Ok so here's the deal. (first time I/we are posting seriously).

We live in the UK. We don't thing things around here are run properly or as they should be. We want to get the country working like it should, for the benefit of EVERYONE.

I suppose you want to know a few of the propositions we want to make into a reality...Well I'll put down the basics, maybe David will elaborate later.

*There will be no more voting for political parties who never do what they say. Instead, democracy will be practiced by voting on the laws and movements that should be passed. Furthermore, a figurehead may no longer be required. We already have the Queen and Royal family who seem to be able to take that role for us.

*Voting age will be reduced to 16 but possibly depending on the nature of the law in question it may be put up to 18 to prevent any....stupidity. Not that we have anything against young people voting but some things are not likely to be of much interest or affect them. Maybe I'm being stupid.

*No more "sections" of government eg transport. One head of each area will remain to deal with the budget nationwide (linking to next point)

*things like NHS, transport and schools will be sorted by an appointed head of the area. Possibly for each county, though maybe for smaller counties only one will be needed for two. Hospitals and schools will be individually assessed and given targets that suite their exact problems. At the moment every time the government set targets for waiting lists, hospitals have to cut down the number of patients to be able to meet the target, which is certainly NOT the way it should be done.

OK so I think that's the jist of it. What do you think?

*post by Jen*

PS. To achieve this first we will be writing to Mr.Blair in the new year, though it is doubted this will work, therefore we am attempting to raise help and support across the country, we need everyone we can possibly find to help us.

PPS. Also, any harm to living things of any kind in the name of this movement is condemned and strictly forbidden. Do not expect us to even acknowledge you if you go and do something like that, idiot.

PPPS. This is not terrorism which we stress as much as possible. We want to improve the country not destroy it.

PPPPS. The only violence we will use will be scares, to wake up the government. If you can tell what I'm on about there. Other than that it'll be protesting and bringing the country to a halt (industry, exports, power, strikes etc) which is why we need all the help we can get. Spread the word, we can shake free the disease that has plagued us since democracy began!

I live outside the UK, and whilst I am against this form of gov't, I cannot see any real effective outcome from a non-violent radical governmental reforms unit. As a result I have nulled my vote. I find gov't overhtrow just another form of tyranny in which a minority do what they want without aleways consulting the people. It turns into join us or die. I propose you plan mass exodus, have most of the nation's people leave and the remaining civilization structure will crumble. While far less likely to occur this way, it's the only non-tyrranical gov't destruction plan, since most people need ot be in favor of it.

nope. actually, we want to do the best for the majority... hence, any laws will be voted for by the people. The majority will get the best. the way democracy should be. not "oh vote for that guy he'll give us what we want" and then NOT get anything other than a severe headache. I certainly don't propose to throw people out, and by the conditions the majority put up with these days I would be surprised if a lot of people didn't agree to take a chance on something new and potentially better.

In bigger countries, this system wouldn't work at all, but this place is small enough forit to work, and really have a great impact for the better on living standards. We want to live happily, with a lot less stress. Is that so wrong? Isn't that worth fighting for? But on the same lines, I don't think terrorism is a good way to go, nobody should be hurt for what they believe in. Damn those Salem witch trials! my poor sisters....... Go amnesty international!

If people heading industries prevented food, water, electricity, everything, we could hold govt to ransom, thereby gaining power and making our home a real home, where we don't have to worry about some guy at the top proposing war without asking the citizens first.

It's not that democracy is anti-majority-rules, but the very revolution you found is. Most of the UK will not be in favor of a revolution, no matter hwat the ends are. However I do not propose terror ism either.

Do what we are doing here in the states, the libertarian party has decided to take up residence in a few towns in some states, and start to control those states through policies that favor libertarianim. If it goes well, hopefully more people will see the results and start their own, and eventually, this could brin gdown the federal, even state gov'ts in place of a newfound libertarian society-state.

hmm facts read, understood, and taken into consideration. However, I will still write to Mr Blair.

tell me, does this revolution involve singing in the streets and neighbours hugging each other? or dinosaurs, any dinosaurs?

