[Closed] A question for the lefties (that's politics)

Edit: using it somewhere else.

Green Party, which is why I joined them.

With the exception of the War in Iraq, and TB going a bit mad, I thought New Labour was pretty decent, they invested heavily in Schools, Health Service, etc.

Wouldn't want to go any further left than we currently are (with the current Tory government).

The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.

Then I would also like to see certain key industries nationalised. Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested. Of course, national industries were badly run in the past but privatisation is not the answer. At least, for essential utilities. I perhaps think things like nationalised car manufacturers is taking things a bit far.

Purges, lots of purges.

Basically social justice, investment in education, triple bottom line accounting, transport network overhaul in favour of public transport, renationalisation of utilities and transport, Gulags.

molgrips - Member

The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.

Then I would also like to see certain key industries nationalised. Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested. Of course, national industries were badly run in the past but privatisation is not the answer. At least, for essential utilities. I perhaps think things like nationalised car manufacturers is taking things a bit far.

What Molgrips said +1

immigrants on benefits. everywhere. all with their feet up because they've had free operations on the NHS.

it'll be beautiful.

Start Remploy again, closing it down was scandalous

Purges, lots of purges.

How about:

[i]To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.[/i]

But to work, that would require a human animal whose sole motivation [b]wasn't[/b] narrow self interest.

Yep molgrips +1 even in the US they tend to have state control over the key infrastructure of transport and power

Grips has it nailed really.

Yep molgrips +1 even in the US they tend to have state control over the key infrastructure of transport and power

What do you mean by 'state control'? Many states have a state corporation commission that regulates the activities of the privately owned power companies, but they don't control them.

Typed stuff, read molgrips answer, deleted stuff.

Basically "wot he said"

Before there can be any great movement left, the vested interest and almost blanket right wing bias of the media needs to be dealt with. The first thing I would nationalise would be the print media.
But then I am quite a fan of Stalin.

If the Green Party had some better policies to deal with the non-environmental issues, they could be the 3rd way. Right isn't great, Left isn't either. Instead of putting money first or 'the worker' first, we might want to try putting the world we live in closer to the top of the list. Neither Conservative nor Labour give due deference to the context we as humans should have to the world we rely upon. If that's knackered, we're knackered.

I agree with molgrips.

transport doesn't necessarily need to be a monotlithic state owned monstrosity.
have transport (a) integrated*, and (b) regional networks "owned" by stakeholders**. think more TFL than BR (I get the impression Manchester was going that way too?)

(* bus, train, tram, in a network area all on the same ticket not a bus ticket to station, train ticket to wherever, then another ticket for the destination area)

(** metropolitan authorities, county councils, local authorities,...)

Free access to healthcare and education. Nationalised utilities (gas, electric, water, rail and roads) should be operated for social good, not for profit.

Progressive taxation, so the rich pay more. The super rich should not be able to avoid/evade this.

A more equal society - I like the idea of tying the highest pay in an organisation to a multiple of the lowest pay (and closing any means to dodge this).

Representative democracy - we don't just vote Blue or Red anymore, so a structure that recognises this is needed. I'd like STV for MPs (keeping the constituency link) with the Upper House voted for through regional PR lists (like Europe is now).

Removal of inherited privileges, so no monarchy. Head of State to be appointed from among the upper house and to be honorific non-political title/position.

Regional devolution of power, so democracy happens at a more local level.

The Basic Income idea has a lot going for it too. Removes the need for lots of bureaucracy and can be grabbed back by the better off through the tax system.

Pretty much what Molgrips said.

I think the basic premise of those that can work, should. But it needs to be meaningful and respectful. The so called "benefits culture" is in part down to exploitive employers who use in-work benefits to prop up low pay and maximize profits.

Protecting the disabled and vulnerable needs to be given as high a priority as possible, regardless of cost.

