17:48  |  15 January 12
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Current Poll Results

Subjects of Debate

Should the Welfare State be dismantled or radically reduced and taxes lowered?
dismantling or pruning the welfare state
Yes - 78% No - 22%
Should our Constitutional Monarchy be replaced by a Republic?
constitutional monarchy - republic
Yes - 30% No - 70%
Should the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006 be repealed?
censorship - race relations
Yes - 95% No - 5%
Should a direct democracy replace the current system of British democracy, which is an elective oligarchy with policies indistinguishable from each other?
Is our sentimental attachment to the party system the reason why intelligent and principled people of conviction no longer wish to enter politics, leaving the field open to the likes of Bush, Blair and Cameron, who have no principles and only want to be in power to gratify their over-stuffed egos?

Much harm has been done in our name in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the official opposition continues to proclaim that it would have done no different.

It was the fringe parties such as UKIP, the BNP and indeed the Muslims who declared from the outset that getting involved in Iraq would be a Bad Idea.

Did YOU support the war?

Do you suspect that the majority of the people never wanted the war in the first place? If there had been a referendum about going to war, what do you think would have been the result?

Would you like to "trust" another "leader" or do you think it is time we tried to work things out by ourselves?
Yes - 91% No - 9%
Should marriage be "sold" as a contract to bring up children together, as so many people seem to have forgotten its true purpose?
family - law - marriage as a contract for children
Yes - 77% No - 23%
Should citizens who are not taxpayers be allowed to vote?
No representation without taxation?

Being over-run by foreigners is not just a peculiarly British phenomenon, if you look at the US and the rest of the EU. People have been complaining about foreigners ever since people had legs to move around with. Neither are foreigners necessarily people of a different hue - merely people from somewhere else who are now with you whom you may wish would stay away.

Perhaps this is just the human equivalent of insects being attracted to uncovered food on a sunny summer's day. The simple solution would be of course to cover the food, but below are some possible reasons why this is not done:

· political correctness
· an unacknowledged addiction to cheaper, more willing and skilled foreign labour
· the existence of a Sacred Cow cradle to grave welfare state that discourages a work ethic
· a state education system that does not educate adequately
· a declining birth rate of legitimate productive citizens
· the unfair burden on working and married parents
· the increase in working and single motherhood
· five-yearly elections which give short-termist politicians a reason to avoid dealing with problems that need medium to long-term solutions, eg education and transport

BUT MOST OF ALL, perhaps ...
· the refusal to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with a corrupt and corrupting system of indiscriminate universal suffrage, which allows politicians to bribe the voters who take in welfare with the money of those who give in taxes ...
Yes - 57% No - 43%
Should the ban on fox-hunting be lifted?
foxhunting ban
Yes - 75% No - 25%
Should health and safety legislation and regulation be radically cut back?
health and safety tyranny - red tape - excessive regulation - corruption and bribery - cost to small businesses - nannying and infantilisation of the citizen
Yes - 91% No - 9%
Should citizens who pay more tax be allowed to have more votes?
1P4A will not even attempt to unravel the complexities of party-funding that the David Abrahams affair has been highlighting. According to David Abrahams, he is a “serial philanthropist” being treated like a “serial murderer”. Another view suggested by Newsnight on 27 November 2007 is that these generous and frequent donations by a property developer to the Labour Party who are influential in the North East of England (where decisions on planning permission are made by individual Labour politicians), may have a more self-interested motive.

1P4A proposes a more transparent form of party funding, ie NO FUNDING AT ALL AND THE ABOLITION OF THE PARTY SYSTEM. Instead, the Political Classes should just act according to the view of those who vote under the proposed new system of Government by Referenda (which must logically be a one-party state), find individual causes to direct their principled support, rather than pledge loyalty to whoever is their current leader.

Instead of MPs representing individual parties, we would have Directors of Democracy (who would be elected by secret ballot) assisting their constituents in voting and the wording of referenda.

1P4A is a Libertarian website with the agenda of bringing about Minimum Government, and argues that Direct Democracy is its best vehicle. Because it makes more demands on the voter than the current system, it would ultimately result in less oppressive, unnecessary and expensive legislation because people would eventually get bored with voting and want to get on with their lives.

People will not vote until and unless it concerns and affects them. Those who vote will want to elect politician-administrators who will NOT keep asking them to pay more tax, embark on wasteful and dishonourable wars, or bribe the welfare claimant with the money of the welfare contributor that is the increasingly over-burdened taxpayer.

If we accept that there ought to be no representation without taxation (as was the pre-1918 view), then it is certainly arguable that greater taxation entitles the taxpayer to proportionately greater representation, just as if one were voting at a shareholders’ meeting.

There is also the view that those who don’t know and aren’t bothered should avoid giving answers to questions they do not understand. (This is what shareholders do when they receive tediously long company reports that they would rather not read.)

The political equivalent of these and the voting form will be issued to members entitled to vote. There is no need to spend money persuading and cajoling people to vote for politicians and their parties. Those who care about policy will be able to vote on policies and those who don't know and don't care and do not pay direct taxes, eg council and income tax, can be safely and justifiably disenfranchised.
Yes - 30% No - 70%
Should the meaning of racism have been extended to include almost everything found by anyone to be offensive on grounds of race?
It is said that when a civilisation rots it rots from the top down. The rot always takes the form of silly ideas that tend to bring about the decline of that civilisation through acting irrationally and persistently to its own detriment.

Unnecessarily extending the definition of racism (originally meaning the political doctrine that one race is superior to others therefore justifying that race's oppression of other races, eg Hitler's Aryan Ideal, South African Apartheid and, not so well known, the Hindu caste system) to include those guilty of mere expressions of dislike for other races is one of the more insidious side-effects of cowardly self-censorship.

Well-meaning people tend to assume that they must not say anything rude about any other race. Politicians, wanting to be populist and not wanting to offend any potential voter whilst relishing the opportunity of scoring points at the expense of those who are seen to be out of step, have connived in extending the meaning of racism.

The ugly truth is that nasty people of all hues would exploit and bully the vulnerable, either outsiders or insiders, if they are allowed to get away with it. Of course there should be laws against this, but they should not be allowed to disproportionately limit our freedom of expression. If freedom of expression means anything at all now, it must mean that we are at liberty to be offensive about each other, provided we do not fall foul of the laws of defamation, criminal incitement or public order.
Yes - 5% No - 95%
Page 3 of 13
< Previous  
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ...
Next >

Why Join?

Why Join? Join only if you:

care enough to have a view on the topics listed in the Chamber of Debate

relish debate in civilised terms with those who may disagree with you

want to meet like-minded people with whom to organise your opposition or support of a political cause

This is The Meeting Place for the Political Activist. May you change minds and in turn have yours changed. May we all be clearer about what it is that we want (and whether it is good for us!).
How it works