Repeal the 2004 Christmas Day Trading Act

The Christmas Day Trading Act prohibits large shops (those covered by Sunday Trading laws) from opening at all for retail on Christmas day.

 This ridiculous piece of legislation is an unnecessary interference both in business and in peoples’ right to spend their spare time as they choose.  The Government should not be interfering in the harmless activity of its citizens, and certainly not at the expense of businesses during a time when our economy is in such a bad state. 

 As shops would only open if there was demand for them to be open and they were able to get staff to work that day, the sole purpose of this piece of legislation seems to have been a means by which the Government could impose its own values upon the rest of society. 

Why is this idea important?

The Christmas Day Trading Act prohibits large shops (those covered by Sunday Trading laws) from opening at all for retail on Christmas day.

 This ridiculous piece of legislation is an unnecessary interference both in business and in peoples’ right to spend their spare time as they choose.  The Government should not be interfering in the harmless activity of its citizens, and certainly not at the expense of businesses during a time when our economy is in such a bad state. 

 As shops would only open if there was demand for them to be open and they were able to get staff to work that day, the sole purpose of this piece of legislation seems to have been a means by which the Government could impose its own values upon the rest of society. 

repeal cto’s review mha 2007 consider civil/human rights/freedoms

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Why is this idea important?

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Taxing burden on award winners

Currently recipient of an open entry award scheme is taxed on their award.  Whilst recipients of any invited applicant scheme are not.  So the fairer system is penalised. Given the amount of work commissioned by competition this is a relevant issues particularly for the creative industries and in our particular case the crafts. 

Why is this idea important?

Currently recipient of an open entry award scheme is taxed on their award.  Whilst recipients of any invited applicant scheme are not.  So the fairer system is penalised. Given the amount of work commissioned by competition this is a relevant issues particularly for the creative industries and in our particular case the crafts. 

Cut FREE boilers and central heating installations

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

I dont want automated cold call telephone calls

Whilst on this site I have received yet another automated telephone message (about debt recovery). I have now received 3 of these in the past 48 hours.  STOP IT – IT IS INTRUSIVE 

I think it amounts to harassment and impacts on my right to privacy – for gods sake one of these messages was around 6.00pm in the evening – GO AWAY.

I  have stated to a couple of companies that I do not want them but they still keep coming.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst on this site I have received yet another automated telephone message (about debt recovery). I have now received 3 of these in the past 48 hours.  STOP IT – IT IS INTRUSIVE 

I think it amounts to harassment and impacts on my right to privacy – for gods sake one of these messages was around 6.00pm in the evening – GO AWAY.

I  have stated to a couple of companies that I do not want them but they still keep coming.

Repeal the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000

All financial services firms are subject to the Act and the interpretation placed on it by the Financial Services Authority.

Unbeknownst to Parliament the passing of FSMA breached financial advisers human rights by retrospectively removing the ability to claim protection under the Limitation Act 1980. All other UK citizens and firms are able to rely upon the 15 year longstop to protect thrmselves against stale claims.

Financial advisers have not only lost this protection but it has been amde retrospective. In this regard they have lesser rights than terrorists, sex offenders and other unsavoury groups.

If we are fighting for a fairer and more just society then this distortion must be removed.

Why is this idea important?

All financial services firms are subject to the Act and the interpretation placed on it by the Financial Services Authority.

Unbeknownst to Parliament the passing of FSMA breached financial advisers human rights by retrospectively removing the ability to claim protection under the Limitation Act 1980. All other UK citizens and firms are able to rely upon the 15 year longstop to protect thrmselves against stale claims.

Financial advisers have not only lost this protection but it has been amde retrospective. In this regard they have lesser rights than terrorists, sex offenders and other unsavoury groups.

If we are fighting for a fairer and more just society then this distortion must be removed.

Scrap Bank Holidays (add 8 days to annual leave)

Bank holidays just lead to horrendous congestion and queues.Why not just add the equivalent number of days to people's annual leave entitlement which would then be spread more evenly throughout the year leading to better service from banks,shops etc. which could remain open.

Why is this idea important?

Bank holidays just lead to horrendous congestion and queues.Why not just add the equivalent number of days to people's annual leave entitlement which would then be spread more evenly throughout the year leading to better service from banks,shops etc. which could remain open.

The only idea you need: make all laws apply to MPs

Dear Mr Clegg

I think it's great that you've set up this website. It shows that you are committed to real engagement in the democratic process, which is an excellent thing.

However, you must be wondering now how you are going to sort through all the ideas here. There are thousands of ideas, and although doubtless many of the dafter ones can be ruled out pretty quickly, many of the other suggestions are actually pretty good, so it must be very hard to know where to start.

Let me help you. I would like to suggest just one law that you could introduce to help businesses emerge from the shackles of red tape. This is not to say that the other ideas aren't good: many of them are excellent, but all the good ideas will emerge naturally over the course of this parliament if you implement my idea first.

My idea is simple: make sure that every single business regulation applies to MPs and ministers in their own offices and departments, only more so. MPs are probably exempt from a lot of laws at the moment, and even if they're not technically exempt, someone at a high level has clearly taken a decision not to enforce them. For example, I can't take on an unpaid intern in my business, as I would be breaking minimum wage legislation, yet if you look on the w4mp.org website, you'll see many MPs advertising for unpaid interns. That kind of double standard has to stop.

