's wishes., as acknowledgement of thes would be done in Government itself.
Parliamentary Privilege should be scrapped.
Laws must apply equally to everyone, there can be no exceptions especially those who make the laws in the first place.
Why is this idea important?
Parliamentary Privilege should be scrapped.
Laws must apply equally to everyone, there can be no exceptions especially those who make the laws in the first place.
During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling. The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.
Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.
In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going? Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy? When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind.
Why is this idea important?
During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling. The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.
Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.
In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going? Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy? When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind.
To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.
To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)
every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….
he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.
and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %
The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….
and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)
Why is this idea important?
To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.
To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)
every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….
he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.
and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %
The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….
and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)
If a law is passed it should be arequirement to abolish a law or regulation as well to help keep the statute book clean and defined in size and scope. No legal clutter to allow lawyer exploitation.
Why is this idea important?
If a law is passed it should be arequirement to abolish a law or regulation as well to help keep the statute book clean and defined in size and scope. No legal clutter to allow lawyer exploitation.
Legislation in its formative stages should be capable of being initiated by bodies other than political parties with political agendas and biases. It is perverse to assume that only one set of standards and rights are to be allowed to initiate laws and regulations that affect everyone.
Why is this idea important?
Legislation in its formative stages should be capable of being initiated by bodies other than political parties with political agendas and biases. It is perverse to assume that only one set of standards and rights are to be allowed to initiate laws and regulations that affect everyone.
Forget 5 yr terms. Allow me to have a withdrawable/retractable vote.
if i vote for a party, and say…for example they make some deal with a party i despise. i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
if they take us to war, i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
If they destroy my liberties i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
Once enough votes have been retracted that the party no longer has a majority, then a new election is called.
If parties knew that your vote was not permanent then they would actually serve the people first and foremost.
Why is this idea important?
Forget 5 yr terms. Allow me to have a withdrawable/retractable vote.
if i vote for a party, and say…for example they make some deal with a party i despise. i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
if they take us to war, i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
If they destroy my liberties i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.
Once enough votes have been retracted that the party no longer has a majority, then a new election is called.
If parties knew that your vote was not permanent then they would actually serve the people first and foremost.
In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments
The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.
We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.
What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too? It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost.
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.
Why is this idea important?
In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments
The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.
We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.
What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too? It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost.
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.
We don't need it anymore, and it's starting to encroach on our TV viewing.
Why is this idea important?
We don't need it anymore, and it's starting to encroach on our TV viewing.
No political party should receive funding donations in excess of £50 from any individual or organisation. Parties could be funded by a grant from the state, based on the number of MPs they had in the last parliament and by charging (reasonable) membership subscriptions.
We should all have an equal right and fair chance to be elected.
Why is this idea important?
No political party should receive funding donations in excess of £50 from any individual or organisation. Parties could be funded by a grant from the state, based on the number of MPs they had in the last parliament and by charging (reasonable) membership subscriptions.
We should all have an equal right and fair chance to be elected.
The EU is very unpopular in this country, the Country was denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and it is time the issue was addressed.
The Libdems in opposition would not agree to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, despite previous assurances, but instead said they would agree to a referendum on the EU with regard to our membership.
It is time for us to explore our place in the EU, it is a failing organisation, it currency has failed and many of its institutions are undemocratic.
Its accounts have not passed an audit for many years.
We should negotiate for Associate Membership, this would keep us in a European trade market but without being involved with the EU politically.
The cost saving for the UK would be huge, saving our payment and the need to keep introducing new legislation at their behest.
It is time for the politicians to grasp the EU nettle and discuss it with the electorate, concluding with a referendum
Why is this idea important?
The EU is very unpopular in this country, the Country was denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and it is time the issue was addressed.
The Libdems in opposition would not agree to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, despite previous assurances, but instead said they would agree to a referendum on the EU with regard to our membership.
It is time for us to explore our place in the EU, it is a failing organisation, it currency has failed and many of its institutions are undemocratic.
Its accounts have not passed an audit for many years.
We should negotiate for Associate Membership, this would keep us in a European trade market but without being involved with the EU politically.
The cost saving for the UK would be huge, saving our payment and the need to keep introducing new legislation at their behest.
It is time for the politicians to grasp the EU nettle and discuss it with the electorate, concluding with a referendum
The requirements on political parties to submit reports regarding their expenditure is hideously complex. Far too much information is required. Evidence from local govt offices indicate that boxes of material submitted by local parties sit on shelves in City Halls for months without ever being opened or consulted, not even by the chief electoral officer. Multiple expenses returns also have to be made, with different categorizations, depending upon the body to be submitted to. This just creates work for no end. It also creates the need to employ a band of people to explain what all the regulations mean, to party activists who are by and large, and inevitably, amateurs. A simple one-figure number should suffice, challengeable by a suitable mandate. Indeed a single figure could be easily published on a web-site, whereas expenses returns are only available in person at City Hall.
Expenses less than 10% of the maximum permitted figure should not have to submit a report at all.
Concentration should instead be on political donations, since parties cannot spend what they do not receive.
Why is this idea important?
The requirements on political parties to submit reports regarding their expenditure is hideously complex. Far too much information is required. Evidence from local govt offices indicate that boxes of material submitted by local parties sit on shelves in City Halls for months without ever being opened or consulted, not even by the chief electoral officer. Multiple expenses returns also have to be made, with different categorizations, depending upon the body to be submitted to. This just creates work for no end. It also creates the need to employ a band of people to explain what all the regulations mean, to party activists who are by and large, and inevitably, amateurs. A simple one-figure number should suffice, challengeable by a suitable mandate. Indeed a single figure could be easily published on a web-site, whereas expenses returns are only available in person at City Hall.
Expenses less than 10% of the maximum permitted figure should not have to submit a report at all.
Concentration should instead be on political donations, since parties cannot spend what they do not receive.