Bring the education out of politics.

We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with  education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.

Why is this idea important?

We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with  education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Atlas Shrugged (or Why We Need to Crack Down on Government Control Freakery)

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Why is this idea important?

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Address Government’s limited power to block or repeal EU Regulations

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Abolish Elections !

Seriously, abolish Elections.

General Elections that is. I want freedom from short-term top-go management of the economy and politicians who support leaders and policies well past their sell-by dates because they know that if The Leader falls there will be a General Election, and thy too will fall.

Abolish crude system where an MP elected with a majority of 1 in a constituency where the vote was split 3 ways and turnout was low, has exactly the same weight as one with a clear absolute majority of the registered electorate.

Make votes cast against a guaranteed winner count for something.

Give supporters of a surefire winning party motivation to turn out or stay at home.

Here's how it works.

An MP elected with over 50% of the Registered Electorate is elected for 5 years.

An MP elected with 50% of the Votes Cast, but less than 50% of the Registered Electorate, is elected for 4 years.

An MP elected with less than 50% of the Votes Cast, for example where the vote is a Split Vote, is elected for 3 years,

In each calendar year there is a set Planned Election Day when MPs whose number of years is up see their constituents get another vote.  Usuallt this will be about the same time of year, but circumstances may make it sensible to change the date – floods, storms, volcanic ash, Olympics.

This way MPs who barely scape into Parliament can only claim a mandate for 3 years, ones who clearly represent their constituents can carry on for a full 5 years.  After each Mini-Election it would be clear if the previous Government still had a working majority.

Governments would change gradually, rather than do damaging full 180-degree turns every few years.

Voters would longer be afraid of voting the way they really want to. They might support a Party but loathe the local Candidate – today they vote for a candidate they loath because they don't want the other party to run the Country. In future they might be confident that whatever the result, the Government will not change in the next 12 months, allowing Local Voters to apply pressure to their Local Party to choose a candidate with Local Support rather than have a narrow clique of activists and Head Office impose a swivel-eyed idealogue.

In a typical year about 200 seats would be up for grabs, rather than the full 600-650. Poorly performing MPs and unpopular ones would soon get the message and work harder to represent their public. A strength of this idea is simplicity – apart from length of tenure, all MPs are equal – there are no fractional or weighted votes.

And if a Government totally fouled up and was unable to govern, there is nothing to stop a General Election being called, it just would not be routine and automatic. 3 years later gradualism would re-assert itself.

Make MPs more responive, stop abrupt policy reversals every 4 or 5 years. Elect MPs for variable terms.

Why is this idea important?

Seriously, abolish Elections.

General Elections that is. I want freedom from short-term top-go management of the economy and politicians who support leaders and policies well past their sell-by dates because they know that if The Leader falls there will be a General Election, and thy too will fall.

Abolish crude system where an MP elected with a majority of 1 in a constituency where the vote was split 3 ways and turnout was low, has exactly the same weight as one with a clear absolute majority of the registered electorate.

Make votes cast against a guaranteed winner count for something.

Give supporters of a surefire winning party motivation to turn out or stay at home.

Here's how it works.

An MP elected with over 50% of the Registered Electorate is elected for 5 years.

An MP elected with 50% of the Votes Cast, but less than 50% of the Registered Electorate, is elected for 4 years.

An MP elected with less than 50% of the Votes Cast, for example where the vote is a Split Vote, is elected for 3 years,

In each calendar year there is a set Planned Election Day when MPs whose number of years is up see their constituents get another vote.  Usuallt this will be about the same time of year, but circumstances may make it sensible to change the date – floods, storms, volcanic ash, Olympics.

This way MPs who barely scape into Parliament can only claim a mandate for 3 years, ones who clearly represent their constituents can carry on for a full 5 years.  After each Mini-Election it would be clear if the previous Government still had a working majority.

Governments would change gradually, rather than do damaging full 180-degree turns every few years.

Voters would longer be afraid of voting the way they really want to. They might support a Party but loathe the local Candidate – today they vote for a candidate they loath because they don't want the other party to run the Country. In future they might be confident that whatever the result, the Government will not change in the next 12 months, allowing Local Voters to apply pressure to their Local Party to choose a candidate with Local Support rather than have a narrow clique of activists and Head Office impose a swivel-eyed idealogue.

