The post you are reporting:
I can't say I know anything about Douglas Carswell and what I do know about Dan Hannan I have to say I really dislike. It seems he is one of these guys that has grown up with a sort of British Imperialist mentality, "I say, aren't they poor and rather undeveloped" type thing. I always think that some of these people would happily have frozen development at 1851, when classes and hierarchy were clear and Britain was light years in front of the rest of the world. I should imagine that Douglas is the same. I find this a common trait in the Conservative party, they are generally individual that have always been 'quite well off' socially or economically (I don't necessarily mean wealthy)
My round about point here is that these men have never 'needed' anything. If there wasn't the NHS, I'd put money on the fact that them and their parents could afford private health care. In the absence of a state funded education system I have no doubt that they would have still been educated, again I'd place money on them attending public school (the very nature of the term 'public school', demonstrating the amazing development we have already made!) Now however intelligent these men are, which I know the answer to be very intelligent; their situation, education, position in society and for that fact, their intelligence, is nothing to do with them 'working hard'. These two upper class chaps are the people 'with' Unless they are highly empathic and sympathetic to those who have 'needed', those 'without', that have not been blessed with intelligence, fortune and a good upbringing, it makes it very hard for them to make some of these statements. The 'NHS being a mistake' comment being a prime example. It's much like people that run down heroin addicts, you just simply do not know their individual circumstances to be able to make a generalisation. I'm not asking for absolute empiricism in these matters, just a more of a sense of empathy.
However many of these points are very good. Being a firm believer in Socialism I think the democratic systems (and I use that term loosely) have become too complicated to effectively serve society and groups, as I believe these systems perhaps have an optimum size. We need common law, shared goals and beliefs as a nation but a centralised approach can have much the same effect as those that judge all heroin addict as having the same situation, for this reason I agree with the concept. The needs of people in one area of the country could be significantly different to those in another part. Enabling poverty to be dealt with at a more local level is a great idea and we obviously know our areas of deprivation better than anyone in central government or county level. However our spend would be higher than that of say Tumbridge Well, so who decided on the allocation of this type of funding. I am a working class man with a family living in a derived area so my taxes are higher than somewhere like Tenterden, what do I do? I can tell you what most people would do and that is move! And so we do need a centralised approach for much of this! The same ideas can be applied to education and health care, so we must be careful. 12 month plan...do me a favour, although there is a good idea in there somewhere.
Direct democracy is something I strongly believe in, with everyone being able to influence decision. I think some of this could be achieved through 'Charter 88' and a written constitution, something that local democratic processes would have to adhere to in my mind. Again we have to be careful not to fall into some kind of crazy 'absolute democratic' situation. Sometimes we don't always know what's best for us, god know I would never have brushed my teeth and although we moan about 'nanny state-isms' but the odd advert on TV does remind me I do have a liver and if I abuse it, it cost everyone!
Clean up Westminster, I think there is absolute consensus on this one, enough said!
I could comment on all of these but really need some breakfast, but will say that on the basis of their take on the NHS, I could never really take them to representing me. You can't opt out of paying for military funding, even if you don't agree with their actions. Protecting the health of the nation is just as important as protecting it's freedom, we should never forget this.
Roger, I agree there should be a new approach but we are not ruined. Medicine and operation; the extent and access of knowledge and skills; and the sophistication and globalisation of crime have all got significantly more complex. The NHS, education system and police force are struggling to keep up with the constant change. Things are 'different' not just 'worse'. Some things are better, let's remember that. You really have to stop reading the Daily Mail!