But it needs to go further than that. The laws that apply to the rest of us need to apply much more vigorously to MPs. You need to set up an independent enforcement body (perhaps headed by a senior police officer), with the job of proactively looking for any breaches of any business regulation whatsoever among MPs and ministers. For example, I am required to update my health and safety policy annually. I actually do that, because I'm a good boy, but if I didn't, I'd probably get away with it unless there were some accident at my company that got investigated. However, with my idea, inspectors would regularly inspect the health and safety policy in every MPs office. If it's 366 days since it was last updated, then the MP is prosecuted. No ifs, no buts. You could imagine something pretty similar for every other bit of business regulation.

And if MPs are prosecuted, penalties would have to be more serious. Any fines levied could be at 5 times the level that would be applied to a business caught for the same offence (and no claiming the fines on expenses!), and if they do anything serious enough to merit a custodial sentence, then you'd lock them up for longer than you would a member of the public. Needless to say, ministers would be personally liable for any breaches of the law in their own departments.

And it goes without saying that MPs would have to fill in a P11D for all their expenses, which would be gone over in minute detail by some of the meanest inspectors that HMRC has to offer (and trust me, they are not lacking in such people).

Once that regime is in place, I think you'd find that parliament would pretty quickly vote for most of the other good ideas suggested on this site, without your having to do anything specific to encourage it.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Mr Clegg

I think it's great that you've set up this website. It shows that you are committed to real engagement in the democratic process, which is an excellent thing.

However, you must be wondering now how you are going to sort through all the ideas here. There are thousands of ideas, and although doubtless many of the dafter ones can be ruled out pretty quickly, many of the other suggestions are actually pretty good, so it must be very hard to know where to start.

Let me help you. I would like to suggest just one law that you could introduce to help businesses emerge from the shackles of red tape. This is not to say that the other ideas aren't good: many of them are excellent, but all the good ideas will emerge naturally over the course of this parliament if you implement my idea first.

My idea is simple: make sure that every single business regulation applies to MPs and ministers in their own offices and departments, only more so. MPs are probably exempt from a lot of laws at the moment, and even if they're not technically exempt, someone at a high level has clearly taken a decision not to enforce them. For example, I can't take on an unpaid intern in my business, as I would be breaking minimum wage legislation, yet if you look on the w4mp.org website, you'll see many MPs advertising for unpaid interns. That kind of double standard has to stop.

But it needs to go further than that. The laws that apply to the rest of us need to apply much more vigorously to MPs. You need to set up an independent enforcement body (perhaps headed by a senior police officer), with the job of proactively looking for any breaches of any business regulation whatsoever among MPs and ministers. For example, I am required to update my health and safety policy annually. I actually do that, because I'm a good boy, but if I didn't, I'd probably get away with it unless there were some accident at my company that got investigated. However, with my idea, inspectors would regularly inspect the health and safety policy in every MPs office. If it's 366 days since it was last updated, then the MP is prosecuted. No ifs, no buts. You could imagine something pretty similar for every other bit of business regulation.

And if MPs are prosecuted, penalties would have to be more serious. Any fines levied could be at 5 times the level that would be applied to a business caught for the same offence (and no claiming the fines on expenses!), and if they do anything serious enough to merit a custodial sentence, then you'd lock them up for longer than you would a member of the public. Needless to say, ministers would be personally liable for any breaches of the law in their own departments.

And it goes without saying that MPs would have to fill in a P11D for all their expenses, which would be gone over in minute detail by some of the meanest inspectors that HMRC has to offer (and trust me, they are not lacking in such people).

Once that regime is in place, I think you'd find that parliament would pretty quickly vote for most of the other good ideas suggested on this site, without your having to do anything specific to encourage it.

Financial Education – Free to be Rich

Let us have the liberty and encouragement to become rich.

I would like to suggest the first step in achieving this is by adding to our academic and professional education, financial education.

Can I give an example of the absurdity of our government budgetary system. A department is given a budgetary spend for a year. Suppose by a combination of efficiency savings, good management and even delay of some projects it under spends its budget and maintains or even improves its services. What is the reward? The budget is cut for the following year.

In his bestselling book Rich Dad Poor Dad (which if you haven’t read you should) Robert Kiyosaki describes some of the content of a sensible financial education.

We need to radically change our education system so it includes financial education of the type proposed in this book and others, including supporters in this country. Our schools do not cover subjects like banking, credit, good debt and bad debt, is a home an asset or a liability? Is it best to have a job or be self employed than to run is business which leverages our time or to invest and leverage both time and money? Should one specialise or diversify in investment? Do you know that the rich pay less tax than the middle classes? How can you join the rich? Do you know that most rich people plan to save, invest and give before their expenses rather than with what is left? why?

If more of us knew how to become rich and could become rich and understood more of the consequences of the last decades economic changes we would be able to extricate ourselves from our difficult economic situation more easily.

Why is this idea important?

Let us have the liberty and encouragement to become rich.

I would like to suggest the first step in achieving this is by adding to our academic and professional education, financial education.