In a typical year about 200 seats would be up for grabs, rather than the full 600-650. Poorly performing MPs and unpopular ones would soon get the message and work harder to represent their public. A strength of this idea is simplicity – apart from length of tenure, all MPs are equal – there are no fractional or weighted votes.

And if a Government totally fouled up and was unable to govern, there is nothing to stop a General Election being called, it just would not be routine and automatic. 3 years later gradualism would re-assert itself.

Make MPs more responive, stop abrupt policy reversals every 4 or 5 years. Elect MPs for variable terms.

Which Laws Have Been Passed?

It is great asking which Laws should be repealed, but I am sure many people don't even know which Laws (and how many) have been passed and hence which should/could be repealed.

Therefore it would make sense to publish a directory of Laws that are in force, when they were passed and a summary of their intent and effect.  I am sure that can be achieved in this age of technology. This would be great for the citizen who can quickly look through basic information and be pointed to other areas for more detailed information if needed.

May even a good place to add information about Laws being considered and when they are due for review, debate, white paper, green paper (whatever colour it is) and date it is exoected in Parliament and voted upon.

Why is this idea important?

It is great asking which Laws should be repealed, but I am sure many people don't even know which Laws (and how many) have been passed and hence which should/could be repealed.

Therefore it would make sense to publish a directory of Laws that are in force, when they were passed and a summary of their intent and effect.  I am sure that can be achieved in this age of technology. This would be great for the citizen who can quickly look through basic information and be pointed to other areas for more detailed information if needed.

May even a good place to add information about Laws being considered and when they are due for review, debate, white paper, green paper (whatever colour it is) and date it is exoected in Parliament and voted upon.

Breaching the Data Protection Act.

As a Council resident,I have been the victim of the Breaching of the Data Protection Act by a Council Worker in October 2009.

I complained to the Council and a process of enquiry was apparently gone through,but as this was all determined by the Council involved I lost of course even though there was a witness who heard every word this person stated and wrote to the Council confirming it.

This was thrown out because the "witness" made himself invisible to the worker and myself.Even in a Court of Law this is Fact,that a witness doesn't have to be visible to anyone to confirm what he had heard,so what is the difference?

8 Months on and have just discovered that the Council worker has been Promoted,while I am still suffering from this personal insult.

I will fight on of course,but if a Government Body has a Complaint against it,then investigations should be carried out by a Neutral Party/Parties and not an internal investigation!

Yes,I went to the Ombudsman and that was a complete waste of time because all she read was what the Council had written,and came back as "Inconclusive"!

Data Protection means exactly what it say's,and yet a Deputy Area Manager gets off scott free and gets a Promotion for her trouble.

As pensioners,we cannot afford to get this to Court,so maybe you should amend the DPA to protect the innocents who have worked all their lives.

According to the Council,there is NO DATA TRAIL with Saffron,so time to make sure that there is a Data Trail in the very near future.

After all,anyone can get access to anyone's records which are Private and Confidential apparently.

Why is this idea important?

As a Council resident,I have been the victim of the Breaching of the Data Protection Act by a Council Worker in October 2009.

I complained to the Council and a process of enquiry was apparently gone through,but as this was all determined by the Council involved I lost of course even though there was a witness who heard every word this person stated and wrote to the Council confirming it.

This was thrown out because the "witness" made himself invisible to the worker and myself.Even in a Court of Law this is Fact,that a witness doesn't have to be visible to anyone to confirm what he had heard,so what is the difference?

8 Months on and have just discovered that the Council worker has been Promoted,while I am still suffering from this personal insult.

I will fight on of course,but if a Government Body has a Complaint against it,then investigations should be carried out by a Neutral Party/Parties and not an internal investigation!

Yes,I went to the Ombudsman and that was a complete waste of time because all she read was what the Council had written,and came back as "Inconclusive"!

Data Protection means exactly what it say's,and yet a Deputy Area Manager gets off scott free and gets a Promotion for her trouble.

