Raise motorway upper speed limit

As a current professional driver (and former police officer), I believe serious consideration should be given to raising the upper speed limit from 70mph to 80mph (or even 90 mph).  Most drivers can be observed on any day of the week,  travelling at 80 mph – when not restricted to the 50mph "average speed" in the multitude of road works enforced by cameras. 

Why is this idea important?

As a current professional driver (and former police officer), I believe serious consideration should be given to raising the upper speed limit from 70mph to 80mph (or even 90 mph).  Most drivers can be observed on any day of the week,  travelling at 80 mph – when not restricted to the 50mph "average speed" in the multitude of road works enforced by cameras. 

Consensual BDSM activities should not be a criminal offence

Under current English Law and Precedent, it is currently illegal to cause someone injury or leave marks which are more than "trifling and transitory" even when those marks are the result of BDSM activities between consenting adults.

This is another example of the Nanny State trying to interfere in the private affairs of citizens and telling them that they cannot do things "for their own good"

Why is this idea important?

Under current English Law and Precedent, it is currently illegal to cause someone injury or leave marks which are more than "trifling and transitory" even when those marks are the result of BDSM activities between consenting adults.

This is another example of the Nanny State trying to interfere in the private affairs of citizens and telling them that they cannot do things "for their own good"

Shorten the working week

We all hate mondays, so why not have it as a day off? Whilst I'm at it, we all hate Fridays too, so lets make that part of the weekend too.

The only issue we have then is that Tuesday will become the new Monday, and Thursday would become the new Friday. so, lets make those part of the weekend too.

So, basically, you would have to fit everything in on wednesday…but think of all the extra free time you will have!

Why is this idea important?

We all hate mondays, so why not have it as a day off? Whilst I'm at it, we all hate Fridays too, so lets make that part of the weekend too.

The only issue we have then is that Tuesday will become the new Monday, and Thursday would become the new Friday. so, lets make those part of the weekend too.

So, basically, you would have to fit everything in on wednesday…but think of all the extra free time you will have!

Remove “Windows tax” on new computers

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Why is this idea important?

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Quango

What does the Information Commissioners office do? It seems to take an annual fee from my business each year but little else. It stores all this data on expensive computers in Wilmslow, but for what purpose?  I am sure that many businesses do not even bother to register at all.

What did we do before it existed – we carried on as usual!

I do not think that the level of fees levied to register is even sufficient to rent the offices, pay the beaurocrats and pay for the upkeep of the computer system and administration. So the taxpayers stump up the balance again.

We all insure against public and professional liability issues, surely that is sufficient.

Please Mr Clegg, let us save some taxpayers money here and scrap the laws which caused this unnecessary quango to come into existence and sweep it away. We really do not need it – it is just a  luxury to provide employment and inflated pensions to a number of 'jobsworhs' . The Ministery of Administrative Affairs from 'Yes Minister' comes to mind here!

 

Why is this idea important?

What does the Information Commissioners office do? It seems to take an annual fee from my business each year but little else. It stores all this data on expensive computers in Wilmslow, but for what purpose?  I am sure that many businesses do not even bother to register at all.

What did we do before it existed – we carried on as usual!

I do not think that the level of fees levied to register is even sufficient to rent the offices, pay the beaurocrats and pay for the upkeep of the computer system and administration. So the taxpayers stump up the balance again.

We all insure against public and professional liability issues, surely that is sufficient.

Please Mr Clegg, let us save some taxpayers money here and scrap the laws which caused this unnecessary quango to come into existence and sweep it away. We really do not need it – it is just a  luxury to provide employment and inflated pensions to a number of 'jobsworhs' . The Ministery of Administrative Affairs from 'Yes Minister' comes to mind here!

 

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

Why is this idea important?

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

Make the path to citizenship fair, clear and transparent

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

Why is this idea important?

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

End discrimination against the English language in Wales

For many public sector appointments in Wales it is a requirement to be able to speak Welsh. However the majority of Welsh citizens do not speak Welsh so the pool from which public appointments are made is severely limited. A mandatory requirement like this should be outlawed so that local bodies can make sensible choices about the level of Welsh speakers that may be required and be able to select the best people from any linguistic background. 

