Rationale

1. Representative Democracy
   1. The democratic process in the UK is implemented nationally by representation in the House of Commons. Each constituency contains a roughly equal number of enfranchised resident citizens.
      1. We propose to make voting at national elections mandatory, and to ensure that every eligible citizen appears on an electoral roll. We regard voting as a duty.
      2. We will extend the voting franchise to all eligible citizens from the age of twelve. Citizens in secondary education receive mandatory lessons in Civics knowing they will have to wait anything up to twelve years before they will first get an opportunity to vote in a national election. That is not an incentive. Reducing the age at which they can vote will have a galvanizing effect on their interest in the governance of Britain. Everyone in these classes should know from the start that they have a duty to vote before leaving secondary education.
   2. We guarantee that we shall never call a referendum. There is no place for a referendum in a representative democracy. There is no national debate prior to a referendum. A referendum is overwhelmingly decided by undemocratic media influence.
   3. Debate in the House of Commons should influence the result of Parliamentary voting. We promise that the executive during our time in office will never operate a whipping system, that all of our MPs will always be free to vote on behalf of their constituents according to their personal judgement. Party selection panels will obviously and necessarily consider a candidate's position on manifesto commitments, but no MP will be disciplined on the basis of their voting record. MPs should always decide the results of debates, not pressure from the executive. An MP's worth lies in contributing to debate, quality of judgement and benefit to constituents.
2. Health
   1. Addiction
      1. "This is a neurobiological chronic disease, not a moral failing" - Bridget Galati, Quoted in Nature Outlook 19 December 2022. See also "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" by Robert Sapolsky.
      2. Most criminal conviction is driven by addictive behavior. We will deploy decriminalization, education and health reform to address this core problem. The great majority of people brought into the court system are victims of a system which has traditionally preferred blame and retribution to reconstructive mental health therapy. Our policy goals across all departments of state are focused on improving the mental wellness of society.
3. Food Security
4. Defence
5. Basic Income
   1. There was a time when industry needed the average worker but those times have long gone. Profit making is largely independent of the workforce. What manufacturing profits from is consumers.
   2. People with no job are ineffective consumers unless an alternative source of income is open to them. Means-tested benefits can provide that source of income but leaves the recipient in a poverty trap where earning brings in only a pittance more than the benefit did. For annual earned incomes today between zero and several thousand pounds, the recipient rides a roller coaster of losing or gaining mere pence in the pound while losing more and more hours that were otherwise valuable.
   3. The revised tax system laid out here does away with this injustice. Means testing is abolished, every citizen has a basic income and the choice to either enjoy devoting time to one’s own pursuits, or to earning more money.
   4. A progressive system of personal taxation links the maximum income after tax to a multiple of the basic income. The higher that multiple is, the less society coheres. People will work for earned income when it improves their lifestyle and the work itself provides fulfillment by contributing to society’s needs. See: The Guardian - Ten reasons to support Basic Income
6. Crime
   1. Civil unrest and insurrection
      1. As has been the case in this country for centuries, the civil authority may demand lawful support whenever needed from the armed forces and treat those units as additional police resources.
      2. The police will be disarmed. There will be no helmet-clad shield wall, no cudgeling of protesters from horseback, no more politicized brutality and no more killing from ambush with effective impunity from prosecution. If the police want an armed response they must request it from a different, accountable, body.
      3. It will be a criminal offence for any police officer to be on duty without a switched-on sealed and archived bodycam and sound recorder accessible by court order, or for any such record to be destroyed.
   2. Criminal Intelligence
   3. Sentencing
7. Colonial
8. Education
9. Administrative Affairs
10. Transport
    1. rewrite - As a strategic choice to unclog traffic and make for safe biking, private motor vehicles will be banned from all areas designated “city” and central funding of free bus transport will take their place.
    2. Cities conveniently already have boundaries. Towns and rural areas are not, by comparison, clogged.
    3. Bus provision will increase rapidly and dramatically, exceptions will exist for disabled drivers, a lot of new taxi jobs will spring into existence and food deliveries will expand. Taxis and food vans are more efficient and better driven than private cars.
11. Housing
12. Suffrage
13. Migration
    1. An underlying aspect of our position is that refugees have chosen to try to improve their circumstance by migrating. For some it is a matter of life or death, for others it is a matter of escaping destitution. We question why anyone in this country would deny them the outcome they seek.
    2. We would challenge the rote assertion that their successful migration would result in a net diminution of resources to those who already have citizenship or right of residence here. Clearly it would be the case for some but not on balance. On balance there is a net benefit to the UK from inward migration.
    3. Even were there not, we contend that the benefit of entry to the refugee is far greater than any diminution of resources to existing citizens. Contrary argument is tantamount to cries of "I'm king of the castle". On what basis do current citizens of the country have greater rights to possession than refugees seeking admission? A more pressing right might suggest that those in possession have already had a lifetime's benefit from their good fortune and perhaps someone else might be due a share. Possession by birthright is not a sustainable moral claim.