From the Progressive European Party Manifesto 2017

Crime and drugs. 

Synopsis

The link between crime and drugs Placing the supply and use of drugs under public supervision Making accurate knowledge about drugs available to the public Controlling the supply acquisition and use of drugs Treating people whose lives have been shattered by drugs.

Few can now seriously challenge the direct link between rising long-term crime figures and the increasingly ubiquitous use of drugs. Eighty three percent of convicted criminals admit to having used drugs and a very large proportion of crimes are committed while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. For the present purposes alcohol and tobacco are treated no differently from other drugs.

At least two other factors have contributed to this steady rise:

1. The fact that activities which are widespread and commonplace among young people are presently classified as “criminal”. 2. The fact that costly and currently illegal drug-addictions are often supported by petty theft, muggings and other violent crimes.

Progressive policy is based upon four principles which arise, in their turn, from Free-Test methodology. These policy principles are:

Legalise Inform Control Treat

A. Legalisation

Historical evidence suggests that, prior to the introduction of legislation preventing the universal availability of most drugs, the social ills that attended drug-use were, in fact, less severe than the problems which we experience today.

It is certainly much easier to regulate and control a process if there is no need for it to be ‘hidden”. The American experiment with “Prohibition” of alcohol is but one of many social experiments which have repeatedly confirmed this simple and obvious truth. When alcohol was “prohibited” it was simply driven underground. Illicit production flourished. “Speakeasies” proliferated. The trade in alcohol received an enormous stimulus.

The Progressive European Party therefore proposes to legalise (not merely “decriminalise”) the private use of all currently popular drugs and to create a licensing system which will enable the the supply and use of drugs to be supervised effectively and stringently regulated.

Mere “decriminalisation” of small-scale possession of certain drugs, like most half-measures, would be unsatisfactory. It would leave the supply of these substances in the hands of criminal organisations.

Only by bringing drug-use out into the open can we hope to counteract its baneful personal and social effects and to put an end to the power of the criminal fraternities.

B. Information

To make drugs widely available without warning people of the possible dangers attendant on their use would be irresponsible. We therefore propose to launch a comprehensive public drugs-education campaign giving detailed information based upon the best available evidence from medical and social research.

This information will be targeted at schools and prisons and at the institutions of further and higher education - as well as at the general public.

The discredited “scare-campaigns” and ineffectual “just-say-no” campaigns of the past will be avoided.

C. Control

The supply of drugs will be regulated by a licensing system comparable to (but more stringent than) that which presently applies only to alcohol and tobacco. Drugs of addiction (including alcohol and tobacco) will only be available through approved outlets and purchasers will be required to furnish evidence of their age and identity before licensed drugs are released to them. Buyers will be required to sign for each purchase and quantities purchased will be electronically recorded.

Duty or tax will be payable at each stage of the import, manufacture, wholesale and retail of licensed drugs. Such duties and taxes will, however, be set at a level which permits the sale of standardised and unadulterated drugs at prices considerably lower than those that render this trade profitable to criminal organisations. In simple terms, licensed outlets will have no difficulty in undercutting the present prices of “street-drugs”. Economic factors alone will drive “dealers” out of business.

Standards to regulate the relative potency, quality, purity and safety of substances and of their preparations will be strictly monitored and enforced.

Advertising of all such products will be prohibited and all packaging will display appropriate warnings.

Protection of the public from the anti-social consequences of drug use will be strengthened. Legal provisions which currently apply only to those under the influence of alcohol and some other drugs will be extended to cover the use of all other licensed drugs. In some cases, where recorded purchases are excessive, compulsory treatment of chronic addiction will be necessary (see D. below).

D. Treatment

In addition to financing drugs-education and public awareness campaigns, revenues from taxation of the production and sale of licensed substances will be employed to ensure that comprehensive treatment facilities are available in all Territories of the Union of Kingdoms to help those whose drug-use has become problematic.

Patients will be accepted on a voluntary basis or as a result of referral by the courts. The revisions of the Mental Health Act, in respect of persons who may be a danger to themselves or to others, will be extended to apply to those whose chronic use of drugs has placed them in this category.

We believe that this four-pronged approach to the problems associated with non-medical drug-use (Legalise, Inform, Control, Treat) has a better chance of getting our national drug-problem LICT than any of the other presently proposed strategies.

In short, the present failed “war on drugs” will be discontinued and the antiquated system that helps to create an entire criminal caste will be swept away.

