A facinating post, lets go through it piece by piece shall we.
Chie wrote:
- Don't think it's acceptable for criminals to hurt people and break the law as long as they say sorry afterwards. (Incidentally, the Lib Dems would like to usurp short prison sentences with community service. I wonder how long before they, as a "progressive" party, decide that ritual public humiliation is barbaric?)
So you believe the only way to deal with an offender is to throw them into jail and throw away the key? Note how well that works in the US. Their manefesto is that they will avoid prison sentences under six months when necessary, therefore making prison the place for more serious offenders with long term sentences. Currently, the prisons - as we so often hear - are rather full, and a large number of these are people who are in there because of some of the stupid offenses that labour have dreamed up over the last decade and shoved a prison term on to. This is not the best use of prison, and its damn expensive.
There are numerous articles, which I can't be bothered to find, that explain how sticking the type of stupid kid who does petty crime into prison often makes them worse when they come out. They end up associating with worse people and it makes them more likely to reoffend. Therefore giving them a community sentence, which lets not forget is meant to be humiliating, is not only more useful to the community (cleaning graffiti etc) but is less likely to get them mixed up with even more nefarious types.
What exactly is the problem with this? It does not imply that if I can kill someone and get away with it. It suggests that short term sentences are useless.
Chie wrote:
- Do not wish to completely emasculate Great Britain by further amalgamating us with Europe. Nick Clegg has openly stated that he thinks Britain is too big for its boots and needs putting back in its place. He hopes to achieve this aim by devolving more power to Europe, which to my mind is tantamount to saying 'If I'm not allowed to govern the country then no one should, so we'll let Brussels decide'.
When did he state that exactly? Is this the Nazi Slur article again?
Chie wrote:
- Do not want to scrap the Trident nuclear deterrent and replace it with a pathetic land-launched system that would be completely useless now that our potential enemies' missiles are precise to within a couple of feet, or an ineffective air-launched cruise missile system, the best of which have a range of only 1500 miles.
What exactly are the point of our nuclear weapons at the moment Chie? When would we use them, what do they deter? They are a relic of the cold war and should be disposed of.
I'm not one of these people who comes out with the "we need to ask the Americans" line because I don't think its accurate, however given that any attack on our soil would more likely be a "dirty bomb" carried by a person rather than a missle from a govt, is it really useful? And what good would the thing do afterwards exactly bar a nasty style of revenge?
Those likely to attack Britain - not that I believe there is a perinant threat - are more likely to be the crazed terrorist loon types. These people, not being governments, are more concerned about killing people due to their warped mindset rather than gaining any sort of political leverage so the idea that Britain could flatten, say, Islamabad in retaliation doesn't matter to them. After all, they have no aversion to killing "their own people" in bomb attacks.
So what we're left with is a system that allows us to attack people who have nothing to do with the initial attack in the first place whilst simultaniously being expensive and hypocritical.
Fab.
Chie wrote:
- Realise that standards of literacy and numeracy are at an all time low, despite the fact that billions of pounds have been poured into education and class sizes have already been reduced over the last 13 years.
Having not been in the English education system for 10 years I'll pass on this one.
Chie wrote:
- Understand that achievement and wealth creation should not be treated as a crime.
Oh yes, you're right, that "send anyone who makes over £100k to prison, but give them a community setance if they agree to a pay cut" pledge is a bit of a bad one isn't it.
Chie wrote:
- Know that increasing the Adult Learning Grant to £45 per week for 18–24 year-olds in Further Education is nothing short of bribing young people to stay in education until their mid-twenties (normally learning soft subjects that are no use to man nor beast anyway) thereby burdening their parents and the state* when they could be working, paying tax and saving up to move out whilst they don't have any substantial outgoings.
*You'll be happy to know that I recently heeded another member's advice by applying to make voluntary National Insurance contributions, so as not to risk jeopardising my entitlement to benefits or a state pension in the future.
Again, I can only speak for the Scottish system that I've experienced, however for those who basically have only the grants / bursarys to live on, its not much. I've nearly always needed a job to get by and if it wasn't for a bit of family money and Lloyds TSB's lovely overdraft I'd have not got through uni and I'm on the highest bursary they do. But ho hum.
Chie wrote:
- Are aware that the young persons' National Minimum Wage is vital and must not be scrapped as it encourages employers to take on young people who lack the paid work experience that employers would otherwise favour, thereby giving the young a more equal footing in the jobs market.
I was personally under the impression that shops and the like often employed kids more because they are inexperienced and thus can be bossed around more without knowing their rights rather than the cheapness (that doesn't last that long anyhow).
