Removing low denomination coins (“coppers”) from circulation

I think it is time that we removed low denomination, copper coins from circulation. There are an archaic hold-over from days gone-by when penny sweets really did cost a penny and post the inflation that this country has experienced since decimalisation are no longer a relevant unit of currency. Most people, I would argue, find one and two penny coins an inconvenience and while in aggregate they can of course be useful when buying a newspaper or chocolate bar, there is nothing that counted by accomplished with a five penny coin.

Of course removing these coins from circulation would have an inflationary effect, probably by more than one of two percent given the cover that such a change would give retailers to raise prices, but then given current concerns over deflation (a debate for another day perhaps), this would surely be a useful, albeit one-time boost. It would require some capital investment in new signage by most of the retail / consumer-facing industries, changes to cash registers etc, but all useful investment and positive for business activity.

And lastly, there would be limited, but certainly positive effect from taking all the current copper coins (6bn 2p coins alone) and re-using and selling the steel and copper-plating.

 

Why is this idea important?

I think it is time that we removed low denomination, copper coins from circulation. There are an archaic hold-over from days gone-by when penny sweets really did cost a penny and post the inflation that this country has experienced since decimalisation are no longer a relevant unit of currency. Most people, I would argue, find one and two penny coins an inconvenience and while in aggregate they can of course be useful when buying a newspaper or chocolate bar, there is nothing that counted by accomplished with a five penny coin.

Of course removing these coins from circulation would have an inflationary effect, probably by more than one of two percent given the cover that such a change would give retailers to raise prices, but then given current concerns over deflation (a debate for another day perhaps), this would surely be a useful, albeit one-time boost. It would require some capital investment in new signage by most of the retail / consumer-facing industries, changes to cash registers etc, but all useful investment and positive for business activity.

And lastly, there would be limited, but certainly positive effect from taking all the current copper coins (6bn 2p coins alone) and re-using and selling the steel and copper-plating.

 

Drastically reduce or remove council tax

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Remove requiements for planning authorities to put public notices in local newspapers

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

DISABILITY BENEFITS: DLA

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Why is this idea important?

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

squatters rights law being abolished and building rights.

1.  If a house becomes empty the people to take it over should be the family not a random person who just wants some where to live with out paying taxes.

2. peole who build onto others homes with out permission and refuse to take it down should be made to take it down out of there own money because it was them who put it up not the other house hold.

Why is this idea important?

1.  If a house becomes empty the people to take it over should be the family not a random person who just wants some where to live with out paying taxes.

2. peole who build onto others homes with out permission and refuse to take it down should be made to take it down out of there own money because it was them who put it up not the other house hold.

need for a change to rules for disability living allowance

i have a disability (spina bifida, wheelchair user) and am currently looking for a job, in the disability industry/sector, got big things i want to do in it.

I get Disability Living allowance at the higher rate for mobility and the middle rate for care.

obviously DLA is an in work benefit that allows a disabled person to meet the higher cost of living that disabled people face. and we do have a higher cost of living!!. and allows us a chance to live a normal life, in comparison to able bodied people.

But i have just discovered this.

if i get a job my DLA may be reviewed and i could end up getting less in DLA, for example i might be put down to middle rate for mobility.

Now, If im working i will obviously need a way to get to work, I.E. a car, which i would get through the motability scheme but that is only available if you get the higher rate mobility componant, so if i get a job and my DLA gets reviewed and i get put on Middle rate mobility that means i cant get a motability car, and therefore cant get to work and will end up back on benefits costing the tax payer again,

but at least i'll get my higher rate mobility back again!!.

its crazy, the system needs to change, If you have been awarded a certain level of DLA, that is what it should stay at regardless of whether or not you find work..

One other thing, these proposed DLA medicals, Anyone who has had to go through the ESA Medicals knows how unfair they are, the person conducting the medical has no knowledge of and cares not a jot about your disability and its affect on your day to day life, All they are bothered about is collecting their bonus by taking your benefits off you, or declaring you fit for work when you are not.

and the DLA medicals will be just the same, If i lose my DLA, even if im working, i just wont be able to manage, as i said i wont be able to get to work because i cant have a car, i wont be able to meet the cost of extra care needs, I wont have a life.

I, like many disabled people, am worried sick about these medicals, They seriously need to be thought through properly  and reviewed and changed so they are fair and the people that genuinely are in need are not refused their money.

one way to ensure this?