As pensioners,we cannot afford to get this to Court,so maybe you should amend the DPA to protect the innocents who have worked all their lives.

According to the Council,there is NO DATA TRAIL with Saffron,so time to make sure that there is a Data Trail in the very near future.

After all,anyone can get access to anyone's records which are Private and Confidential apparently.

Request for the government to respect our right to debate and take heed.

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

Repeal the Civil Contingencies Act

This Act gives the most sweeping powers ever to a Government, to be invoked and used in times of emergency, of which it is the sole judge.

It removes Habeus Corpus, the Bill of Rights, gives the right to suspend laws relating to criminal evidence and freedom of expression, requisition property, compel or limit the movement of individuals.

Wrongly used, it is the most repressive measure imaginable, the type of measure Hitler used to initiate his abolition of democracy in pre-war Germany.

Most of the measures are contained in existing emergency and civil defence legislation already, but with greater safeguards.

This measure should be repealed and all emergency legislation reviewed. If necessary a fresh Act could be drafted, with proper safeguards incorporated: the most important being that it could only be invoked by Parliament and not by Government diktat. It should include an automatic time limit of (say) three months before automatically lapsing, and should not be extended without another Parliamentary debate.

If anyone doubts how dangerous this Act is, look at the lengths the last Labour administration went to when trying to introduce long periods of imprisonment without trial.

Why is this idea important?

This Act gives the most sweeping powers ever to a Government, to be invoked and used in times of emergency, of which it is the sole judge.

It removes Habeus Corpus, the Bill of Rights, gives the right to suspend laws relating to criminal evidence and freedom of expression, requisition property, compel or limit the movement of individuals.

Wrongly used, it is the most repressive measure imaginable, the type of measure Hitler used to initiate his abolition of democracy in pre-war Germany.

Most of the measures are contained in existing emergency and civil defence legislation already, but with greater safeguards.

This measure should be repealed and all emergency legislation reviewed. If necessary a fresh Act could be drafted, with proper safeguards incorporated: the most important being that it could only be invoked by Parliament and not by Government diktat. It should include an automatic time limit of (say) three months before automatically lapsing, and should not be extended without another Parliamentary debate.

If anyone doubts how dangerous this Act is, look at the lengths the last Labour administration went to when trying to introduce long periods of imprisonment without trial.

Make government and private enterprise finance pensions properly

Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.

 

Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.

 

Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?

 

Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'?  How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.

Why is this idea important?

Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.

 

Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.

 

Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?

 

Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'?  How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.

Reduce paper and time wasting activity in govt departments

Minimise the amount of paper used by govt bodies and councils.

For example – evey time the DWP writes to a customer – 3 pages of A4 paper are used and there is often an accompanying booklet. This could very easily and simply be reduced to 1 or 2 sides of A4, and details of how to get the booklet/information (if it is needed).

The same is true for Housing and Council Tax benefits, whenever a change is made departments send out masses of paper, and often cancel/ or put claims on hold, this also has a knock on effect and a Council Tax bill is then sent out. The council tax bill is usually wrong since the change has not been reviewed yet and properly implemented.

When the change has been properly reviewed fresh paperwork is sent (often of many, many pages) and another council tax bill is sent. Many claimants whose circumstances change due to children getting older and/or moving into work/education etc have received 7 or 8 wrong council tax bills per year. Apart from the waste of paper, postage etc this is a complete waste of staff time.

I am sure many other departments would benefit from very simple reviews of paper and processes.

Why is this idea important?

Minimise the amount of paper used by govt bodies and councils.

For example – evey time the DWP writes to a customer – 3 pages of A4 paper are used and there is often an accompanying booklet. This could very easily and simply be reduced to 1 or 2 sides of A4, and details of how to get the booklet/information (if it is needed).

The same is true for Housing and Council Tax benefits, whenever a change is made departments send out masses of paper, and often cancel/ or put claims on hold, this also has a knock on effect and a Council Tax bill is then sent out. The council tax bill is usually wrong since the change has not been reviewed yet and properly implemented.