Can I give an example of the absurdity of our government budgetary system. A department is given a budgetary spend for a year. Suppose by a combination of efficiency savings, good management and even delay of some projects it under spends its budget and maintains or even improves its services. What is the reward? The budget is cut for the following year.

In his bestselling book Rich Dad Poor Dad (which if you haven’t read you should) Robert Kiyosaki describes some of the content of a sensible financial education.

We need to radically change our education system so it includes financial education of the type proposed in this book and others, including supporters in this country. Our schools do not cover subjects like banking, credit, good debt and bad debt, is a home an asset or a liability? Is it best to have a job or be self employed than to run is business which leverages our time or to invest and leverage both time and money? Should one specialise or diversify in investment? Do you know that the rich pay less tax than the middle classes? How can you join the rich? Do you know that most rich people plan to save, invest and give before their expenses rather than with what is left? why?

If more of us knew how to become rich and could become rich and understood more of the consequences of the last decades economic changes we would be able to extricate ourselves from our difficult economic situation more easily.

Money Laundering Regulation overkill

As a small business owner we have been put to huge and continuing inconvenience because of the way these regulations apply and the documentation and form of ID that is required. It is not only that we have to supply detail every time some even trifling change is needed to bank details (irritation enough) but whenever we need to retain or even speak to a professional adviser, even one in no way directly related to money handling, like a solicitor. This causes delay, inconvenience and expense and is grossly disproportionate to the risks the government seeks to protect itself from. It is hard to believe this was intended by those framing legislation. Some may regard questions as intrusive.

The most annoying aspect is constantly having to demonstrate we are bona fide respectable directors. If this kind of inquisition is necessary at all (and I do query this) then surely the point at which to have the investigation is when one becomes a company director in the first instance (or every ten years or so thereafter); demonstrating that one is a director should then be proof enough that one is a fit person to run a bank account and appoint a financial adviser and so on.

Why is this idea important?

As a small business owner we have been put to huge and continuing inconvenience because of the way these regulations apply and the documentation and form of ID that is required. It is not only that we have to supply detail every time some even trifling change is needed to bank details (irritation enough) but whenever we need to retain or even speak to a professional adviser, even one in no way directly related to money handling, like a solicitor. This causes delay, inconvenience and expense and is grossly disproportionate to the risks the government seeks to protect itself from. It is hard to believe this was intended by those framing legislation. Some may regard questions as intrusive.

The most annoying aspect is constantly having to demonstrate we are bona fide respectable directors. If this kind of inquisition is necessary at all (and I do query this) then surely the point at which to have the investigation is when one becomes a company director in the first instance (or every ten years or so thereafter); demonstrating that one is a director should then be proof enough that one is a fit person to run a bank account and appoint a financial adviser and so on.

Unfettered outdoor advertisement

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Why is this idea important?

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Repeal Sunday shopping restrictions

If I go to my village shop on a Sunday after 16h00 I cannot buy soap or toilet paper – these are but a few items that  are prohibited from sale after 16h00 on Sunday.   Yet I am permitted to buy  wine, junk food and cigarettes.  

Smaller shops are able to comply with these restrictions by blocking off certain aisles or sections of their shop, but this is impractical for large supermarkets; they just close altogether at 16h00 on a Sunday.

It is patently absurd that I can buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday at 16h30 but I can't by a corkscrew to open it!    What purpose do such regulations serve in a secular state?  Indeed, they would not even serve any purpose in a theocracy.

Why is this idea important?

If I go to my village shop on a Sunday after 16h00 I cannot buy soap or toilet paper – these are but a few items that  are prohibited from sale after 16h00 on Sunday.   Yet I am permitted to buy  wine, junk food and cigarettes.  

Smaller shops are able to comply with these restrictions by blocking off certain aisles or sections of their shop, but this is impractical for large supermarkets; they just close altogether at 16h00 on a Sunday.

It is patently absurd that I can buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday at 16h30 but I can't by a corkscrew to open it!    What purpose do such regulations serve in a secular state?  Indeed, they would not even serve any purpose in a theocracy.

Move environmental taxes from point of disposal to point of sale

Abolish Point of Disposal environmental taxes like the land fill tax.

Instead, allow land fill and recycling centres to accept commercial waste free of charge.

To pay for this, increase the rate of VAT on building materials, tyres, etc. (i.e. whatever the difficult to dispose of items are).  VAT is cheaper to collect, impossible to avoid. Ultimately, the same person will pay for the disposal, but much sooner, without the ability to avoid the tax by dumping the waste.

To encourage recycling, make 2nd hand items VAT exempt and reduce the VAT on recycled goods, if practical.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish Point of Disposal environmental taxes like the land fill tax.

Instead, allow land fill and recycling centres to accept commercial waste free of charge.

To pay for this, increase the rate of VAT on building materials, tyres, etc. (i.e. whatever the difficult to dispose of items are).  VAT is cheaper to collect, impossible to avoid. Ultimately, the same person will pay for the disposal, but much sooner, without the ability to avoid the tax by dumping the waste.

To encourage recycling, make 2nd hand items VAT exempt and reduce the VAT on recycled goods, if practical.

Remove requirements that research be funded based on “impact”

The last government changed how money is allocated for publicly funded scientific research so that it is based on potential economic "impact". So whether businesses will benefit, or whether the research will increase GNP are used to decide which research gets our money.

