British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[tzijlstra]

Yes I am happy for the our elected government to do what they think is best for Britain, and if I disagree with anything they do I can vote for a different party every 5 years.

 

And so the cattle moves on to the meadows of slaughter.

[firemanbob]

And so the cattle moves on to the meadows of slaughter.

 

What's that supposed to mean?

[andyofborg]

What's that supposed to mean?

 

it means that one day the ability to change the government every 5 years might stop

[mjw47]

Yes I am happy for the our elected government to do what they think is best for Britain, and if I disagree with anything they do I can vote for a different party every 5 years.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Faced with the choice between doing the right ( but highly unpopular ) thing for the future interests of the country, and losing the next election as a result, or alternatively, choosing a popular short term ( but ultimately damaging for the country ) solution which would ensure reelection, which alternative do you believe most politicians would choose?

[firemanbob]

it means that one day the ability to change the government every 5 years might stop

 

Yep, one day we might have just an unelected European dictatorship telling what to do and when to do it.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 21:45 ----------

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Faced with the choice between doing the right ( but highly unpopular ) thing for the future interests of the country, and losing the next election as a result, or alternatively, choosing a popular short term ( but ultimately damaging for the country ) solution which would ensure reelection, which alternative do you believe most politicians would choose?

 

The government we have now have done some very unpopular things because they were right for the country, but not so good for the parties.

[mjw47]

Yep, one day we might have just an unelected European dictatorship telling what to do and when to do it.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 21:45 ----------

 

 

The government we have now have done some very unpopular things because they were right for the country, but not so good for the parties.

 

You didn't answer the question though.

 

The current government believe that the opposition is weak, and that Ukip will take voters from Labour just as much as from them when you consider the type Ukip are appealing to.

 

The " It's all the fault of the 'foreigners, Muslims, immigrants, EU" brigade are to be found in both left and right camps.

 

The Conservatives will begin to serve up a few 'treats' between now and the election and believe that they can win it, even if it means another coalition, the retention of power is paramount.

 

The question was, what would politicians do if they knew that the right option meant losing and the wrong option meant winning?

[firemanbob]

 

The question was, what would politicians do if they knew that the right option meant losing and the wrong option meant winning?

 

Politicians are their to serve the public so if they they new that a policy was that unpopular that it would make them unelectable, common sense would dictate that they drop the policy.

[mjw47]

Politicians are their to serve the public so if they they new that a policy was that unpopular that it would make them unelectable, common sense would dictate that they drop the policy.

 

Not quite following your logic there.

 

The whole point was that the unpopular policy was the right thing for the country.

 

Therefore, if they were serious about serving the country they would bite the bullet, take the hit, lose power but ultimately have done the right thing by the country they claim to serve.

 

You appear to be saying that it would be more important for them to remain electable, even though it would be detrimental and damaging long term to the country.

 

You don't happen to be a politician yourself do you?

[The Joker]

Sorry to bring this back on topic, but I would the right to exceed the speed limit driving up YOUR street, while imposing the death penalty on anybody who did the same on mine.

[mjw47]

Sorry to bring this back on topic, but I would the right to exceed the speed limit driving up YOUR street, while imposing the death penalty on anybody who did the same on mine.

 

Sounds reasonable to me, can't see why anyone but the most churlish would object.

 

On topic, I quite admire the American constitution, although accepting that it was a product of it's time, and that some of it wouldn't apply today.

 

The references to 'All men ( and women ) are created equal ' and 'The pursuit of Happiness' should be included.

 

I would prefer a secular state, and that all religions be regarded as both equal, and at the same time a personal choice.

 

If you wish to follow a particular religion and raise your children in that religion then that is your choice, but you need to do it in your own time and at your own expense.

 

Education is there to teach facts and the basics of reading writing and arithmetic. Science which can be verified by controlled experiment should also be taught.

 

Literature and philosophy which are subjective subjects should be included but made clear that they are subjective.

Religion could also be dealt with under philosophy but it should be made clear that we a dealing with non proven viewpoints.

 

The limitations of state control over it's citizens should be laid out in clear unequivocal terms.

 

The state needs to be aware of the fact that if it attempts to bring its power to bear against a lone individual, unless it is completely sure of its facts it will lose its case.

 

Taking into consideration the power of the state, represented by the Armed Forces, the Police force, MI5, MI6, the laws brought into existence by Parliament, the court and the assets available to the state to prosecute I don't think it unreasonable to demand that the individual needs protection and an assurance of justice.