layout: policy
Religious individuals delivering public services wishing to conscientiously object will be limited from doing so in all but the most extreme cases (e.g. doctors and abortion).
The British Isles have been the destination of migrants for millenia. Each new influx of migrants have brought new skills, languages and other cultural influences. Immigration has been unambiguously beneficial to this country, and continues to allow companies, organisations and communities to strengthen and improve by bringing in talents and viewpoints they otherwise lack.
This manifesto opposes those policies and views that seek to stigmatise, isolate, or denigrate those who wish to come and make a positive contribution to the British economy and society.
We propose a system that will allow employers to seek the best and brightest from around the globe. By opening up our employment borders this will encourage more international companies to invest and establish offices here, knowing the United Kingdom is an international hub of talent.
The state should be able to honour deceased individuals in ways that the current Honours System does not allow (eg remove the specific number of places within the Order of the Bath which prevents the ability to grant knighthoods to the deceased).
Nominations for State Honours should continue to be encouraged from the public. These nominations should be shortlisted by a Committee appointed from within an elected Upper Chamber of Parliament. A nationwide public online vote should then decide on the final award of Honours on the basis of a redacted nomination paper to remove identifying information and prevent cronyism.
[^1]: British Social Attitudes Survey (pdf)
[^1]: British Social Attitudes Survey (pdf)
I like this. I am reading it in a positive light though; could it be read as "we'll take those who make us richer but not others"? Is there an unintentional subtext?
Also, I'd swap economy and society at the end of the first paragraph.
Not quite ready to vote, want to hear from others first, but I agree with the direction.
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
fair point. It was intended to be read positively. I certainly didn't intend for any subtext. What would you propose I remove the final paragraph?
On 12 March 2014 09:50, James Smith [email protected] wrote:
I like this. I am reading it in a positive light though; could it be read as "we'll take those who make us richer but not others"? Is there an unintentional subtext?
Also, I'd swap economy and society at the end of the first paragraph.
Not quite ready to vote, want to hear from others first, but I agree with the direction.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/116#issuecomment-37390855 .
layout: policy
Religious individuals delivering public services wishing to conscientiously object will be limited from doing so in all but the most extreme cases (e.g. doctors and abortion).
The British Isles have been the destination of migrants for millenia. Each new influx of migrants have brought new skills, languages and other cultural influences. Immigration has been unambiguously beneficial to this country, and continues to allow companies, organisations and communities to strengthen and improve by bringing in talents and viewpoints they otherwise lack.
This manifesto opposes those policies and views that seek to stigmatise, isolate, or denigrate those who wish to come and make a positive contribution to British society and economy.
We propose a system that will allow employers to seek the best and brightest from around the globe. By opening up our employment borders this will encourage more international companies to invest and establish offices here, knowing the United Kingdom is an international hub of talent.
The state should be able to honour deceased individuals in ways that the current Honours System does not allow (eg remove the specific number of places within the Order of the Bath which prevents the ability to grant knighthoods to the deceased).
I'm sure you didn't, but this is an area where people will misread intentionally. I don't think I'd remove anything, but perhaps we should also mention our moral obligation to provide a haven for those being persecuted in their own countries, or something, so it's not just one-sided on the "best and brightest" side of things.
layout: policy
Religious individuals delivering public services wishing to conscientiously object will be limited from doing so in all but the most extreme cases (e.g. doctors and abortion).
The British Isles have been the destination of migrants for millenia. Each new influx of migrants have brought new skills, languages and other cultural influences. Immigration has been unambiguously beneficial to this country, and continues to allow companies, organisations and communities to strengthen and improve by bringing in talents and viewpoints they otherwise lack.
This manifesto opposes those policies and views that seek to stigmatise, isolate, or denigrate those who wish to come and make a positive contribution to British society and the economy.
We propose a system that will allow employers to seek the best and brightest from around the globe, as well as encouraging anyone to settle who has something to contribute to our communities. We hope to encourage more international companies to invest and establish offices here, knowing that the United Kingdom is an international hub for talent.
We also wish to ensure the United Kingdom remains committed to fulfilling its international obligations as a safe haven for anyone suffering, or at risk of suffering, persecution for their political or religious views, or because of their actual or perceived race, gender or sexual orientation.
The state should be able to honour deceased individuals in ways that the current Honours System does not allow (eg remove the specific number of places within the Order of the Bath which prevents the ability to grant knighthoods to the deceased).
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
Added an additional sentence to third paragraph, and an extra paragraph at the end.
On 12 March 2014 09:59, James Smith [email protected] wrote:
I'm sure you didn't, but this is an area where people will misread intentionally. I don't think I'd remove anything, but perhaps we should also mention our moral obligation to provide a haven for those being persecuted in their own countries, or something, so it's not just one-sided on the "best and brightest" side of things.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/116#issuecomment-37391516 .
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
This pull request has been automatically generated by prose.io.