Why is this idea important?

For many public sector appointments in Wales it is a requirement to be able to speak Welsh. However the majority of Welsh citizens do not speak Welsh so the pool from which public appointments are made is severely limited. A mandatory requirement like this should be outlawed so that local bodies can make sensible choices about the level of Welsh speakers that may be required and be able to select the best people from any linguistic background. 

Allow England to vote on Scottish Devolution.

It not only many Scots that want to see Scotland go it alone as a fully independent state, a large number of us English are fed up of subsidising Scotland. The fact of the matter is Scotland (per head) takes far more out of the UK than it puts in yet there is constant bleating about its north sea oil and been ruled by westminster.

So lets have a referendum on both sides of the border as to whether the Scots want to be independent and if the English want rid of them. 

Why is this idea important?

It not only many Scots that want to see Scotland go it alone as a fully independent state, a large number of us English are fed up of subsidising Scotland. The fact of the matter is Scotland (per head) takes far more out of the UK than it puts in yet there is constant bleating about its north sea oil and been ruled by westminster.

So lets have a referendum on both sides of the border as to whether the Scots want to be independent and if the English want rid of them. 

Get rid of the BBC

We should not be asked in this day and age of mass communication to pay taxes to keep one particular broadcaster in business. The BBC wastes the huge amount of money it forces us to pay to just view a tv or listen to a radio and I object  to funding the excessive lifestyles ot BBC staff! For instance it takes no less than 5 people to front the BBC’s breakfast show when anyone could do it with two! IT’s not a small amount of money the licence fee and if I want to watch ANY tv in my house I have to pay it. I object to having the  element of choice  taken from me and if it were’nt for the fact that I could go to prison I would refuse to pay it!  I suggest that if it was’n’t for the threats which the BBC hangs over us in the event of not paying their protection money most people would opt for getting rid of the BBC.

Why is this idea important?

We should not be asked in this day and age of mass communication to pay taxes to keep one particular broadcaster in business. The BBC wastes the huge amount of money it forces us to pay to just view a tv or listen to a radio and I object  to funding the excessive lifestyles ot BBC staff! For instance it takes no less than 5 people to front the BBC’s breakfast show when anyone could do it with two! IT’s not a small amount of money the licence fee and if I want to watch ANY tv in my house I have to pay it. I object to having the  element of choice  taken from me and if it were’nt for the fact that I could go to prison I would refuse to pay it!  I suggest that if it was’n’t for the threats which the BBC hangs over us in the event of not paying their protection money most people would opt for getting rid of the BBC.

Road Tax To Be Put On Petrol

Road Tax To Be Put On Petrol

No one will be able to avoid not paying Road Tax any more as the people need petrol to run their cars. 

Even working on the current banding using the engine size, for example the 4×4 need more petrol so will be paying more tax when they fill up at the pumps.

Why is this idea important?

Road Tax To Be Put On Petrol

No one will be able to avoid not paying Road Tax any more as the people need petrol to run their cars. 

Even working on the current banding using the engine size, for example the 4×4 need more petrol so will be paying more tax when they fill up at the pumps.

Removal of Sunday and Bank Holiday trading restrictions

There should be no imposed limits on when businesses of specific types should be allowed to trade.

All commercial businesses, from supermarkets to DIY stores to clothes shops should be allowed to open at whatever time they see fit.

Why is this idea important?

There should be no imposed limits on when businesses of specific types should be allowed to trade.

All commercial businesses, from supermarkets to DIY stores to clothes shops should be allowed to open at whatever time they see fit.

Abolish VAT on e-books

Printed books are zero rated for VAT which is fine.  e-books which use far less energy to produce and distribute are VAT rated.  This is anomalous.  e-books are still the printed word – even if virtual – and are likely to become the preferred method of reading books.  To encourage their use e-books should be zero rated.

Why is this idea important?

Printed books are zero rated for VAT which is fine.  e-books which use far less energy to produce and distribute are VAT rated.  This is anomalous.  e-books are still the printed word – even if virtual – and are likely to become the preferred method of reading books.  To encourage their use e-books should be zero rated.

