MP Sponsorship and Corporate Logos

Most of our larger companies, and a lot of smaller ones too, spend a great deal of money ensuring that they have a friendly voice in Parliament looking out for their interests.

However, it is clear that the sponsorship of MPs is currently not gaining these companies the publicity they deserve,.

I suggest that MP's wear the logos of the companies that pay them just like Formula 1 drivers do.

Why is this idea important?

Most of our larger companies, and a lot of smaller ones too, spend a great deal of money ensuring that they have a friendly voice in Parliament looking out for their interests.

However, it is clear that the sponsorship of MPs is currently not gaining these companies the publicity they deserve,.

I suggest that MP's wear the logos of the companies that pay them just like Formula 1 drivers do.

Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

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.

End cabinet-style local government

New Labour introduced 'cabinet-style' local governments from the late 90s onwards in England. This system denies the electorate the right to make an input into local government decision making by barring public and press attendance during cabinet meetings and allows councillors to make decisions on our behalf without our input.

The only input that is taken into account is from lobby-groups and businesses who have usually paid money to have their say. In other words, they have bribed the councillors into making the 'right' decision. In this way, many wealthy businesses have been able to have permission granted for building work etc even if their proposals break local planning rules!

Why is this idea important?

New Labour introduced 'cabinet-style' local governments from the late 90s onwards in England. This system denies the electorate the right to make an input into local government decision making by barring public and press attendance during cabinet meetings and allows councillors to make decisions on our behalf without our input.

The only input that is taken into account is from lobby-groups and businesses who have usually paid money to have their say. In other words, they have bribed the councillors into making the 'right' decision. In this way, many wealthy businesses have been able to have permission granted for building work etc even if their proposals break local planning rules!

Excessive salaries and the bonus culture

 

I made these suggestions to Eric Pickles and was disappointed at the usual letter you get from government when you write them with suggestions or comments. It dids no more than restating everything we already know about existing legislation and what the Coalition intends to do about it. No mention of my ideas or what they thought of them. Your votes will indicate whether there is a collective will along the lines of my suggestions:

My suggestions to cut back excessive salaries:  

1. Perhaps an upper limit by law for the various levels within councils and statutory partnerships would be a good measure.

2. Unravel Labour madness on bonuses. I cannot see why any council leader warrants pay in excess of £150,000.

3. Limits required for staff in local authorities as well as councils.

4. How about a law for private as well as public positions making it a requirement to qualify for a bonus only according to strict, relevant, formally documented and approved criteria within government guidelines?

(a) A requirement for written evidence with two or more authorised signatures to fully document the justification for the bonus payment when it is paid.

(b) The criteria should not only include positive criteria, but partly and wholly disqualifying negative ones. Had such existed, those responsible for the fiascos at polling stations could not have legally got anything extra.

5. How about going one step further and establishing deductions from basic salary if certain fundamental criteria are not met? In other words a statutory requirement for penalties.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I made these suggestions to Eric Pickles and was disappointed at the usual letter you get from government when you write them with suggestions or comments. It dids no more than restating everything we already know about existing legislation and what the Coalition intends to do about it. No mention of my ideas or what they thought of them. Your votes will indicate whether there is a collective will along the lines of my suggestions:

My suggestions to cut back excessive salaries:  

1. Perhaps an upper limit by law for the various levels within councils and statutory partnerships would be a good measure.

2. Unravel Labour madness on bonuses. I cannot see why any council leader warrants pay in excess of £150,000.

3. Limits required for staff in local authorities as well as councils.

4. How about a law for private as well as public positions making it a requirement to qualify for a bonus only according to strict, relevant, formally documented and approved criteria within government guidelines?

(a) A requirement for written evidence with two or more authorised signatures to fully document the justification for the bonus payment when it is paid.

(b) The criteria should not only include positive criteria, but partly and wholly disqualifying negative ones. Had such existed, those responsible for the fiascos at polling stations could not have legally got anything extra.

5. How about going one step further and establishing deductions from basic salary if certain fundamental criteria are not met? In other words a statutory requirement for penalties.

 

Those who claim protection under the Human Rights Act must do so with ‘clean hands’.

Those, who by their actions whether actively or passively, verbally or by any other action, preach, support, or promote hatred and/or violence against any other person or body in the United Kingdom, shall forfeit all rights, privileges and protection under the Human Rights legislation in the UK, Europe or any other recognised International Legal authority.