When the change has been properly reviewed fresh paperwork is sent (often of many, many pages) and another council tax bill is sent. Many claimants whose circumstances change due to children getting older and/or moving into work/education etc have received 7 or 8 wrong council tax bills per year. Apart from the waste of paper, postage etc this is a complete waste of staff time.

I am sure many other departments would benefit from very simple reviews of paper and processes.

Remove Duplicate Sign-Ins

If the Government is going to set up multiple websites to encourage citizen participation it is ironic that the one aimed at identifying unnecessary effort and cost requires a separate log-in when it is obviously built on the same system and is laid out identically!

Why is this idea important?

If the Government is going to set up multiple websites to encourage citizen participation it is ironic that the one aimed at identifying unnecessary effort and cost requires a separate log-in when it is obviously built on the same system and is laid out identically!

Limit Ministers to deciding %ages of budget

Rather than allowing Governments to decide random numbers for departmental budgets that may or may not be affordable I would propose they decide what percentage of tax revenues are alloted to each major department, i.e. Welfare, Education, Defence, Infrasructure, Health, Justice and Foreign Affairs.

Whatever is left after paying off our debt interest is split up using this system and handed to each department. If there is a cry for more cash in one department it must be combined with a proposal detailing which other department is overfunded and why a re-allocation would better serve the country.

Why is this idea important?

Rather than allowing Governments to decide random numbers for departmental budgets that may or may not be affordable I would propose they decide what percentage of tax revenues are alloted to each major department, i.e. Welfare, Education, Defence, Infrasructure, Health, Justice and Foreign Affairs.

Whatever is left after paying off our debt interest is split up using this system and handed to each department. If there is a cry for more cash in one department it must be combined with a proposal detailing which other department is overfunded and why a re-allocation would better serve the country.

Electoral Reform – bring it on big time!

Streamline Voting Systems

I have one of each (more as the council is multimember).

  • Councillor – elected by STV
  • MSP (Scottish MP) – first past the post and party list combined
  • MP – first past the post
  • MEP
  • Lords – unelected, unrepresentative, why do we need the Lords Temporal this century.

All these should be on a form of PR, lists should be avoided  – no one except the party activists chose them.  STV seems fairest – we get to rank the order of people we would employ.

All constituencies should be multimember – see below for turnover of say one third every 2 years.

Fixed term for each layer – no date selection by politicians.  Efficiency – with a number run on same date when possible.

Abolish the Lords – no more gifts of peerages or honours from politicians patting ecah other on the back, or those in the wider club.

We should be able to take a temperature check within the term of the administration – some councils have this; i.e. with say a third of seats elected, whilst another third is elected in two years.  This then gives as clear ability for the people – it a government of the people for the people – not as you all tell 'a  government for business' as all this actually means is that most politicians lose sight and profit from it; setting aside the principles and the real needs of the people they SERVE.  In essence the 'parties' you form will have to keep an eye on their employer (us) or shareolders if that suits you better in UK Plc – with say a thirsd up for election in say c. 730 days.  Like in the US representatives  that we have delegated to members would effectively lose the party tag to some extent, and I hope the 'Whipping' would dissipate as it serves ONLY the parties' not the PEOPLE.

Some one needs to lead the nation – form the Executive, suggest an individual limited to 3 terms at the helm.  Though they may lose members of the executive as people reject them mid-term as they are up in their third for re-election.

Reduce the number of MPs – our 60 million denizens of the oldest democracy do not need more than the 545 the worlds largets democracy with over a billion population.  Larger constituencies with say 3 MPs in each – it will also gel broader communities this way (e.g. metropolitian as well as rural voters to balance in MP's mind).

As I understand the Indians also used electronic voting last time – our arrogance that British is always best and rarely needs to learn from around the world does not serve the people; negligence, the lack of dilligence, and disdain of their masters (that is us not the politicians) is the UK's key feature in the 21st century Wetsminister club.  

Bicarmel system that is elected is still in my view best – but a small upper house, notably giving each of the UK's countries an equal weight (15 seats each for Scotalnd, N Ireland, Wales, and England).  Providing a check – but with equal clout for each Home country.

Why is this idea important?