DONT PAY THE PEOPLE CONDUCTING THE MEDICALS A BONUS FOR TAKING DLA/ESA OFF PEOPLE OR DECLARING THEM FIT FOR WORK EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT. THAT IS NOT A FAIR SYSTEM>

Why is this idea important?

i have a disability (spina bifida, wheelchair user) and am currently looking for a job, in the disability industry/sector, got big things i want to do in it.

I get Disability Living allowance at the higher rate for mobility and the middle rate for care.

obviously DLA is an in work benefit that allows a disabled person to meet the higher cost of living that disabled people face. and we do have a higher cost of living!!. and allows us a chance to live a normal life, in comparison to able bodied people.

But i have just discovered this.

if i get a job my DLA may be reviewed and i could end up getting less in DLA, for example i might be put down to middle rate for mobility.

Now, If im working i will obviously need a way to get to work, I.E. a car, which i would get through the motability scheme but that is only available if you get the higher rate mobility componant, so if i get a job and my DLA gets reviewed and i get put on Middle rate mobility that means i cant get a motability car, and therefore cant get to work and will end up back on benefits costing the tax payer again,

but at least i'll get my higher rate mobility back again!!.

its crazy, the system needs to change, If you have been awarded a certain level of DLA, that is what it should stay at regardless of whether or not you find work..

One other thing, these proposed DLA medicals, Anyone who has had to go through the ESA Medicals knows how unfair they are, the person conducting the medical has no knowledge of and cares not a jot about your disability and its affect on your day to day life, All they are bothered about is collecting their bonus by taking your benefits off you, or declaring you fit for work when you are not.

and the DLA medicals will be just the same, If i lose my DLA, even if im working, i just wont be able to manage, as i said i wont be able to get to work because i cant have a car, i wont be able to meet the cost of extra care needs, I wont have a life.

I, like many disabled people, am worried sick about these medicals, They seriously need to be thought through properly  and reviewed and changed so they are fair and the people that genuinely are in need are not refused their money.

one way to ensure this?

DONT PAY THE PEOPLE CONDUCTING THE MEDICALS A BONUS FOR TAKING DLA/ESA OFF PEOPLE OR DECLARING THEM FIT FOR WORK EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT. THAT IS NOT A FAIR SYSTEM>

For the Coalition to introduce a Robin Hood Tax…

As some people know, a Robin Hood tax is a tax on banks and other financial institutions transactions.

There could also add piece of legislation in which, when enough money is raised (to combat the deficit), 40% of that tax income could go to some sort of Treasury Kitty that will be a bit like a savings account. The money saved could then could help future generations in this country when another version of the "Credit Crunch" comes along and the Country is suddenly in dire straits. It would come in very useful. 

Why is this idea important?

As some people know, a Robin Hood tax is a tax on banks and other financial institutions transactions.

There could also add piece of legislation in which, when enough money is raised (to combat the deficit), 40% of that tax income could go to some sort of Treasury Kitty that will be a bit like a savings account. The money saved could then could help future generations in this country when another version of the "Credit Crunch" comes along and the Country is suddenly in dire straits. It would come in very useful. 

Free tuition for your first REAL degree

Free tuition should be available for everyones first degree, no grants, just no tuition.

Industry should decide on the number of places available on each degree course universities offer (with a minimum number available for each)

Student loans for living costs should be available at an interest rate that makes is cost neutral for the government to run.

Why is this idea important?

Free tuition should be available for everyones first degree, no grants, just no tuition.

Industry should decide on the number of places available on each degree course universities offer (with a minimum number available for each)

Student loans for living costs should be available at an interest rate that makes is cost neutral for the government to run.

Debt Relief Orders

In April 2009, Debt Relief Orders were introduced and were  designed to help those in financial difficulties with less than £15,000 of debt and less than £300 in assets. 

The problem with these D.R.O's is they include all assets….even a pension which you may not be entitled to for many years. In doing so, it automatically eliminates people from being able to apply for a D.R.O and leaves them with no alternative except to go for bankruptcy or wait for the bailiffs to eventually turn up. 

This idea which was designed to help people in real financial hardship with spiralling debts is actually no good should you have been made redundant and are not able to receive your pension for another 30 years!

The issues regarding removing pensions from the application for a D.R.O should be addressed immediately and help ease personal financial debts which are fast becoming out of control. 

Why is this idea important?