Mothball pEp

 

After careful consideration, I have decided to mothball pEp and our current campaigns and join the Green Party. Unlike pEp, dual memberships are not allowed under their rules, and as there are no volunteers to take over from me, I am freezing our accounts. If the Green Party wins the next general election, they will introduce Proportional representation. It would then be a good time to bring back the Progressive Party. Short of finding a millionaire backer without PR, we are unlikely to make any inroads into the political landscape. The Green Party is the only other progressive party, and many of its manifesto commitments are the same as ours, so it is an easy move. I intend to stand for them in our local elections next May, and I will be going to my first local Green Party meeting tonight.

I would like to thank all our followers, members and everyone who has interacted with us over the years. Philip Notley, Party Leader.

Background on the Bond Market

 

Interview with Professor Steve Hall, co-author of 'The Death of the Left'.

The Crispin Flintoff Show

@thecrispinflintoffshow

Analysis of the bond market's impact on UK politics, focusing on its potential role in challenging Starmer's leadership and economic stability.

Background on the Bond Market

The bond market plays a critical role in the financial landscape, serving as an avenue for governments to raise funds. However, Professor Steve Hall, a co-author of "Death of the Left," argues that the bond market's existence is largely unnecessary. He describes it as a cozy arrangement between central banks and private bankers, designed to provide wealthy individuals and corporations with a safe place to store their money, thereby avoiding riskier investments in industries that may fail. This reliance on bonds dates back to the 17th century and reflects an old economic structure that originally stemmed from the gold standard.

Shift from Gold Standard to Fiat Money

Since the early 1970s, countries have transitioned away from the gold standard to a fiat money system, allowing governments to print currency without being constrained by gold reserves. Hall emphasizes that this shift means governments can fund initiatives through printed money, up to the limits set by inflation, rather than relying solely on bonds. He views the bond market as an outdated institution that hinders economic flexibility.

Impact of Bond Trading on Political Stability

The bond market's influence extends beyond economics; it can significantly impact political stability. Hall illustrates how fluctuations in bond sales can necessitate increased interest rates, leading to higher borrowing costs. This situation can induce a recession by reducing consumer spending and forcing government cutbacks, creating a downward economic spiral.

Market Manipulation and Political Agendas

The complexity of the bond market also allows for manipulation by powerful financial actors. Hall suggests that traders can undermine political figures like Keir Starmer by selling off bonds, effectively pressuring the government to acquiesce to their financial demands. He posits that the current political climate favours a government that aligns closely with global private equity interests, rather than one that seeks to enforce public ownership or significant economic intervention.

Conclusion: Power Dynamics in Economics and Politics

Hall asserts that the economic and political spheres are deeply intertwined, with financial markets wielding significant power over government actions. The influence of entities like Wall Street and the City of London ensures that political leaders must cater to these interests or risk being ousted. He predicts that if Starmer and the Labour Party do not comply with the demands of these financial powers, they could face elimination in future elections, potentially paving the way for a more compliant government. This scenario underscores the precarious nature of political leadership in the face of economic pressures.

https://youtu.be/3vkrPHlhmjs?si=vFiBF27DO3j2Lc2E

What Grok says about pEp

 

What Grok says about pEp 

@Prog_Party: A voice for progressive change, advocating for true democracy, against war, and for the rights of immigrants, while questioning the status quo of international politics and finance and for the abolition of certain taxes, while questioning the integrity of international politics. 

Prog_Party has been questioning democracy, discussing money creation, and humorously wishing for an Ankh. 

Prog_Party has been questioning democracy, discussing tax myths, and sharing controversial takes on karma and politics. 

@Prog_Party: A voice for progressive change, advocating for democracy over war, and against the taxation of education, while questioning the integrity of international politics. 

Prog_Party has been questioning democracy, discussing money creation, and humorously suggesting reincarnation theories. 

Democracy is better than war. Why is it so hard for people to get their heads around that.-

https://x.com/Prog_Party

A Banker’s Perspective on Money Creation

 

A Banker’s Perspective on Money Creation, Degrowth, and the Real Economy: A Conversation with Hans from The Break Down.