 

That decision should be reversed.

Why is this idea important?

The last government changed how money is allocated for publicly funded scientific research so that it is based on potential economic "impact". So whether businesses will benefit, or whether the research will increase GNP are used to decide which research gets our money.

 

That decision should be reversed.

Cutting red tape for small farms

Much of the damage to wildlife results from big farms with big fields all doing the same thing at the same time. Small farms (less then 100 acres) have smaller fields, and have an economic need to do things differently from their neighbours.

Small farms do not get the commercial discounts that their larger neighbours get. They also suffer from having to pay minimum charges for many services required under European Waste Directive etc. Sometimes the minimum charge is larger then the entire profit on small enterprises. Householders get the same ammount of rubbish disposed of free.

Livestock disposal cost is much higher for small farms then for large farms. On one occasion I calculated that we paid more per kilogram to dispose of 2 still born lambs then a large commercial farm paid in fines and disposal costs after illegally disposing of nearly 200tons of carcasses.

Electronic Identification of sheep (EID) costs much more for a small flock then for a large one. Officially the cost is about 60p, but after the cost of the application tool is taken into account it costs about £2.00 a sheep for our flock. (We couldn't possibly buy the machine which reads the tags)

Transport licences: We have a rare breed flock and need to buy in one ram every 3 years to avoid in-breeding. The nearest flock of the same breed is over 100 miles away. (We provide a unique insurance against foot and mouth etc for this breed that only has about 500 sheep in the world) Without a licence we can only transport our sheep 40km. Getting the licence for transporting our own sheep would cost £150 and involve 2 days away from our small business. Paying anyone else to transport them would cost more. 

Farmers get their ORDERS from DEFRA, and sometimes (in our case) from the Welsh Assembly (WA). The division of responsibilities bewteen these two organisations is not clear. Sometimes the WA website just links straight through to DEFRA, sometimes neither seems to have relavant information.

We have to apply for Rural Payements Agency forms to the local WA Dept of Ag office. We have a very reliable local postal service, but vital Rural Payements Agency forms often go missing. After 10 years, and having completely lost the opportunity to get Single Farm Payments because of undelivered forms, I have only just discovered that the forms are posted to Wales from somewhere in England. What is worse, WA Dept Ag staff do not even know where the forms actually come from! THis makes affective chasing of lost forms almost impossible.

When we were turned down for Single Farm Payment we were told that there was a two stage appeal. We tried the first stage, but couldn't go onto the second stage because the charge was more then we had in the bank, and was about 25% of the payment we would have gained if the appeal was succesful.

Surprisingly, having failed to get SFP we were told we could still get Tyr Cynnal (Entry level environment scheme) We would have to stick to a management scheme. I wrote out a scheme that had succesfully supported summer Grasshopper Warblers and winter Snipe but as soon as I presented it it was screwed up and thrown on the floor. We were told to obey a plan from Brussels. The field cannot be grazed or topped at the time Brussels allows as it is usually waterlogged at that time of year. The field is now swamped with rushes, we have lost the Grasshopper Warblers and Snipe and are losing the very rare Whorled Carraway which used to blossom there. I have seen no new species. Although we run the farm as a nature reserve with 1/2 acres fields the extra boundary regulations took 16% of our land out of production.

Also there are no grants available to help very small farms to diversify into non farming enterprises. All that are available require match funding that exceeds that available from cash flow. Banks are, apparently, not interested in small rural enterprises. 

I am sure that many farmers have similar stories and can give many other examples of damaging red tape.

  

Why is this idea important?

Much of the damage to wildlife results from big farms with big fields all doing the same thing at the same time. Small farms (less then 100 acres) have smaller fields, and have an economic need to do things differently from their neighbours.

Small farms do not get the commercial discounts that their larger neighbours get. They also suffer from having to pay minimum charges for many services required under European Waste Directive etc. Sometimes the minimum charge is larger then the entire profit on small enterprises. Householders get the same ammount of rubbish disposed of free.

Livestock disposal cost is much higher for small farms then for large farms. On one occasion I calculated that we paid more per kilogram to dispose of 2 still born lambs then a large commercial farm paid in fines and disposal costs after illegally disposing of nearly 200tons of carcasses.

Electronic Identification of sheep (EID) costs much more for a small flock then for a large one. Officially the cost is about 60p, but after the cost of the application tool is taken into account it costs about £2.00 a sheep for our flock. (We couldn't possibly buy the machine which reads the tags)

Transport licences: We have a rare breed flock and need to buy in one ram every 3 years to avoid in-breeding. The nearest flock of the same breed is over 100 miles away. (We provide a unique insurance against foot and mouth etc for this breed that only has about 500 sheep in the world) Without a licence we can only transport our sheep 40km. Getting the licence for transporting our own sheep would cost £150 and involve 2 days away from our small business. Paying anyone else to transport them would cost more. 

Farmers get their ORDERS from DEFRA, and sometimes (in our case) from the Welsh Assembly (WA). The division of responsibilities bewteen these two organisations is not clear. Sometimes the WA website just links straight through to DEFRA, sometimes neither seems to have relavant information.

