U.K. DUers, what would you ideally-want Britain to be?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Poll question: U.K. DUers, what would you ideally-want Britain to be?

[D-Notice]

1. Other:

A dictatorship, with myself as benevolent/malevolent ruler... ;-)

Iron-fist, or velvet-glove... now there's a choice!

[libhill]

6. OK, Dubya -

n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. Sounds like you're a Romanov at heart

:P

[D-Notice]

28. You'll regret making those sort of comments! ;-)

#When I am King you will be first against the wall,
With your opinion which is of no consequence of all#

You've been added to my Nixon-style "Enemies List"! ;-)

Who'll be my ra-ra-Rasputin then?

[libhill]

34. You would make

a great Republican. :)

[Greeby]

2. A nation that

whatever it does, it's our idea. Not something cooked up by King George

[many a good man]

3. self-delete

:hi:

[Benbow]

4. Voted - but you need to define "socially liberal"

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. I define socially-liberal as

consistent liberal approaches to GLBT issues, race issues, reproductive-choice, feminism and civil liberties. A British example of social-liberalism are the social policies of the Liberal Democrats. In that specific case those social policies are mixed with a market liberal economic philosophy.

[Taxloss]

7. Is that incompatible with democratic socialism? I would think

a sensible social democracy would be socially liberal.

[Taxloss]

8. I voted for the second option. Pure pipe dream, though.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. I voted for the European social democratic state option

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. I took social liberal policies as a given for social democracy

However, I should have been more descriptive than I was when composing the options.

The "social liberal parliamentary" option is meant as a socially-liberal society but with market liberalism as the economic philosophy.

You can take social liberal policies as a given for the socialist choices in the OP.

[Taxloss]

11. Well, I took the liberty of reinterpreting socialism in giving my answer.

I mean a social mix that devolves economic power to the labouring classes beyond the present inequitable market-liberal system.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. Interesting

Would you abolish capital altogether? Or keep capital and redistribute it?

[Taxloss]

13. Capital does seem to be important, very important.

I don't think it can be abolished, nor do I think placing it in the hands of the state is the way forward; for venture/investment capital I think some system of mutual, democratic ownership would have to be established. Land reform would have to be addressed the same way, but land reform will necessarily be a long process.

Edit: I should add I'm a Fabian at heart. Slow change.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. Do you envision something like a worker's credit union

as a method of mutual democratic ownership of wealth?

Also what would be your preferred result of eventual land reform?

[Taxloss]

16. Yes, credit unions, building societies, tied in with a new system for

pensions, insurance and welfare as springs of mass capital.

Land reform is a tricky one as land has so many different uses. National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs, and similar entities should go to state or local democratic control. Elsewhere in the countryside, some sort of "resource union" system between private ownership and collective farming would have to be found, maybe involving the entities in the first part of this post, but it would hae to give a degree of security and tenure to farmers and farming families. Any land reform of this kind would take decades to implement.

(Agriculture would be reformed wholesale at the same time. Britain would become the modern world's first organic-only farming country, with an emphasis on quality; if it's British, it's chemical-free. Forestry would be expanded.)

Commercial land is easier to imagine in collective hands. Residential land should be used as the basis of local, small-scale, inclusive democracy. These reforms would take decades to implement.

All this would be under a bicameral republic (but I think we should give it the native term "Commonwealth") with a directly elected president ("Protector"?!).

These are my thoughts. I've got a lot more. I'd also be interested to hear yours.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

20. Thanks for sharing them with me

The terms "Commonwealth" and "Protector" do give it a very localised feel, I like that. In 1991 Tony Benn introduced a "Commonwealth of Britain" bill into the Commons to abolish the monarchy. Commonwealth of Britain does sound nicer than republic of Britain.

I can't add much to your organic farming idea because it is a very good idea. I don't trust huge corporations with producing the nation's food either. I also like your land-reform ideas too.

In terms of economics I'd be happy with a Swedish-style social democratic state. I'd happily pay the extra taxes for the clean streets, liberal policies, better health care, better education and the lower crime due to less inequality. The Swedish economy is expected to growth by over 3.2% this year (real GDP) and that's with a budget surplus. So, I don't think economic growth would be a problem for a social democratic Britain.

I'd like a bi-cameral elected-Parliament. The House of Commons is elected by a form of PR (i.e. Additional Member or some other option). The Senate is elected region-by-region in a PR system similar to how European elections are conducted.

The Head of State, the “The Protector” is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and exercises ceremonial powers (i.e. to dissolve the Commons if a Prime Minister cannot hold the confidence of the chamber).

For a bill to become law, it needs to pass both Houses of Parliament.

The Prime Minister is the MP who can command a majority outright or by an agreed coalition in the Commons.

The Protector resides in “Commonwealth House” which is either a former Royal residence or a specially-built building.

Restrictions on use of military action should find their way into the new governmental system too.

-----------

From this there would be a gradual progression towards a social democratic Europe-wide state with a common foreign policy, an elected European president, a single military, a true single market, and a non-sectarian, secular state.

One can dream though.

[Taxloss]

21. It is nice to dream about this. I remain optimistic.

To me, it sounds like our ideas are't so distant. At the very least, Britain would be your kind of state for a couple of decades before it gently migrated to the full version of my perfect state.