In April 2009, Debt Relief Orders were introduced and were  designed to help those in financial difficulties with less than £15,000 of debt and less than £300 in assets. 

The problem with these D.R.O's is they include all assets….even a pension which you may not be entitled to for many years. In doing so, it automatically eliminates people from being able to apply for a D.R.O and leaves them with no alternative except to go for bankruptcy or wait for the bailiffs to eventually turn up. 

This idea which was designed to help people in real financial hardship with spiralling debts is actually no good should you have been made redundant and are not able to receive your pension for another 30 years!

The issues regarding removing pensions from the application for a D.R.O should be addressed immediately and help ease personal financial debts which are fast becoming out of control. 

Enact the Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Why is this idea important?

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Fairness for True Claiments of DLA

Repeal this horrid forcing of the disabled to attend mandatory "medical assessments" to continue receiving DLA benefit which has already been approved by doctors.I myself disabled, and in work, receive DLA to compensate for the extra living expenses that my condiiton inflicts on me, I don't need another doctor, a stranger, a stranger paid to reduce cost, to tell me I'm disabled – I already know that ! So do my family, so do my doctors, who approved the benefit for me in the first place. So many of us disabled receiving DLA are in the same situation, and many vunerable, fearing this assessment, will be unable to cope

They may do harm to themselves, this may kill, cure nothing, help no one.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this horrid forcing of the disabled to attend mandatory "medical assessments" to continue receiving DLA benefit which has already been approved by doctors.I myself disabled, and in work, receive DLA to compensate for the extra living expenses that my condiiton inflicts on me, I don't need another doctor, a stranger, a stranger paid to reduce cost, to tell me I'm disabled – I already know that ! So do my family, so do my doctors, who approved the benefit for me in the first place. So many of us disabled receiving DLA are in the same situation, and many vunerable, fearing this assessment, will be unable to cope

They may do harm to themselves, this may kill, cure nothing, help no one.

Access to Financial Advice – FSA Retail Distribution Review

Withdraw or suspend the FSAs Retail Distribution Review

At a time when the government wants everybody to have less reliance on the state new regulations are proceeding from the previous regime which will deny thousands of lower and averagely paid people access to sound independent financial advice. The regulations are being proposed as a way to increase professionalism among the practioners. However this is just a sop to the extreme consumerist lobby because of a few bad apples historically. The biggest cowboys have been booted out of the industry already. No existing practioner has any argument with wanting to be regarded as a true professional, and those currently practicing, can usually point to many years of adapting to higher standards imposed by the regulator of the day.

The new rules affect mainly independent financial advisers (IFAs) and also direct/tied sales outlets (eg Banks)

The unintended consequences of the rules are many but the most important are as follows:

It is estimated in various media that up to a quarter or even a third of existing advisers, will leave the industry when the rules take effect at the end of 2012. These are mainly advisers in their 50s and 60s who may have an unimpeachable record of giving advice, but are being told that in order to continue to practice they will have to take yet another set of exams of semi-degree standard to 'prove' their professionalism. What incentive is there for them to undertake yet another round of red-tape, box-ticking compliance when they are usually the most experienced people in the industry.

What other profession treats its proven, and most experienced practioners in such a way?

Secondly is the dirty word "commission".

Commission is flawed (but could be mended?) but it has worked for a century. Historically this has always been the way that intermediaries got paid. (Albeit that some in the consumerist lobby think IFAs shoud work for free) The proposal is to ban commission and replace it with customer agreed fees. The problem here is how many people are willing or able to pay fees?

The argument is that commission causes bias and the only reason a product is sold is so the adviser can earn commission. An adviser should be able to expect a reasonable reward for their time and expertise, having trained and been examined to enable them to do the job in the first place. As long as a valid financial need is being dealt with commission serves a useful purpose by enabling customers to get advice without having to get their chequebooks out. Since 1996 commission has been openly disclosed in documentation so that customers can see exactly what the commission amounted to and what effect it had on their investment.

In 2005 the FSA commissioned Charles River Associates to report on commision and intermediary remuneration, which it did via a number of 'mystery shopping' exercises and interviews. It concluded that there was "no evidence of bias being prevalent across the market" and "no evidence of bias to oversell".   Strangely, however the FSA decided that it would ignore its own commisioned report.

Any IFA will tell you that when a customer is offered the choice between the adviser being paid by commission or a fee, overwhelmingly the customer chooses commission. Commission is only a dirty word among those who don't understand it.