Streamline Voting Systems

I have one of each (more as the council is multimember).

  • Councillor – elected by STV
  • MSP (Scottish MP) – first past the post and party list combined
  • MP – first past the post
  • MEP
  • Lords – unelected, unrepresentative, why do we need the Lords Temporal this century.

All these should be on a form of PR, lists should be avoided  – no one except the party activists chose them.  STV seems fairest – we get to rank the order of people we would employ.

All constituencies should be multimember – see below for turnover of say one third every 2 years.

Fixed term for each layer – no date selection by politicians.  Efficiency – with a number run on same date when possible.

Abolish the Lords – no more gifts of peerages or honours from politicians patting ecah other on the back, or those in the wider club.

We should be able to take a temperature check within the term of the administration – some councils have this; i.e. with say a third of seats elected, whilst another third is elected in two years.  This then gives as clear ability for the people – it a government of the people for the people – not as you all tell 'a  government for business' as all this actually means is that most politicians lose sight and profit from it; setting aside the principles and the real needs of the people they SERVE.  In essence the 'parties' you form will have to keep an eye on their employer (us) or shareolders if that suits you better in UK Plc – with say a thirsd up for election in say c. 730 days.  Like in the US representatives  that we have delegated to members would effectively lose the party tag to some extent, and I hope the 'Whipping' would dissipate as it serves ONLY the parties' not the PEOPLE.

Some one needs to lead the nation – form the Executive, suggest an individual limited to 3 terms at the helm.  Though they may lose members of the executive as people reject them mid-term as they are up in their third for re-election.

Reduce the number of MPs – our 60 million denizens of the oldest democracy do not need more than the 545 the worlds largets democracy with over a billion population.  Larger constituencies with say 3 MPs in each – it will also gel broader communities this way (e.g. metropolitian as well as rural voters to balance in MP's mind).

As I understand the Indians also used electronic voting last time – our arrogance that British is always best and rarely needs to learn from around the world does not serve the people; negligence, the lack of dilligence, and disdain of their masters (that is us not the politicians) is the UK's key feature in the 21st century Wetsminister club.  

Bicarmel system that is elected is still in my view best – but a small upper house, notably giving each of the UK's countries an equal weight (15 seats each for Scotalnd, N Ireland, Wales, and England).  Providing a check – but with equal clout for each Home country.

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

Freedom of movement

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

Why is this idea important?

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

Abolish all Taxation other than Income Tax and Abolish Regional Government

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos

Why is this idea important?

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos

Stop Manslaughter with Provocation as a get out of murder clause!

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

Why is this idea important?

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

Teaching Macroeconomics to High-School Students

The subject of macroeconomics is treated today as if it were inexact. Professors and teachers in the art of national government seem to think that there are no exact ways for it to be described and analysed. Even when it comes to the Government, the models that H.M. Treasury uses rely on the statistics of past behavour rather than the theoretical REASON for particular results following particular situations. Thus they replace technical considerations with behavoural ones, and the result is that their forecasts are inexact, illogical and wrong.

It is my contention that Macroeconomics is an exact science and I have been doing sufficient research and writing to be able to justify this claim. My methods are based on an engineering method that is logical and sufficiently simple as to not need a computer for it to be understood. Of course the development of it probably will need this device, but for basic education and realization of what our macroeconomic system REALLY comprises, all that is needed is a few reasonable and likely assumptions followed by some logical analysis. I use a model which is represented by each and either a diagram, a mechanical system, a set of equations and a matrix (see below).

My method is based on systems analysis and the limited mathematics used are related to Wessley Leontief's "Input-Output" matrix, as applied to the whole social system at large. This system is viewed from sufficiently far away so that the detailed microeconomics of our lives are unresolved (in scope) and we no longer "miss the wood for the trees". It is similar to the ideas used in gas properties (Boyles and Charles Laws of physics) where individual molecule behavour is averaged out and Brownian effects forgotten. Unfortunately for us, we are usually so close to the action, that we cannot separate ourselves from this kind of effect. By taking a detached engineering approach it is at last possible to avoud this past limitation and to beging to better appreciate how our system works. This kind of knowledge should be freely available just as in most other aspects of science.