I'll just leave this here:

[i]We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

Michael Foot[/i]

what GrahamS said...

oh, and in case you were wondering, yes i'm happy to pay more in taxes to pay for it all.

we're happy to pay more for stuff all the time: whether it's phones, cars, holidays, food, bikes, cameras, etc. We're happy paying more than we need, because we want something better than the cheapest option.

i'm just adding 'schools, healthcare, transport, overseas aid, parks, environmental protection, policing, etc.' to the list of things that i'm happy to pay more for.

molgrips - Member
The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.

Then I would also like to see certain key industries nationalised. Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested. Of course, national industries were badly run in the past but privatisation is not the answer. At least, for essential utilities. I perhaps think things like nationalised car manufacturers is taking things a bit far.

This.

Plus, a massive social housing building program.

Ditching the ludicrous war on drugs. If people want to temporarily alter/expand their consciousness in ways other than getting smashed on booze, it's none of the state's business.

unless too many people are too stoned to be able provide an income to the state, in which case it is the state's business

Pretty much what molgrips said.

There doesn't seem to be a party that represents this view, which is why I found it difficult to decide who to vote for last week. I'd add that being left doesn't necessarily have to sit with the Green's idea of no nuclear- I'm pro-nuclear but also very left. Again, I'm not pro-drugs and don't agree with their policy on drugs. Then again, I don't think I agree with anyone's policy on drugs- there needs to be someone more moderate in between the Greens and the main right wing parties.

I'm also pretty keen on the idea of rights of workers and the general public over those of business, though. Which isn't an idea that I think many will go for.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

* it's not free, obviously

So, molgrips for PM then?

But to work, that would require a human animal whose sole motivation wasn't narrow self interest.

Yes.. but people ARE motivated altruistically depending on the context. If we could find a way of showing people that those on benefits aren't workshy scum and actually need our help, then we would do a lot better.

Perhaps an increase in visibility of politics locally would be good. So you can see how your tax money is spent in your town, where it might be more real. Or some kind of town hall meeting system with voluntary representatives from all areas of society.. some way of increasing dialogue and exposure.

The BBC currently has a stab at this, incidentally. Not directly because it's state owned, but because it has a charter that defines its responsibilities, unlike the rest of the media who are just chasing your subscription fee or ad revenue.

Instead of giving free* childcare to every parent, wouldn't it make more sense to give free childcare to poor parents that wouldn't afford it otherwise?

Perhaps. I'd be prepared to debate that.

I'm also pretty keen on the idea of rights of workers and the general public over those of business, though. Which isn't an idea that I think many will go for.

Yes but you have to tread carefully there. In the globalised world, a company doesn't have to be based here in order to sell its goods here. So if you make it harder for them to make a fat profit they would need other reasons to stay here - if there aren't any they'll leave.

- Proportional Representation
- No unelected 'representatives' i.e. abolish House of Lords
- Cap campaign spending and donations
- Progressive drugs policy
- Progressive taxation, including Council Tax reform
- Pavement parking punishable by car crushing

+1 for what Molgrips said. I also agree with the Michael Foot thing. Old school Leftie, me. Except I'm not in favour of doing away with Trident, not yet. Plus, I'm not too keen on unlimited child benefit or indeed, free childcare.

- Pavement parking punishable by car crushing

YES!

Wot Molgrips said

The first thing I would nationalise would be the print media.But then I am quite a fan of Stalin.

No need, editors and select journalists to have a quiet weekend in Cuba personally sampling the facilities. Followed by a one to one meeting specifying that the next stay will be longer and more uncomfortable.

For the greater good. (George Orwell was right).

I was just about to add "I think I'd like to vote for Molgrips", but I appear to have been beaten to it!

I cannot really add much to what Molgrips said. It's not just left-wing politics that's fallen by the wayside (post 1979), the entire political process is not fit for purpose. In order for our MPs to govern, they need to be compelled to live like the electorate, dependent on the same public services as the electorate and in the same town as their constituents. They need binding contracts which empower individuals to challenge MPs to answer questions concisely and truthfully, to ensure that there are no external conflicts of interest. Civic duty must come before party politics.

Oh, and deporting one Rupert Murdoch and dismantling his empire would be a fantastic start.

So, molgrips for PM then?

Ah....but what do you look like?? 😮

Troy McClure?

So, molgrips for PM then?