Understanding Money Creation and Economic Growth

In contemporary discussions about economics, the role of money creation is pivotal. Private banks generate money primarily through loans, driven by profit motives. This mechanism raises critical questions about the sustainability of growth-oriented economic models, particularly in the context of increasing calls for degrowth and postgrowth economics. These concepts challenge the traditional narrative of perpetual economic expansion, suggesting that a shift towards a more sustainable model is necessary.

Degrowth and Postgrowth Economics

Degrowth refers to a planned reduction in resource and energy use to achieve a sustainable economy within planetary boundaries. It is distinct from merely advocating for less economic growth; rather, it emphasizes the necessity of using fewer resources for overall well-being. Postgrowth, on the other hand, envisions a future where economic activities are not inherently tied to growth imperatives. The two ideas, while related, serve different purposes in the economic discourse. Degrowth advocates for immediate changes to reduce consumption, especially in wealthier nations, whereas postgrowth focuses on systemic changes that can facilitate a more equitable distribution of resources.

Challenges of Growth Dependency

The traditional economic system is heavily reliant on growth, which often leads to negative consequences such as rising unemployment and environmental degradation when growth falters. Critics argue that this growth dependency is unsustainable, particularly in wealthy countries where consumption patterns exceed ecological limits. The notion that economic growth can be decoupled from carbon emissions, as seen in some nations, is viewed as a coping mechanism rather than a viable long-term solution. The reality remains that resource use and environmental impacts are deeply interconnected; thus, true sustainability cannot be achieved without addressing growth itself.

Transitioning to a Sustainable Economy

Transitioning to a degrowth or postgrowth economy requires significant changes in financial systems and ownership structures. Financial institutions must prioritize investments that contribute positively to societal well-being rather than merely chasing profit. This shift involves redefining the purpose of money creation to align with ecological and social considerations. Furthermore, fostering inclusive economic policies that redistribute resources and ensure basic needs are met is crucial for achieving equity in a degrowth framework.

Envisioning Change

To implement these ideas, it is essential to engage in grassroots movements that showcase viable alternatives to the current economic system. Critiquing existing structures while articulating a clear vision for a sustainable future can help galvanize support for the necessary changes. Ultimately, the path toward a degrowth economy is not only about reducing consumption but also about reimagining the economic narratives that govern our societies. By fostering a collective belief in the feasibility of a new economic model, society can begin to shift away from growth dependency toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

 

Progressive policies explained: The monarchy

 

I discovered early in my political campaigning that just because someone else is against Brexit and has been on all the marches does not mean that I have anything else in common with them. Which is probably why when I put a position on social media that someone disagrees with I get a “your not progressive your” response and then they proceed to make a lot of low-level insults? Or we get called Conservatives or Blairites. The truth is progressivism is none of these things. 

Not that the system of government that is detailed in our manifesto is that hard to understand. The problem lies in that it is an interrelated system so when one detail is looked at in isolation it can not always be fully appreciated.

Therefore it has proved to be difficult to put pEp’s position on retaining our monarchy when replying to the comments of those who are advocating their removal. 

The only way that I can hope to give justice to our argument is to quote directly from our manifesto. 

The section on Constitutional Reform first covers the separation of the UK into regional governments and the implementation of direct democracy. 

3. Constitutional Reform

Part E. The Monarchy

 

Synopsis

 

Nature of the modern monarchy 

Advantages of constitutional monarchy 

Insufficiency of the alternatives 

Expenditures on the monarchy 

Constitutional implications and provisos

 

In our exploration of the present institutions of “parliamentary” democracy and “representative” government, we identified much that would benefit greatly from the changes suggested by (and made possible by) the new technologies. The case is rather different with the constitutional monarchy. If we apply the Free-Test to this curious and quintessentially British institution, the results are rather surprising. It may be argued that the selection of the nominal Head of State by the hereditary principle does not meet the requirement that it should be fair. This would be of some significance if any real power were attached to the office. There is a tendency in the modern world to regard the Monarchy as “family business” - and there is much to be said for this analogy. It would be unusual to suggest that the very natural wish of a small-town greengrocer or cobbler that his son or daughter should succeed him in his business should be thwarted because it would not be “fair”.

