The issue of Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland) being over-represented has been something of a bug-bear for me for some time now.
These proposals by Sir Malcolm Rifkind are long overdue.
The only reason that Labour oppose them is because most of their MPs are Scottish and they wouldn't have a strong majority in an English only assembly.
I find it farcical that Gordon Brown has more control over what happens to me in Plymouth than what happens to voters in his own constituency.
I just love the way that Labour are trying to accuse the Tories of destabilising the Union. The Tories were opposed to devolution in the first place. Now they're just making sure the job is finished.
It's worrying me that I'm siding with the Tories more than anyone else of late. I used to REALLY hate them.
Maybe if someone electable (and not Scottish) becomes the leader of the Lib Dems that might redress the balance a bit...
Sunday 28 October 2007
Wednesday 24 October 2007
Abortion
I was listening to Radio 5 on the way home and this story was being discussed.
I personally think that the government views abortion as a "sticky topic" and so trys to avoid dragging it into a public/house of commons debate at all costs.
The lady being interviewed on the radio pointed out that the data the government was quoting was from 1995. Bearing in mind that the last time the Abortion Act was amended was 1990, that's a huge amount of time in terms of the accuracy of the data.
I do find it odd that every time a child is abducted, attacked or murdered there is an enormous outcry yet it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child before they are even born. Whether you find abortion acceptable or not, the fact that 193,000 were carried out in England & Wales last year suggests that an overwhelming number of people do.
I always used to despise the pro-life lobby groups (mainly due to their strong ties to religous groups) but as I've gotten older and I'm heading towards having my own children, I'm starting to see their point.
The pro-choice agenda was all about the rights of a woman to choose when they have children.
So what about the rights of the father and the unborn child?
With the exception of rape attacks, you could argue that the woman effectively chose when she consented to sex - if you can't do the time then don't do the crime.
It seems that the father gets a bum deal out of the whole thing. If he doesn't want the child, the mother can still have it and he will be financially responsible. If he does want the child, the mother cannot be prevented from terminating it. The law says that he made his choice when he had sex with her. So why does she get another?
And who speaks up for the child?
I don't oppose the morning after pill as it prevents conception from taking place. I'm talking about the termination of an unborn child.
As far as I'm concerned you should only be able to have an abortion for medical reasons or if you were raped. How many of the 193,000 does that apply to?
Personally I'm of the opinion that teenage pregnancies would drop if this 'safety net' were removed as less teenagers would be having casual sex as they would be more fearful of the consequences. Unfortunately I'm an idealist.
I personally think that the government views abortion as a "sticky topic" and so trys to avoid dragging it into a public/house of commons debate at all costs.
The lady being interviewed on the radio pointed out that the data the government was quoting was from 1995. Bearing in mind that the last time the Abortion Act was amended was 1990, that's a huge amount of time in terms of the accuracy of the data.
I do find it odd that every time a child is abducted, attacked or murdered there is an enormous outcry yet it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child before they are even born. Whether you find abortion acceptable or not, the fact that 193,000 were carried out in England & Wales last year suggests that an overwhelming number of people do.
I always used to despise the pro-life lobby groups (mainly due to their strong ties to religous groups) but as I've gotten older and I'm heading towards having my own children, I'm starting to see their point.
The pro-choice agenda was all about the rights of a woman to choose when they have children.
So what about the rights of the father and the unborn child?
With the exception of rape attacks, you could argue that the woman effectively chose when she consented to sex - if you can't do the time then don't do the crime.
It seems that the father gets a bum deal out of the whole thing. If he doesn't want the child, the mother can still have it and he will be financially responsible. If he does want the child, the mother cannot be prevented from terminating it. The law says that he made his choice when he had sex with her. So why does she get another?
And who speaks up for the child?
I don't oppose the morning after pill as it prevents conception from taking place. I'm talking about the termination of an unborn child.
As far as I'm concerned you should only be able to have an abortion for medical reasons or if you were raped. How many of the 193,000 does that apply to?
Personally I'm of the opinion that teenage pregnancies would drop if this 'safety net' were removed as less teenagers would be having casual sex as they would be more fearful of the consequences. Unfortunately I'm an idealist.
Thursday 18 October 2007
No Shit
It occurs to me that so far my 'original ideas' are hardly setting the world alight. Aside from VAT free waterproofs I haven't suggested anything that isn't already in the public conscious.