Remove Child Benefit and Pregnancy Grant for under 21’s

End the financial incentives for young people to get pregnant early in life by axing the pregnancy grant and restricting Child Benefit to those over the age of 21. This will encourage people to think of a career, stay in education, learn a trade or otherwise contribut to society.

Why is this idea important?

End the financial incentives for young people to get pregnant early in life by axing the pregnancy grant and restricting Child Benefit to those over the age of 21. This will encourage people to think of a career, stay in education, learn a trade or otherwise contribut to society.

Micro chipping of all dogs should be compulsory

It is not the animals fault if they turn out to be less than socialble.  Not only is it the fault of the owner but in many cases of irresponsible breeding (Puppy Farms etc).

 

The onus should be placed firmly anad squarly on the person who owns the dog not the dog, they have no say on how they are treated.

Compulsory Micro Chipping may also be the way to reduce dogs left to roam and cause problems and again the owner would be the person to be brought to boot.

All dogs/pups to be micro chipped before being sold on..

Why is this idea important?

It is not the animals fault if they turn out to be less than socialble.  Not only is it the fault of the owner but in many cases of irresponsible breeding (Puppy Farms etc).

 

The onus should be placed firmly anad squarly on the person who owns the dog not the dog, they have no say on how they are treated.

Compulsory Micro Chipping may also be the way to reduce dogs left to roam and cause problems and again the owner would be the person to be brought to boot.

All dogs/pups to be micro chipped before being sold on..

Allow ‘Right To Roam’ in England and Wales

Allow us to roam freely in our countryside.

Allow us to paddle our boats and swim in our waterways.

Allow us to wild camp on our public land.

If we endanger conservation, teach us how not to.

Bring us in line with Scotland. Please.

Why is this idea important?

Allow us to roam freely in our countryside.

Allow us to paddle our boats and swim in our waterways.

Allow us to wild camp on our public land.

If we endanger conservation, teach us how not to.

Bring us in line with Scotland. Please.

Bicycles should be exempt from VAT

Bicycles (pedal bikes, push-bikes, whatever you like to call them) should be given a VAT exemption similar to books, food and children's clothes. Bicycle helmets should also be exempt.

Why is this idea important?

Bicycles (pedal bikes, push-bikes, whatever you like to call them) should be given a VAT exemption similar to books, food and children's clothes. Bicycle helmets should also be exempt.

Repeal of forcible entry and force against persons by bailiffs

End bailiffs powers to break in and use force against debtors and fine defaulters. 

We are seeking a return to the peaceful enforcement of fines by bailiffs who have been able to break to people's homes since March 2006 when the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force. Very dangerous powers also exist in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which allow bailiffs to break in to enforce all civil debts and to use force against the debtor or fine defaulter but they are not yet in force. These perverse laws should be removed in a Great Repeal Bill.  

Why is this idea important?

End bailiffs powers to break in and use force against debtors and fine defaulters. 

We are seeking a return to the peaceful enforcement of fines by bailiffs who have been able to break to people's homes since March 2006 when the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force. Very dangerous powers also exist in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which allow bailiffs to break in to enforce all civil debts and to use force against the debtor or fine defaulter but they are not yet in force. These perverse laws should be removed in a Great Repeal Bill.  

Allow Access to the 1921 Census Now

In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is one such project.

A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.

The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.

A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum

There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children. – so there is no need to redact columns.

In addition releasing the census would purge misconceptions raised by a previous Registrar General, Len Cook when he pledge on the 1981, 1991 census that the schedules would remain closed for 100 years. A pledge he later admitted in a letter to parliament he had no authority to give.

This would not cost goverment or taxpayers one penny as private companies would be queuing up to digitise, transcribe and host the 1921 Census

Why is this idea important?

In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is one such project.

A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.

The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.

A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum

There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children. – so there is no need to redact columns.

In addition releasing the census would purge misconceptions raised by a previous Registrar General, Len Cook when he pledge on the 1981, 1991 census that the schedules would remain closed for 100 years. A pledge he later admitted in a letter to parliament he had no authority to give.

This would not cost goverment or taxpayers one penny as private companies would be queuing up to digitise, transcribe and host the 1921 Census

Equal Rights for Fathers

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Why is this idea important?

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).