General Chat

IF.....YOU WERE PRIMINISTER[I SPELT THAT WRONG ]

WHAT IDEAS WOULD YOU PUT TO YOUR PEOPLE TO GET THE COUNTRY BACK ON ITS FEET.

AND WIN IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION .

Schoolgirl mums would not automatically qualify for a flat and benefits.... they would have the option of either staying with parents, or going into *sheltered* style accommodation, where they would have to go and finish their education as part of the contract for semi-independence. The grandparents would contribute, as would the father's parents, if the father is also of school age.

I would encourage immigration, but controlled, and would want to be sure that those who were wanting to live here, had sponsors, jobs, and employment waiting for them.... plus the skills we require in this country.

I would want to see the return of the Apprentice system... at 16, those youngsters who do not wish to remain in an academic school system, would be encouraged to take up PROPER apprenticeships, leading to proper certificated skills.

I would wish to see the continuation of our system of offering asylum to those who truly need it.... to encourage those given asylum to train in areas that will help to rebuild their own country once strife is over, and they are needed to rebuild the infrastructure. But to also allow for the fact that they may want to settle here, and not go back.... so then the economic rules would come into play, and they should have offerable skills.

But I would be looking carefully at asylum seekers from countries, where the majority of applications are from young single men and boys, not families. And yep... that is all the isms in one, lolol

Oh dear.... lots of other stuff, but I am too tired to think and my brain is hurting!!

Love

Daff xxxx

i dont do politics, so id sack all the polititions,

abolish the tv licence and make voddy free,

lmaooooooooo

"whistles of thread"

Proportional representation, banishing party whips, all votes to be free votes, MP's expenses curtailed, excluding Lords Spiritual from the upper house, total separation of church and state, no more laws banning anything and zero tax on John Smiths best bitter.

Fags, alcohol and petrol free

and no bills

Eldrick.... I know, I am a bit dim, and not a real *political* animal.... but I really don't understand proportional representation.... oh, and before I forget, no tax on my sherry, either, lol.... back to pr..... I thought I had it right, and was then shot down in flames cos I was, it would seem, wrong. Mind you... the fella who shot me down was wrong about a lot of stuff, and not a very nice person.... in fact, if he was on fire, I probably wouldn't widdle on him to put him out... well, not straight away, anyway!!.

I so agree that church and state should be totally separate.

But I would still have laws banning murder, sex with anyone other than consenting adults, etc etc.... Oh.... and a law stopping the idiot over the way from breathing the same air as me!! lolol

Love

Daff xxxx

I think I would vote for you Daff :))

( not fussed about the sherry mind, can't drink it as it gives me an instant headache )

xx

I think it'd be great if there was a scheme where everybody seeking work (whether part-time or full-time) could help out with community projects or roles ie. helping out with Brownies/Guides/Scouts, gardening for neighbours, or whatever else, and then they would have something to go on their CV to demonstrate how willing they were to get involved and it would show that they hadn't just been sitting around doing nothing. Plus, if the scheme was supervised, then people would be able to put their supervisor's name down as a referee when applying for jobs.

Well for a start I'd stop all them mumbling bleeting baffoons in the commons at PM question time.and get the general public in to voice the running of this country,

fire the daft speaker whos total waste of public funds,and stop all MP taking public money,,,

first i.d make sure that when peeps get there council tax there would be a leaflet in there to vote for certain things changed.like...........certain laws .no more life means 25 yrs or less .if you get life you do life .
stop making others pay for things that dont concern them .i.e elderly paying for schools etc .more help for the elderly.
and councils not allowed to waste money.
also like eldrick said MPS expenses to be monitored.

Daff ... if you apply economic/skills criteria to refugees (people who are entitled to asylum under national and international law) ... then you aren't giving them asylum. Refugees are people who have been or have a well-founded fear of being persecuted at home because of race, religion, political opinion, etc. They apply abroad because they *need* to, not because they want to.

Yes, the rules and systems were set up at a time when the world had no idea how many genuine refugees would be created by internal conflicts and dictatorships in our day. But refugees are still people in need of protection, not job-seekers.

Oh -- and yes, they're usually young and male (almost my whole refugee practice was). This is because - and we're assuming genuine refugees here - (a) that is the group most often politically active and thus persecuted for political opinion, and (b) that is the group most able to get out of their country and travel under difficult conditions. But yes, it definitely makes for social problems in the host country, with large numbers of young men who have no family/community around them.


Proportional representation means that seats in the house (or at least some of them) are assigned according to what proportion of the popular vote nation-wide a party gets.

Here's a quick and easy graphic representation of the results in Canada, where we still have first-past-the-post like you: whoever gets the most votes in each riding gets the seat for the party. (It's even worse here, with three main parties in most ridings: the winner could have 1/3 plus one of the votes).

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

The Bloc Québécois has twice as many seats as it has share of the vote, because it only runs in Quebec. Both the Liberals and the NDP have fewer seats than they would have if we had proportional representation. And the Greens would have seats that they don't have now.

It might look different, though -- a lot of people, for instance, vote Liberal just to make sure a Conservative doesn't win in their riding, and might very well vote NDP (my party) if they didn't have to vote "strategically".

Some mixture of the two systems is often proposed -- so you still have a "local" MP (for a bigger riding) but the parties also get fairer representation in the house by national vote.

Thanks Janey.... am tired just now, so will re-read tomorrow, lol..... brain cells are arguing again!!

