Whether this outfit is the Conservative Party reformed or something new emerging out of its ashes and off the back of Reform, here is how I'd want this party to be constituted.
This is very good, and shows how awake Arcto is to the need for pragmatism over purity (yet with clearly defined limits linked to principles). All of us on the right have certain things we might see as essential that aren't touched on here, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the constitution.
I would question certain things needing to be in the constitution, but the short term value of them (I.e. NHS being free at the point of use) is worth it. And if any such party did want to dispute those things the need for a 2/3 vote would ensure proper scrutiny, debate and political calculation was had.
I'm not entirely sure about the 10 year limit for leadership, although I do see the point of it, and think that may need a little more discussion.
I myself do regret the abolition of the Friendly Societies that happened in 1948 in regards to healthcare, but I just think the NHS is such a sacred cow that we should try and orient ourselves towards making it work as effectively as possible. I believe that a separate 'NHS Levy' should fund it, entirely ring-fenced for it, charged at a flat rate which can be reduced on the basis of a regular health check-up to ensure you are not obese, a drug-user, etcetra, that NHS provision should be delegated to local authorities that should have a hybrid of public and private provision, and people may choose whether to go public or private, with the private companies getting the amount a procedure would cost at a public hospital.
Interesting points. I’m American, but I agree that the Market is the best, but I do prefer Tariffs on our enemies and maybe tax businesses who do business with nations like China. As for Welfare, I support pro-family policies like lowering taxes for couples with two or more kids, interest-free loans to couples so they can buy a home, and maternity/paternity leave. Peace ✌🏻
P.S. Since you’re name is AngloFuturist, do you have any thoughts on Futurism from 1920s Italy?
I like the right-wing progressivism of the Italian Futurists, how they managed to get 'elite human capital' support for right-wing politics.
However, I don't like their complete rejection of architectural preservation and traditional notions of aesthetic beauty, nor their extreme militarism. I think martial values are good in moderation but fascist regimes clearly took it too far, one of the many reasons I'm not a fascist.
Yeah. I think war can bring out the best in people and nations, but it still should be a last resort as it still brings devastation and destruction to the land and its people. On art, I like both traditional art/architecture and Futurist art like Art Deco.
1) Cut all illegal immigration. We're a freaking Island. The current numbers we have is unacceptable.
2) Cut legal migration and introduce the Australian method of accepting Immigrants.
3) Cut Foreign aid to countries like India and China, Especially China.
4) Reform of the NHS. Put more doctors in charge rather than basic civilians and get better contracts at better prices.
5) Cut taxes where possible. Freeze income tax to £18,000.
6) Crime needs to be more harshly punished. If you are an immigrant then you immediately get returned to your country of birth. Don't pass GO. The Grooming gangs need to dropped on an island and left.
7) A 100% ban on men competing in women's competitive sports at all levels. No men in single sex spaces and wards.
8) All instances where the word "woman" has been removed from official literature shall be restored.
9) A ban on DEI.
10) No joining the WHO treaty.
11) There should be no Hate Speech laws.
12) The Green agenda shall be removed. The country will start fracking at the earliest opportunity until enough Nuclear Power Plants are built to sustain the country and then Fracking shall cease.
13) To cut Government Personnel were possible in the Milei fashion.
14) Voting shall ALWAYS remain at 18 years of age. (If I had my way it would be if you were British and paid taxes.)
15) The unelected House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with an elected set of people akin to the American Senate to be a check on the House of Commons.
16) Both the House of Commons and the House of New Senators will have Term limits of 10 years.
17) No MP or immediate family member of the MP shall be able to hold stocks or shares.
18) A Ban on Universities charging interest on Student loans.
The 'Australian Points-Based Immigration System' was a major talking point of the 'Liberal Brexiteers'. It turns out to have facilitated mass non-White immigration which is worse than what we had under the EU, where most coming were White Christians.
I'd have a slightly more nuanced position on point 12. I support green policies but it can't be (and doesn't have to be) at the expense of living standards.
> I'd have a slightly more nuanced position on point 12. I support green policies but it can't be (and doesn't have to be) at the expense of living standards.
The whole point of green policies is to reduce living standards.
Yeah, that part was kind of nice, but I was referring to the number of things that you said, I think it was mostly at the end that you can’t be a member of this party if you believe in X or advocate for Y
There were several things there, which would’ve meant that I certainly couldn’t join. Although obviously I could vote for a given candidate.
Did you understand what I meant by the 'boundaries' of left and right?
Should I make that clearer?