The UK's system of government definately needs an overhaul, but a revolt by an unrepresentative few is not the way to do it. Doing so would simply be a 'regime change' (how ironic), and supporters of the current governmental form would be simply ignored, silenced or even eliminated. Humans are conservative creatures (I don't mean that in a Political sense) and so, if made to make a decision, far more of the populace would protect the status-quo rather than support a revolution.

As for your manifesto:



We have representative democracy for a reason, it may not be perfect but (in unadulterated theory) it's the best that's been thought up yet, IMHO. Can you imagine the populace of the UK (of which a large proportion don't give a $#!+ about politics (according to recent research that I carried out for my A-Level Sociology)) voting on a referendum for EVERY BILL that would otherwise go via the House of Commons and then the House of Lords? Most probably, the only people that would read the bills in full and understand them fully would be Guardian/Telegraph/Independent reader sort of people. The majority of the politically inert masses would simply not vote, make an uninformed vote, or pick randomly. As for a figurehead, society needs one to look up to, or more often of late, direct their resentment toward. However, the Queen, and the rest of the monarchy don't even fill that role anymore. They're only a form of worn out celebrity these days, with unfathomable but unwielded power.

A more realistic adjustment would be to have a referendum on any issue not requiring immediate attention, that isn't covered in a party's election manifesto. Also, the elected government would be enforced to stick to it's election pledges (with exceptions, ie national emergency). They would also need to make more detailed manifestos to avoid having to send most bills to referendum. The power to decide election dates should be removed from the Prime Minister, and instead given to an independent body, or have fixed dates. Also, the power of corporations over politics needs to be cured. Ban corporate donations to political parties and set strict limits on private donations. Even better, fund election campaigns with tax money distributed between the parties.



I agree that the voting age should be lowered to 16, conditionally. Perhaps some system of verification (perhaps by schoolteachers) just to say that they are sensible and aware enough to vote. Maybe only give under 18's a half vote, to represent their relative inexperience and indifference to fiscal policy.



Beaurocracy needs to be reduced, I'll agree, but reducing it to one person to represent each issue area is overkill. Just cutting out some of the Civil Servants and improving communications between departments would help matters greatly.

*

There are already regional authorities for these areas, definately education (LEAs). That's pretty much what they do. Central government shouldn't be setting targets for the whole nation's public services, I agree, but nor should local government. This ties in with the recent issue of Foundation Hospitals and Schools. This effectively turns the health and education systems into capitalist style markets, using competition and 'incentives' to provoke prosperity. To me, competition means waste and corner cutting, and incentives mean bribes.


I would write more (ach!) but it's late, and my head hurts.

I am in support of that. Mail bomb him (send tons of letters, not a bomb in one). Even if it does nothing, theres a slim chance it may do something, and at the very least disturb his beaurocracy.

read, and understood. The education system still has league tables though. They should definately be taken down. There will be some schools undoubtedly that only take on smarter students without formal tests (like a private school would have) just to get up the league tables. Good schools (like, ahem, ours) take on all abilities and still come out with higher than average results. I will start work on drafting the first letter, and I will include some of all your ideas (and credit them to your good selves if you so wish).

The voting for each law is mainly for big things that affect large numbers of people, like going to war, banning hunting (grr they have no clue how much good it does to the countryside, no idea how it works out here...bloody cityfolk bastads.... ) basically anything that people would be willing to protest for or against. (400,000 of us marched through london....i was one of them...)

the monarchy should become more of a figurehead again, they need something to do. i agree with donations to political parties too, if they were to continue.. and enforcing a proper law against breaking manifesto promises and doing all they said they would. though I still don't think voting for a group of people is right. There should just be one lot of people with permanent jobs because no manifesto has things that everyone agrees with.

