Jane's profile

Draft Constitution

It is very comprehensive and possibly too long. There is also some duplication and too much detail in some places - getting very specific about tax in one area, for example. The statement about sharing common values and having most in common with European countries is limiting but also absurd. What about the Commonwealth and countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada who are teeming with British descendants and built on British values?

I disagree with the comment about taking into account the costs and affordability of ideas when putting together a Constitution. This is a document that establishes the vision and the principles and therefore should not be constrained by what may be affordable - that becomes a matter of choices made down the track. If for example, free education is a strong principle, it can be funded through higher taxes - Germany, Finland and other countries have all made this choice.

As for the monarchy,why modify the output of those who contributed to the project just because it may be unpalatable?  This project has helped to move me from being a lifelong 'under-stated monarchist' to a republican. I'm over it.  The fish rots from the head and there's something about British adherence to an elite, outmoded, privileged class  that is completely at odds with a truly fair society founded on principles of equality. The Monarchy is the ultimate symbol of this and its tentacles of entitlement reach far and deep into British society.

In spite of my reservations, I'm giving it a thumbs up. Mainly because in a depressing sea of unquestioning dross, this document emerges as something of a vision, flawed as it is. Its day may not be now, but it WILL come.

Children's Rights

While I don't disagree with some of you points about how far 'nurturing' and 'parenting' by the State should go, do we only start to care or intervene once things have become " sadistic, reckless and grossly negligent"? That's also  a rather accurate description of just what HAS happened in some state institutions and decades later, we as a society, still haven't dealt with it - witness the child abuse enquiry only just about to be set up.  And such is the level of corruption and mistrust in government institutions in the UK  that we have had to go 'offshore' and choose a well respected justice figure from New Zealand to lead it. Our Constitution needs to strongly signal our collective responsibility towards our future citizens, not least to our authority figures and State  institutions  who will have a special role in exercising it.

Publication of Constitution and the Appropriate Citations

Sorry, that first part sounded a bit rude. What I meant was, you seemed to be saying that education on local democracy and engagement only went up to age 11? I'm sure you mean it also goes beyond that, but I guess my point is more about the content and indeed the intent. ( Incidentally, I am not criticising teachers either).

Publication of Constitution and the Appropriate Citations

Did it stop at 11? Perhaps we do need to revisit what we mean by education in the context of the Constitution. I would see it going way beyond telling me how to interface with my MP (useful though that may be).

Children's Rights

I totally agree that the duty to protect children goes beyond the parents.  Historically, a range of government institutions have been responsible for horrific child abuse and neglect, highlighting the particular vulnerability and powerlessness of children in our society.

Publication of Constitution and the Appropriate Citations

Totally agree re publication and I have voted for this simple, clear idea. What about education? Should there also be a responsibility to include education/information on the Constitution in our curriculum? I learned only scant, historical information at school about Magna Carta and very little about its application and significance in the real world we all live in. If we start educating kids in the Constitution early on, including their rights and responsibilities, we are contributing to a nation engaged in its future.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - Conor Gearty's challenge

Is the problem 'health' which may be more easily defined and explained or 'morals' which are typically subjective, personal and open to interpretation and manipulation? In the case of health, do we believe it is appropriate to protect the rights of a child to receive life-saving medical treatment, even when his/her parents' religious beliefs preclude this? Morals are even more problematic - especially given the track record of many establishment figures (i..e. those in and with power)  who wield morals as their sword (often producing self inflicted wounds)?  And yet a society 'without morals' might be a pretty barren and desolate one. Is ethics a better term?