IFA businesses are the biggest aid to reducing reliance on state welfare because they advise people how to provide for themselves by saving for the long term and by protecting against loss of life, loss of job, ill health. Without them, people will be reliant on the state for such benefits, because few are motivated to do these things for themselves without advice.

The FSA seem to favour banks over IFAs. However we have seen what happens with the banks when corporate greed is more important than customer care. The Financial Ombudsman's own statistics show that more than 90% of all complaints it gets are in relation to banks, only a very small proportion in relation to IFAs.

The government have said that they will provide access to free financial advice but have yet to detail how that will work. Will the 'advisers' be fully qualified? How will they get paid? Who pays? What will be the scope of their advice?

Wouldn't it be better to encourage financial advice through experienced advisers rather than re-invent the wheel or restrict it to a financial elite?

There are other ways of ensuring protection for the consumer. Removing the perfect solution from the industry is not one of them

Allow experienced advisers to continue and allow commission to continue. The simple result without doubt will be that less people will be financially dependent on the state.

Why is this idea important?

Withdraw or suspend the FSAs Retail Distribution Review

At a time when the government wants everybody to have less reliance on the state new regulations are proceeding from the previous regime which will deny thousands of lower and averagely paid people access to sound independent financial advice. The regulations are being proposed as a way to increase professionalism among the practioners. However this is just a sop to the extreme consumerist lobby because of a few bad apples historically. The biggest cowboys have been booted out of the industry already. No existing practioner has any argument with wanting to be regarded as a true professional, and those currently practicing, can usually point to many years of adapting to higher standards imposed by the regulator of the day.

The new rules affect mainly independent financial advisers (IFAs) and also direct/tied sales outlets (eg Banks)

The unintended consequences of the rules are many but the most important are as follows:

It is estimated in various media that up to a quarter or even a third of existing advisers, will leave the industry when the rules take effect at the end of 2012. These are mainly advisers in their 50s and 60s who may have an unimpeachable record of giving advice, but are being told that in order to continue to practice they will have to take yet another set of exams of semi-degree standard to 'prove' their professionalism. What incentive is there for them to undertake yet another round of red-tape, box-ticking compliance when they are usually the most experienced people in the industry.

What other profession treats its proven, and most experienced practioners in such a way?

Secondly is the dirty word "commission".

Commission is flawed (but could be mended?) but it has worked for a century. Historically this has always been the way that intermediaries got paid. (Albeit that some in the consumerist lobby think IFAs shoud work for free) The proposal is to ban commission and replace it with customer agreed fees. The problem here is how many people are willing or able to pay fees?

The argument is that commission causes bias and the only reason a product is sold is so the adviser can earn commission. An adviser should be able to expect a reasonable reward for their time and expertise, having trained and been examined to enable them to do the job in the first place. As long as a valid financial need is being dealt with commission serves a useful purpose by enabling customers to get advice without having to get their chequebooks out. Since 1996 commission has been openly disclosed in documentation so that customers can see exactly what the commission amounted to and what effect it had on their investment.

In 2005 the FSA commissioned Charles River Associates to report on commision and intermediary remuneration, which it did via a number of 'mystery shopping' exercises and interviews. It concluded that there was "no evidence of bias being prevalent across the market" and "no evidence of bias to oversell".   Strangely, however the FSA decided that it would ignore its own commisioned report.

Any IFA will tell you that when a customer is offered the choice between the adviser being paid by commission or a fee, overwhelmingly the customer chooses commission. Commission is only a dirty word among those who don't understand it.

IFA businesses are the biggest aid to reducing reliance on state welfare because they advise people how to provide for themselves by saving for the long term and by protecting against loss of life, loss of job, ill health. Without them, people will be reliant on the state for such benefits, because few are motivated to do these things for themselves without advice.

The FSA seem to favour banks over IFAs. However we have seen what happens with the banks when corporate greed is more important than customer care. The Financial Ombudsman's own statistics show that more than 90% of all complaints it gets are in relation to banks, only a very small proportion in relation to IFAs.

The government have said that they will provide access to free financial advice but have yet to detail how that will work. Will the 'advisers' be fully qualified? How will they get paid? Who pays? What will be the scope of their advice?

Wouldn't it be better to encourage financial advice through experienced advisers rather than re-invent the wheel or restrict it to a financial elite?

