Introduction
Politics is traditionally presented as one-dimensional with each person placed somewhere on a line from Left to Right. However, the Right to Left picture does not represent real life; indeed, there is an argument that the far left and far right are indistinguishable. We present a discussion of policy options. However, it is not a proposal for specific policies that we expect to be adopted. The Labour Party has always had a reputation as a coalition of minorities so that a wide range of views are inevitably encompassed. Many quite different opinions are held which cannot be pigeon-holed into right and left. The Labour Party has always welcomed this diversity of views. Examples of such diversity include education (academic vs vocational), defence (independence vs interdependence), Head of State (royalism vs republicanism), common market (independence or integration). Individual views cannot be correlated as left and right, a strong royalist can be a strong supporter of the common market or not; specific views on one topic do not automatically result in specific views on another topic. We need at least a 3-dimensional space to accommodate the range of views held by people broadly supporting Labour.
An approach which we promote in this note is "evidence-based policies". This approach contrasts with slogan-based policies which sound good but do not deliver effective outcomes. The advances achieved in modern medicine have resulted from evidence-based medicine. The advances have come from methodical clinical trials, rather than gut-feeling or theory alone. For this reason, we argue for distinct administrations (local authorities, national governments, territorial groups) rather than uniformity. We can then judge the efficacy of policies by the outcomes achieved by the distinct administrations. Lack of diverse administrations risks a uniform mediocrity because there is no independent comparator to show which policies work and which do not.
There follow a series of discussions on topics from which policies might be built.
The current UK taxation system (in common with that of many other countries) is excessively complex. HMRC staff are generally very efficient at dealing with tax matters, but a simple query from HMRC can take from several hours to several days for a business (or individual) to sort out the information requested. The hours spent dealing with the tax authorities are hours taken away from doing the work that the business is good at. It reduces the work that they can do and consequently the income that they can generate to maintain the business and to pay their employees. For an innovative company, it can slow innovation and thence delay bringing improved products and services to market. In short, the UK tax system reduces the competitive position of the UK, the quality of employment, and the standard of living that the country can offer. When working with small margins, even minor simplifications to the tax system can make the difference between a business failing and a business prospering. Individuals are similarly burdened with a multitude of taxes that consume their time.
A "tax" is anything that you are obliged to pay, it does not have to be payment to HMRC. Examples of taxes are:
Income tax
Employees’ NI
Employers’ NI
VAT
Council Tax
Business Rates
TV licences
Employees’ pension contributions
Employers’ pension contributions
Corporation Tax
Dividend Tax (rolls in with income tax, but at different rates)
Various duties (petrol etc)
Import duty
Stamp duty
Inheritance Tax
These taxes are further complicated by a series of tax rebates including
Charitable giving
Enterprise Investment Schemes
R&D Tax rebates
Each one of these taxes requires a bureaucracy to run it, and ties up many more resources to provide the bureaucracy with the information that it needs. If we could eliminate most taxes, it would reduce government spending and reduce the overhead burden placed on individuals and businesses. It should improve efficiency and output, and ultimately require less tax to provide better services.
A possible way forward would be to merge the following taxes into one:
Income tax, National Insurance, VAT, Business Rates, Council Tax, TV Licence, Pension contributions, and Corporation tax. The total tax burden for a standard rate tax payer is about 60%, rather more for a higher rate tax payer. A suggestion would be to divide the combined tax between employee and employer. We would also need to treat organizations paying interest and/or dividends in the same way that we treat employers. Individuals who invest contribute to society at least as much as lawyers and accountants who cannot point to any product that feeds or clothes us, but whose services are necessary to maintain functioning businesses which provide goods and employment. In this way, none of the individual taxes are paid, simply an employee tax on earnings (also charged on dividends and interest received) plus an employer tax (on money paid out as salaries, wages, and dividends).
There should be the option to invest your pension funds elsewhere. However, the simple option of having it automatically dealt with as part of a unified tax system relieves the small business (or self-employed person) of the necessity to deal with the complex options available in any separate automatic enrolment pension scheme.
Treating income from all sources in the same way eliminates the necessity for IR35 regulations that limit the ability of individuals to receive dividends instead of salaries. There will be no benefit in channelling income through different pathways (dividends or salaries).
There are an increasing number of people who have multiple of sources of income. The tax office then issues codes for each source of income. Dealing with these multiple sources of income could be simplified by allowing your bank to deal with tax matters. Set up a "tax account" into which you pay all your income from various sources tax-free. You then take money out of that account when you need it. You only pay tax on what you take out of the account. It is a trivial exercise for the bank to deduct the correct amount of tax. This approach makes life easier for self-employed people and people working in the arts, who have erratic incomes. They would be taxed only when they spend the money, which would reduce the complexity of smoothing erratic income with the current taxation system. Inheritance tax can also be handled using the same bank "tax account". The inheritance could be paid into the "tax account" and tax paid only on money drawn out from the account. Allowance may be made for the fact that most people in the UK leaving legacies have acquired their assets with money on which they have already paid tax. There could be the possibility of restricting the investments that banks can make on monies held in such accounts. For example, they may be restricted to investments in UK-owned UK companies, possibly also to UK companies quoted on UK-based, UK-owned stock exchanges. We would expect that substantial funds would accumulate in such tax accounts. Enabling UK businesses access to such funds may encourage companies to retain UK operations, and UK stock exchange listings.
Under this taxation method, local councils will be allocated funds from central government, so that they concentrate on giving good services instead of devising wheezes to raise more money. If they need money for special purposes, they could raise money through augmented income tax on residents. It might be a good idea to seek a referendum of their voters as to whether they deemed the money to be necessary. Why not then follow the Swiss practice of including a counterproposal in the referendum? The counter-proposal might suggest ways of saving money elsewhere.
Allowances to set against taxes. Currently, there are a complex array of allowances that can reduce tax liabilities. Allowances to set against personal taxes include ISA tax-free investments, tax allowance on charitable giving, and Enterprise Investment Scheme rebates for investing in R&D companies. Allowances that businesses can set against their taxes include capital investment allowances, and R&D Tax rebates.
Under the proposed income tax reforms, there will be no business taxes. The only taxes paid will be those paid by, or for, people who take money out of the business through, for example, salaries and dividends. There will be no complex write-down of capital investment; it will simply be a cost that the business incurs. There will be no tax paid on profits/monies retained for future investment or distribution. There will be no R&D Tax rebate because there will be no corporation tax.
The possibility of access to a tax-free bank account makes ISA investment redundant, so that ISAs can be abolished along with the bureaucracy necessary to operate ISAs. Other personal tax allowances will also be abolished and replaced by schemes for direct support of charities and of research and development. (Possibilities are outlined under 8 and 13 below).
Note that VAT can be looked upon as an export subsidy in that exported goods are sold at a lower price than goods sold at home. In this sense, it is an anti-competitive tax which should not be allowed in a free economy.