Anyway...it's waaaaay too early for me...i need to wake up and take some flu caps. Eurgh bloody viruses....need garlic.....

and in response to furry mammal's post, yes there will be singing in the street (when i get a street performer's licence...) however I won't be hugging my neighbours... **shudders**

Hence why I am in support of privitization of all schools.

/hijack

But surely that means paying..........what about the peasants? (such as myself)

Competition between the schools for more students would naturally drive down prices.

either that or only the rich would get good jobs and we'd all reverse into the feudal system....

And result in lower standards of teaching and poorer facilities among numerous other undesirables. Competition in education is wasteful and detracts from the quality of service. There is nothing wrong with statutory monopolies, provided they are made to act efficiently and improve. Corporate monopolies are an evil that must be avoided, especially in something as essential as education or the health service.

Exactly....

As a devout anarchist, I can, to a certain extent, dig this kind of government, however I believe that all governments are inherently evil (maybe not at first and not intentionally, but eventually ane inevitably). I do, however, believe that minarchist governments work best in small states (as in countries). With the US, the more power the federal government (the "Man") gains, the less efficient (and more tyrannical) it becomes.

i think, no the monarchy should not be given more power, they should be abolished all together. they are not needed.

as for the voting age, i agree it should be reduced to 16. and unconditionally. some 18 year olds are more ignorant of social matters than 14 year olds, and visa versa, same goes for any age. so if any age limit is to be set for voting, it should be the same for everyone

Powerfully armed people can force the privatized schools to adhere to their demand. Down with gun control!

Of course hwat you are saying is a reality, and even many libertarians support gov't sponosred education. I suppose what I want is in an ideal realm of impossibility, good schools that aren't gov't funded.

Trots off to place that's too good for man's human nature.

Given my love for democracy - I can understand and fully support your notion for referenda on certain key issues...

I'm pretty much certain we "bloody city folk bastads" would win on the issue of fox-hunting, as we all tend to view it as an unnecessarily cruel and innefective method of pest control... and we do outnumber you country types

Personally - I would hope that, on key issues, our politicians will come up with well thought out and well drafted bills / referenda position papers and suitably inform us of our choices.

I have to say that I'm fond of your suggestion of removing the party system - perhaps returning to the 'golden age' of politics of the early 19th century where MPs voted (in theory) with their consciences...

However, the practicality of this could make a partyless system frought with infighting and division and prone to corruption - where there is no real cohesion, until loose alliances are drawn up that simply replace one official party system with another... maybe.

I would favour reducing the power of central parties - getting rid of the whip system and allowing free votes on all key issues (such as debates that might lead to refereda). I would also suggest establishing a parliamentary approach to the appointment of ministers and their shadow counter-parts.

Hello, it's me again...

Well you crazy folks at the UKNTAGAM, re-reading your other suggestions has made me think. Well done, this could be a first for me.

As I mentioned above - I love democracy and as such I favour:

1. A Republic

and

2. A Confederacy.

Point 1 - We shouldn't be run by the monarchy... they are not elected they are simply born into the post. Britain should be free to elect it's head of state. This is a very important post which shouldn't be left to chance. I personally don't know what Prince Charlses' policy initiative will be on education and healthcare reform... I haven't the foggiest what Prince William would do regarding calls for greater regulation in the stock exchange - or introducing prescriptive laws on company directors. If I were to find out that my head of state believed in something that I didn't I would want the democratic right to choose someone else - who better reflected my own political opinion.

Keep the monarchy - as a figurehead, and leave it at that. It's what they're good at. Leave the actual running of the country to people who can be removed if the make mistakes, or break the law.