Ah....but what do you look like?

And can you eat a bacon sandwich?

I'll do a selfie tomorrow morning.

I reckon most people would agree with this kind of policy. The only problem is detaching that from entrenched party political mud slinging and making people realise that almost all of us will be happier and better off.

And on a practical level free childcare would be an enormous vote winner for whoever decides to come out with it. So many people would benefit.

Another policy: Tax breaks or other incentives for companies whose employees work from home. Or perhaps penalties if your staff COULD wfh but don't, since tax breaks would be unfair to companies who need staff in factories etc. It would save a shitload of money in road building and rail infrastructure, help carbon emissions, boost rural economies and increase net happiness.

On the subject of which, I'd introduce a net happiness indicator like the cost of living one - so we can monitor people's quality of life and not just the money they make. I'd publish this and be judged by it.

Again +1 to Molgrips - free childcare. The planet is overpopulated as it is, if you want a load of kids you should have the means to pay for them. I'm pretty left wing on most issues apart from the right to have x number of children and the support that comes along with this.

I'd also like to see the suggestions being paid for by reform in taxes for multinationals, the super rich and the city.

Another thing I'd like to see is harsher penalties (Jail time) for manipulating the financial markets. At the moment there is not much incentive for the traders and financial institutions to stop cheating the system and using the financial markets like a casino.

A hefty fine and a slap on the wrist with "you promise not to do that again you naughty boys" is not enough.

I voted green, but I wouldn't want them to get in unless they changed some of their wackier policies.

On the subject of which, I'd introduce a net happiness indicator like the cost of living one - so we can monitor people's quality of life and not just the money they make. I'd publish this and be judged by it.

I thought this was already being done?

Tax breaks or other incentives for companies whose employees work from home.

Just 'cos your a loner doesn't mean we all are. Anyway most decent companies allow homeworking if it is necessary.

Oh yeah - also the govt IT agency thing. I'd start by creating a consultancy company just like any other. We may not need to rig the bidding process - I'd just pay well and encourage good working conditions like salary and benefits. I think after a while it'd start gaining and keeping so much government contract experience that it'd end up winning all the contracts anyway.

Once al the diverse agencies start a good working relationship with one provider they can start collaborating on wider simpler solutions that only the government agency could deliver - because the Minister for IT would be on the board*

* ok so this may need looking at a bit more 🙂

Just 'cos your a loner doesn't mean we all are.

Ok then, we'll set up local offices in villages and towns where you can go and hang out with other people who are also wfh.

Regards yout point Molgrips about most people agreeing with these kind of policies, that's one suggestion why the preelection polls were so wrong. People in their hearts want the ideology of Labour and Green (and preelection say theyll vote Labour etc) but are too scared to when it comes to it - also weirdly a lot of people are too embarrassed to admit voting Tory. Surely if you're embarrassed you know it's not the right thing?

Ok then, we'll set up local offices in villages and towns where you can go and hang out with other people who are also wfh.

You want to speak to @pennypower, who has been working towards this type of networking opportunity

Get a liitle closer to Scandanavia on many (all) of the World Bank indices.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator

PR, and to stand for parliament you must have lived in the constituency for 5+ years
Flat tax rate, starting at 20K
Minimum wage £10
Max pay of the board in a ltd company 20x average pay - although dividends can be paid to entrepreneurs
Keep the house of lords - I like the idea of the great and the good putting a brake on some of the more stupid knee jerk policies - but you must attent >30 days per year and retire at 80
Any building that needs planning permission (so new and extensions) should have to have a minimum amount of renewable energy installed (wind/solar/water)
Increase spending on cycle to equal the amount we spend on roads
Increase spending on public transport to equal the amount we spend on roads
Run public transport privately but within a single ticket structure (eg switzerland)

Edit - all government contracts must be published in full - if you dont want to show confidential info, don't bid for the contract

Another policy: Tax breaks or other incentives for companies whose employees work from home.

It should be noted that this policy would favour middle to high earners the most, as they are the type of people most likely to have a spare room to convert into an office, plus are most likely to be in a job they can do from home.