There are multiple allowances, disability, energy subsidies, childcare etc. Many of these are subject to means testing. Means tests introduce a layer of bureaucracy to complete the forms, check the forms, and process the payments. There may be complex tapered payments; the payments reducing for recipients with higher incomes, or there may be a sharp cut-off point. In either case, the applications tie up manpower from those applying (and their helpers), and from the personnel checking the forms. There is also often a feeling of unfairness for those at the boundaries. We already have tests of wealth in our income tax system. It would be easier for all eligible people to receive the allowance independent of their wealth. Just increase the allowance and make it taxable. In this way, the poorer get the full allowance and the richer receive a reduced allowance. The form-filling and checking is much reduced, allowing more resources for creating wealth and well-being.
Where money has constantly varying buying power, it stimulates industrial unrest. There are recurring disputes over the wage and salary rises to chase inflation. Even when the disputes do not stimulate strike action (or similar), they consume worker and management time that could be better spent delivering improved goods and services. A properly run economy should aim at zero inflation (and zero deflation).
A government that delegates control of inflation to a third party (such as to the Bank of England) is abrogating its responsibility. Governments are elected to ensure stable finances in which incomes and savings maintain secure levels. Setting a third party with a target inflation rate is also contrary to the goal of maintaining secure money values. It is a form of taxation. A 2% inflation target enables Government to print 2% extra money each year which it can spend without paying back the money it has created. The only tool that the third party has available to control inflation is to adjust interest rates.
Generally, those with excess money (the richer) have money saved and benefit from increased interest rates. Those who are short of money (the poorer), are likely to need to borrow money, and consequently suffer from increased interest rates. Increasing interest rates then makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is contrary to accepted democratic socialist goals to institute policies that make the poor poorer. A reasonable aim is to seek alternative means of controlling inflation.
The rationale in applying higher interest rates to control inflation is to reduce the amount of money chasing a given supply of goods. People who would borrow money to spend on goods cannot afford to borrow, so have less money to spend. People with cash in the bank receive interest that makes it more attractive to leave the cash in the bank rather than buy goods. Reducing the cash available reduces the competition for purchasing goods and (eventually) reduces the price that can be charged for the goods. Alternative means of reducing the amount of money chasing goods have been suggested which could be implemented and their efficacy evaluated. These alternatives include:
A tax on interest rates that lenders can charge. For example, if it is considered that a reasonable interest rate to pay on a loan is 5%, a tax (for example, 80%) could be charged on any interest above 5%. A bank that charged an interest rate of 20% would then pay 80% tax on the interest above 5%. That is 80% tax on 15% of the interest, giving 12%, leaving 3% for the lender. The bank would collect (5 + 3)% and the Government would collect 12%. The tax rate and threshold could be set to make high-risk lending unattractive to the bank, which would reduce the amount of money that borrowers have available to spend. This approach reduces the amount of cash chasing goods by two means. The first is that borrowers have less money to spend, the second is that the Government removes some cash from circulation. This technique also makes it easier to catch illegal high-interest lenders. Instead of chasing them through courts, simply charge them tax on the estimated excess interest that they extract.
A tax on advertising (sponsorships etc). With less advertising, buyers have less incentive to purchase goods. With restricted advertising, there is less competition to buy goods and less pressure to increase prices. Sellers may even attempt alternative means of promoting sales, such as reducing prices. With reduced spending on advertising, businesses may divert some of their advertising budget to product and process innovation, thus improving the long-term competitive position of UK business. Some talented and innovative advertising staff may even switch to product innovation.
Mandatory loans. There could be legislation to force people to lend money to the government as a means of reducing the amount of money in circulation. Reducing the money in circulation would reduce pressure for inflation. A possible approach may be as follows. Instead of charging the rich very high tax rates, force them (through the income tax system) to lend a proportion of their income to the government. For example, charge 40% tax and 40% loan. Interest is paid on the loan and it is repaid as inflation is brought under control. A reverse strategy might even be applied to limit deflation should that arise.
There are two principal pension types: "Defined Contribution" and "Defined Benefit". State pensions tend to fall between the two; they are based on years of contribution, but the formula changes from time to time and the payments are inflation adjusted. Defined contribution schemes tend to favour those whose earnings are greatest early in their careers (physical labour, sports, and some arts). Thus, if a person pays £1 into their scheme at age 20, at 5%/annum interest, it is worth over £7 at age 60. Defined benefit schemes tend to favour those who start at modest salaries, but get promoted throughout their careers. Where the benefit is based on final salary, the modest initial earnings are ignored in estimating the pension. Indeed, it is a known practice to offer employees that a company wants to get rid of a final promotion providing that they leave promptly. They then get a higher pension for doing nothing other than leaving. Defined benefits based on average earnings ignore the interest that would be earned by those whose earning power is greatest in the early years of employment. Considering interest earned (discounted cash flow), manual workers subsidize office workers in any defined benefit scheme. A fair state pension scheme would not cross-subsidize pensions in this way. A simpler (and possibly fairer) state pension would be based on a defined contribution methodology. Contributions would be a fraction of the integrated tax as described under 1 above. The contributions would be credited to a notional individual pension fund, which would attract interest. Every taxpayer would receive an annual statement advising the value of their pension fund. There should then be flexibility in how state annuities are paid. For example, instead of a sudden complete retirement, there could be the choice to pay an annuity from part of the fund, so that part-time work could continue. The pension taken could increase in steps as hours worked decreased. There would also be flexibility in moving some, or all, of the money into private pension schemes.
The current system is confused with no one unambiguously responsible for managing the system in whole or in part. The system is semi-privatized, so that part is funded by the state and part by private investors. Management decisions are made by groups containing both state and private representatives. Occasions arise when the private part of a managing group has a conflict of interest; they may be in a position to advise to buy services or equipment from their own (or related) organizations. There needs to be a much clearer definition of responsibilities.
The GP system also needs to be more tightly integrated with the hospital system. For example, the hospital (or hospital group) to which GPs respond should be ultimately responsible for provision of GPs that refer patients to the hospital. There should be an option for hospitals (or hospital trusts) to employ GPs directly and pay them a salary.
It is a free country so that there must remain the option for private health insurance. However, the current system allows private providers to cherry-pick patients with conditions that are quickly and profitably treated, and leave the NHS to pick up the tab for expensive long-term conditions, such as cancer, lung disease, and kidney disease. A private insurance should cover the complete range of conditions and leave nothing to the NHS. There must also be constraints that ensure that premiums charged by private insurers do not depend on age and prior health. Similarly, they should charge premiums related to income so that they cover poorer and less healthy people as well as the richer and healthier. Otherwise, they are forcing the NHS to cater for poorer people and those more likely to become ill. There should be transition rules for people who want to swap between private insurers or between a private insurer and the NHS. There must also remain the option for individuals to make one-off choices for a particular procedure (for example, hip or eye surgery). However, their usual health provider (NHS or private) must then be able to back-charge any follow-up treatment consequent on the procedure. It seems logical that a private health provider should be responsible for the complete range of healthcare including GPs that respond to their hospitals. Otherwise, patients are seeing state-supported GPs (as part of the NHS) before going to private hospitals. With this arrangement, the NHS subsidizes private healthcare.