I agree with your view of the office of the Protector - CinC, ceremonial role, formal veto power. (Directly elected, naturally, by an STV/runoff system of some kind.)

I like "Commonwealth House" as well. In my ideal state, Buck House would be levelled to link up Hyde Park, Green Park, St James Park and the Royal Gardens into one huge area of green space. If the ex-royal HAD to stay in Britain (I'd rather they didn't - maybe Canada), then they could be given Balmoral. All other palaces would be nationalised. All royal land would be nationalised. The art and jewels should be nationalised. "Commonwelth House" ... Kensington Palace suggests itself, but seems backwards-looking. I think a new building and public gardens in Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

22. I'm interested to see what Labour becomes post-Blair

If it continues with Blairism after Blair has gone, then the party will destroy itself like the Tories did after Thatcher.

If we get a centre-left Labour Party again then we might gradually see something resembling our ideals. I want politicians who spend their time worrying how to keep unemployment down rather than trying to compromise workers rights as long as they can squeeze an extra 0.1% of GDP growth.

Instituting PR would save Labour. Even though they would lose lots of seats it would save them in the long-run. Labour would then have to become a left-of-centre party since they could not hold supporters hostage to the Tory-threat. Yet, the longer Labour remain neo-liberal the more it discredits itself.

In a PR climate it would be implausible to see a Tory government. The natural turn of events would mean a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, mixing social liberalism and social democracy.

Perhaps there is cause to be optimistic afterall.

-------------------
I am in full agreement with nationalising royal estate. Though like you suggest, it may need to take a newly built residence, to architecturally embody the new Commonwealth's bright future.

It is nice to dream and that is why I started this thread. I'd like to think that Britain will be modern, inclusive, fair and free and not be some reactionary backwater chasing ghosts of empire.

[Taxloss]

23. I fear Labour's future is still in Blair's hands.

The sooner he relinquishes power the better; the longer he stays, the greater the chances Labour will rip itself to shreds upon his passing.

I think Britain retains - in great supply - the capacity to astonish the world with success as a state. A "modern, inclusive, fair and free" Britain that has made a definitive break with the past is desirable and possible. There's a lot of good we could do on this planet - setting an example to France and Italy would be a start.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. I hope Blair has the urge to retire very soon

That's hoping for a lot I know.

Showing Europe how true democracy is done could mean Britain taking a more active and leading role in the EU.

[Taxloss]

25. I doubt Blair will make it to 2008.

I'd be surprised if he's still in at the end of 2006. (And I won £10 off my Dad for correctly saying both Bush and Blair would still be in power by the end of 2004, so I am a pundit to be reckoned with!)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. End of 2006 would be fine by me

I've been fearing Blair clinging-on as a political dead weight until 2009 :scared:

Maybe House of Lords reform can be his "legacy" and then he can ride off into the sunset and leave the rest of us alone.

[Taxloss]

27. The longer he stays, the further his legacy decays.

He'll go sooner rather than later. (I think.)

Plus, he has to get cracking with the speaking tour and memoirs if he's going to afford that Connaught Sqaure place.

[non sociopath skin]

17. We're starting from quite a low base right now ...

... so I think I'll go for more open, tolerant and democratic and start from there...

The Skin

[Taxloss]

18. Good point. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. Yes, but one can dream

:)

[Kipling]

31. Things I Want

1. Nationalise utilities, Forestry Commission, and MG Rover (as a hybrid car company).
2. Minimum wage raised to £8, and relaxed union laws.
3. Government policy of tax breaks and grants to encourage investment in robotics, technology, and China.
4. Local authorities given power to set their own tax schemes and a certain degree of control over local NHS hospitals, to replace all the "hospital competition" pig shit.
5. Cut VAT to 10% as it is a regressive tax and Thatcher liked it, but raise income tax until the goverment controls 36% of GDP.
6. Spend the reccomended 0.7% of GDP on aid. Increase spending on the NHS and education by about 50%.
7. A huge program of building new schools, libraries, music centres, etc.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. I'm all for cutting VAT

and I like the hydrid car company idea especially too.

[Taxloss]

33. Good ideas. But why the building programme?

Keynesian pump-priming? Wouldn't the money be better spent maintaining, improving, restoring and adapting the buildings we already have? I'm all for new architecture, but we make very poor use of our existing built environment.

Housing and public space could both benefit from massive investment, though.

[LeftishBrit]

29. I voted for socially-liberal parliamentary democracy,,,

But would add to that: mixed economy; reverse some of the recent privatization. I also think that the electoral system has to be changed to take into the fact that we have more than two (in some places, more than three) significant political parties. I don't know exactly what the system should be - the more extreme forms of proportional representation also have their problems. But I would like everyone in Britain to have what I happen to have by a geographical accident of living in a marginal constituency: the chance to feel that their vote really makes a difference.

[evermind]

30. I'd like proportional representation voting, for both houses

and an anti-war, pro-environment, pro-civil-liberties, pro-wealth-redistribution coalition, that is at least willing to struggle against the wishes of large corporations, to hold power.

I wouldn't like a European super-state, unless heavily devolved.

I think the monarchy is an irrelevance, but probably better than an elected head of state - because people take it less seriously!

So what does that make me? I don't understand most of the differences in the poll.

This is just a temporary measure, of course, since the obvious long (long!) term aim of any reasonable government is to be able to abolish itself.. ;-)