It should be noted that this policy would favour middle to high earners the most, as they are the type of people most likely to have a spare room to convert into an office, plus are most likely to be in a job they can do from home.

Company tax breaks, not personal ones.

Transport policy - well now that busses and rail are nationalised, I'd plan a proper connected network and put loads of bike carrying capacity on them. Also a free Brompton (or similar) for everyone.

[i]oh, and in case you were wondering, yes i'm happy to pay more in taxes to pay for it all.[/i]

Yep, me too.

[i]....also weirdly a lot of people are too embarrassed to admit voting Tory. Surely if you're embarrassed you know it's not the right thing?[/i]

Not really, its more like the people voting Conservative are exactly that....not foaming at the mouth Lefties, who scweam and scweam when they hear something they don't like! Therefore, they keep calm and vote Tory!

[i]Transport policy - well now that busses and rail are nationalised, I'd plan a proper connected network and put loads of bike carrying capacity on them. Also a free Brompton (or similar) for everyone.[/i]

It would never catch on.....no one wants to be associated with 'Bus W@nkers'!

Ok then.. First class busses 🙂

What so the company gets a tax break while it costs me the employee more as I now have to turn over a room in my house to an office and pay higher energy bills etc.

What a terrible policy. I'm not voting for you.

Most of moly.

Centre left here. I've done ok so far (good education, good job, nice lifestyle) and I don't want anyone prevented from doing well.
But I do want the vulnerable supported and opportunities for people to fulfil their potential - I didn't pay for my degree, the way I pay back is by offering the same free education to the next generation.

However, I work for a large power utility and we haven't sent the shareholder a dividend in their ownership (15 years or so) - they reinvest the lot (in fact rather more than that actually). But then we have an enlightened owner who believes in capital growth not asset stripping or profiteering (and they've done rather nicely out of it), so what does that tell us? Well it tells us that capitalism itself is not evil, it's certain capitalists who are a bit suspect.
My company is providing a better service, cheaper and safer than it was as a publicly owned body.

And yes of course people lie to pollsters about voting Tory, and yes it's because they are ashamed.

What so the company gets a tax break while it costs me the employee more as I now have to turn over a room in my house to an office and pay higher energy bills etc

You'd get compensated for that just as you do now. If you haven't the space then your company can rent a government subsidised office local to your home for less than the cost of a big centralised office.

Of course, if you live close to the main office then you're exempt. That way you only need commute if you really really want to spend half your life sat in a car.

That way you only need commute if you really really want to spend half your life sat [s]in a car[/s] on your bike.

FTFY 😉

Housing has ceased to have any kind of social function as far as government policy is concerned—that needs to be remedied. Housing should be about putting roofs over people’s heads, not about providing tax-efficient schemes for people to invest their pension pots/inheritances. We need more social housing, and private rental needs to be properly regulated—no landlord should have the power to turn away a tenant because they’re in receipt of benefits or have kids. People who buy a property to live in shouldn’t be at a tax disadvantage to people who buy to let. And pretty much wot Molgrips sez.
#teammolgrips 🙂

You'd get compensated for that just as you do now.

?? compensated by who?

I think you IT folk live in a world far removed from most peoples work lives. I need to be in the office simply to discuss things with colleagues and meet clients. Sure some of it could be done remotely but IMO it is nowhere near as effective and not everything can be done this way.

Russell Brand

Housing should be about putting roofs over people’s heads, not about providing tax-efficient schemes for people to invest their pension pots/inheritances.

Well that appears to have been one of the unintended consequences of Gordon Brown's tax raid on private pensions. People have lost trust in pensions and are looking to put their money elsewhere. Also not helped by low interest rates making other saving options not very attractive.

ok, i'm not sure this is actually workable, but i'd like to [i]reduce [/i]in work benefits and [i]increase [/i]out of work benefits, on the basis that "in work benefits" are effectively subsidising the high salaries at the top of companies by allowing them to pay their employees peanuts so they have to top up their salaries with housing benefit and so on.