It was basically trying to say 'this is the range of opinion that party members would have, this would be at the left flank of the party, this would be at the right'.
Well, as I say, it was a huge document and I read it on my phone so I didn’t exactly keep a list. And keep in mind that I’m from the United States so there’s issues where we would have profound disagreements.
I am completely opposed to the NHS for example and I believe that all votes should be free votes.
I also really don’t believe that the leader of any parties should be Prime Minister. Or maybe I put that backwards I don’t believe that the Prime Minister should be the leader of his party. I really believe that the leader of the party should have time to lead the party and not be busy running the entire government.
And of course, as an American I believe in a separate executive and legislative so it seems like you’ve given that poor guy three jobs at once one of which would be far too big.
'I am completely opposed to the NHS for example and I believe that all votes should be free votes.'
It's a nice idea, but it isn't how a Parliamentary system can function. If it is, you get like the last 14 years where the Tories have had no internal cohesion and have just been a bunch of squabbling factions.
I think one should try and adjust their political views for the country in question. My views for America are not the same as my views for Britain, for instance.
OK, I’m a little confused. Full confession I don’t know that much about the parliamentary system, but I didn’t believe that the Tory's allowed a lot of free votes over the last 14 years.
Frankly most of his right boundaries are stupid, they should be soft at best. The left keeps winning long term because they don't cancel their left fringe.
Neil Kinnock expelled Militant and Keir Starmer expelled Corbyn, so they do in certain instances. Unfortunately, it tends to only be on economics and not on culture.
Most of the policing is to do with crankiness and thuggish behaviour, only a small amount of it is to do with culture.
I don't think we can have people representing us who say 'Jews will not replace us'. This is why the Alt-Right failed, it became completely dominated by the chuds.
Be honest. Before the twitter files got published, would you have dismissed someone claiming that twitter was censoring right-wing views on behalf of the government as a "loon"?
Do you believe every single conspiracy theory on the planet? I imagine not, so what's your criteria for dismissing some and not others? And before you ask, no, I do not accept things just because they are mainstream.
They still don't have hard boundaries. They'll (generally temporarily) expel people who become a political liability, but only if telling the person to quite down until the media cycle moves on doesn't work.
Interesting to see how you've come round. Beforehand you were saying that zero seats was a terrible idea and now you're saying it's a good thing for the Tory party to be destroyed and replaced.
Anyway, I agree with most of the principles you outlined apart from your adherence to the free market, the welfare state and Atlanticism which is basically what all the other parties advocate for.
My thoughts on the matter are thusly:
- I'd recommend a protectionist system to rebuild small, local industries across Great Britain.
- Welfare has been an unmitigated disaster for the quality of British stock, much better that we live hard but honourable lives than as mutated beggars.
- As for Atlanticism, I'd much rather we enter into a period of isolationism and be aloof and neutral in foreign matters until the nation is in a decent state.
What religion should this hypothetical party advocate for? Or do you think an adherence to science will be enough to satisfy the masses?
Before I didn't think 'Zero Seats' was possible and it would just end up making many cringe Tory MPs stay and many based ones go compared to if they were selective.
Now Farage has returned there is a chance of Canada 93 but they need to 'get the ball in the net'.
Speaking as a conservative Christian, the CofE has become insufferably woke (and the CofS even moreso). They are also both in terminal decline. I think we would be far better off without them in the state apparatus, frankly.
Cucked. How can Britain be 'futurist' if we're opposed to revising the Good Friday Agreement? A blatant violation of our sovereignty? And how does one reconcile 'meritocracy' with support for the monarchy? Time to join the Tory party methinks.
This is very good, and shows how awake Arcto is to the need for pragmatism over purity (yet with clearly defined limits linked to principles). All of us on the right have certain things we might see as essential that aren't touched on here, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the constitution.
I would question certain things needing to be in the constitution, but the short term value of them (I.e. NHS being free at the point of use) is worth it. And if any such party did want to dispute those things the need for a 2/3 vote would ensure proper scrutiny, debate and political calculation was had.
I'm not entirely sure about the 10 year limit for leadership, although I do see the point of it, and think that may need a little more discussion.
Cheers for the feedback.
I myself do regret the abolition of the Friendly Societies that happened in 1948 in regards to healthcare, but I just think the NHS is such a sacred cow that we should try and orient ourselves towards making it work as effectively as possible. I believe that a separate 'NHS Levy' should fund it, entirely ring-fenced for it, charged at a flat rate which can be reduced on the basis of a regular health check-up to ensure you are not obese, a drug-user, etcetra, that NHS provision should be delegated to local authorities that should have a hybrid of public and private provision, and people may choose whether to go public or private, with the private companies getting the amount a procedure would cost at a public hospital.