In recognition that private healthcare reduces the load on the NHS. People who opt for full private healthcare relieve the load on the NHS. Accordingly, the NHS (or Government) should cover part of the cost of the private healthcare insurance. The payment should be based on the average annual (or monthly) cost of people using NHS facilities. The payment will be less than the full NHS cost both because the transactions introduce a bureaucracy that needs to be paid and because the NHS must have the capability of responding to all eventualities. Even if the number of people using the NHS is reduced; it still needs spare beds, CT scanners, MRI, clinical science back-up etc.
Clinical negligence. If someone comes out of hospital having suffered from poor treatment, the current procedure is for the patient (or relatives) to sue the hospital, and/or for a public enquiry from which "lessons are learned". Senior staff may even leave (with financial compensation). Whatever path is chosen, money is lost from that available to treat patients, and senior staff are called upon to give evidence, rather than caring for patients. The outcomes are not helpful to patients or to the hospital. When suing a hospital, negligence must be proven. Whether or not it is proven, the patient suffers in the same way. Support should be given to patients in relation to the outcome suffered, not on how provable the negligence is. Senior staff (managers) in hospitals are responsible for the outcomes. If a hospital has poor outcomes, the senior staff should suffer a very high rate of income tax. Their financial suffering will encourage them to "learn lessons" more effectively, and sooner, than a slap on the wrist from a public enquiry. For private hospitals, the shareholders should similarly suffer a high rate of income tax on any dividends issued by the organization. The resulting pressure from shareholders adds a further incentive for the management to improve.
There needs to be a study as to whether large hospitals give better outcomes than small hospitals. Large hospitals are more economic to run but more patients are impacted when there is an infective illness in the hospital. Against these savings, there is an increased cost which patients and their visitors have to carry in travelling larger distances to the hospitals; the larger distances are associated with more pollution resulting from the additional travel distances.
The police currently ignore small-scale crime. The rationale for this policy is that even the simplest investigation costs over £1,000. Hence, it is not cost-effective to investigate crimes for which the loss is less than, say, £1,000. However, most criminals start small. Thus, the current system allows them to undertake an apprenticeship in crime with no risk. They can hone their criminal skills until they are ready to move into larger-scale crime. In doing so, they inflict cumulative losses of many thousands of pounds. The police need encouragement to tackle these small crimes. The simplest approach is for the police, instead of issuing a crime number, to pay the value of the loss that has been suffered. This approach would reduce insurance premiums. It also incentivizes the police to prevent crime by instigating preventative measures. These may include more police on the ground and/or more deterrents such as CCTV (linked to police surveillance). Many thieves commit multiple small thefts. Hence, by incentivizing police to tackle small thefts, there may be a large cumulative reduction in crime. Police will clearly need additional staff. However, by freeing up resources currently committed to organizations such as HMRC (which employs 67,500 people), more resources will be available to boost police numbers (currently about 147,000 people) at zero incremental cost to the state.
Over half of all homicide and acquisitive crimes are driven by drugs. If we could reduce drug-based crime, the total incidence of crime would be substantially reduced. There are three ways of tackling the drug problem:
Method (i) requires that anyone caught having taken a drug is prosecuted and imprisoned or fined. The result is that there becomes no market for drugs so that the distribution network withers.
Method (ii) leaves a valid market for drugs. The distribution network is always under threat. However, the network is a substantial and tax-free operation. The losses through fines and imprisonment of distributors contribute a loss of income that is less troubling to the organizers than paying taxes. Where one distribution network is broken, another immediately takes its place to supply the established market. This approach is currently applied in the UK; it is the worst possible option in that it encourages a tax-free criminal distribution network. A legal framework that criminalizes the process, but not the product is doomed to fail; it just consumes resources that could be more effectively used elsewhere.
Method (iii) leaves a significant proportion of the population as drug users (currently estimated at about 9% of the population in the UK). This dependency reduces the capability of the national workforce and has continuing adverse impacts on family life and crime. However, there is the potential to collect substantial taxes from users. The additional taxes should help provide more resources for police, hospitals, and prisons. Additional police resources (police officers etc) would be required, otherwise the criminal network will continue to exist alongside the legal distribution network. The risk from drug use would be somewhat reduced because only quality-controlled drugs with known impacts would be sold.
Provision of prisons. Currently, there is insufficient prison capacity to accommodate the number of criminals that should be in prison. Consequently, many criminals avoid prison and commit further crimes. They cannot commit crime whilst in prison; hence provision of more prisons should reduce crime. We need to be more creative in deploying prison resources. Putting people in prison takes people out of the economy and also requires prison staff who could otherwise be delivering economically valuable goods and services. One suggestion would be to allow part-time imprisonment. This strategy would allow people to serve time only at evenings and weekends, leaving them free to continue to earn money through a trade or profession. Another suggestion would be to provide paid work within the prison system. The pay would be much less than for the equivalent job outside prison, but would allow prisoners to build (or maintain) a skill valuable in outside life, and to put aside money to be available to them when they are released. The work would also generate income from the goods produced or services undertaken to reduce the net cost of the prison service.
There is a case for revising the way in which crimes are dealt with in court. The current criterion for criminal justice is "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no guidance on what level of doubt is "reasonable". In civil law, the criterion is "balance of probability". Thus, in civil law, those just meeting the criterion of guilt are 50% likely to be guilty. At this balance point, 50% of guilty people are found guilty and 50% found innocent. Conversely, 50% of innocent people are found innocent and 50% found guilty. In criminal law, the "reasonable" criterion for guilt is set much higher. Some observers interpret "reasonable" as 90% confidence in guilt. On this basis, no more than 10% of innocent people will be found guilty. Conversely, at this balance point, up to 90% of guilty people will be found innocent. Other observers demand a much higher level of proof. Thus, they consider that imprisoning up to 10% of innocent people is too high. They would set the level of "reasonable confidence" at 99%. On this basis, no more than 1% of innocent people will be found guilty and, at the balance point, 99% of guilty people will be found innocent. A possible revision is to allow the "reasonable doubt" level to depend on the nature of the crime and the risk to society. Consider a woman accused of murdering her husband. Is 1% doubt reasonable? At the balance point 1% of innocent women would be found guilty and 99% of guilty women found innocent. As regards risk to society, the 99% of guilty women found innocent are unlikely to kill many more husbands. Thus, we balance 1 innocent woman deprived of her freedom against 99 guilty women unlikely to commit further crimes. Consider a man tried for terrorism. If we take the same 1% criterion as used for the husband-killer, we balance one innocent person losing their freedom against 99 guilty people, any one of which may cause the death of dozens of innocent citizens. There is a case for adjusting the level of "reasonable doubt" to reflect the risk of imprisoning innocent people against the damage that may be caused by releasing the guilty.