I wouldn't have a "flat rate" tax as suggested above, unless its set at the current highest rate of tax (45%?) with a high tax-free allowance. Tax is already regressive as it is when you take into account all forms of taxation (not just income tax, which is usually the justification for this nonsense).

There'd also be proper bike lanes everywhere.

I don't want a Brompton, please can I choose something different?

Ooh yes. Like that.

I object to my taxes being used to subsidise Tesco's wage bill because they can't be bothered paying a decent wage.

Agree that New Labour was generally reasonably decent aside from TB going crazy and trying to dominate the world, although for me civil liberties have to be very high up the agenda. All that nonsense about ID cards and closer and closer scrutiny, the suspension of juries, habeas corpus and holding without charge - that needs to go. I guess I'm a true Social Democrat - which is why I warm to the Lib Dems.

I keep mistaking jambourgie for jambalaya, it does my head in when I read something sensible and intelligent from jambourgie and I think it's from jambalaya.

It's hugely reassuring when I realise my mistake and that the world is indeed as it should be.

Molgrips ,PM & Miketually , Home secretary?

😀

I was playing by the rules OP set so not posting

@molgrips all very good, can you make the numbers work? £150bn in welfare isn't doing what you suggest. Not under Labour (new or less-new) or under the Conservatives.

@Drac a number of US utility companies where bankrupted by state government rules on pricing, basically they fixed the price the utilities could sell at but of course the supply/production costs varied, production costs rose and suppliers went bust. Its my understanding/experience that the US has a mix of state and private companies to deliver utilities, they do the same for insurance which is quite interesting.

Plus, a massive social housing building program.

Ditching the ludicrous war on drugs. If people want to temporarily alter/expand their consciousness in ways other than getting smashed on booze, it's none of the state's business.

Drugs, massive social cost. It is the state's business when they burgle your house or when they need expensive medical treatment to keep them alive or their families need benefits to survive as the drug user cannot work.

jambalaya - Member

can you make the numbers work? £150bn in welfare isn't doing what you suggest.

is that the 150billion welfare bill that includes 75billion spent on the state pension?

pensions aren't welfare, they're pensions.

the benefits bill isn't 150billion, it's about 80billion - most of which is helping people who are working.

in other words, the benefits bill is a fantastically complicated way of subsidizing low pay.

Why does Left or Right have to be the way? The obvious compromise is a sensible middle course, rather than lurching from shades of red to shades of blue. Shades of Purple was a non-starter, and Green never suits anybody

But not Liberal of course, that would be silly.

Because the right wing causes a world of difficulties that don't have to be endured.

Drugs, massive social cost. It is the state's business when they burgle your house or when they need expensive medical treatment to keep them alive or their families need benefits to survive as the drug user cannot work.

Are they robbing your house or needing expensive medical treatment because of the drugs or because the drugs are of dubious origin and quality?

Would legalising them not perhaps solve some of these problems?

Massive home building projects - planning permission issues and 'local protests' should be set aside and new suburbs built - careful regulation to ensure homes are cost effective and reflective of needs of local people / families, not state subsidised BTL flat farms. Yes it will drive down house prices, hurt the banks balance sheet and upset the Boomers, and no I don't care, they've been protected for years. This is the best, fairest method of wealth redistribution I can think of.

NHS should be protected, by law - it's budget set and increased inline with inflation and removed from the control of the Commons - yes that could mean it loses some over-sight, but the greater good is removing it as a political pawn. Dentistry should return to the NHS.

The Welfare State should be made simpler and an 'Abyss' introduced to separate the needy from the lazy. If you are unable to work because of severe illness, or because of disability you shouldn't have to face a life on the poverty line to subsidise those who have learned to live off the Welfare State and will accept poverty in exchange for a life of inactivity - JSA should be limited to 6 months, once that point is reached then recipients should perform civic duties that befit their skills in return for their income - no work, no dole. Yes, some will suffer and this may seem a 'right wing' policy, but in reality it's not, Left Wing politics or Socialism relies on everyone working together for shared wealth - not sitting on your arse all day and shipping off the terminally lazy into 'disability' category because it's easy is an insult to those who can't work.