The results of this style of analysis are superior to present methods since the whole of the social system is covered seamlessly, and one can see not only what is going on but exactly why. No other theoretical macroeconomic analysis has come anywhere near achieving these kinds of results. It is the method that I wish to "sell", not any particular national policy. I have a means for better understanding and not a political device for getting my way (even though I do have an opinion about the best policies).

This work of mine is in the form of a nearly completed book which I would like to share with the "official" teachers and doers of macroeconomics within our Universities and Government establishments. I am not interested in any financial reward and in fact expect to have to have some heavy expences in order to properly express these ideas, but it will be worthwhile.

Why is this idea important?

The subject of macroeconomics is treated today as if it were inexact. Professors and teachers in the art of national government seem to think that there are no exact ways for it to be described and analysed. Even when it comes to the Government, the models that H.M. Treasury uses rely on the statistics of past behavour rather than the theoretical REASON for particular results following particular situations. Thus they replace technical considerations with behavoural ones, and the result is that their forecasts are inexact, illogical and wrong.

It is my contention that Macroeconomics is an exact science and I have been doing sufficient research and writing to be able to justify this claim. My methods are based on an engineering method that is logical and sufficiently simple as to not need a computer for it to be understood. Of course the development of it probably will need this device, but for basic education and realization of what our macroeconomic system REALLY comprises, all that is needed is a few reasonable and likely assumptions followed by some logical analysis. I use a model which is represented by each and either a diagram, a mechanical system, a set of equations and a matrix (see below).

My method is based on systems analysis and the limited mathematics used are related to Wessley Leontief's "Input-Output" matrix, as applied to the whole social system at large. This system is viewed from sufficiently far away so that the detailed microeconomics of our lives are unresolved (in scope) and we no longer "miss the wood for the trees". It is similar to the ideas used in gas properties (Boyles and Charles Laws of physics) where individual molecule behavour is averaged out and Brownian effects forgotten. Unfortunately for us, we are usually so close to the action, that we cannot separate ourselves from this kind of effect. By taking a detached engineering approach it is at last possible to avoud this past limitation and to beging to better appreciate how our system works. This kind of knowledge should be freely available just as in most other aspects of science.

The results of this style of analysis are superior to present methods since the whole of the social system is covered seamlessly, and one can see not only what is going on but exactly why. No other theoretical macroeconomic analysis has come anywhere near achieving these kinds of results. It is the method that I wish to "sell", not any particular national policy. I have a means for better understanding and not a political device for getting my way (even though I do have an opinion about the best policies).

This work of mine is in the form of a nearly completed book which I would like to share with the "official" teachers and doers of macroeconomics within our Universities and Government establishments. I am not interested in any financial reward and in fact expect to have to have some heavy expences in order to properly express these ideas, but it will be worthwhile.

Abolish the rule that only public school is allowed to be in charge.

Abolish the rule that only public schoolboys and public schoolgirls like Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Harriet Harman are the people allowed to be in charge.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the rule that only public schoolboys and public schoolgirls like Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Harriet Harman are the people allowed to be in charge.

Allow protests near Westminster again

Please get rid of the law that came into effect at midnight on July 31 2005 banning protests within half a mile of Westminster, without police approval.

If I stand in front of parliament with a placard promoting freedom and objecting to anti-terrorism laws, I will have broken the law and will likely be arrested, or at the very least "moved on" to a distance of half a mile away where the politicians can neither see nor hear me.

Why is this idea important?

Please get rid of the law that came into effect at midnight on July 31 2005 banning protests within half a mile of Westminster, without police approval.

If I stand in front of parliament with a placard promoting freedom and objecting to anti-terrorism laws, I will have broken the law and will likely be arrested, or at the very least "moved on" to a distance of half a mile away where the politicians can neither see nor hear me.

Freedom from the coalition

My idea is that Britain should be made free from the current coalition government. This is not what Britain voted for and we most certainly did not vote to have a Conservative Prime Minister.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that Britain should be made free from the current coalition government. This is not what Britain voted for and we most certainly did not vote to have a Conservative Prime Minister.