If we decide to quantify what is "reasonable", there needs to be a simple way for juries to reach a quantitative measure of the probability of guilt. One such means of reaching a quantitative solution may be to employ a variant of the Delphi method. For example, each juror can give their estimate of the probability of the defendant's guilt: Certain (100%), Virtually certain (99%), extremely confident (95%), very confident (90%), confident (80%), on balance of probability (>50%). Similarly assessments of innocent: Certainly Innocent (0% guilty), virtually certain of innocence (1% guilty), extremely certain of innocence (5% guilty), etc. Over thousands of applications, the Delphi method and variants has been found to give better consensus outcomes than other methods by which groups can reach decisions. The outcome is the mean probability from the group. Normally, there are several rounds of discussion in which each person (without interruption) justifies their score. Particular attention is paid to the arguments of the outliers. After a number of rounds, there is no more shifting of opinion. At that stage, the mean probability is reported together with the mean probability omitting the high and low probability outliers. It should then be up to the judge to assess whether the reported probability justifies sentencing. The judge's assessment will be based on a balance between loss of individual freedom (imprisonment) versus risk to the public of releasing a possibly guilty person. Judges should have the option to get support from a sentencing panel.
Having decided on guilt, a judgement has to be made on the penalty to be imposed. The court should determine the minimum sentence (either the judge, or a sentencing panel). This minimum should not be reduced by any future review panel (other than following a retrial). In the case of prison sentences, the duration should be increased according to "bad behaviour". For example, if the prisoner acquires a mobile ‘phone, drugs, or a weapon the sentence should automatically be increased. Repeated bad behaviour should result in further increases in the sentence. There should be no limit to the amount of time that can be added. Repeated bad behaviour would justify transfer to a more remote prison.
In any justice system, it is inevitable that some innocent people will be imprisoned and some guilty people allowed to go free. If someone refuses to admit their guilt, there is no way of assessing whether a mistake has been made, or whether the guilty person is merely stubborn. There seem to be no statistics indicating whether prisoners refusing to admit their guilt are more or less likely to reoffend. Hence, release dates should not be biased by whether (or not) a prisoner has admitted guilt.
School-level. There is no point in keeping pupils at school unless they are committed to the learning experience and it benefits their future careers. Too many have no interest in furthering their education, so they skip school and do not attend lessons when in school. This group of pupils leave education having learned little but how to avoid doing anything worthwhile. Their numbers include members of the future criminal fraternity and people not committed to doing a full day's work. No amount of "inspirational" teaching can motivate pupils who do not want to be (or are not) at school. We need to motivate these pupils to attend school and to provide means for their early "escape" from school. One motivation is money. Instead of paying family allowances, pay school attendance allowance. Pay the allowance by class attended (and omit payment for classes in which the pupil was disruptive). This system gives pupils’ parents a strong incentive to ensure that their offspring diligently attend classes. If, as if often the case, parents assign part of the allowance to the child, it also gives a direct incentive to the pupil. Another motivation is to provide means for leaving school early. Allow pupils who have found a job to leave once they have proven competence in English and basic Mathematics. This approach motivates those who would prefer not to be at school to secure work, rather than "hanging about". With good English language skills, the young adult has all that they need to study any other subject through "teach yourself" or through part-time learning.
Post-school. There is insufficient emphasis in building vocational skills; for example, plumbing, building, and staff for care homes etc. We also have too many students going to university rather than building careers in skilled trades. The university ethos also needs changing. Currently, university education is operated as a commercial enterprise. Universities maximize profits by mounting courses with titles designed to attract students whilst being cheap to operate. This approach has two disadvantages. First, it recruits students to courses with limited employment prospects. Secondly, it does not deliver the skills needed by society. A better approach may be direct government funding to universities to support the skills that we need. For example, we need more engineers to devise means of tackling reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Currently, the effort in predicting the future impacts of carbon dioxide is out of proportion to the effort in developing effective means of reducing emissions. We probably also need to double the number of medical students. (Doubling numbers of students will not deliver health benefits immediately, but benefits will be achieved in 5 to 10 years). A possible way forward is to fund universities to recruit target student numbers in specified disciples with limited additional funding for unspecified disciplines. In this way, they can deliver the graduates required in socially needed disciplines with some funding for innovative new courses. The universities can also be provided with funds to provide grants for the target students. They can recruit students in other disciplines, but must provide their own student loan facilities without a central scheme for all students. This restriction will encourage universities to recruit students to employable disciplines who can repay their loans. Additionally, there should be provision for part-time courses that students who have already started careers can follow. In this way, we avoid "front loading" the education system. There must be limits on the fees charged to foreign students. Preferably, the charges should be less than the home-student charges. This restriction would discourage universities from filling courses with foreign students purely to boost their income. All courses will then have predominately UK students and foreign students will be recruited to facilitate good relations with the countries from which the students come.
Assessment: Our education system is dominated by assessments. There should be greater recognition that it is impossible to give an exact assessment of student ability. Marking an examination and giving marks out of 100, assumes that we can assess the ability of the student to ±1%. However, on a different day, with a different set of questions, or with a different assessor, the student may score differently. This shortcoming of the marking system is exacerbated by dividing grades very crudely. For example, we may put Grade A >80%, Grade B 60% to 80%, Grade C 50% to 60%, Grade D <50%. Then, on average, Grade A scores 90%, Grade B 70%, Grade C, 55%, Grade D 25%. Consequently, a student assessed at 61% is classed with those having an average of 70% and one scoring 59% classed with those having an average of 55%. A difference of 2% has no statistical significance, but these two students now proceed with labels that mark them as having a 15% difference in ability. It follows that crude gradings (labelling with A, B, C, or with words such as excellent, good, adequate etc) should be avoided. Instead, actual marks out of, say, 100 should be given with an error band, such 66±5%. Employers, and others needing to know grades, can then use their judgement of the applicant with a realistic assessment of how the student performed. We can eliminate the concept of pass/fail in educational assessment. Pass/fail is appropriate to training when, with sufficient practice, all students are expected to pass. Can a trainee wire a plug correctly, or not? Can they correctly connect and read a pressure gauge or not? Can they safely and accurately take a blood sample, or not? There are a number of professional education courses that include elements of training. The education part covers the ability to tackle novel problems, which have no previously published solution (solve novel differential equations, synthesize new chemical species, treat unforeseen comorbidities etc). The training part enables known tasks to be tackled fully and well.