There are other ways of ensuring protection for the consumer. Removing the perfect solution from the industry is not one of them

Allow experienced advisers to continue and allow commission to continue. The simple result without doubt will be that less people will be financially dependent on the state.

Stop evictions or home repossessions due to rent /mortgage arrears

To stop the use of evictions to tenants or home repossessions of home owners who fall behind on their rent or mortgage payments this is not in the interests of anyone, it also causes more and more people to fall deeper and deeper into the poverty hole.

Why is this idea important?

To stop the use of evictions to tenants or home repossessions of home owners who fall behind on their rent or mortgage payments this is not in the interests of anyone, it also causes more and more people to fall deeper and deeper into the poverty hole.

Medical cannabis ,legal

My idea is to get this passed so people can get self help, to combat a number of health problems  , also to cut expensive medical bills from hospitals , also will cut petty crime ,also will stop an illegal billion pound industry , taking money out of the british econemy. Also it will generate money with the sale of this product …. billions can be made from this , also it is 100% green ,

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to get this passed so people can get self help, to combat a number of health problems  , also to cut expensive medical bills from hospitals , also will cut petty crime ,also will stop an illegal billion pound industry , taking money out of the british econemy. Also it will generate money with the sale of this product …. billions can be made from this , also it is 100% green ,

Do not abolish cheques

The abolition of cheques, planned for a few years hence, will be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for the ordinary citizen, and should not take place.  It appears to be based on the argument that cheques are no longer used in retail purchases or major commercial and financial transactions.  That is so, but neglects the fact that cheques are still the normal method of financial exchange by private individuals with each other and with small voluntary bodies, who will, if cheques are abolished, have no sensible alternative.

Do the banks expect that every private individual or small voluntary body will have a credit or debit card reader?  What method do they expect me to adopt if I wish to transfer or receive money with my family or voluntary bodies that I belong to?  How do they expect voluntary bodies to pay or receive cash, above very small sums?

In any case, I do not see how the abolition of cheques will be legally possible.  A cheque is a written instruction by me to my bank to pay a certain sum to a certain person.  Even if cheques are abolished, I can still send such a written instruction.  Abolishing cheques will therefore not achieve its purpose.

No doubt the banks wish to save money on their cheque processing centres.  This saving will happen naturally as the number of cheques made out declines.  It does not follow that cheques have no use and will become redundant.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The abolition of cheques, planned for a few years hence, will be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for the ordinary citizen, and should not take place.  It appears to be based on the argument that cheques are no longer used in retail purchases or major commercial and financial transactions.  That is so, but neglects the fact that cheques are still the normal method of financial exchange by private individuals with each other and with small voluntary bodies, who will, if cheques are abolished, have no sensible alternative.

Do the banks expect that every private individual or small voluntary body will have a credit or debit card reader?  What method do they expect me to adopt if I wish to transfer or receive money with my family or voluntary bodies that I belong to?  How do they expect voluntary bodies to pay or receive cash, above very small sums?

In any case, I do not see how the abolition of cheques will be legally possible.  A cheque is a written instruction by me to my bank to pay a certain sum to a certain person.  Even if cheques are abolished, I can still send such a written instruction.  Abolishing cheques will therefore not achieve its purpose.

No doubt the banks wish to save money on their cheque processing centres.  This saving will happen naturally as the number of cheques made out declines.  It does not follow that cheques have no use and will become redundant.

 

 

 

Allow NHS Organisations / Departments to Profit from Entrepeneurial Activities

I work at a leading NHS Trust and feel that, with my colleages, my department has made many new innovations which have been both cost-saving and profit-generating. Unfortunately, the current policy is that any monies made over and above one's operating costs are ploughed back into the hospital central budget, and are of no use to the department in question.

Whilst I recognise that this policy was based on the idea that all money supporting the NHS comes from the taxpayer, this is no longer true, with many hospital departments offering private and external services to paying customers, and therefore generating real profits rather than the false profit earned when hospital departments sell their services to each other.

Why is this idea important?

I work at a leading NHS Trust and feel that, with my colleages, my department has made many new innovations which have been both cost-saving and profit-generating. Unfortunately, the current policy is that any monies made over and above one's operating costs are ploughed back into the hospital central budget, and are of no use to the department in question.

Whilst I recognise that this policy was based on the idea that all money supporting the NHS comes from the taxpayer, this is no longer true, with many hospital departments offering private and external services to paying customers, and therefore generating real profits rather than the false profit earned when hospital departments sell their services to each other.