So instead of trying to link my ideas together in a manefesto-like approach, here are some of my more original ideas* in no particular order:
Green vehicle licenses - Nothing to do with the environment, a slower moving vehicle or vehicle driven by a retired person would be made road tax exempt provided it remained off the road at peak times. It would have green license plates to give it this distinction. This way tractors, lawn mowers, plant equipment etc could operate on the road at lower cost but not inconvenience motorists that need to get to work. Likewise OAPs would be able to get out and about at a lower cost provided they use the roads when they are less congested.
Missed appointment fines - If you have an NHS appointment and you fail to show or leave sufficient notice of cancellation then you will be fined and barred from making a further appointment until the fine has been paid.
Child benefit caps - We live in a free society (at least we used to) so you can have as many children as you want. However the state ceases to pick up the tab after you have had a determined number of children/births. E.g. If you have two children already you will only receive benefits for the next birth, if you have twins or triplets you will still get full benefits for each of them. You would not be entitled to any benefits for subsequent children. The current system actively encourages those at the bottom of society to have more children and those in the middle to have fewer. (Those at the top are less effected as they have enough money for it not to matter).
Structured prison sentances - A first offender would have 60% punishment (monotonous tasks such as sorting recyclable materials, stripping mobile phone handsets, stripping car tyres etc.), 30% rehabilitation (education, vocational training etc) and 10% adjustment (Day release, external community service etc.). A repeat offender would have 90% punishment and 10% adjustment - they would not be rehabilitated twice. Those who win appeals/re-trials would be offered the 10% adjustment period if they have become sufficiently institutionalised but it would not be compulsory.
Good behaviour would result in a shorter or less unpleasant punishment, bad behaviour would result in a longer (and less pleasant) one.
Hung verdicts for rape - The reality of a rape trial is that it is the accused versus the victim - it should be the accused versus the state. Why not formalise it. If a hung verdict is reached then it would count against someone in court in future. Serial rapists would be put away eventually as would vindictive accusers.
That'll do for now, I have more but I struggle to get them all out of my brain at the same time - the little voices stop me.
*Although I believe these ideas are original, that doesn't rule out the possibility that someone else hasn't publically suggested them before. The odds of having a truly original thought are 6 billion to 1 against.
So instead of trying to link my ideas together in a manefesto-like approach, here are some of my more original ideas* in no particular order:
Green vehicle licenses - Nothing to do with the environment, a slower moving vehicle or vehicle driven by a retired person would be made road tax exempt provided it remained off the road at peak times. It would have green license plates to give it this distinction. This way tractors, lawn mowers, plant equipment etc could operate on the road at lower cost but not inconvenience motorists that need to get to work. Likewise OAPs would be able to get out and about at a lower cost provided they use the roads when they are less congested.
Missed appointment fines - If you have an NHS appointment and you fail to show or leave sufficient notice of cancellation then you will be fined and barred from making a further appointment until the fine has been paid.
Child benefit caps - We live in a free society (at least we used to) so you can have as many children as you want. However the state ceases to pick up the tab after you have had a determined number of children/births. E.g. If you have two children already you will only receive benefits for the next birth, if you have twins or triplets you will still get full benefits for each of them. You would not be entitled to any benefits for subsequent children. The current system actively encourages those at the bottom of society to have more children and those in the middle to have fewer. (Those at the top are less effected as they have enough money for it not to matter).
Structured prison sentances - A first offender would have 60% punishment (monotonous tasks such as sorting recyclable materials, stripping mobile phone handsets, stripping car tyres etc.), 30% rehabilitation (education, vocational training etc) and 10% adjustment (Day release, external community service etc.). A repeat offender would have 90% punishment and 10% adjustment - they would not be rehabilitated twice. Those who win appeals/re-trials would be offered the 10% adjustment period if they have become sufficiently institutionalised but it would not be compulsory.
Good behaviour would result in a shorter or less unpleasant punishment, bad behaviour would result in a longer (and less pleasant) one.
Hung verdicts for rape - The reality of a rape trial is that it is the accused versus the victim - it should be the accused versus the state. Why not formalise it. If a hung verdict is reached then it would count against someone in court in future. Serial rapists would be put away eventually as would vindictive accusers.
That'll do for now, I have more but I struggle to get them all out of my brain at the same time - the little voices stop me.
*Although I believe these ideas are original, that doesn't rule out the possibility that someone else hasn't publically suggested them before. The odds of having a truly original thought are 6 billion to 1 against.
Vice
Having heard about this story on the radio en route to work this morning (In my car) I began thinking about various vice issues.
