Repel ALL laws passed between 1997 to May 2010

I think the title says it all. The previous .governments' obsession with knee jerk reaction, popular vote seeking, capitulation to special interest group lobbying nhas resulted it 4000+ pieces of legislation. As ignorance of the law is still no defence in a court the chances of falling foul of any of these pieces of madness is high, and on the whole pointless.

Why is this idea important?

I think the title says it all. The previous .governments' obsession with knee jerk reaction, popular vote seeking, capitulation to special interest group lobbying nhas resulted it 4000+ pieces of legislation. As ignorance of the law is still no defence in a court the chances of falling foul of any of these pieces of madness is high, and on the whole pointless.

HOW TO IMPROVE HOUSING MARKET FAST WITH A BETTER CONVEYANCING SYSTEM (i.e., take a leaf from North of the Border!)

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

Why is this idea important?

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

Tax Foreign Lorries

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

Adhere to EC regulations since the 26/52 week criterion is unlawful

The EC began infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to the 26 out of 52 week rule for claiming benefits, these proceedings remain open and will cost a considerable amount of money to the UK when they lose their case.

This is clearly set out in Article 10 (10a) of Council Regulations 1408/71 and Article 6 of the new Regulation 883/04, which replaced 1408/71 as of  01/05/2010, and any impediment to the right of free movement within the Member States is contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty.

Currently there is no free movement of workers, especially disabled UK citizens within the European community.

Why is this idea important?

The EC began infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to the 26 out of 52 week rule for claiming benefits, these proceedings remain open and will cost a considerable amount of money to the UK when they lose their case.

This is clearly set out in Article 10 (10a) of Council Regulations 1408/71 and Article 6 of the new Regulation 883/04, which replaced 1408/71 as of  01/05/2010, and any impediment to the right of free movement within the Member States is contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty.

Currently there is no free movement of workers, especially disabled UK citizens within the European community.

moderation for environmental regulators

As a business that requires regular licences for dredging, piling, reclamation, marine works and building consents in coastal areas we have a difficult time.  Currently there is no way to appeal against the judgement of environmental officers working for Environment agency, English nature or Countryside council for wales. The officers are overzealous in applying rules emanating from the Habitats directive and other similar acts, they work on the precautionary principle whereby the applicant is obliged to prove "they are not having  a negative effect". This often becomes a game of find the invisible man, after spending years and often hundreds of thousands of pounds proving the painfully obvious to the ill informed few there is no method of redress against these individuals that have often been most unreasonable. i would like to see a measure of moderation and accountability for these agencies.The burden of proof needs to shift from the applicant to the regulator at some point and the consequence of not granting the licence need to be assessed in terms of the local communities affected by these insular and often poor decisions.

Why is this idea important?

As a business that requires regular licences for dredging, piling, reclamation, marine works and building consents in coastal areas we have a difficult time.  Currently there is no way to appeal against the judgement of environmental officers working for Environment agency, English nature or Countryside council for wales. The officers are overzealous in applying rules emanating from the Habitats directive and other similar acts, they work on the precautionary principle whereby the applicant is obliged to prove "they are not having  a negative effect". This often becomes a game of find the invisible man, after spending years and often hundreds of thousands of pounds proving the painfully obvious to the ill informed few there is no method of redress against these individuals that have often been most unreasonable. i would like to see a measure of moderation and accountability for these agencies.The burden of proof needs to shift from the applicant to the regulator at some point and the consequence of not granting the licence need to be assessed in terms of the local communities affected by these insular and often poor decisions.

Bankers, contribute to society!

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Why is this idea important?

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Stop Quangos making up safety rules

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Why is this idea important?

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Unneccesary Closure of Roads

Not the law as such, but the interpretation of it – across the UK, every day, major roads are closed for hours at a time. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, apparently initiated by a 2004 version (updated 2007) of a police manual 'Road Death Investigation.' On occasion it must be appropriate, and justified, to close a road, but statistically very rarely – we appear to be the only civilised country that closes it's major routes, often in both directions, for long periods on a daily basis. 

Why is this idea important?

Not the law as such, but the interpretation of it – across the UK, every day, major roads are closed for hours at a time. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, apparently initiated by a 2004 version (updated 2007) of a police manual 'Road Death Investigation.' On occasion it must be appropriate, and justified, to close a road, but statistically very rarely – we appear to be the only civilised country that closes it's major routes, often in both directions, for long periods on a daily basis. 

Scrap the Funds for Liabilities burden on telecoms companies

At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK. 

Why is this idea important?

At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK. 

Allow LIVE MUSIC anywhere, if it isn’t LOUD.

The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape.  Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.

I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be.  Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.

Why is this idea important?

The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape.  Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.

I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be.  Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

The ultimate civil lberty: Public to debate and vote on all legislation

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

RIDICULOUS USE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

In our village  there are currently a number of ridiculous uses of health and safety regulations by "dogsbodys" with very little else to do. I instance two.

1. The local doctors surgery immediately next door to the local library has banned readfing matter in the waiting room as magazines might spread germs.

2.Our local pre-school centre which covers post -natal and everything to do with under -threes has banned push chairs from its premises as they are deemed a fire hazard. If that is the case, why are children allowed to sit in them?

Why is this idea important?