It is recognized that some assessment methods give rise to very wide uncertainty in marks to be awarded. For example, consider multiple choice examination. It is recognized that a student getting 60/100 questions right on a 5-choice multiple-choice assessment has a most likely score of 50%. The calculation is simple. If the examinee knows 50% of the answers, they will not know the other 50%. However, of the 50% that they do not know, they will randomly tick 1/5 of the correct answers. Thus, to the 50% for which they know the answer, add 50/5 = 10% of the answers that they correctly tick despite not knowing the answers. The full range of uncertainly, if they tick 60% correctly is from 0% to 60%. Indeed, if sufficient students with absolutely no knowledge of a subject take a multiple-choice examination, chance will ensure that some get very good scores. The position is worse if, of the 5 choices, one is completely stupid. Even those with no knowledge will avoid the stupid answer, so that there are then only 4 real choices per question with a 1 in 4 chance of randomly ticking the correct answer. An examinee ticking 60% correct answers then has a most likely score of 47% (35/75). Multiple choice should be restricted to game shows, where there is amusement in seeing the totally ignorant progressing by chance.
Pass Rates: There needs to be greater concern about pass rates. At application, universities will rightly accept students with a 70% chance of securing an honours degree. Having recruited these students, many universities then strive to pass 100% of their recruitment. It is right to recruit such students, but having done so, it is logical that 30% should fail. There is a need to allow such failures. Drop-out students should be awarded certificates recording their achievements. We should also note that the skills required in some professions are quite different from those required to pass A-levels. Consequently, we should be suspicious of courses giving excessively high pass rates. As an example, medicine has very high pass rates; it is not logical that passing a few subjects at A-level should be a 100% predictor of the ability to be a good doctor. Pass rates are, of course, linked to means of assessment.
The UK (and many other countries) have a complex system of grants and encouragement to innovative businesses (and to universities collaborating with such businesses). These grants give rise to two kinds of frustration. The first is that companies can take large sums of taxpayers’ money (as grants) and then be sold abroad as soon as they are successful. The second frustration is that these grants can be seen as subsidies creating unfair competition with businesses not in receipt of such grants. The grant system is also inefficient in use of resources. The business applying for a grant devotes substantial effort to making an application; this effort could be devoted to progressing the business. At the same time, most grant applications have a very low chance of success resulting in a complete waste of the resources devoted to applying. The assessment process also wastes much skilled manpower. The assessors must be knowledgeable and, if not assessing, could be progressing development of other businesses. Even when successful, there are very long delays between the innovative business starting the application process and receiving the grant. These long delays can cripple small companies that expect to deliver innovative products. The delays and waste of resources could be overcome by government investment in innovative companies. For example, companies could apply for government to invest £50 for every £100 subscribed by other investors. The investment would cover less than half the tax paid by the business, so would incur little incremental cost. It could be given almost automatically so being timely and tying up minimal company or assessor resources. It would also put the government in a strong position to block overseas sales of such innovative companies. Such a business could only be sold abroad if the taxpayer made a large profit from the sale.
There are two areas benefitting from state ownership: natural monopolies, and protection of innovation.
Natural monopolies, such as water and gas, do not present an opportunity for competition to drive innovation. They tend to be large monolithic organizations. When privately-owned, the directors’ responsibilities are to shareholders. In principle, there is then no limit to the prices that can be charged to maximize shareholder returns. The state tends to establish bodies that set price limits to protect the public from excess charges. There are then two levels of management, state and private. There is a natural conflict between the two, where the state-appointed regulator may limit charges to the extent that it stifles investment in innovation that might result in better services at reduced cost. At the same time, the private owners have no incentive to invest if they can pay enhanced dividends without improving services. These conflicts are obviated with a state-owned enterprise. The directors’ responsibilities are still to the owners, but the owners are now the voters, who are also users of the services. An expensive superfluous regulator is eliminated. It is sometimes suggested that state ownership stifles innovation. However, there are numerous examples of innovation within state-owned enterprises; two well-known innovations are the world's first electronic programmable computer (GPO telephones) and the World-Wide-Web (CERN). There is a strong incentive to ensure that natural monopolies are state-owned. The management can be simpler and less expensive than that of a privately-owned enterprise and the users (as voters) can directly impact management decisions. The term "state-owned" can be interpreted as owned by any voted-for arm of government, national or local.
Protection of Innovation. Many innovative new products and services arise from university research and small start-up companies. The start-ups are often spin-outs from universities. The academic research is supported by government funding; that is by money provided by taxpayers. Whilst they grow, many start-ups are supported by government grants. It is reasonable to expect that taxpayers who ultimately pay for the grants should get a return on their money. The return could be indirect through taxes paid by the companies and their employees as they grow. A return might also arise through money returned to government on sale of the growing company. In either case, the government gains funds enabling it to reduce taxes, or to provide additional services without raising additional taxes. Under the current system, the grants are just written-off after having been paid to the company. Many of these companies are then sold abroad. Selling abroad has three undesirable outcomes. The first is that there is no return to the UK taxpayer. The second is that the innovative technology is lost to the UK. The third undesirable outcome is that the UK customer has to pay for a product made abroad (or a process or service operated from abroad). If, instead of giving grants, the government took shares in the company, sale of the innovation abroad could be blocked so that a profitable enterprise operates in the UK and contributes positively to balance of payments. Alternatively, the income from sale can be used by government to reduce UK taxes.
Current employment laws are complex so that most businesses devote significant resources to ensuring that they work within the law. These resources could be better spent delivering the goods, services, and innovations that the business is set up to deliver. The legislation covers mistreatment of staff, staff grievances, staff misbehaviour, staff sickness and absence, and staff redundancy. There are also Health and Safety and equal opportunities considerations.
Health and Safety is the responsibility of directors and all staff from managers to operatives must be properly trained with clearly set out responsibilities. There must be formal procedures for assessing the hazards of all processes and materials before operation, which must be regularly reviewed. There is no scope for reducing the energy devoted to Health and Safety. Shortcomings must remain subject to criminal sanctions. Corporations are collections of individuals and appropriate individuals should be held responsible, not vague "corporate" responsibility. Where shortcomings are identified (particularly in cases of death or injury), high rates of income tax must be levied on senior staff and on dividends. These taxes must be levied whether or not legal proceedings are initiated against the relevant staff.
Directors are responsible for Equal Opportunities policy and for ensuring that policies are adhered to. This is not a responsibility that should be delegated to "Human Resource" departments. Breaches of equal opportunities would normally arise as grievances and should be treated as such. Individuals, rather than organizations should be held to account for breaches of company equal opportunity policies.