> I believe that a separate 'NHS Levy' should fund it, entirely ring-fenced for it,
I don't think that could work without subsidies.
Interesting points. I’m American, but I agree that the Market is the best, but I do prefer Tariffs on our enemies and maybe tax businesses who do business with nations like China. As for Welfare, I support pro-family policies like lowering taxes for couples with two or more kids, interest-free loans to couples so they can buy a home, and maternity/paternity leave. Peace ✌🏻
P.S. Since you’re name is AngloFuturist, do you have any thoughts on Futurism from 1920s Italy?
I like the right-wing progressivism of the Italian Futurists, how they managed to get 'elite human capital' support for right-wing politics.
However, I don't like their complete rejection of architectural preservation and traditional notions of aesthetic beauty, nor their extreme militarism. I think martial values are good in moderation but fascist regimes clearly took it too far, one of the many reasons I'm not a fascist.
Yeah. I think war can bring out the best in people and nations, but it still should be a last resort as it still brings devastation and destruction to the land and its people. On art, I like both traditional art/architecture and Futurist art like Art Deco.
Art Deco is my favourite because it perfectly blends tradition and modernity.
I don't get why it's so hard for the Parties.
1) Cut all illegal immigration. We're a freaking Island. The current numbers we have is unacceptable.
2) Cut legal migration and introduce the Australian method of accepting Immigrants.
3) Cut Foreign aid to countries like India and China, Especially China.
4) Reform of the NHS. Put more doctors in charge rather than basic civilians and get better contracts at better prices.
5) Cut taxes where possible. Freeze income tax to £18,000.
6) Crime needs to be more harshly punished. If you are an immigrant then you immediately get returned to your country of birth. Don't pass GO. The Grooming gangs need to dropped on an island and left.
7) A 100% ban on men competing in women's competitive sports at all levels. No men in single sex spaces and wards.
8) All instances where the word "woman" has been removed from official literature shall be restored.
9) A ban on DEI.
10) No joining the WHO treaty.
11) There should be no Hate Speech laws.
12) The Green agenda shall be removed. The country will start fracking at the earliest opportunity until enough Nuclear Power Plants are built to sustain the country and then Fracking shall cease.
13) To cut Government Personnel were possible in the Milei fashion.
14) Voting shall ALWAYS remain at 18 years of age. (If I had my way it would be if you were British and paid taxes.)
15) The unelected House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with an elected set of people akin to the American Senate to be a check on the House of Commons.
16) Both the House of Commons and the House of New Senators will have Term limits of 10 years.
17) No MP or immediate family member of the MP shall be able to hold stocks or shares.
18) A Ban on Universities charging interest on Student loans.
I'm sure there's more but I can't think.
I'd agree with most of that.
The 'Australian Points-Based Immigration System' was a major talking point of the 'Liberal Brexiteers'. It turns out to have facilitated mass non-White immigration which is worse than what we had under the EU, where most coming were White Christians.
I'd have a slightly more nuanced position on point 12. I support green policies but it can't be (and doesn't have to be) at the expense of living standards.
> I'd have a slightly more nuanced position on point 12. I support green policies but it can't be (and doesn't have to be) at the expense of living standards.
The whole point of green policies is to reduce living standards.
This is just ridiculous.
They are well intentioned but badly conceived in many cases.
If that was the case, just by chance they'd occasional support a policy that improves the standard of living.
Oh really. You know you always hear how the Australian system is awesome but I didn't realise that!!
I'm gonna keep editing as I think of things lol.
we can compare notes:
https://milesmcstylez.substack.com/p/how-to-defuse-canadas-debt-bomb
An excellent list, Vulkan. I am British by ancestry and I agree. Godspeed to Great Britain! WEW
Wow! Pretty huge list, or set of lists. Do you think anyone would be left that agrees with all that?
Well these are a set of proposals that could unite several different factions, under the 15 points.
Yeah, that part was kind of nice, but I was referring to the number of things that you said, I think it was mostly at the end that you can’t be a member of this party if you believe in X or advocate for Y
There were several things there, which would’ve meant that I certainly couldn’t join. Although obviously I could vote for a given candidate.
Did you understand what I meant by the 'boundaries' of left and right?
Should I make that clearer?
It was basically trying to say 'this is the range of opinion that party members would have, this would be at the left flank of the party, this would be at the right'.
