UK Politics

[starcraft]

SciFiBoy said:

kowenicki said:
@scifiboys

and the "better" liberal policies are?

here's a few you can start with:

pull out of the war
abolish tuition fees
proportional representation
proggressive taxation
more funding for the NHS/Education system
abolish faith schools
legalise less dangerous drugs
close tax loopholes
better public transport (trains, buses, etc)
abolish the monarchy
make the lords elected (if not fully, then atleast like 75%)
proper action on climate change (more renewable energy, no nuclear either, its not safe or viable from what ive read, we probably dont need nuclear weapons either, so they can go too)

I'm not going to get into the question of whether the war was a good decision, other than to say that if you abandon the Afghans now when they need you the most you would fundamentally contradict your professed liberal ideologies (helping those in need).

Now as for abolishing tuition fees, progressive taxation, funding for NHS and public transport, I have this too say.  All of these things require shitloads (read: SHITLOADS) of money.  Right now, the UK does not have it.  Furthermore, getting some sort of (likely inefficient) progressive taxation scheme going will likely in the medium and long term REDUCE rather than increase disposal income for the government, simply by making the economy less efficient.  So ultimately your liberal agenda would supply less, rather than more services.

What on earth is wrong with people having faith schools if they want them?  As long as they stick to a standardized curriculum and have their extra teachings monitored (i.e. monitoring creationism in Christian schools and extremism in Islamic schools for example) why can parents not send their children there if it is their choice?

I have no opinion on the lords.

Why would you want to abolish the Monarchy?  Speaking both as an outsider and as a student of economics, I can say that the Monarchy is a symbol of great United Kingdom prestige.  And in addition to the massive tourism money Kowennicki mentioned it bringing in (which I am sure FAR outweighs what it costs to keep the royal household going), representatives of the royal house are frequently (and successfully) used to negotiate lucrative trade deals that benefit the UK greatly (especially Charles).

Based on currently available technologies and realistically projected technologies (note: most renewable technologies currently espoused by the left wing are and for the forseeable future will be in the realm of fantasy) nuclear is your best (read: only) option for reducing carbon emissions beside the (possible) introduction of clean coal technology.  Of course sometimes clean coal seems as far of (and produced by the coal industry) as mass-renewables.  Of course it is damned sure to come sooner than economically sustainable and technologically sufficient renewables.  Also, the vast majority of the evidence suggests that modern, Western-produced (France and the USA are VERY good at this) nuclear reactors are very safe.  They produce FAR less pollution than coal or gas.  Having said that I can see how the UK's lack of available land could be an issue for waste disposal.

As for nuclear weapons, I can see both sides of the coin.  The UK has the advantage of maintaining a very credible (but small) nuclear deterrent.  It costs them nowhere near what it costs Russia and the USA to run and maintain.  That said, all nuclear weapons are expensive to keep.  Having said that, if the shit ever truly hit the fan, don't expect the USA to come running unless their was a tactical advantage to the UK's protection in that very moment.  It took them years (and the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to properly get involved in WWII, and their global dominance is less credible now than it was then.