Current regulations relating to staff sickness, absence, redundancy etc are complex and tie up resources ensuring that the regulations are adhered to. If we accept the principle that people who are not working for their employer (for whatever reason) are not paid by the employer, matters become simpler. The government collects taxes from employers and employees, and should cover the costs when staff are not working for a valid reason. One possibility would be to make up the pay of staff to their average pay over a set period. For example, if a member of staff becomes redundant and has to take a lower-paid job, the state makes up their pay to their previous income. Over time this addition declines until their income is no longer subsidized. The same strategy would apply to sickness, maternity etc. In this way, employers do not have to set aside funds for redundancy pay and can continue to employ staff all the while there is a chance of the business recovering. Staff who leave and, almost immediately, find an equally well paid position do not then also benefit from a large redundancy payment. Shareholders and senior staff in organizations that exhibit high staff turnover for no good reason, will suffer higher income tax rates.
The UK boasts consistently decreasing carbon dioxide discharges to atmosphere. However, the country is actually responsible for increasing global carbon dioxide emissions. We have transferred heavy industry abroad and now import goods made by less energy efficient processes than processes previously operated in the UK. For example, we no longer make silicon (as used in solar panels and computer chips). Instead, we import silicon manufactured in high-energy processes using coal. It takes 5 to 10 years for solar panels to save the carbon dioxide released in their manufacture. At the same time, solar panels take agricultural land out of production to build solar farms and consequently require other countries to create more agricultural land to supply us with the food that we no longer produce. Such countries destroy forests to create the new agricultural land. There is no way that our current deployment of solar panels is "net zero" carbon dioxide. Similarly, the UK no longer makes polyacrylonitrile, which is the polymer from which much carbon fibre is made. Carbon fibre is one of the preferred materials employed for making wind turbine blades. We import the carbon fibre allowing other countries to operate the petrochemical industries that make the material.
The policy (followed by all political parties) of closing UK industries in favour of importing from abroad results in higher global carbon dioxide releases and contributes to the UK net balance of payments deficit in goods of nearly £45billion/annum. This deficit is partially offset by a £20billion balance of payments surplus in services. However, services grow to serve other industries. The strong UK financial services industry grew in serving the historically strong UK manufacturing industry. As manufacturing transfers abroad, the new manufacturing countries will grow their own service industries so that reliance on service industries to balance our trade will ultimately fail. We must aim to grow our manufacturing industries for three reasons:
In exporting CO2 emissions, we find ourselves importing over £20billion more oil/annum than we export. This position seems illogical for an oil/gas producing country. An additional £20billion/annum in UK coffers would make budgeting less difficult.
Many politicians ignore the root cause of our current global climate difficulties. The root cause is population. In 1801, the UK population was 10.5 million. Our population is now six times greater. If we had the same population as in 1801 today, and used current technology, our carbon dioxide emissions would reduce by about 83%. The population of the world has increased by a similar amount so that global carbon dioxide releases would also decrease by the same amount. These much smaller carbon dioxide releases would have negligible impact on climate. It is probable that the lower population would not need to use mineral fuels because efficient use of renewable biofuels could supply all the energy needed. The reduced population could also better deal with extreme climate changes. There would be no need to build on flood plains. There would be no need to kill wild animals endangering people living in towns and villages because there would be plenty of room for wild animals to live without encroaching on cultivated and dwelling land. Indeed, the climate record shows that, over the last 10,000 years, there have been periods with global temperatures higher than they are currently. Both humans and wildlife survived such periods without major loss. No amount of low-carbon technology can negate the environmental impact of further population increases. Governments must have the courage to replace COP conferences with conferences focussed on reducing global population. We are being advised to eat less meat and to kill off domestic grazing animals in order to reduce CO2 emissions. However, human beings are responsible for releasing far more CO2 than any grazing animal. Such animals do not drive cars, fly in planes, or live in centrally-heated houses. In the UK each human is responsible for release of, perhaps, 4 or 5 times as much CO2 as a horse, but that does not count the releases generated in making the goods that we import. Releases from imports steadily increase as we close UK heavy industry, so that the reported decreasing releases are spurious.
A responsible government must plan for far higher global temperatures because, current steps to reduce temperature rise may fail. According to the IPCC, there is a 5% to 10% chance that climate change is driven primarily by factors other than CO2 emissions. There is an even greater chance that some nations will continue to release increasing quantities of carbon dioxide. Taken together, there is a significant chance that, despite our best efforts, global temperatures will continue to rise. Mean temperatures far exceeding temperatures that IPCC collaborators consider to be dangerous could have severe economic consequences. There could be widespread conflicts and international trade could break down. We may no longer be able to import food and export of services would dry up. We should stimulate increased agricultural production from a warmer and wetter countryside. We need better planning for increased flood risk, and our manufacturing industry must be geared up to meet our needs if imports collapse.
It is a fundamental human right to dress as you please and not be dictated to by Government. Complementary to this right is the right to choose clothing that is not determined by gender and to describe yourself by words not determined by biological gender. It may be that, in future, Mr/Mrs/Miss etc become as dated as Esq. In anyone's presence, it is accepted that people be referred to by their name, not a pronoun. Hence, in normal person-to-person conversation, the words "he", "she", "it" or "they" are not used. Use of pronouns in these circumstances has always been considered impolite. When not in the person's presence, any pronoun may be used that immediately identifies the person to the participants in the conversation. Again, this usage is not a matter to be determined by government, or in a court of law. It is probably best not to require Mr/Mrs/Miss etc on passports. However, there should be immediate access as to whether the person has chromosomes XX or XY.
For many years, medical treatments did not take count of gender and were often based on trials including only male participants. It is only in recent years that attention has been properly focused on females (that is genetically XX people). The differences in response to disease are significant. The X-chromosome carries immune response. Consequently, XX-people are half as likely to die from infectious diseases. (For example, the Covid death rate in the UK was twice as high for biological males as for females). Conversely, biological females are four times more likely to suffer auto-immune diseases. Consequently, knowledge of XX/XY status helps deliver faster more effective healthcare. This difference extends to blood transfusion. It can be dangerous for paediatric patients to receive blood transfusions from biological females so that only blood from biological males is used in neonatal and early paediatric blood transfusions. Knowing XX/XY status is also helpful in criminal investigations. Knowing (from DNA) the XX/XY status of an offender immediately halves the number of possible suspects.
These differences extend to people who have had surgical gender reassignment; they are still XX or XY. Although most such people can live long and fulfilling lives, there are literature reports of difficulties in treating some health conditions. For this reason, it is recommended that those having surgical gender reassignment should be treated at specialist hospitals where there is adequate experience, and where building on that experience helps to ensure that reassignments are undertaken in the safest and most effective way.
The strength of democracy is that the electorate can get rid of incompetent or corrupt governments. Unfortunately, changes of government rarely occur because the opposition present an inspiring vision of the future; just one that is less bad than the government currently in power. Any system that does not give a realistic prospect of unseating the government of the time, is not a true democracy. Having started with the negative, we now concentrate on the positive.