On the story itself, I find it bizarre that in order to get a drug addict off one drug you offer encouragement in the form of more prescribed drugs if their urine sample comes back clear.
It's not so much the issue of giving drugs to addicts - although I'm not convinced about prescribing Methadone as a treatment, it turns a Heroin addict into... a Methadone addict - it's more the fact that you shouldn't offer an incentive to someone that resembles the very thing you're trying to fix.
It'd be like giving Mars bars to compulsive eaters, lap dances to sex addicts, booze cruise tickets to alcoholics etc.
Anyway onto the bigger picture. As with prostitution, I fail to see how making drugs illegal protects anyone that matters. The only people the current laws protect are drug dealers.
You protect them from having to pay any tax on their ill gotten gains and also from prosecution - Why would anyone want to snitch on their drug dealer? As well as the violent repercussions they would probably face for doing so, they'd also lose their supply of drugs. The only way you would be able to bust drug dealers would be through surveillance and tracking. This costs a lot of money. If drugs were legal, drug dealers would be out of business overnight. All they'd have left would be the dole - which many of them claim already*
Unlike the pot-heads that want certain less harmful drugs legalised (I.e. the ones they take so therefore must be OK) I say legalise all drugs. There are plenty of legal ways of fucking your own body up so as long as you don't force them onto anyone else (Which would still be a crime) and pay taxes on them like the rest of us do with our drugs of choice (alcohol & tobacco) then why should I care?
The illegality of drugs increases the appeal, especially to those who are young and impressionable. Perhaps by removing the 'coolness' of drugs, people might actually realise that Pete Docherty is a rubbish musician and deserves none of the fame he has.
The most dangerous aspect of drugs is the impurities they have. By giving people clean pharmaceutical quality drugs, this problem is fixed.
In order to supply Britain's junkies with all this quality smack, we could buy all the opium off of the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. They would then love us and cease to support the militias in the area... Would you want to piss off your number one customer?
As I said at the top, I think prostitution laws are a farce. They don't protect vulnerable women (Many of them drug addicts), they only protect pimps - many of whom now hold women against their will in slavery.
Although I started watching "Confessions of a London call girl" to see if Billie Piper got her kit off, it occurred to me when her character was whinging about paying 40% of her ill-gotten gains to her "agent" that most high earners in this country have to spend their 40% elsewhere.
I'd allow prostitutes to operate in licensed brothels (located all over the country - none of this "zones of tolerance" shite) then if a punter had any problem with them or felt they were being mistreated then they could report the brothel to the authorities without fear of reprisals. Again they would also be paying taxes.
Plus think of all the carbon saved as the only people who would be wanting to fly to Amsterdam from Britain would be the ones who actually want to visit rather than those that go merely to use the facilities.
If we legalised drugs and prostitution, just think of all the police resource that would be freed up to catch criminals that do pose a threat to innocent members of the public.
Finally, GB is reviewing the 24 hour licensing laws. Bearing in mind that the law hasn't even been in place for a year yet, does he not think that it might be an idea to wait for it to bed in a bit more before deciding what to do?
Whenever you get something new you take advantage of it as much as possible to start with but after a while you just know it's there and are less bothered about it. Give it another year and there will be less alcohol related incidents than there were before the law was changed.
*Convicted drug dealers are often found to be claiming unemployment benefit (I have no stats) as they have no recorded income. I am not implying that those claiming unemployment benefit must therefore be drug dealers.
On the story itself, I find it bizarre that in order to get a drug addict off one drug you offer encouragement in the form of more prescribed drugs if their urine sample comes back clear.
It's not so much the issue of giving drugs to addicts - although I'm not convinced about prescribing Methadone as a treatment, it turns a Heroin addict into... a Methadone addict - it's more the fact that you shouldn't offer an incentive to someone that resembles the very thing you're trying to fix.
It'd be like giving Mars bars to compulsive eaters, lap dances to sex addicts, booze cruise tickets to alcoholics etc.
Anyway onto the bigger picture. As with prostitution, I fail to see how making drugs illegal protects anyone that matters. The only people the current laws protect are drug dealers.
You protect them from having to pay any tax on their ill gotten gains and also from prosecution - Why would anyone want to snitch on their drug dealer? As well as the violent repercussions they would probably face for doing so, they'd also lose their supply of drugs. The only way you would be able to bust drug dealers would be through surveillance and tracking. This costs a lot of money. If drugs were legal, drug dealers would be out of business overnight. All they'd have left would be the dole - which many of them claim already*
Unlike the pot-heads that want certain less harmful drugs legalised (I.e. the ones they take so therefore must be OK) I say legalise all drugs. There are plenty of legal ways of fucking your own body up so as long as you don't force them onto anyone else (Which would still be a crime) and pay taxes on them like the rest of us do with our drugs of choice (alcohol & tobacco) then why should I care?