Point 2 - I feel that local government and regional assemblies should be given more fiscal and policy making power - with only certain key elements remaining in the hands of central government (security - police judiciary prisons and armed defence forces, public ownership of essential industry, and policy on health, education and welfare). Government departments should be there to serve the regions (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern England, Southern England, Cornwall and the Islands and Dependencies). Each region should get assistance from central government and not be ordered to do things. All of this will require a restructuring of the bureacracy - not simply cutting it down to a few key individuals - as running a country is way too big a task. (Others have covered this far more succinctly than I have just done especially Daed).

Hope some of that makes sence....

Ps. Fox-hunting's gonna get banned soon

Pps. I hope you folks get over the flu - Mmmmmmm Nightnurse... seriously - get well soon.

*cough cough* actually, 59% of the country in a pool somewhere wanted to KEEP foxhunting, and evidently you know nowt of the truth and benefits.

1. when caught by the dogs, the fox is bitten in the neck causing a swift death. This is what the dogs are trained to do, and they do it without fail. If they rip up the carcass after or not is completely irrelevant as this causes no distress to the animal because as soon as the dogs get it, it's dead.

if this was done with a gun, marksmen cannot hit the "killzone" every time, therefore many foxes that are hunted with guns will get away and die slowly later of their wounds.

2. the countryside and hedgerow wildlife (growing ever rarer in this industrial age) benefits a lot from the control of fox and indeed deer populations. When it comes to shooting of pheasants, the grounds they live in are kept wild and natural and are looked after very well by the gamekeepers. they provide a great habitat for a whole wealth of different creatures, and all pheasants or ducks are later eaten, so they do not go to waste. Even deer that are culled to control population size are later eaten, infact we had venison on xmas day.

I'd like to know how you would propose to look after the countryside if hunting was banned.

3. the age old argument, money for the countryside. Farmers earn far too little for their hard work providing you lot food. They are up before dawn and in bed after sunset, or at least all the ones I know are. Tourisn in the countryside would decrease and I would very much like tyo know how you would intend keeping the rural economy going, with so little money farmers would give up eventually. and the country would be buggered.

I have many more points in my argument, but I think that's all you need for now to open your eyes. I know I've gone off the original topic, but any excuse to open some eyes around here. Did you know the old head of one of these anti hunt organisations went and found what it was all about, and has now written in a magazine in favour of fox hunting. the populations need to be kept under control. this is the kindest way. and it'd be far crueller to have to get rid of asll those dogs and horses, think about it, you'd be taking the lives of more horses and dogs than the amount of foxes you'd be saving.

I've created a new poll specifically about fox hunting. Hope you don't mind.

However, there is one point I'll address here, as it's more fitting:

Farmers that need to supplement their income with whatever they might get through hunting should not be wasting agricultural land. I can't see that hunting would do much for farmers anyway, and if anything gets payed to them at all it probably goes towards repairing the smashed fences . The only farmers that get any income from tourism are those that let out renovated barns or the like for holidays, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with farming.

Another thing. Farmers are not hard done by. Ever heard of Common Agricultural Policy? It's the dumbass scheme of the EU that buys farmers produce, and then destroys it or even pays farmers to leave their produce in the ground/on the trees or not grow anything in the first place. Besides screwing around with the market for agricultural produce, keeping prices artificially high, it means that inefficient farmers that would otherwise have to smarten up or go out of business, can stay in the industry. I could bitch all day about CAP, but it would be largely irrelevant, so I'm not going to.

I'm sure if you kept anyone in a pool long enough they'd agree to almost anything... especially now during winter. (Sorry to see your flu is still there - what with all the coughing).

Furthermore, poll's are not effective in judging what the voting populace will actually choose - as they are only a random snapshot of a section of the population. Where was this pool taken? Around the country side and in small towns - then yes 59% would say KEEP. I've seen polls conducted by MORI that suggest that 70 - 80% favour outlawing hunting (these having been conducted in larger towns only)...

The only way to be sure - is to go with your excellent suggestion of a referendum.