What parts did you disagree with if I may ask?
Well, as I say, it was a huge document and I read it on my phone so I didn’t exactly keep a list. And keep in mind that I’m from the United States so there’s issues where we would have profound disagreements.
I am completely opposed to the NHS for example and I believe that all votes should be free votes.
I also really don’t believe that the leader of any parties should be Prime Minister. Or maybe I put that backwards I don’t believe that the Prime Minister should be the leader of his party. I really believe that the leader of the party should have time to lead the party and not be busy running the entire government.
And of course, as an American I believe in a separate executive and legislative so it seems like you’ve given that poor guy three jobs at once one of which would be far too big.
'I am completely opposed to the NHS for example and I believe that all votes should be free votes.'
It's a nice idea, but it isn't how a Parliamentary system can function. If it is, you get like the last 14 years where the Tories have had no internal cohesion and have just been a bunch of squabbling factions.
I think one should try and adjust their political views for the country in question. My views for America are not the same as my views for Britain, for instance.
OK, I’m a little confused. Full confession I don’t know that much about the parliamentary system, but I didn’t believe that the Tory's allowed a lot of free votes over the last 14 years.
Frankly most of his right boundaries are stupid, they should be soft at best. The left keeps winning long term because they don't cancel their left fringe.
You need to not be a bunch of loons.
Neil Kinnock expelled Militant and Keir Starmer expelled Corbyn, so they do in certain instances. Unfortunately, it tends to only be on economics and not on culture.
In any case, this is why the left keeps winning on culture.
As for policing boundaries, even you yourself admitted how badly policing our boundaries against "Nazis" has all but destroyed the right.
Most of the policing is to do with crankiness and thuggish behaviour, only a small amount of it is to do with culture.
I don't think we can have people representing us who say 'Jews will not replace us'. This is why the Alt-Right failed, it became completely dominated by the chuds.
The problem with Tice capitulating to Hope Not Hate and deselecting candidates was:
1. It was ad-hoc and arbitrary.
2. It took Hope Not Hate's definition of racism at face value.
It's always better to not needlessly waste social capital. You should appear presentable and non-crazy to be able to expend social capital on ideas.
> You need to not be a bunch of loons.
Be honest. Before the twitter files got published, would you have dismissed someone claiming that twitter was censoring right-wing views on behalf of the government as a "loon"?
Maybe, but if convincing new evidence comes out proving something, of course my perception changes.
Do you believe every single conspiracy theory on the planet? I imagine not, so what's your criteria for dismissing some and not others? And before you ask, no, I do not accept things just because they are mainstream.
They still don't have hard boundaries. They'll (generally temporarily) expel people who become a political liability, but only if telling the person to quite down until the media cycle moves on doesn't work.
No, Militant was banned for good.
And Corbyn isn't coming back any time soon.
It isn't on the issues I wish they'd police their left-flank, sure. But they do it.
Interesting to see how you've come round. Beforehand you were saying that zero seats was a terrible idea and now you're saying it's a good thing for the Tory party to be destroyed and replaced.
Anyway, I agree with most of the principles you outlined apart from your adherence to the free market, the welfare state and Atlanticism which is basically what all the other parties advocate for.
My thoughts on the matter are thusly:
- I'd recommend a protectionist system to rebuild small, local industries across Great Britain.
- Welfare has been an unmitigated disaster for the quality of British stock, much better that we live hard but honourable lives than as mutated beggars.
- As for Atlanticism, I'd much rather we enter into a period of isolationism and be aloof and neutral in foreign matters until the nation is in a decent state.
What religion should this hypothetical party advocate for? Or do you think an adherence to science will be enough to satisfy the masses?
Before I didn't think 'Zero Seats' was possible and it would just end up making many cringe Tory MPs stay and many based ones go compared to if they were selective.
Now Farage has returned there is a chance of Canada 93 but they need to 'get the ball in the net'.
Yeah this party will not be explicitly religious.
Speaking as a conservative Christian, the CofE has become insufferably woke (and the CofS even moreso). They are also both in terminal decline. I think we would be far better off without them in the state apparatus, frankly.
I despise parliamentarianism, but merely stating governing principles sincerely and being accountable to them would be refreshing in party politics.
Cucked. How can Britain be 'futurist' if we're opposed to revising the Good Friday Agreement? A blatant violation of our sovereignty? And how does one reconcile 'meritocracy' with support for the monarchy? Time to join the Tory party methinks.
What are your better ideas?