Why is this idea important?

Those, who by their actions whether actively or passively, verbally or by any other action, preach, support, or promote hatred and/or violence against any other person or body in the United Kingdom, shall forfeit all rights, privileges and protection under the Human Rights legislation in the UK, Europe or any other recognised International Legal authority.

Repeal the DATA PROTECTION ACT now being applied to Public Archives

ALL documents deposited in UK Public Archives should be available for viewing by all patrons with no restrictions on the contents.

The Data Protection Act generates over 800,000 COMPLAINTS every year for the Office of The Information Commissioner. Common sense says quite obviously that this is a flawed Law and should be repealed.

Uninformed Librarians and Archivists are using the DPA to censor and to close, completely OPEN, historic public documents for 100 YEARS which, if they were returned, would be open again! This is a travesty!

This diktat is perpetrated on the ENTIRE UK population without even lifting the telephone to obtain a definitive decision first from the ICO.

Why is this idea important?

ALL documents deposited in UK Public Archives should be available for viewing by all patrons with no restrictions on the contents.

The Data Protection Act generates over 800,000 COMPLAINTS every year for the Office of The Information Commissioner. Common sense says quite obviously that this is a flawed Law and should be repealed.

Uninformed Librarians and Archivists are using the DPA to censor and to close, completely OPEN, historic public documents for 100 YEARS which, if they were returned, would be open again! This is a travesty!

This diktat is perpetrated on the ENTIRE UK population without even lifting the telephone to obtain a definitive decision first from the ICO.

Make An Anti-Whitewashing Open Confidence Poll For Public Enquiries

A number of enquiries conducted in the past decade (e.g. the Hutton Enquiry, or the recent enquiry into the ClimateGate affair) have been lead by those with questionable allegiances to the state or to those who are the subject of the enquiry.

To deter this from happening in future, you could for example create website that published all official public enquiries and their documents, and held a public poll of confidence on the enquiry and open it up to comments.

This would be available for all to see, including the media, and would help deter the temptation for the government to 'choose the right people to investigate themselves' to determine the outcome.

That is not a fair enquiry.

Why is this idea important?

A number of enquiries conducted in the past decade (e.g. the Hutton Enquiry, or the recent enquiry into the ClimateGate affair) have been lead by those with questionable allegiances to the state or to those who are the subject of the enquiry.

To deter this from happening in future, you could for example create website that published all official public enquiries and their documents, and held a public poll of confidence on the enquiry and open it up to comments.

This would be available for all to see, including the media, and would help deter the temptation for the government to 'choose the right people to investigate themselves' to determine the outcome.

That is not a fair enquiry.

police officers should have large, highly visible numbers and names on their uniform at ALL times

these should be especially large and visible in situations where they may not be wearing their usual uniform and accountability is especially important, such as public order situations

it should be a criminal offence for police not to display these

Why is this idea important?

these should be especially large and visible in situations where they may not be wearing their usual uniform and accountability is especially important, such as public order situations

it should be a criminal offence for police not to display these

Open Public Accounts

That all accounts of public finances should operate on an 'Open Book' policy.  This would enable any and all of us to know where our money is going and to whom it is being paid.  It would also enable competitive undercutting which would reduce public expenditure in the future.

Why is this idea important?

That all accounts of public finances should operate on an 'Open Book' policy.  This would enable any and all of us to know where our money is going and to whom it is being paid.  It would also enable competitive undercutting which would reduce public expenditure in the future.

Honesty from businesses in financial difficulties

Many people have probably worked for the type of small to medium sized family business which goes through financial difficulties in the full knowledge that they won't survive.

These sorts of businesses seem to fly under the radar of regulations while others have masses and masses of regulations to adhere to.  For example, it is difficult enforcing a tribunal decision for non payment of wages with these types of businesses, as after the business has folded and the directors have employed clever accountants to ensure their own family is secure a tribunal decision can be unenforceable.

Businesses should have a duty to inform their employees if they know full well that they are going to have to close down as soon as they have such knowledge, before they start siphoning off money to ensure the security of themselves.

The relevant legislation needs to be looked at in this area to ensure employees of such small to medium sized family run businesses are protected just as much as employees of the larger companies.

Why is this idea important?

Many people have probably worked for the type of small to medium sized family business which goes through financial difficulties in the full knowledge that they won't survive.

