Right to Welfare - Conor Gearty's challenge

 

1.       The State shall promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting an effective social order in which justice and equality shall inform all the institutions of the state.

 

2.       The State shall safeguard the economic interests of vulnerable sections of the community, and, where necessary, contribute financially to support such persons.

 

 

 

edited on Mar 23, 2015 by Noita Sadler

ConstitutionUK Apr 10, 2015

It seems as though much of the discussion in the first stage was about whether or not this provision should be included in the constitution. Now that we have agreed that it is to be included, how do we feel it should be drafted?

Please vote on one of the comments below to help us define this article.

The ConstitutionUK Team 

Tom Austin Apr 11, 2015

Where is the option to agree upon the 'Goldilocks' nature of the initial Proposal? i.e. It's fine, just as it is.

P.S. Where is the 'option' to vote again? All I am able to do is stick, or reverse - ergo I can 'add' nothing, only take away.

ConstitutionUK Apr 10, 2015

The right to welfare proposed here is too expansive. It places too high a burden on the state. 

 

 

Malcolm Ramsay Apr 11, 2015

Perhaps it could say "where appropriate, contribute financially"?

ConstitutionUK Apr 10, 2015

The right to welfare proposed here is too restrictive. This clause should express more clearly the welfare obligations the state owes to its citizens. 

BananaPlant Apr 11, 2015

Do non uk citizens have this right as well?  :)

ConstitutionUK Apr 13, 2015

Hi BananPlant, 

As this clause is presently worded it would extend this right to non citizens. 

BananaPlant Apr 14, 2015

I would like to see it would not extend this right to non citizens.

 

View all replies (2)

ConstitutionUK Apr 13, 2015

Hi all, 

Can you please vote on either one of the comments depending on whether you think the wording of this clause is too broad or too narrow.

Thanks, 

The ConstitutionUK Team

Tom Austin Apr 13, 2015

It appears to me that if we were to take the word 'vulnerable' out of Point 2, we would be expressing the status quo.

BananaPlant Apr 14, 2015

I would like to see it would not extend this right to non citizens.

Tom Austin Apr 14, 2015

Yes, BP. Somewhere deep within me, I too would like to see the 'Citizen' have 'cherished' status.

ConstitutionUK Apr 16, 2015

Do you suggest that the state should not afford its protections to those who have worked and contributed to our tax system but who are not citizens?

Do you also suggest that those who come to the UK seeking asylum  (who are unable to work) should not be afforded any welfare by the state?

Tom Austin Apr 16, 2015

No, and no; well perhaps not here. Elsewhere maybe under 'Citizen' specifically it could be noted that citizens have priority: maybe such may be positively handicapped?

BananaPlant Apr 16, 2015

 

We have to try to stabilise and reduce the UK population so somebody would have to take a difficult decision.

for the below reasons

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/uk_manifesto.pdf

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/qu..._candidates.pdf

http://www.populationmatters.org/united-kingd...neral-election/

Tom Austin Apr 16, 2015

From the last of the above links...

"If you live in the United Kingdom, please join us in our efforts by asking candidates about increasing housing and utility costs; reduced access to services and amenities; transport congestion; air, light and noise pollution; loss of biodiversity; increased carbon emissions; and other issues related to overpopulation and sustainability."

Well, the first thing to say is; No!

The issues mentioned are related to overpopulation ONLY because that is how this group wishes such things to be viewed. More 'racist' than rationalist.

Sustainability, on the other hand, is far better brought about by prioritising the 'citizen' through the simple expedient of considering the population of the UK as assets, and slew Political thinking towards the common-weal.

For certain sure, the pricing of utilities will not be 'moved' through some one-child-only policy nor any continued disinterest in the plight of the majority on these islands. We should rather "make do and mend", in refitting our working-age population for the tasks required, and not carry-through the 'domestic' throw-away habit into national economics and politics.

John Robertson Apr 16, 2015

The birth rate rises a lot in countries without welfare states that urbanise and industrialise, leading to economic migration to the UK, depressing wages and over-pricing the housing supply.

I think our [via EU] influence on tariffs should sort that out and pressure these countries to introduce some kind of welfare state for the sake of their own populations and to reduce pressure for economic migration to the EU. [likewise their human rights and democracy in order to reduce asylum requests]

I think countries within the EU that don't have a minimum wage near the UK's, nor a health service, should also be treated as outside the EU for immigration law.

The trouble is I got outvoted on these when I started threads about them!

I did get another accepted by one vote that's similar to this one.
It says the state has to start the notion of a fund for insurance-like services and probably move towards a real fund or funds. So the state at least has to talk about what the NHS / dole / incapacity / pensions / housing benefit will cost in decades' time and not spend the money on circus or a foreign war.
https://constitutionuk.com/post/102224

John Robertson Apr 16, 2015

Just read the Population Matters "Manifesto" link above. Nothing racist or irrational.

Tom Austin Apr 16, 2015

Things could move along more smoothly if we were not for ever talking at cross-purposes.

I never said that anything was either 'racist' or 'irrational'. I said, "More 'racist' than rationalist", and I stand by that assessment.

YES! 'Stuff' flows downhill, and the social-economic gradient should not be left unmodified, but nobody can blame whatever 'stuff' that falls along the gradient.

In addition to building-up the economies of poorer states within the EU, stopping the bombing of folk far away and the plundering of Africa - the Government of the UK could have upped the resistance to free-flow immigration.

But, nobody has bothered with any of this (though I'm sure the EU does something with the building-up) least of all free-flow immigration - until very recently, but still  - even with the UKIP's bluster, still very little attention is given to the 'plight' of the people already here.

Best by far to stick with blaming those over which we have some leverage: LibLabConUkipGreen..., after all it is their fault, and we need less altogether of this birth-rate nonsense.

View all replies (4)
Share