In our village  there are currently a number of ridiculous uses of health and safety regulations by "dogsbodys" with very little else to do. I instance two.

1. The local doctors surgery immediately next door to the local library has banned readfing matter in the waiting room as magazines might spread germs.

2.Our local pre-school centre which covers post -natal and everything to do with under -threes has banned push chairs from its premises as they are deemed a fire hazard. If that is the case, why are children allowed to sit in them?

Intruders into househoulds should lose all rights – and househoulders who injure intruders should not face arrest, court etc.e

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

Why is this idea important?

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

sack ATOS LIAR LIARS doctor

sack the liars why should these people get paid, waste of £££  while people who need dla or esa dont get it because of there reports, I have fibromyalgia, and had two home vist for dla  done by atos doc both reports where full of lies,according to them I dont suffer from fatigue, PAIN, stiffness irritable bowels,exhaustion,dizziness,cramp,nerve damage,the list goes on, I have supporting evidance from on doc pain clinic, OCP, I have things like bath lift, stair rails, cruches stool,none of this wasin the report. IVE been fighting to get dla since 2007 this is not fair that there docs have more say then mine,  , I have three young son and have had fibro all my life but over the last ten years its got worse Iam sick to death asking for help, everthing is a fight,these people dont help they just make it worse for desent  honest people to get help  

 

 

Why is this idea important?

sack the liars why should these people get paid, waste of £££  while people who need dla or esa dont get it because of there reports, I have fibromyalgia, and had two home vist for dla  done by atos doc both reports where full of lies,according to them I dont suffer from fatigue, PAIN, stiffness irritable bowels,exhaustion,dizziness,cramp,nerve damage,the list goes on, I have supporting evidance from on doc pain clinic, OCP, I have things like bath lift, stair rails, cruches stool,none of this wasin the report. IVE been fighting to get dla since 2007 this is not fair that there docs have more say then mine,  , I have three young son and have had fibro all my life but over the last ten years its got worse Iam sick to death asking for help, everthing is a fight,these people dont help they just make it worse for desent  honest people to get help  

 

 

Contracts by the Self Employed

 




Given that the self-employed are able to act faster than any other sector of the economy I believe that the Federation of Small Businesses should forcibly promote the idea that the self-employed should be able to establish contracts between each other as THEY think fit. These should not be later re-interpreted by HMRC under the little understood rules of IR35.

Why is this idea important?

 




Given that the self-employed are able to act faster than any other sector of the economy I believe that the Federation of Small Businesses should forcibly promote the idea that the self-employed should be able to establish contracts between each other as THEY think fit. These should not be later re-interpreted by HMRC under the little understood rules of IR35.

Regulations appropriate to the size of business.

Very small businesses suffer from bureaucracy more, proportionally, than  big ones.

All regulations should apply to big enterprises [big financially, or in numbers they employ? – I leave something for our expensive, and worth every penny!, MPs to decide].

Medium-sized enterprises should have some relief.

Small businesses – perhaps those employing less then twenty, say, or less then twelve, shall have only basic regulation.

Why is this idea important?

Very small businesses suffer from bureaucracy more, proportionally, than  big ones.

All regulations should apply to big enterprises [big financially, or in numbers they employ? – I leave something for our expensive, and worth every penny!, MPs to decide].

Medium-sized enterprises should have some relief.

Small businesses – perhaps those employing less then twenty, say, or less then twelve, shall have only basic regulation.

Civil Enforcement Officers

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Why is this idea important?

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Scrap entire laws and entire systems of regulation.

This project is going well so far – there are many excellent ideas and comments.

However, for this project to end well, the government has to be bold.

For example, it ought to come up with a whole list of laws that can be repealed entirely (It can start with most of the laws passed in the last ten years). It is no good just repealing only small parts of different Acts of Parliament and introducing new laws to modify others, because then we will end up with more laws than we have now – and that would be a massive failure!

It also needs to roll back the state from entire areas of our lives and scrap entire systems of regulation. It must accept that some things it currently regulates just shouldn't be any of the state's business anymore – the government can't just tinker a bit here and there and end up with something very similar to what we have now!

Between us, we can suggest many things that can be scrapped entirely. None of these suggestions will receive universal support. However, if this project is to be a success, the government must push some of them through anyway.

On the other hand, if the government offers up nothing but a few token gestures of reform, we will not end up with simpler laws, greater fairness and less bureaucracy – we will be almost exactly where we are now!

Why is this idea important?

This project is going well so far – there are many excellent ideas and comments.

However, for this project to end well, the government has to be bold.

For example, it ought to come up with a whole list of laws that can be repealed entirely (It can start with most of the laws passed in the last ten years). It is no good just repealing only small parts of different Acts of Parliament and introducing new laws to modify others, because then we will end up with more laws than we have now – and that would be a massive failure!

It also needs to roll back the state from entire areas of our lives and scrap entire systems of regulation. It must accept that some things it currently regulates just shouldn't be any of the state's business anymore – the government can't just tinker a bit here and there and end up with something very similar to what we have now!

Between us, we can suggest many things that can be scrapped entirely. None of these suggestions will receive universal support. However, if this project is to be a success, the government must push some of them through anyway.

On the other hand, if the government offers up nothing but a few token gestures of reform, we will not end up with simpler laws, greater fairness and less bureaucracy – we will be almost exactly where we are now!