These sorts of businesses seem to fly under the radar of regulations while others have masses and masses of regulations to adhere to.  For example, it is difficult enforcing a tribunal decision for non payment of wages with these types of businesses, as after the business has folded and the directors have employed clever accountants to ensure their own family is secure a tribunal decision can be unenforceable.

Businesses should have a duty to inform their employees if they know full well that they are going to have to close down as soon as they have such knowledge, before they start siphoning off money to ensure the security of themselves.

The relevant legislation needs to be looked at in this area to ensure employees of such small to medium sized family run businesses are protected just as much as employees of the larger companies.

Remove the bank of england “nominees” act

We want to see exactly who owns the bank of england. “not just the brick and mortar building” but the equity and finances and loan capital that eminates from it.

Why is this idea important?

We want to see exactly who owns the bank of england. “not just the brick and mortar building” but the equity and finances and loan capital that eminates from it.

Repealing unnecessary restrictions set out in Section 1 of the FOI Act

I wish to ask the coalition government to reconsider Section 1 of the FOI Act, and designate all 39 of the NDCs set up by the previous government's DCLG, 'public authorities' for this purpose and add them all to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.

The coalition government could perhaps go even further by making all organisations spending public money subject the FOI Act.

Why is this idea important?

I wish to ask the coalition government to reconsider Section 1 of the FOI Act, and designate all 39 of the NDCs set up by the previous government's DCLG, 'public authorities' for this purpose and add them all to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.

The coalition government could perhaps go even further by making all organisations spending public money subject the FOI Act.

make publicly companies subject to the Freedom of Information Act

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.

Why is this idea important?

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.

We want the way MPs vote on the internet

The way MPs vote of legislation is embarrassingly old fashioned.  The fact they've got to physically go through the lobby is dated.  

My proposal: I would like an enhanced electronic system to record MPs' votes. 

This will provide seven benefits:

  1. Modernise the image of parliament
  2. Allow all MPs to vote stopping the practice of covering for each other
  3. Means an MP, who is ill, or a minister, attending a meeting abroad, can still vote on legislation
  4. Constituents can see how their MPs are voting
  5. Will allow the public to raise their concerns, or support, as legislation is processed
  6. Will act as an educational tool
  7. It will be a good reference for individual MPs to remind themselves how they voted.

 

Basic Electronic Voting

Many democracies have an electronic, secure voting system that allows their representatives to electronically record their vote, which can then be instantly displayed. 

The basic procedure is that a representative has either a card, like a swipe card, or password and then enters their vote into their system.  I would give them the option of For a motion, Against a motion or Abstain.

If this can be done remotely then an MP does not have to be in parliament and therefore someone who is ill, is in a meeting or travelling abroad can still vote.  

This avoids the embarrassment of forcing very ill MPs to attend parliament if a vote is close or forcing a minister, at public expense, to fly back to London for an important vote. 

Enhanced Voting System

I would like to go a number of steps further and have in Britain the world's leading electronic voting system.  I would like to have displayed on the internet a service that displays all legislation that is to be voted on section by section.  

At the bottom of each section there will be a link to each MP.  In this area an MP can set up whether they are going to vote For, Against or Abstain.  There will also be an area where the MP can explain why he or she is voting in a particular way.  

Underneath each MP's area will be a comment section for the public to enter their comments. 

After a vote has taken place the individual MPs voting action will be recorded.  

This will allow an MP or an individual, to check the voting pattern of the MP.  

Why is this idea important?

The way MPs vote of legislation is embarrassingly old fashioned.  The fact they've got to physically go through the lobby is dated.  

My proposal: I would like an enhanced electronic system to record MPs' votes. 

This will provide seven benefits:

  1. Modernise the image of parliament
  2. Allow all MPs to vote stopping the practice of covering for each other
  3. Means an MP, who is ill, or a minister, attending a meeting abroad, can still vote on legislation
  4. Constituents can see how their MPs are voting
  5. Will allow the public to raise their concerns, or support, as legislation is processed
  6. Will act as an educational tool
  7. It will be a good reference for individual MPs to remind themselves how they voted.

 

Basic Electronic Voting

Many democracies have an electronic, secure voting system that allows their representatives to electronically record their vote, which can then be instantly displayed. 

The basic procedure is that a representative has either a card, like a swipe card, or password and then enters their vote into their system.  I would give them the option of For a motion, Against a motion or Abstain.