I've seen videos of various hunts (taken by anti and pro hunt groups) and having seen what happens I find that the quick and compassionate kill myth is pure nonsense. In these videos the fox was ripped apart - there wasn't some magical coup de grace bite to the neck. It was simply ripped apart. Granted - it didn't take long for the animal to be rendered unconscious due to blood-loss and severe trauma - so in some respects it is quick (not usually longer than a couple of minutes)... but it is still barbaric - and comes at the end of the chase - itself (I find to be) a sickening thought - the animal must know it is in danger why else would it run?



There are other methods of killing animals than hunting or shooting them. Some are potentially hazardous to the environment (poisons etc), others including the use of specialist traps - are less dangerous to other wildlife - but are as effective as shooting and far less random than hunting.



I like venison... had venison burgers... mmmmmmm. Hedge rows and the like are growing rarer due to mass-farming techniques... however, many farmers are given financial incentives to reverse this by creating more hedgerows and maintaining them.



As a point to note - I could read into your posting that you feel foxes are single handedly ruining the countryside... however, I doubt you are actually making this point - rather you are simply over-stressing the damage foxes can pose.

Foxes cause more damage to farm stock - and as such are generally kept in check by farmers. The idea that hunts are keeping the fox population down are not supported by the hunt's own statistics on how many foxes they actually kill. Fox Hunters themselves acknowledge that not every hunt is successful, and those that are - only turn up and butcher a couple of foxes at a time. As to keeping foxes in check, I refer you to my earlier comments on the alternatives to hunting and shooting.



I can only echo what Daedalus has very clearly stated already.

How is farming inter linked so heavily with hunting? I am not swayed by the pro-hunt lobby arguments that banning hunting will cost thousands of jobs, nor will it cripple the farming industry. Perhaps you can tell me what percentage of farms in the UK actually rely on hunting to supplement their annual income - AND - how much hunting actually brings in? Given the number of hunts that operate - I would suggest that this is quite limited.

Farming is being destroyed, but not by the anti-hunting movement. The Common Agricultural Policy (established after world war 2 to create enough food for Europe not to starve when famine was a serious threat) has outlived it's usefulness and the gradual policy shift away from subsidies is having a dramatic and widespread effect on farms all over the UK. Then there are the many, many failures of successive governments - from Thatcher's total indifference to the warnings of BSE - to Blair's mismanagement of that crisis and foot and mouth.

As a final point - British farming is slowly producing less and less of the UK's food. More and more produce is coming from abroad - cheaper and more diverse. To compete farms here are being forced to cut costs (from overheads to safety practices). Part of this problem is the monopolistic control and power that the handful of Supermarkets in the UK possess, and their ruthless handling of farms that were so dependent on them for trade.



Well, my eyes are definitely open... thank you folks, I am very appreciative.

honest...

As to the "old head of one of these anti hunt organisations" I would love to get some info on this person... and perhaps his magazine. Personally it sounds like a bit of pro-hunt propaganda, so I'd love to read up some more about this.

Finally - what is this about killing all these horses and dogs? Should the ban on fox hunting get the go ahead - why would anyone kill off all the horses? Killing the dogs I can see might happen (if there is no specific policy introduced to protect them), but why kill the horses? Should it come down to destroying animals - I think you'll find that the anti-hunt movement will also champion the cause of these animals - and I hope with much success.

there wouldn't be the need for the horses, they'd probably lose their homes and be slaughtered because the owners couldn't afford it or just saw no point any longer.

I'll have to ask my stepdad (shudder, growl, polish knife) where the magazine with the article in is, it may even be on the web somewhere. i don't know specifically.

Well trained dogs bite the neck in seconds although it is probably hard to see on amateur video footage when the dogs do indeed bundle their victim.

Support lamping, and I will one day eat fox and enjoy it.

That's sickening... you mean to say that there are people who would kill their horses because they didn't see the point in having them anymore if they couldn't go hunting?????