We have to apply for Rural Payements Agency forms to the local WA Dept of Ag office. We have a very reliable local postal service, but vital Rural Payements Agency forms often go missing. After 10 years, and having completely lost the opportunity to get Single Farm Payments because of undelivered forms, I have only just discovered that the forms are posted to Wales from somewhere in England. What is worse, WA Dept Ag staff do not even know where the forms actually come from! THis makes affective chasing of lost forms almost impossible.

When we were turned down for Single Farm Payment we were told that there was a two stage appeal. We tried the first stage, but couldn't go onto the second stage because the charge was more then we had in the bank, and was about 25% of the payment we would have gained if the appeal was succesful.

Surprisingly, having failed to get SFP we were told we could still get Tyr Cynnal (Entry level environment scheme) We would have to stick to a management scheme. I wrote out a scheme that had succesfully supported summer Grasshopper Warblers and winter Snipe but as soon as I presented it it was screwed up and thrown on the floor. We were told to obey a plan from Brussels. The field cannot be grazed or topped at the time Brussels allows as it is usually waterlogged at that time of year. The field is now swamped with rushes, we have lost the Grasshopper Warblers and Snipe and are losing the very rare Whorled Carraway which used to blossom there. I have seen no new species. Although we run the farm as a nature reserve with 1/2 acres fields the extra boundary regulations took 16% of our land out of production.

Also there are no grants available to help very small farms to diversify into non farming enterprises. All that are available require match funding that exceeds that available from cash flow. Banks are, apparently, not interested in small rural enterprises. 

I am sure that many farmers have similar stories and can give many other examples of damaging red tape.

  

Lower 12.8% employers National Insurance to reduce unemployment.

 

I own a technology company employing 100 staff. We use computers to design bridges and machinery.

Last year I visited India to set up deals with other design offices and we been subcontracting design work to India ever since. Our competitors are also doing this.

We pay 12.8% employers NI for all our UK staff and no NI for Indian staff.

I visited many large design offices that have been moved from the UK and US

The trend of subcontracting design work to India is growing.

These are technology jobs that are being lost and it is not good for the UK and the training of youngsters.

The company in next door makes umbrellas and has to compete with imports from China.

He pays 12.8% empolyers NI for all his staff.

Its no wonder we all buy cheaper Chinese products.

If we are to have any hope of competing internationally and stop the flow of jobs out of this country we must reduce the 12.8% employers NI.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I own a technology company employing 100 staff. We use computers to design bridges and machinery.

Last year I visited India to set up deals with other design offices and we been subcontracting design work to India ever since. Our competitors are also doing this.

We pay 12.8% employers NI for all our UK staff and no NI for Indian staff.

I visited many large design offices that have been moved from the UK and US

The trend of subcontracting design work to India is growing.

These are technology jobs that are being lost and it is not good for the UK and the training of youngsters.

The company in next door makes umbrellas and has to compete with imports from China.

He pays 12.8% empolyers NI for all his staff.

Its no wonder we all buy cheaper Chinese products.

If we are to have any hope of competing internationally and stop the flow of jobs out of this country we must reduce the 12.8% employers NI.

 

 

Introduce an ‘Assured Shorthold Tenancy’ for commercial property

To provide a simple and quick means of occupying commercial property (of all types), with fixed terms, standard clauses, standard deposits, standard rights and obligations etc.  My suggestion would be that it should be available to all properties up to £50,000 pa exclusive.   The AST has transformed the private rented residential sector and with some thought a similar basis could be put in place for commercial lettings, which would significantly improve the market and the economy, in my opinion. 

Why is this idea important?

To provide a simple and quick means of occupying commercial property (of all types), with fixed terms, standard clauses, standard deposits, standard rights and obligations etc.  My suggestion would be that it should be available to all properties up to £50,000 pa exclusive.   The AST has transformed the private rented residential sector and with some thought a similar basis could be put in place for commercial lettings, which would significantly improve the market and the economy, in my opinion. 

Entrepreuners’ Nightmares in the UK

AS A BUSINESSMAN WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW I SHOULD RUN MY BUSINESS !

People take huge risks when they go into business. The success or failure of their businesses is highly dependent on external market conditions, speed of payment as well as competition, just to name a few and this is where their total focus is and should be.

But, entrepreuners in the UK get a very raw deal. Whilst they take ALL THE RISKS, it is the employees who get ALL THE RIGHTS and the Employers who get ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES!  Where is the logic?

Businesses can really only expand if (1) they take on staff and (2) the additional overheads can be covered by additional income. Not forgetting that by taking on staff, businesses reduce the government's unemployment burden and help the economy

However, in the UK, taking on staff, is taking on a liability. Entrepreuners have all kinds of knives hanging over their heads and they live in fear and a burden of responsibility to staff that totally takes away the entrepreunial spirit !

The freedom of the individual has been taken to its limit so much so that it is now commonly thought that enployers are always wrong and that employees are brainless and need all the protection they can get from the wrath of the employer.

IN BRITAIN, EMPLOYEES HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYERS HAVE ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES !  SHOULDN'T IT BE THE OTHER WAY ROUND.  IT IS THE EMPLOYER WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, GIVING THE EMPLOYEE A JOB AND REDUCING THE GIVERNMENT'S BURDEN !!

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE?

America is a land of opportunities, and entrepreuners do get a very fair crack at the whip for the risk they take!  Not so in the UK.