If this can be done remotely then an MP does not have to be in parliament and therefore someone who is ill, is in a meeting or travelling abroad can still vote.  

This avoids the embarrassment of forcing very ill MPs to attend parliament if a vote is close or forcing a minister, at public expense, to fly back to London for an important vote. 

Enhanced Voting System

I would like to go a number of steps further and have in Britain the world's leading electronic voting system.  I would like to have displayed on the internet a service that displays all legislation that is to be voted on section by section.  

At the bottom of each section there will be a link to each MP.  In this area an MP can set up whether they are going to vote For, Against or Abstain.  There will also be an area where the MP can explain why he or she is voting in a particular way.  

Underneath each MP's area will be a comment section for the public to enter their comments. 

After a vote has taken place the individual MPs voting action will be recorded.  

This will allow an MP or an individual, to check the voting pattern of the MP.  

Repeal the right of NICE to determine research on ME

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

Why is this idea important?

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

quangocrats and quangos

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Why is this idea important?

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Replace Crown Copyright for government works with public domain

Published works of the UK government, including works created by government employees in fulfilment of their work, should be in the public domain, instead of being covered by Crown Copytight. 

This would be similar to the provisions that exist in the United States regarding works of the US federal government.

Unlike the US situation, this should also apply to works created by local government.

None of the above would be intended override official secrecy or privacy laws; they would simply replace the default of Crown Copyright with a new default of the works entering the public domain.

Why is this idea important?

Published works of the UK government, including works created by government employees in fulfilment of their work, should be in the public domain, instead of being covered by Crown Copytight. 

This would be similar to the provisions that exist in the United States regarding works of the US federal government.

Unlike the US situation, this should also apply to works created by local government.

None of the above would be intended override official secrecy or privacy laws; they would simply replace the default of Crown Copyright with a new default of the works entering the public domain.

repeal of certain planning laws

Dear Sir,

Further to your request for suggestions for Nick Clegg, I have the following proposal.

At present any one person may object to any real or imagined nuisance from an established business by appealing to one of the many departments of local Government such as Environmental Health, Planning or Health & Safety. The Local Authority do not have to disclose the name of the objector who may well have personal grievances to air irrespective of the value of a business to any given area in terms of employment, investment and contributions to the local economy not least by way of rates.

If such an objection results in an enforcement notice the costs of bringing the action are born by the Local Authority (the tax payer) whereas the costs of defending it are born exclusively by the business so affected. Such costs, as in the case of an appeal, can be extremely detrimental to the affected business to say nothing of the waste of time and the anxiety which results.

Obviously I recognise that at times a genuine nuisance may arise. In this case I would like to suggest that complaints must first be submitted to the Parish Council or a minimum of say 25 signatures be obtained. Secondly that if unsuccessful in his or her action, the objector should bear the costs of the case.   

I think you will find a level of support for this proposal from many businesses in the U.K.

Regards JOHN GORST

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir,

Further to your request for suggestions for Nick Clegg, I have the following proposal.

At present any one person may object to any real or imagined nuisance from an established business by appealing to one of the many departments of local Government such as Environmental Health, Planning or Health & Safety. The Local Authority do not have to disclose the name of the objector who may well have personal grievances to air irrespective of the value of a business to any given area in terms of employment, investment and contributions to the local economy not least by way of rates.

If such an objection results in an enforcement notice the costs of bringing the action are born by the Local Authority (the tax payer) whereas the costs of defending it are born exclusively by the business so affected. Such costs, as in the case of an appeal, can be extremely detrimental to the affected business to say nothing of the waste of time and the anxiety which results.

Obviously I recognise that at times a genuine nuisance may arise. In this case I would like to suggest that complaints must first be submitted to the Parish Council or a minimum of say 25 signatures be obtained. Secondly that if unsuccessful in his or her action, the objector should bear the costs of the case.   

I think you will find a level of support for this proposal from many businesses in the U.K.

Regards JOHN GORST

Allow Access to the 1921 Census Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency and Fairness at Local Authority Level.

To scrap the laws, regulations or rules which prohibit L. A. councillors giving an opinion on current planning applications prior to the committee meeting which will determine the application.

Why is this idea important?

To scrap the laws, regulations or rules which prohibit L. A. councillors giving an opinion on current planning applications prior to the committee meeting which will determine the application.