I understand what you are saying.... about asylum seekers, I mean... in so far as when they arrive here, and are genuine, then every opportunity should be made to either (words are not coming out right,,) but say you are a doctor, and have qualified in one country, then you may not be able to practice in Britain... an Asylum seeker should be helped to take the appropriate training to qualify them in this country too... and those skills will be useful if they decide to go back to their own country when a conflict is over, or the threat to themselves ceases to exist. Or to train with new skills..... if they are fleeing for their lives, and either ending up on benefits, or in low paid jobs, then that must be soul destroying, far better that they they can train and give themselves a new career and a new way of life.... that should be the aim.

I am not saying that they MUST go back..... but if they are helped to train, then they have the skills we need here..... to offer people refuge, and then just expect them.... or them to expect.... to live on benefits and handouts is demeaning, I would imagine.

I also think that it should apply to people born here who CHOOSE to be on benefits.... not those who are there through no fault of their own, that is different! Which is why I believe that Apprenticeships along the lines of the old fashioned, and generally effective ones of our forebears would be effective and would bring back skills workers in this country are slowly losing.

As to the proportional representation..... I googled it, and need a translator, lol...I have the gist of what you are saying, I think, you have put it much more clearly.... Wiki is gobbledygook!! So thank you!

Love

Daff xxxxx

ps, here in Wales, we have the mix, it would seem, lolol!!

I would bring back some form of National Service, as I believe that every youngster between the ages of 17 and 22 should be made to serve their country. It would show them disicipline and respect and in my eyes the country would not have as many crime related problems.

National service? For everyone? No exceptions?

I don't think I'd be accepted to serve my country in the physical sense - I'm too short even to reach some top cupboards, I've only got limited use of my left hand and basically no decent grip (thanks to the fact that I was starved of oxygen when I was born) and I only just weigh enough to donate blood so I don't know how much use I'd be to them. I'm not sure if I think National Service for everyone in a particular age group would work - maybe community involvement is the way to go?

I suppose, depending on the way you look at it, people can contribute in different ways. Maybe it doesn't have to be in the forces - between being 18 and 22, I was doing the second year of my A Levels in between my part-time job in a supermarket (two weeknights and one day at the weekend), then I did another year at college and still kept my job up until going to uni, then I came back in the summer holidays for the extra money (and during one summer holiday I was trying to balance it up with a work placement I'd arranged independently of uni.

I think, personally, I would have resented having to do a National Service type of thing purely on the grounds that I fitted into a certain age group but maybe that's because I was always one of the people who never dared step out of line at school or at college. I never wanted to experiment with drugs or alcohol and I wouldn't have dreamed of doing some of the stuff you hear about on the news now (for instance, teenagers carrying knives - I have tried and tried but I can't get my head round that at all because I can't relate it to my experience of being a teenager at all, and I turned 20 in 2004).

But a "helping out in the community" kind of scheme is something I would go for. One of my pet frustrations is that our town doesn't seem to encourage residents to contribute their ideas very much ie. organising local events - it's very much a case of events being reported in the paper without a clear indication of whether exhibitors, traders or whoever are welcome to approach the organisers or not. I bet there are a lot of creative people in the 17-25 (and older) group who would welcome being able to put their ideas into action.

Morning all.... Helen, I think that National Service for everyone is ideal only in a National emergency, lol

The thing is, who would monitor it? It would be the Army, the regular Army, of course..... and they really have enough on their plates at the moment so would be unlikely to be keen on the idea of acting as a glorified *teenage minder* service/juvenile policing/teacher to a whole load of young people who have no wish to be where they are.... and making it universal would mean that those who are keen to become nurses, doctors, plumbers, electricians, teachers, scientists....they would be held back, and would not be able to go to college/train until they were in their mid 20's.... what a waste of their eagerness and desire to work! They would become resentful, many would not complete their training, and so we would lose far more than we would gain from reforming the comparatively few yobbos in that age group..... there are more studious, normal, happy and productive youngsters than yobbos, but positivity just does not sell newspapers!!

I DO agree that a sort of boot camp for persistent offending youngsters, run by ex servicemen and women alongside social services (now that would be something to witness, what a strange marriage, lol) and well monitored might be effective in some cases. I personally know a couple of superb young soldiers, real peacekeepers in every sense of the word, male and female, who reached a point as youngsters where they knew, because of the culture of the area they grew up, that they had to make a stark choice.... join in with the antisocial culture or move away into something more positive. So a boot camp system might be beneficial. But not a universal system... I think it would alienate rather than assimilate.

Love

Daff xxx

i think national service would be good especially whenyou get those who leave school and do nothing.the point would be .get a job else your in.i think there would be alot of young thugs growing into men.maybe with passes in certain things like lorry driving ,etc and maybe some good carears in the army.yep i like it.

I'm afraid that the thought of my son/daughter being conscripted just because it would be a good idea to knock some ne'er do wells into shape is not a pleasant thought in a so called free society.

Why should my family come home in a body bag when they didn't ask to join up and didn't want to be in the military?

It's a hoary old chestnut and thank god (and jupiter and odin) that it will never happen unless there is another global conflict.

but its not free .i get taxed to keep some teenagers on the street .i think the army would give them backbone .or what about going to third world countrys helping them build schools and let them see how many die from starvation.alot need a wake up call.i see them most days hanging on street corners .no incentive in life but to score then next bag of charlie.or gange .maybe if they seen real life it would kick um into touch.cos lets face it they dont have the urge to want to do anything

they could do national ervice but not go to war torn countrys, unless they enlisted propery whent here national service was up x