Given the fact that hunt horses have to be fairly fit and free of illness / injury - I would suggest that it would be more economically advisable to sell them rather than pack them off to the knacker's yard. The European market is quite bouyant at the moment - even if the horses were to be sold ata massive discount they'd still get something.



Sounds like you'd be going to a lot of trouble / risk - so don't bother. I'll check the web or speak to a mate of mine who used to go hunting all the time (fancied himself a bit of a cavalry officer - plays polo with the combined forces club nowadays pretentious git...)



Although the videos were quite indistinct - it was the sounds that made me aware of how much the fox was suffering... foxes are quite distinct even above the hounds.



What's lamping?

(has mental imagery of gangs of ppl roaming the streets of suburban London carrying ripped down lamp-posts to beat city foxes to death as they scavenge our rubbish bins...)

Eating foxes...



fox burgers...



mmmmmmmmmmm fox burgers...

the wha??????????



*cannot be arsed to read entire topic,please explain in LAMEN TERMS*

Basically BG is trying to overthrow the government supposedly in order to create a more democratic society.

Lol oh!go for it,sounds like a fun,democratic,legal activity! have fun kids!




* can you do me a favour when u guys are president?can you put tony blair in a rocket filled with blue cheese and send him into outer space?just so he can float around in stink for a few years? PWEASE? *

pirvatize schools? I really hope that never happens. Privatization may sound like the answer to all our problems, but in all the cases I've heard about it has failed. And plus, look at the railway system, how much did privatization screw that?

I also think Monarchy should be abolished. Well, maybe not abolished, I mean they can still wave and call themselves king and queen etc. but we definitely shouldn't pay them for it! That tax money could be spent on schools, and it's not like the royal family need it, they get millions of pounds a year from all the land they own. Click to see what the Queen gets paid (you'll need flash)

That was scary.

You mean what the Queen gets paid? It kinda freaked me out when I first saw it.

Well, quite... we may have nice shiny new trains and better food, but we can't actually go anywhere on a train nowadays. We've seen more swingeing cuts on lines and services than Dr Beeching inflicted on the infrastructure in the 60s, the number of trains is down, the travelling times are longer, the number of delays has increased, as have the fares, and the excuses are even less plausible!

I bet all those who derided BR wish it's speedy return. I know I do!

Thing is, the govt never learned from the deregulation of the buses in the UK. I know that deregulation is not quite the same as privatisation (the regulating body becomes a cash-pot for subsidy of services, and the service providers regulate themselves) but look what happened: Rural and short hop services (ones that run from a town to a small area with an estate, for the benefit of children going to school and the aged to go shopping) are cut altogether as they make no money. Busy routes are, conversely, being over-serviced, and as a result make - ta-da! - no money! (as an example, cos I'm bored, we have a service near us which runs buses every 5 minutes by the same operator. More often than not you can see three of these buses nose-to-tail on the same stretch of road, with enough passengers to half-fill one bus. Why so many buses? Beats me...) So fares go up, people get miffed cos the service is less useful AND more expensive, the passenger numbers go down, the cycle starts again. The equilibrium arrived when the passengers who still used the service actually covered the costs of running it. But now the number of cars on the roads has more than doubled as a result.

But, in the deregulation phase, the LRT was maintained and as such London buses were still regulated (other operators were allowed, but fell under regulation, the same way as the London Buses were) and that, oddly, remained a sensibly run, profitable and useful service. Hmmmm...

We can't privatise public services en masse like this. It's been proven not to work time and time again. Look at trust hospitals, where the nursing staff have minimal pay increases so the 37 administrators can have a new 5 series BMW to replace the 3 series one they got 12 months ago... If schools were privatised, then children's education would suffer greatly at the hands of bureactratic accountants who say that children won't be allowed paper this semester as it's not an efficient use of the funds provided (but I bet his shiny new E-class Merc is!)

So no, I'm all in favour of stopping this nonsense.