The illegality of drugs increases the appeal, especially to those who are young and impressionable. Perhaps by removing the 'coolness' of drugs, people might actually realise that Pete Docherty is a rubbish musician and deserves none of the fame he has.
The most dangerous aspect of drugs is the impurities they have. By giving people clean pharmaceutical quality drugs, this problem is fixed.
In order to supply Britain's junkies with all this quality smack, we could buy all the opium off of the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. They would then love us and cease to support the militias in the area... Would you want to piss off your number one customer?
As I said at the top, I think prostitution laws are a farce. They don't protect vulnerable women (Many of them drug addicts), they only protect pimps - many of whom now hold women against their will in slavery.
Although I started watching "Confessions of a London call girl" to see if Billie Piper got her kit off, it occurred to me when her character was whinging about paying 40% of her ill-gotten gains to her "agent" that most high earners in this country have to spend their 40% elsewhere.
I'd allow prostitutes to operate in licensed brothels (located all over the country - none of this "zones of tolerance" shite) then if a punter had any problem with them or felt they were being mistreated then they could report the brothel to the authorities without fear of reprisals. Again they would also be paying taxes.
Plus think of all the carbon saved as the only people who would be wanting to fly to Amsterdam from Britain would be the ones who actually want to visit rather than those that go merely to use the facilities.
If we legalised drugs and prostitution, just think of all the police resource that would be freed up to catch criminals that do pose a threat to innocent members of the public.
Finally, GB is reviewing the 24 hour licensing laws. Bearing in mind that the law hasn't even been in place for a year yet, does he not think that it might be an idea to wait for it to bed in a bit more before deciding what to do?
Whenever you get something new you take advantage of it as much as possible to start with but after a while you just know it's there and are less bothered about it. Give it another year and there will be less alcohol related incidents than there were before the law was changed.
*Convicted drug dealers are often found to be claiming unemployment benefit (I have no stats) as they have no recorded income. I am not implying that those claiming unemployment benefit must therefore be drug dealers.
Tuesday 16 October 2007
Transport
I've been thinking a lot about transport over the last 24 hours.
This might be loosly related to the fact that my car is in for repair and I've had to rely on lifts from the wife, buses and my own two feet. Then there is the absolutely absurd plan announced by government advisors today.
It's been raining a lot in Plymouth today and as per usual the amount of traffic on the road has doubled. This is no doubt because of a combination of factors :
1. Those that normally cycle to work would prefer to get their alive.
2. Those that normally walk their children to school don't want them to get wet.
3. A lot of others people who would normally walk or take the bus say "Oooh, not rain!" and get in a car.
4. Numpties drive even worse in the wet.
I can't see an awful lot of legislation that would help with points 1 & 4 (apart from the ethnic clensing of numpty drivers but that wouldn't be in my first manifesto) but I can do something about the middle two.
As Billy Connolly often says (and my brother in a bad Billy Connolly impression):
"There's no such thing as the wrong weather, only the wrong clothes"
There have been some amazing advances in waterproof technology over the last decade and textiles such as Gore-Tex will not only keep you completely dry but they're breathable as well.
However Gore-Tex is also incredibly expensive. (Unless you bought a DPM coat off an army surplus website like I did)
In order to encourage people to walk to work/school etc. in rainy weather I would therefore make waterproof clothing VAT exempt.
No doubt this would lead to a trend of designer waterproofs but I don't care. The issue is to get people walking in all unhazerdous weather. Umbrellas would not be VAT exempt as quite frankly they're a f**king menace!
As far as the plans for 20mph speed limits in all urban areas go, I have my reservations. I certainly wouldn't want this to be a blanket policy (Which it more than likely would be) and it screams of policy dictating reality rather than vice-versa.
The article above acknowledges that road deaths have more than halved since the 1960s so where is the justification for this?
Motorists already think that existing traffic policy exists to generate revenue and this comes across in the same way.
When I was a young child (1980s) there were adverts on all the time telling me how to cross the road safely and more importantly what happens when you don't. We even had police officers visiting our schools to reinforce the same message. I would bring that back. I would make it a policy to ensure that young children are sufficiently fearful of busy roads. They need to be scared of the road and aware of the danger it poses to them.