There are many calls for fairer representation in parliament so that the range of views of MPs better reflects the range of views of the electorate. It is known that, whenever there are more than two decisions that can be taken, it is likely that no one option will receive more than 50% support. As an example, if the Brexit referendum had also offered "Join EFTA" as a third option, it is very unlikely that any one choice would have secured more than 50% support. The chances of an overall majority become less when considering combinations of views. For example, if you wish to elect a representative that reflects your view on both Brexit and Republicanism, you need 4 candidates to choose from (A: Brexit/Republic, B: Brexit/Monarchy, C: EU/Republic, D: EU/Monarchy). To proportionally reflect the whole range of individual opinions, would need hundreds of candidates to choose from. A fully proportional system would deliver a parliament such that a combination of views supported by 1% of the population would be represented by 6 MPs in a 600-seat parliament. Organizing such an election would be difficult. The public would be faced with reading hundreds of manifestos and with very long voting slips. Proportional representation could be more simply achieved by selecting 600 MPs randomly from the population. If a fully proportional parliament were achieved, parliamentary decision-making processes would need to be revised so that decisions could be taken that held less than 50% support.
Current calls for proportional representation most frequently come from political parties that are third or fourth in support. In a first-past-the-post system, they will be underrepresented. However, these parties rarely call for fully proportional representation because they put forward systems that would exclude parties with less than about 10% support. The systems that they propose tend to guarantee that they are permanent members of a coalition government. The advantage of a "first past the post" system is that it tends to give a working majority in parliament to a political party with reasonably consistent views. It also allows for the election of non-aligned MPs such a "save the cottage hospital candidate". "Proportional Representation" systems currently proposed, and operating, tend to favour "party list" candidates. Such systems may have one vote per candidate, or multiple transferable votes. A system offering a single representative per constituency may employ a single transferable vote. Alternatively, a first past the post system may have additional seats to bring the overall balance in parliament to match the percentage of votes cast for each party; the additional seats are likely to be minor party seats appointed from party lists. Proportional representation systems employing party-list candidates tend to give a less representative reflection of the electorate's wishes because they exclude independent thinkers and single-issue candidates. If a randomly selected parliament (the only truly proportional system) is not favoured, a "single re-assignable vote" system may be a useful alternative. It would work as follows. Each candidate would receive votes as in the current first-past-the-post system. Where no candidate secures over 50% of the vote, the candidates negotiate and candidates offer their votes to other candidates in exchange for a commitment to support the assigning candidate's key priorities. Where a candidate cannot, in conscience, assign their votes to another candidate, they drop out, and their votes do not count in assessing a 50% threshold. There may also be negotiation between constituencies. Such a system also allows single-issue candidates to have a voice even when not themselves elected. It would seem to give a more proportional representation than any party-list system. It also has the benefit of assigning one representative to one constituency in which they are reasonably popular. Such representative MPs tend to put their constituents first and party second (for example, a Conservative MP protecting a Communist constituent against political discrimination).
Having selected our MPs, we want them to behave responsibly. At every vote, each MP should be tested for alcohol and drug consumption before being allowed in a voting lobby. It is indefensible that, with possibly millions of lives at stake, an MP should be allowed to vote with a blood alcohol concentration greater than allowed for pilots or car drivers.
There is also a case for reforming the qualification for MP voting. There are frequently very few MPs in attendance during speeches on a motion. Party whips then coerce non-attending MPs to vote for or against motions. Use of party whips negates the principle of proportional representation. Subtleties of views are not represented. Furthermore, MPs need know nothing about a motion before casting their vote. There should be criteria governing eligibility to vote. One possibility is to require full attendance at a complete debate on a motion before allowing the MP to vote on the motion. An alternative is to make the debate superfluous to voting rights. In this case, the proposer has to present a paper laying out the basis of the motion: (1) Why it is needed and cannot be achieved with current legislation (2) what it sets out to achieve (3) how it sets out to achieve the objective (4) theoretical support for the proposal including a clear case for how it might achieve its objectives (5) empirical evidence to support the proposal including how similar legislation has worked successfully elsewhere, or related legislation has been effective in the UK. The paper must be read by all MPs eligible to vote on the proposal as must any paper(s) opposing the motion or seeking to revise it. Following circulation, a debate would be optional and limited to speeches highlighting the case for the proposal(s) and the case against the proposal(s). Neither "for" or "against" speeches should include material not in the relevant written papers.
Representation of semi-autonomous countries and regions (for example, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland): At Westminster, there are just over 70,000 voters/constituency. It is logical that legislation applying to the whole of the UK should require decision by MPs from all UK constituencies. It is also logical that legislation applying only to one region should be decided by MPs just from that region. The large number of representatives in the regional parliaments are unnecessary. It would be sufficient for Westminster MPs to divide their time between Westminster and delegated national parliaments. Whilst they are dealing with Sottish/Welsh/Northern Irish matters, English MPs could deal with matters local to England. There seems no obvious reason why there should be less voters for each Scottish/Welsh/N Irish politician than the 70,000 voters for each English MP. Perhaps it could be put to Scottish voters whether they want to pay £25million/annum on their parliament when they are already paying for Westminster MPs who could spend part of their time in Scotland dealing with specifically Scottish matters. Similar referenda could be offered in Wales and Norther Ireland. Legislatures with more devolved powers than the UK national governments work effectively with less than a dozen elected legislators and a correspondingly small civil service. There is no case for large (or larger) UK national parliaments.
Upper House: The benefit of an upper house (in the UK, the House of Lords) is that an independent body, with members not seeking re-election, can calmly review proposed legislation and report back to the elected body with recommendations. These recommendations can include a delay whilst problems are resolved. Currently, a large minority are former MPs and so tied into the legislators in the House of Commons. There are a total of over 800 members of the House of Lords, which is more than needed for the task. There are benefits in having members who do not have to face re-election because they are not then biased into seeking short-term popularity. On the other hand, an entirely appointed House can reflect former biases of the House of Commons and be out-of-touch with recent developments. Hence, there is a case for an elected House, but one in which members do not need re-election. There will also be advantages in electing members with a breadth of professional expertise not available in the Commons. A possible proposal is to ensure a balance of expertise in the House that can be available to critically review House of Commons proposals. For example, there could be a set number of people in categories such as follows:
Each elected member will be appointed for a significant period (for example 20 years, or until they retire). The House will not be elected at once, but an election held only to replace members reaching the end of their appointments, retiring, or dying. The election will be for the category of the seat just relinquished. The change could be introduced incrementally. Whenever two of the current upper House relinquish their seats, one new person is elected. The one person elected will be to fill one of the categories (science, arts etc) taken in turn. The two for one system will continue until the number in the House reaches a reasonable level, after which it will be one for one.