 

It is no longer the case that the Royal Family (as an example of family cohesion and right conduct) is seriously considered, by any significant section of the population, to be a model that invites emulation. A number of ill-judged remarks by some of its members have completely ‘demystified’ the Royal family However, the constitutional monarchy not only has very little power, it also has no very extensive influence. But it does still have a number of useful functions which will be considered below. On the question of responsibility, it is true that there are no formal channels for ensuring that the Monarchy is answerable to the people. But recent events have shown very clearly that the nature of the institution, in the modern world, requires it to be extremely sensitive to public opinion. And our history shows repeatedly that there are means “of last resort” for removing a given monarch from the throne. However, on the only occasion when the whole institution of the monarchy itself went into abeyance (during the “Protectorate” of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans) its removal was soon adjudged to have been a dreadful mistake - not least because the “Lord Protector” proceeded to attempt to found his own dynasty. This latter tendency is still regrettably seen among some of the “political family dynasties” in republics throughout the world. To make a meaningful judgment about the extent to which our monarchy may be said to be economical or efficient is virtually impossible. The impact which it makes on people, both within and beyond these shores, is difficult to identify, impossible to quantify and depends on too many variables - not the least of which is the personality of the reigning monarch. It may reasonably be supposed, however, that a person who, from birth, has been trained and prepared for a particular occupation, whether it be the vocation of greengrocer or of monarch, is likely (barring some mental impediment) to excel in the skills and qualities required by the “trade”. That our monarchy is greatly admired by many foreigners (including, ironically, those who have unwisely jettisoned their own royal families) is a matter of common observation. That it is one of the pillars of our tourist-trade and helps to swell our reserves of foreign currencies, most would concede. That it lends a dignity which no mere president could supply to our rituals and at times of national import, is a fact of common experience. That it is the most potent symbol of our Union, and therefore of our unity, is beyond question. Even our enemies and zealous republicans admit (and usually regret) that our monarchy serves as a focus for patriotic feeling. That the monarchy is currently held in affectionate esteem by the great majority of British people, even when they disapprove of some of its particular actions, could probably be shewn.

 

The modern constitutional monarchy may have its flaws, but most of the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. Would we really wish upon ourselves an executive President who does not have the necessary skills of international decorum. The examples of those republics that have an executive President are usually enough to make the blood of British nationals run cold, while a nominal presidency (for convenience but without executive powers) would have no discernible advantages over the present constitutional monarchy - and would probably be almost equally costly to maintain. It might rapidly become an expensive constitutional sinecure for retired politicians. The Progressive European Party therefore believes that, at present, there are no very good reasons for abolishing the monarchy altogether. There are, nevertheless, very good reasons for reforming the funding of the monarchy. Much of the land owned by the monarchy was seized from the noble enemies of former monarchs or (by Henry VIII) from the pre-Reformation Church. These lands should be reclaimed for the nation and the expenses of maintaining the monarchy should be greatly reduced. These expenses, under a Progressive administration will be part of the annual Budget. The restoration, if only in name, of the ancient “kingdoms” within a single Union would be greatly enhanced and strengthened by allegiance to a single, and preferably shared, monarch. It is possible that the Scots, if they become an independent nation, may wish to find a monarch with stronger Stuart credentials. It is also possible that they may eventually wish to become a republic. As they already have their own parliament, whose nature and functions may be expected to change with the introduction of direct democracy, that will be a matter for them. The same might eventually be said of the Welsh. In the event that any of the restored “kingdoms” (or Territories) decide - by a clear popular majority that a different Head of State is more appropriate to their needs, their wishes will, of course, be respected. Nor will any individual kingdom be prevented from seceding from the Union if a clear majority of its inhabitants believes this to be in the best interests of their nation. By the same token, if (at some future time) a majority of the inhabitants of the Union of Kingdoms wishes to do away with the monarchy, then that wish will be implemented. But we cannot on the one hand argue that Northern Ireland should remain within the Union for as long as a majority of its people wish it to do so, or that Gibraltar or the Falklands should remain British for similar reasons, without also, on the other hand, conceding the converse.

 

It will not, therefore, be a condition of participation in the Union that a given Territory should accept the House of Windsor, or indeed any Royal House, as the only legitimate source for their sovereign. And it is a corollary of these principles that, at least in theory, nations which have not, hitherto, formed part of the Union will not, henceforth, be discouraged from joining it.

 

The Free-Test that is mentioned in paragraph one is a method of evaluating policies by asking. 

Is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient? 

The Progressive Party uses this test instead of the ideologies of left, right, green and so forth that other parties have adopted. Each policy can then be assessed on its individual merits free from biased opinions and the influence of lobbyists.

 

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

 

2017 Progressive European Party Manifesto by

John Coats