GOVERNMENT MUST STOP INTERFERING. THROUGH THIS INTERFERENCE, SMALL BUSINESSES ARE BEING STIFLED  AND A HUGE IMBALANCE HAS DEVELOPED.

LET MARKET FORCES DICTATE.

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO LAW AND REMOVING THE BURDEN FOR SMALL BUSINESSES :-

Removal of compulsory entitlement to annual holidyays – Let market forces decide whether it should be 10 days, 15 days or 20 days? Every country is different and why should we feel that we should have the same level of holidays as some other country.

Reduction of Maternity  rights -Yes, we must be human, but within reason.

Removal of Peternity rights – This has gone overboard and emplyers are suffering.

Removal of Minimum wage – This distorts the market and is artificial – Let market forces decide. Employees may suffere in the short term, but long term,  British industry will become healthier, leaner and more competitive in the eyes of the rest of the world. Businesses will definitely take people off the dole queue even in this recessionary climate.

Redundancy Pay – Bring back entitlement period to 24 months form current 12 months. 12 months is too short.

Unfair dismissal Laws – Remove or minimise circumstances that can give rise to this claim. Employees are not as innocent as the giovernment seems to believe. It is also a huge cost to the taxpayer and the business community to have to fight totally illegitimate claim cases.

Give More rights to employers for instant dismissal.

Remove Health and Safety burdens for employers. Employees are not blind or stupid. They CAN refuse to take on a job if they are not happy with the H & S arrangements. Again market forces must be allowed to dictate.

Generally -Remove laws that take away the small business entrepreunerial spirit and make them guilty until proved otherwise !

AS A BUSINESSMAN WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW I SHOULD RUN MY BUSINESS ! BUSINESSES NEED TO BE IN CONTROL – RIGHT NOW THEY ARE NOT! THE BIG BROTHER DICTATES EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

AS A BUSINESSMAN WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW I SHOULD RUN MY BUSINESS !

People take huge risks when they go into business. The success or failure of their businesses is highly dependent on external market conditions, speed of payment as well as competition, just to name a few and this is where their total focus is and should be.

But, entrepreuners in the UK get a very raw deal. Whilst they take ALL THE RISKS, it is the employees who get ALL THE RIGHTS and the Employers who get ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES!  Where is the logic?

Businesses can really only expand if (1) they take on staff and (2) the additional overheads can be covered by additional income. Not forgetting that by taking on staff, businesses reduce the government's unemployment burden and help the economy

However, in the UK, taking on staff, is taking on a liability. Entrepreuners have all kinds of knives hanging over their heads and they live in fear and a burden of responsibility to staff that totally takes away the entrepreunial spirit !

The freedom of the individual has been taken to its limit so much so that it is now commonly thought that enployers are always wrong and that employees are brainless and need all the protection they can get from the wrath of the employer.

IN BRITAIN, EMPLOYEES HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYERS HAVE ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES !  SHOULDN'T IT BE THE OTHER WAY ROUND.  IT IS THE EMPLOYER WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, GIVING THE EMPLOYEE A JOB AND REDUCING THE GIVERNMENT'S BURDEN !!

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE?

America is a land of opportunities, and entrepreuners do get a very fair crack at the whip for the risk they take!  Not so in the UK.

GOVERNMENT MUST STOP INTERFERING. THROUGH THIS INTERFERENCE, SMALL BUSINESSES ARE BEING STIFLED  AND A HUGE IMBALANCE HAS DEVELOPED.

LET MARKET FORCES DICTATE.

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO LAW AND REMOVING THE BURDEN FOR SMALL BUSINESSES :-

Removal of compulsory entitlement to annual holidyays – Let market forces decide whether it should be 10 days, 15 days or 20 days? Every country is different and why should we feel that we should have the same level of holidays as some other country.

Reduction of Maternity  rights -Yes, we must be human, but within reason.

Removal of Peternity rights – This has gone overboard and emplyers are suffering.

Removal of Minimum wage – This distorts the market and is artificial – Let market forces decide. Employees may suffere in the short term, but long term,  British industry will become healthier, leaner and more competitive in the eyes of the rest of the world. Businesses will definitely take people off the dole queue even in this recessionary climate.

Redundancy Pay – Bring back entitlement period to 24 months form current 12 months. 12 months is too short.

Unfair dismissal Laws – Remove or minimise circumstances that can give rise to this claim. Employees are not as innocent as the giovernment seems to believe. It is also a huge cost to the taxpayer and the business community to have to fight totally illegitimate claim cases.

Give More rights to employers for instant dismissal.

Remove Health and Safety burdens for employers. Employees are not blind or stupid. They CAN refuse to take on a job if they are not happy with the H & S arrangements. Again market forces must be allowed to dictate.

Generally -Remove laws that take away the small business entrepreunerial spirit and make them guilty until proved otherwise !

AS A BUSINESSMAN WHO IS TAKING ALL THE RISKS, WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW I SHOULD RUN MY BUSINESS ! BUSINESSES NEED TO BE IN CONTROL – RIGHT NOW THEY ARE NOT! THE BIG BROTHER DICTATES EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom for temporary trading, pop-up businesses and one-off events for profit.

It should be easier and simpler to allow people to trade on  a temporary basis, Please free them from the laborious paperwork and rregistration equirements which inhibit initiative.

