A makes sense manifesto

I'm currently looking at becoming a local candidate, but it appears that you need to be registered with a political party. I can't find any info on being independent.
 
Gilly said:
I would back a party that:

  • Ceases to put other parties down for the sole aim of make itself look better
  • Proposes long-term changes with transparency to the public
  • Completely overhauls our welfare system with harsh penalties for those abusing it and the right money going to the right places
  • Provide benefits on a geographic location and case-by-case basis through localisation and means testing in line with local cost of living
  • Ensure that businesses that are taking money out of our country return a fair portion of that
  • Consolidate local government departments - a one-stop for all public service requirements
  • Introduce variation in public sector pay meaning that pay not only reflects performance and output but also cost of living
  • Lays out a proper approach to immigration, without hint of xenophobia but protecting the people we already have
  • Tighten tax and benefit restrictions, close the loopholes that allow people to avoid what should be paid (not currently must be paid)
  • Eradicate the divide between the 'classes'. The higher income sections of society believe they are handing those on welfare a life of riley, those on welfare believe that those in higher tax bands are rolling in it and can't even find enough things to splurge their money on.
  • Provides clarity to the public when one of the own has been found to have been acting in a way that is not in the interest of the public.

I can't think why they aren't doing this already. Am I alone in thinking this? Is it just pie in the sky?

The only problem I can see is political parties not wanting to lose their current membership for changing their approach. Is that it?

Have I just lost the plot?
Click to expand...

Great proposition.

However I think much of the problem with politics is that changes aren't made with long terms aims in mind. Why implement a policy that we will see the benefit of in 5, 10, 15 years time when we won't be in power?

Instead everything is done to reap short term gains so they can say look how great we are this went up or crime % is down etc

The really sad thing is I don't know what can be done about it :(
 
I think that's part of the problem, and I think that's one of the main points in that manifesto.

What is done by those in charge should not be done for the benefit of those in charge, but for the people they have been elected by and are responsible for.
 
Some good ideas there,

I'd add a few things for a manifesto, not what the government should do - but how it should be run (regardless of ideology).

You could use the below to ensure both the left & right wing governments are kept in line.

1. All decisions must be supported by independent peer reviewed evidence.

2. Removal of all corporate/union party funding & limit party funding by independant people.

3. No members of parliament are allowed to hold shares & any potential abuse of power to benefit certain associates should be met with the harshest penalties (Struck off as an MP).

4. When creating a manifesto a clear set of objectives must be defined along with a of criteria in which they success can be measured against (at the end of the term with an independent group scoring the government on how well they did).

5. Significant investments in science, technology, R&D & engineering with the aim of automating & improving elements of the UK infrastructure & the creation of government owned patents to provide an additional revenue stream.
 
Gilly said:
If that was the extent of my manifesto and I told you that I was a normal bloke with little knowledge of politics would that be a bad thing for you, or a good thing?

Would you vote for someone saying that?
Click to expand...

People who want to be in politics shouldn't be, those who want things to be better should be.
 
I don't think striking them off as an MP would be harsh enough. I think jail time would be appropriate for someone abusing such a position for significant financial gain.
 
Gilly said:
I don't think striking them off as an MP would be harsh enough. I think jail time would be appropriate for someone abusing such a position for significant financial gain.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they are all at it already - striking off would be a start.

MPs need to remain neutral & they shouldn't be allowed to have side business interests (even if they don't abuse power directly)- as it creates a conflict of interests.
 
can we have some rules about licensing for children :D

To foster you need to jump through so many hoops but any old turd monkey can breed without thought.
 
I agree with most of those, and to be fair, those I'm slightly iffy about, are exactly that, slightly iffy. Nothing major.

But no, no party would do that.

kd
 
Gilly said:
I would back a party that:

  • Ceases to put other parties down for the sole aim of make itself look better
  • Proposes long-term changes with transparency to the public
  • Completely overhauls our welfare system with harsh penalties for those abusing it and the right money going to the right places
  • Provide benefits on a geographic location and case-by-case basis through localisation and means testing in line with local cost of living
  • Ensure that businesses that are taking money out of our country return a fair portion of that
  • Consolidate local government departments - a one-stop for all public service requirements
  • Introduce variation in public sector pay meaning that pay not only reflects performance and output but also cost of living
  • Lays out a proper approach to immigration, without hint of xenophobia but protecting the people we already have
  • Tighten tax and benefit restrictions, close the loopholes that allow people to avoid what should be paid (not currently must be paid)
  • Eradicate the divide between the 'classes'. The higher income sections of society believe they are handing those on welfare a life of riley, those on welfare believe that those in higher tax bands are rolling in it and can't even find enough things to splurge their money on.
  • Provides clarity to the public when one of the own has been found to have been acting in a way that is not in the interest of the public.

I can't think why they aren't doing this already. Am I alone in thinking this? Is it just pie in the sky?

The only problem I can see is political parties not wanting to lose their current membership for changing their approach. Is that it?

Have I just lost the plot?
Click to expand...

Some of the things you propose are not vote winners, it is that simple.

That doesn't mean I disagree with what you have suggested though.
 
Gilly said:
I suppose that's the crux of this thread :)
Click to expand...
The average person is unconsciously incompetent on the subject of politics.

They are not even aware they have a deficit in understanding regarding the entire political system.

The actually correct way of solving problems sounds far to dry, not emotionally charged enough & is far too technical for Joe Bloggs down the road.

That's why so many vote for who "mom & dad voted for", to "send em back", or free "tax breaks for me"", or "more benefits for me!", I even recall a women saying she voted for Cameron because he had a "kind face".

People unwilling to spend the time doing the basic research required have no business voting.

So no, it won't work (sadly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom