heavycola wrote:Why, the other day I was arguing that thatcher had done great things for the UK. No one really understood why they disagreed. It was just ' but we hate her'. No idea why. I hate her too.
I salute you. Arguing in favour of Thatcher is possibly the hardest thing in the world.
I hate her as well. For pretty much everything.
Politically .... ummm ... none of the above.
I think the Scandinavian-style welfare state is good. That's how things should be run, no question. I am definitely, 100% certain going to move to Sweden/Denmark/Norway if or when I have a child, I would want them to grow up in that kind of society.
I think a constitutional monarchy is a good thing. Whilst I don't agree that one person is any more important than anyone else, a constitutional monarchy does ensure a completely impartial head of state. They have everything they could ever wish for, and know full well that none of their family will ever want for anything. There's no reason why they should compromise that through corruption.
However, they should have no real political power, except for the right to call an election at any time. In theory if a dictatorial party got in to power (eg the Nazi party), they could be removed easily.
I think government should always be ruled by a written constitution (a la the USA), but this constitution should only be able to be changed through referendum - ie a vote from every single citizen. This way government can never easily abuse it's powers, as it must always run within the constraints that the population set upon it.
I think healthcare, transport, emergency services, etc. + all base natural resources (oil, coal, gas, electricity production, ..) should be publicly owned and run. For luxury items (cars, clothing, computers) - free market. Food's an awkward one, but I'd tend towards private enterprise.
And good public funding for museums, the arts and sport