This would enable people to  viably test their business ideas out and learn before taking the leap into self-employment

Encourage financial self-sufficiency and innovation.

Give an opportunity for those who are disabled or too ill to work full time to help themselves when they can.

Encourage the use of temporary shop premises between long-lets, preventing them from beign squatted or beign an empty eyesore on the High Street.

Why is this idea important?

It should be easier and simpler to allow people to trade on  a temporary basis, Please free them from the laborious paperwork and rregistration equirements which inhibit initiative.

This would enable people to  viably test their business ideas out and learn before taking the leap into self-employment

Encourage financial self-sufficiency and innovation.

Give an opportunity for those who are disabled or too ill to work full time to help themselves when they can.

Encourage the use of temporary shop premises between long-lets, preventing them from beign squatted or beign an empty eyesore on the High Street.

A TAX SYSTEM FOR THE DIGITAL AGE… ‘The George Tax’

 

THE GEORGE TAX

Current taxation systems throughout the world were developed for a physical currency transaction, this means it is a tax system that can easily be avoided and is inherently corrupt in that the richest can avoid tax through highly paid Lawyers and Accountants finding loopholes in the system, and cash only business can avoid tax by not declaring transactions.

A digital age taxation system would allow the Government to collect tax electronically at a centralised point of transaction, and would also allow the government to deploy algorithms to calculate a 'Real Time' tax rate which could adjust dynamically to the expenditure requirements of government, rather than the government being forced to go cap in hand to the bond markets or raise taxation retrospectively on budget day.

IMPLEMENTING THE GEARGE TAX

The starting point for a digital age taxation system would be to abolish the entire UK taxation and cash transaction system and start from scratch.

Algorithms would need to be formulated (A.) to determine the value of all financial transactions carried out in the UK and between the UK and Overseas and (B.) Projected governmental expenditure for the year calculated in real time.

To collect THE GEORGE TAX,  centralised electronic transaction hubs would be built and developed throughout the UK and each of these would be connected in a network to each other and to a master hub connected to the banks where tax is collected as a percentage of each transaction passing through the hub.

THE GEORGE TAX is essentially a transaction tax. Whenever a financial transaction is carried out, a percentage of that transaction is taken as a tax, the tax percentage is calculated in 'Real Time' and would be variable by miniscule percentage movements using an algorithm calculating government spending requirements for the tax year against projected UK financial transactions for the tax year.

All financial transactions including share dealing, bank to bank transfers etc.. would have to pass through the hubs by law, with serious penalties for non compliance.

For small transactions, pre paid cash cards containing say £10 in value could be purchased 'TAX PAID' at shops and supermarkets etc.. these could then be used to pay for small purchases in store and at temporary outlets and outdoor events etc. where terminal connections to the centralised transaction hubs cant be made.

The cards could possibly be top up cards or disposable depending on security issues, but this would negate the need for cash in today’s society, it would also mean that transactions could be carried out without a need for a connection to the main hubs or to a power source as payment tills could be battery or solar powered and would not need a phone line, all transactions taken through these cards would then be uploaded at a later date through a connected terminal to the main transaction hubs.

The benefits of THE GEORGE TAX, are that it is a simple one tax system, it can be collected at the time of transaction, it will reduce business costs significantly, would increase tax collection to near 100%, would be 100% fair, would reduce government expenditure significantly, and would reduce the overall tax burden on the individual significantly, cutting red tape and tax loop holes to pretty much zero.

THE GEORGE TAX is a progressive digital age tax system, that is simple and effective, it just needs a progressive and visionary government to implement it in its simplest form.

The basic rule is to keep it very simple, tax the transaction at a single real time rate, a one tax system.

I can envisage an extremely low tax rate of a percentage of 1% using THE GEORGE TAX , every single financial transaction in the UK and between the UK and Overseas would be taxed at the time of transaction, this amounts to a staggeringly huge sum of money available to be taxed against.

Because the tax is a transaction tax, both sides of the transaction are taxed, therefore a transaction of £1.00 is actually worth £2.00 for taxable purposes.

The benefits to society and the UK economy would be immeasurable!

THE GEORGE TAX – Should be this governments legacy to this great nation, i give my idea for FREE, in the hope that somebody with the vision of progress will take it forward.

Why call it the  THE GEORGE TAX?

Well its my last name, its my idea, so why not!  😉

Why is this idea important?

 

THE GEORGE TAX

Current taxation systems throughout the world were developed for a physical currency transaction, this means it is a tax system that can easily be avoided and is inherently corrupt in that the richest can avoid tax through highly paid Lawyers and Accountants finding loopholes in the system, and cash only business can avoid tax by not declaring transactions.

A digital age taxation system would allow the Government to collect tax electronically at a centralised point of transaction, and would also allow the government to deploy algorithms to calculate a 'Real Time' tax rate which could adjust dynamically to the expenditure requirements of government, rather than the government being forced to go cap in hand to the bond markets or raise taxation retrospectively on budget day.

IMPLEMENTING THE GEARGE TAX

The starting point for a digital age taxation system would be to abolish the entire UK taxation and cash transaction system and start from scratch.