Drugs, all drugs should be legalised - prohibition doesn't work, has never worked, will never work - a 'War on Drugs' is a civil war against your own people - those who wish to use drugs should be educated to their dangers, treatment should be the answer to drug addiction, not prison. Sale of Drugs should be regulated, taxed, but legal - we should use the billions of pounds of drug money that is spent every year in the UK to help those who need it and help fund the country, not make drug dealers rich.

Rebalancing of the Economy from London centric financial hub backed up by a services lead / debt based economy back to a more rounded production / manufacturing economy. Infrastructure projects should reflect this - everything has been London centric for 30 plus years - new airports or runways, London, new Rail lines, to connect smaller cities with London, roads to connect everywhere with London. I'd rather the UK produced 50 jobs paying £20k a year than 1 job paying £1m a year in the city. We'd have to actively devalue the £ to make us competitive in the world, which will upset the city, no, I don't care.

I agree with most of What Molgrips said in his first post. Mainly the nationalisation of key things like transport and utilities etc.

I think public transport can be greatly improved and I think London is one good example of what can be achieved. Local constituencies can decide exactly how their local public transport system is implemented but there should be national frame work. eg I one single payment system used nationally and guidelines on fare rates etc.

I would also want greater efficiency from the nationalised services to get more value for money. I think a lot of time and money is wasted and would like these services to be renovated and made to run efficient. I don't think public sector jobs should be seen as cushy, easy going jobs. I also wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I did get more value for money.

I also don't mind people and companies earning lots of money and becoming filthy rich, good on them. But I would like them to become wealthy by paying a fair rate of tax and not avoiding it via loop holes etc.

A long term sustained housebuilding programme gradually building up to match the current demand rate, which ramps up further in subsequent years to address the longterm deficit, the aim being to engineer a gradual realignment of housing costs.

Whilst the cost of living issues that most suffer from can be addressed by giving tax credits/ benefits.. it fixes symptoms not the causes.... enabling folks to live on a relatively low wage would enable them to compete on the global stage bring tax revenue, reduce benefits + reduce the individual tax burden

I think you IT folk live in a world far removed from most peoples work lives. I need to be in the office simply to discuss things with colleagues and meet clients. Sure some of it could be done remotely but IMO it is nowhere near as effective and not everything can be done this way.

It's not as effective now, because we're used to being face to face. And yes, some people need to be there in person - I accept that. But in the long term, the more common and acceptable it becomes to work remotely, the better our world will be in general. Of course it shouldn't be a draconian policy. The point is to a) reduce traffic and b) to help make people happier. I suspect many people would love to shut their laptop when the kids come back from school, have some family time, then open it again later. And many wouldn't - many would rather roll out of bed at 6 and get cracking, finish at three and go for a bike ride. It's all about flexibility to make your job fit in with what you want out of life.

those who wish to use drugs should be educated to their dangers, treatment should be the answer to drug addiction, not prison

Just like we do for legal drugs.

@molgrips all very good, can you make the numbers work?

Well now that's the thing, isn't it?

Taxes would have to go up, I'm sure. But people need to understand that their money is going to do some good.

However the free childcare thing - there's a good chance that would get a LOT of people back in work, and it might cost less than you might think. I seem to remember reading that in countries where they do it, it more or less pays for itself. Because if you're not sat at home looking after kids you're out earning taxable income and growing GDP.

It'd be interesting to see how much revenue that and legalising drugs would generate.

Re childcare- within our patriarchal setup its the men who are in the majority if work. Think how more effective our economy would be if we had vast amounts of women back in the workplace adding a whole raft of benefits that would come from a balanced workforce...

Are they robbing your house or needing expensive medical treatment because of the drugs or because the drugs are of dubious origin and quality?

If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price

@P-Jay 68% of people in the UK own their own home, so pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected. Yes there is lots of noise from people unable to get on the housing ladder but I was hearing that 30 years ago when prices where much lower.

Re childcare- within our patriarchal setup its the men who are in the majority if work. Think how more effective our economy would be if we had vast amounts of women back in the workplace adding a whole raft of benefits that would come from a balanced workforce...