Even if a car is doing 20mph, if the child walks out on it without looking and the driver has no time at all to react then the child is a gonner.
I would consider introducing 20mph speed limits to roads where there are parked cars but this could only happen if it was introduced in tandem with double red lines on urban trunk roads (i.e. no parking at any time). A blanket 20mph speed limit in all urban areas would be a disaster.
This might be loosly related to the fact that my car is in for repair and I've had to rely on lifts from the wife, buses and my own two feet. Then there is the absolutely absurd plan announced by government advisors today.
It's been raining a lot in Plymouth today and as per usual the amount of traffic on the road has doubled. This is no doubt because of a combination of factors :
1. Those that normally cycle to work would prefer to get their alive.
2. Those that normally walk their children to school don't want them to get wet.
3. A lot of others people who would normally walk or take the bus say
4. Numpties drive even worse in the wet.
I can't see an awful lot of legislation that would help with points 1 & 4 (apart from the ethnic clensing of numpty drivers but that wouldn't be in my first manifesto) but I can do something about the middle two.
As Billy Connolly often says (and my brother in a bad Billy Connolly impression):
"There's no such thing as the wrong weather, only the wrong clothes"
There have been some amazing advances in waterproof technology over the last decade and textiles such as Gore-Tex will not only keep you completely dry but they're breathable as well.
However Gore-Tex is also incredibly expensive. (Unless you bought a DPM coat off an army surplus website like I did)
In order to encourage people to walk to work/school etc. in rainy weather I would therefore make waterproof clothing VAT exempt.
No doubt this would lead to a trend of designer waterproofs but I don't care. The issue is to get people walking in all unhazerdous weather. Umbrellas would not be VAT exempt as quite frankly they're a f**king menace!
As far as the plans for 20mph speed limits in all urban areas go, I have my reservations. I certainly wouldn't want this to be a blanket policy (Which it more than likely would be) and it screams of policy dictating reality rather than vice-versa.
The article above acknowledges that road deaths have more than halved since the 1960s so where is the justification for this?
Motorists already think that existing traffic policy exists to generate revenue and this comes across in the same way.
When I was a young child (1980s) there were adverts on all the time telling me how to cross the road safely and more importantly what happens when you don't. We even had police officers visiting our schools to reinforce the same message. I would bring that back. I would make it a policy to ensure that young children are sufficiently fearful of busy roads. They need to be scared of the road and aware of the danger it poses to them.
Even if a car is doing 20mph, if the child walks out on it without looking and the driver has no time at all to react then the child is a gonner.
I would consider introducing 20mph speed limits to roads where there are parked cars but this could only happen if it was introduced in tandem with double red lines on urban trunk roads (i.e. no parking at any time). A blanket 20mph speed limit in all urban areas would be a disaster.
Introduction, Ideals and Rules
Introduction
On my other blog and in general conversation I have always said about what I would do if I ruled Britain. I've decided that as the current government is so good at nicking other peoples ideas, if I post mine then some of them might actually get adopted.
I'm not really interested in taking credit for anything, I just want things to work better. Besides I have no interest in politics, just government (I believe the two are completely unrelated and one regularly restricts the efficient operation of the other)
Ideals
I suppose I should really outline my political ideals but the trouble is I don't have any. I (like most people I talk to) care more about the issues of government than the core beliefs of the politicians in charge.
Some of my ideas could be interpreted as right-wing, others left-wing. This isn't important to me as I only care about them working and possibly altering them to make them work better.
Rules
If I have a policy it will be in bold. This is to enable people to skim read through my drivel.
If I think of any further rules I will add them to this post.
On my other blog and in general conversation I have always said about what I would do if I ruled Britain. I've decided that as the current government is so good at nicking other peoples ideas, if I post mine then some of them might actually get adopted.
I'm not really interested in taking credit for anything, I just want things to work better. Besides I have no interest in politics, just government (I believe the two are completely unrelated and one regularly restricts the efficient operation of the other)
Ideals
I suppose I should really outline my political ideals but the trouble is I don't have any. I (like most people I talk to) care more about the issues of government than the core beliefs of the politicians in charge.
Some of my ideas could be interpreted as right-wing, others left-wing. This isn't important to me as I only care about them working and possibly altering them to make them work better.
Rules
If I have a policy it will be in bold. This is to enable people to skim read through my drivel.
If I think of any further rules I will add them to this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)