Algorithms would need to be formulated (A.) to determine the value of all financial transactions carried out in the UK and between the UK and Overseas and (B.) Projected governmental expenditure for the year calculated in real time.

To collect THE GEORGE TAX,  centralised electronic transaction hubs would be built and developed throughout the UK and each of these would be connected in a network to each other and to a master hub connected to the banks where tax is collected as a percentage of each transaction passing through the hub.

THE GEORGE TAX is essentially a transaction tax. Whenever a financial transaction is carried out, a percentage of that transaction is taken as a tax, the tax percentage is calculated in 'Real Time' and would be variable by miniscule percentage movements using an algorithm calculating government spending requirements for the tax year against projected UK financial transactions for the tax year.

All financial transactions including share dealing, bank to bank transfers etc.. would have to pass through the hubs by law, with serious penalties for non compliance.

For small transactions, pre paid cash cards containing say £10 in value could be purchased 'TAX PAID' at shops and supermarkets etc.. these could then be used to pay for small purchases in store and at temporary outlets and outdoor events etc. where terminal connections to the centralised transaction hubs cant be made.

The cards could possibly be top up cards or disposable depending on security issues, but this would negate the need for cash in today’s society, it would also mean that transactions could be carried out without a need for a connection to the main hubs or to a power source as payment tills could be battery or solar powered and would not need a phone line, all transactions taken through these cards would then be uploaded at a later date through a connected terminal to the main transaction hubs.

The benefits of THE GEORGE TAX, are that it is a simple one tax system, it can be collected at the time of transaction, it will reduce business costs significantly, would increase tax collection to near 100%, would be 100% fair, would reduce government expenditure significantly, and would reduce the overall tax burden on the individual significantly, cutting red tape and tax loop holes to pretty much zero.

THE GEORGE TAX is a progressive digital age tax system, that is simple and effective, it just needs a progressive and visionary government to implement it in its simplest form.

The basic rule is to keep it very simple, tax the transaction at a single real time rate, a one tax system.

I can envisage an extremely low tax rate of a percentage of 1% using THE GEORGE TAX , every single financial transaction in the UK and between the UK and Overseas would be taxed at the time of transaction, this amounts to a staggeringly huge sum of money available to be taxed against.

Because the tax is a transaction tax, both sides of the transaction are taxed, therefore a transaction of £1.00 is actually worth £2.00 for taxable purposes.

The benefits to society and the UK economy would be immeasurable!

THE GEORGE TAX – Should be this governments legacy to this great nation, i give my idea for FREE, in the hope that somebody with the vision of progress will take it forward.

Why call it the  THE GEORGE TAX?

Well its my last name, its my idea, so why not!  😉

Amend minimum wage legislation to allow internships

I must confess I'm not sure whether the minimum wage legislation as a basic principle is a good thing or a  bad thing. I can see the arguments against, that it distorts the market, and the arguments for, that it protects exploitation of those at the lower end of the income scale. I'll let those who understand more about economics than I do decide whether the minimum wage legislation as a whole should stay or go.

However, if we are going to keep this law, then we need to make an exception for internships. Currently, it is illegal for employers to offer unpaid internships. This is a great shame. Internships can be a great stepping-stone for recent graduates, who can find it very hard to find work if they have no experience. They often lead to permanent jobs in the same organisation, and even if they don't, then the experience that the interns can put on their CVs can be a great help in finding jobs elsewhere. And of course the employer benefits from having an extra pair of hands at no cost. It's a classic win-win situation.

Maybe in an ideal world all internships would be paid at the minimum wage, but in real life many employers simply can't afford to pay, and so internships that would otherwise be available just don't exist.

Oh, and by the way, how come MPs can still advertise for unpaid interns for their offices? Is this another law from which MPs have a special exemption?

Why is this idea important?

I must confess I'm not sure whether the minimum wage legislation as a basic principle is a good thing or a  bad thing. I can see the arguments against, that it distorts the market, and the arguments for, that it protects exploitation of those at the lower end of the income scale. I'll let those who understand more about economics than I do decide whether the minimum wage legislation as a whole should stay or go.

However, if we are going to keep this law, then we need to make an exception for internships. Currently, it is illegal for employers to offer unpaid internships. This is a great shame. Internships can be a great stepping-stone for recent graduates, who can find it very hard to find work if they have no experience. They often lead to permanent jobs in the same organisation, and even if they don't, then the experience that the interns can put on their CVs can be a great help in finding jobs elsewhere. And of course the employer benefits from having an extra pair of hands at no cost. It's a classic win-win situation.

Maybe in an ideal world all internships would be paid at the minimum wage, but in real life many employers simply can't afford to pay, and so internships that would otherwise be available just don't exist.

Oh, and by the way, how come MPs can still advertise for unpaid interns for their offices? Is this another law from which MPs have a special exemption?

let milk be milk – repealing pasteurisation laws

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Why is this idea important?

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Cap NHS salaries from £30k not £21k

21k is not a large salary to survive on, especially for single people, so why start capping small salaries within the NHS? 30k on the other hand is a good amount to survive on even if you are single, so why are those on small/average salaries being penalised?

Why is this idea important?

21k is not a large salary to survive on, especially for single people, so why start capping small salaries within the NHS? 30k on the other hand is a good amount to survive on even if you are single, so why are those on small/average salaries being penalised?