UK Politics

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The last Queen's speech could mean either the speech of the last Queen, or the last speech the Queen gives.

But I still think my earlier questions were valid. She probably will be the last Queen. That's my prediction anyway.

Or do you think the monarchy will last longer than Prince William's eventual kingship?

It says "the last Queen's Speech ahead of an election". I also just heard them say it on BBC News, and they weren't making a prophecy It's just what they say when we get close to an election.

And yes, I do think the monarchy will survive Prince William. There's no process for getting rid of it and no idea of what will replace it. There's been a monarchy in Britain for over a thousand years - I just can't see a government saying "right, we'll abolish the monarchy" any more than they'll say "right, we'll abolish the Houses of Parliament". More likely is that over the next couple of centuries (and I really think it will take that long) the monarchy will become slowly reformed out of existence.

Unless there's a revolution or state of emergency like nuclear war or whatever.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The list includes setting up an FBI-style specialist crime unit, identity cards, compulsory drug testing and a law against incitement to religious hatred.

Quite a few ambiguous projects. The UK stopped having identity cards after the World War, didn't you?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I really am interested to hear more of your plan for the UK Chrys, how would you make it a more fair welfare state? This implies that there are some aspects that are currently unfair. If I was British, I would vote for you.

Maybe a good idea for reviving the imagine thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The last Queen's speech could mean either the speech of the last Queen, or the last speech the Queen gives.

But I still think my earlier questions were valid. She probably will be the last Queen. That's my prediction anyway.

Or do you think the monarchy will last longer than Prince William's eventual kingship?

I think the monarchy wil last beyond william. It's living history and is great for tourism. Britain gets far more in terms of tourism and things I think then they lose in having the monarchy.

And yes - I was only referring to our border we share. It's not likely you will see the Russian army anytime soon crossing over the artic to attack from the north.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for your views on the future of the Monarchy. I can't read today.

If Chrys wants to outline his vision in the Imagine thread, I think that would be superb! It needs a little CPR...

[Janny]

I suspect the monarchy will survive because of William, not just necessarily beyond William. (I think we could do with a nice strong king. NB: If we have no monarchy, it would president Blair or Howard after the next election... )

BoP, what exactly do you mean by 'letting them out'?

[BeardofPants]

I meant that in some cases, they deliberately "release" a fox (caged, and relocated from another area), then sick the hounds onto it.

[Janny]

Some?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

What does everyone think of the possible smoking ban?

[Janny]

Well, being conservative, I am evil and I do hate people's freedom. I suppose there is the off chance it might do some people good...

I wonder if instead there could be some ammendments to law dictating that medical priority would go to non-smokers... but that in itself is less ethical than saying that people cannot smoke if they so desire.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Janny

Some?

Are you deliberately being dense?

Messybeast.com. I'm referring to the practice of releasing foxes on private land for a hunt.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Are you deliberately being dense?

Yeah, sounds like me. All I was getting at was that not all of it is purely for cruelty, and that it is the most efficient way of dealing with foxes as a problem. The whole issue also highlightssome follies. eg. What if the police want to prove that the hunters were chasing foxes and not drag hunting? thy need to produce a fow as evidence. How would the police catch the foxes that got away to prove that real foxes had been involved? Jimminy Cricket! They use hounds!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

What does everyone think of the possible smoking ban?

Good thing, IMO. Makes it much less like being tortured when you go to the pub while you're trying to give up smoking.

I read that it has had an overall positive impact on trade in parts of Ireland, and I think we might see that here too.

As for identity cards, I don't know when we last had them. I can see some practical benefits, but they are mostly for the government and I am against anything that makes it easier for the government to keep tabs on you.

Basically, I see identity cards as an instrument of oppression. They were certainly used as such in the past (e.g. in South Africa) and would certainly be used as such in the future (e.g. against minority groups). With the various agencies being much more "joined-up" these days (e.g. police access to finance data, mobile phone records, email and internet traffic, etc) we need to take a rest from building the infrastructure for totalitarianism rather than speeding it up.

God, Blunkett is such a nazi.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

What does everyone think of the possible smoking ban?

Great idea, just because being around smoke is horrible. It'd be great to go somewhere and not come back stinking of smoke as usual (and wondering about health dangers too). My college just banned smoking in our common room, which I'm very happy about.

ID cards are a strange idea. Everyone has plenty of ID to prove who they are if they need to, and I can't see that it will stop terrorism - as Charles Kennedy said yesterday, they didn't stop it in Madrid. Why would ID cards be harder to fake than passports or other kinds of ID? I don't really understand the reasoning behind it

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

What does everyone think of the possible smoking ban?

absolutely ridiculous idea, IMO, whatever happend to human freedom?

i am late for a lecture, so if someone wants to outline any questions on my new system of government, i will address later, sorry i don't have time to reply to everyone right now!!

[Durin1]

I'm not a smoker but i can't see why there should be a total ban on smoking. With regards to human rights and freedom, why shouldn't a compromise be reached so that smokers are not made to feel alienated/ Many pubs have designated smoking and non-smoking areas. Why shouldn't these just be increased, rather than having an outright ban?

It seems that there are many people out there who like to take the moral high ground, but I think that it is a question of civil liberties (much in the same way as ID badges). I for one find that as long as smoke is not being blown in my face, or that I am not constantly breathing it in, then it is not a problem that other people are smoking in areas that i don't have to go into.

The healthcare point that MPs like to make is a joke. Sure, smoking-related ill-health accounts for a large part of the provision of health care (how much depends on who provides the statistics): so do eating habits, drink, lifestyles etc. Does that mean all these should be banned or people should be restricted from them so that they are less of a burden to the NHS?

"State" and "Nanny" spring to mind.

[Dwarven Sen]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

What does everyone think of the possible smoking ban?

I'm a smoker, and Edinburgh's ban will start in 2006 so i've got a while to quit. Not impressed mind.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I'm not a smoker but i can't see why there should be a total ban on smoking. With regards to human rights and freedom, why shouldn't a compromise be reached so that smokers are not made to feel alienated

Smokers choose to smoke. They choose to feel alienated. This is not a situation where you have to protect the rights of an innocent minority who can't help doing what they do. They can stop smoking if it bothers them that much.

The healthcare point that MPs like to make is a joke. Sure, smoking-related ill-health accounts for a large part of the provision of health care (how much depends on who provides the statistics): so do eating habits, drink, lifestyles etc. Does that mean all these should be banned or people should be restricted from them so that they are less of a burden to the NHS?

"State" and "Nanny" spring to mind.

The Govt is systematically getting through those things - did anyone hear about their new 'traffic light' way of grading food? They might be Nanny-statists but they are consistent

(BTW - is there anyone here who wouldn't be more inclined to eat a red-light food once you knew the government thought you shouldn't?)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

absolutely ridiculous idea, IMO, whatever happend to human freedom?

i am late for a lecture, so if someone wants to outline any questions on my new system of government, i will address later, sorry i don't have time to reply to everyone right now!!

That could be said of drugs aswell. These things are harmful to you and it is in peoples own best interest to stop.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

That could be said of drugs aswell. These things are harmful to you and it is in peoples own best interest to stop.

i'm not against some drugs either
cannabis, for certain, should be legal

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

And cocaine and heroin? Drugs that potentially kill. Should they be legal?