Currently, there is a complex system by which government subsidizes charities. There are tax incentives to give to charities. Charities receive a 20% subsidy on all donations from UK citizens (gift aid). Higher rate tax payers also receive a tax rebate on the difference between the 20% subsidy that the charity receives and the highest rate tax that the donor pays. In effect, for a given net donation, a charity receives a larger subsidy when receiving from a higher rate tax payer. The consequence is that, for a given net donation, a public-school boat club charity (supported by highly paid donors) receives a larger subsidy than a charity set up to reduce crime on a "sink estate" where there are very few higher tax-rate donors. Rather than a complex system of tax rebates, there should be a simple system of automatic government grants to charities. The grant would be at a rate less than the tax which the charity pays. There should be a higher rate of income tax for highly paid charity employees/directors etc in recognition that the government is, in effect, repaying the taxes paid by the charity. For example, if the Government adds 40% to the money that the Charity collects, the tax rate for higher rate charity employees may be increased by 40%.
As noted under "environment and industry", the driver for the adverse impacts of climate change is population growth. Carbon dioxide releases are a secondary symptom of the problems. Were it not for post-war immigration, the current UK population would be less than half that at present. We cannot solve our population crisis by "sending home" people who are now an integral part of our diverse society, but we should be aiming to reduce our population. Without immigration, birth statistics show that our population would be falling. Currently, there is confusion between "illegal immigrants" and "asylum seekers"; basically two names for the same people. Taking asylum seekers together, about 50% of asylum applications are initially refused. Of those refused, most appeal and about 2/3 have their appeals upheld. Thus, over 80% are granted asylum. Of those refused, only a minority are actually deported; about 5% of all attempted immigrants. Thus, the gangs/organizations offering to get people to the UK can offer something like a 95% success rate in securing them UK residence. We are then in a similar legal position as for drugs, we are banning the process (cross channel small boats etc), but not the product (immigrants). We need to decide whether we want these immigrants or not. If we want them, cut out the gangs risking people's lives in boats across the channel. Offer humane efficient ways in which asylum seekers can reach the UK by accepting applications at embassies and other UK establishments around the world and provide suitable transport to get here. The gangs risking lives will then wither. The alternative is to treat everyone arriving by irregular routes as the criminal product of a criminal activity. Take them immediately on arrival to a suitable intermediate place (not UK hotels, or hotels anywhere else in the world). Probably the most suitable such place would be a UK overseas territory at a location where they are not locked in a hotel (or similar) but have nowhere to go to mingle with the local population. From there, they can apply for asylum on the basis of "guilty unless proven innocent". The current muddled system is expensive and inefficient and does nothing but encourage criminal gangs to operate profitable, but highly risky routes to the UK. If we are serious about reducing adverse climate impacts, we will adopt a policy that limits immigration. If we feel that the adverse impacts of climate are grossly exaggerated and the welfare of people who may be suffering in their own countries is paramount, we allow much freer access to immigrants.
Improved transport efficiency can provide an effective route to reduction of energy use and pollution. To date, no government has made any attempt to develop an integrated transport system. An integrated system would combine private and public transport efficiently, so that private would be employed where it is more efficient than public and vice versa.
Specifically, it should be easily possible to transfer from private to public. There should be an efficient and frequent drive-on-drive off railway system whereby vehicles can be driven to a convenient local station and driven onto a train (similar to LeShuttle for crossing by the channel tunnel). Trains should be sufficiently frequent that no pre-booking is necessary. Cars and lorries will then only be used for the relatively short journeys to the rail pick-up points. The railways will need to be improved to accommodate the additional use. Existing rail routes must be converted to "centre lines fast" with flyovers. Existing 2-line track should be converted to 4-line where possible and rail bypasses introduced to reduce traffic at bottlenecks. For passengers not using cars, better connections should be provided. Currently, journey times are often doubled waiting for connections. With a greater emphasis on the needs of real passengers rather then on vanity projects giving fast end-to-end journey times, but no connections at the ends or intermediate stops does not help people wanting to get from C to D rather than A to B.
All trains should offer spaces for cycles rather than requiring them to take up passenger space.
We should recognize that switching to electric road transport only makes a marginal difference to actual energy use when considering losses where electrical energy is produced, the transmission losses, and inefficiencies in charging/discharging batteries. A petrol vehicle operating at more than 70mpg probably matches the CO2 release from a heavy electric vehicle. It is certainly possible to produce motorcycles achieving 150mpg with reasonable performance.
Some current plans are aiming to reduce transport integration. There are even proposals to provide stations with no car parks in order to dissuade car drivers switching to rail.
It needs to be recognized that rural bus services may be significantly less energy-efficient than cars. In order to provide an acceptable service frequency, most buses will run almost empty.
Our current defence provision does not recognize technological advance over the last century or so. The functions of army, navy, and air-force now strongly overlap. A single integrated defence force should be more effective, with less management overhead. Our current provision is inadequate to provide adequate defence in any likely extended conflict. We need to be able to call upon more personnel in times of difficulty. To this end, we should aim for a much extended fully-trained reserve force with recompense to employers who make staff available as reservists.
There is also concern that our forces have insufficient hardware at their disposal. An extended acquisition programme should be initiated. The programme should recognize that few conflicts are resolved quickly. Any hardware (weapons, aircraft, vehicles etc) must be delivered with sufficient spare parts for maintenance over 3 years, or with UK manufacture capable of making spare parts on demand.
Here we touch on only two aspects.
There is no obligation to have a Head of State. Switzerland functions effectively with no head of state. In other countries (for example, Croatia) the position of president is almost exclusively ceremonial. There is no appetite in the UK to have a president with executive powers as in the USA, France, or Russia where the president is often in conflict with (or over-rules) the elected parliament. In practice, the position of King (or Queen) of the UK is ceremonial (although they hold theoretical powers). There is no UK constitution that defines (or limits) the powers of the Head of State. It is desirable that there should be a constitution that clearly defines the role of Head of State, and which formally describes their responsibilities. Countries in which there is no head of state, or where the head of state is largely ceremonial (many Commonwealth countries) tend to run more smoothly than those in which the head has significant powers. The title of Head of State is immaterial; all that is required is a definition of their roles and responsibilities. If the UK decides to adopt an elected head of state, we could call the president king (or queen) and the vice-president prince (or princess). Using these titles avoids the expense of designing a whole raft of new official letter-heads.
The UK is divided as to whether we want a hereditary or an elected head of state. The diversity of views could be resolved by making the appointment by election, but requiring that the list of candidates always includes a candidate nominated by the outgoing head of state. We may assume that the so-nominated candidate will normally be the person who would succeed to the position under the hereditary system. This system will ensure that all the time that the current royal family remains popular, we will have members of that family as kings or queens. On the basis that the position will be ceremonial, or primarily ceremonial, there is no case for frequent elections. The longer the term in office, the less the cost of providing life-long security for former heads of state. A term of around 20 years, or until the holder resigns of dies, is suggested
The proposal is not entirely novel because there is UK precedent for kings to be appointed by parliament (Charles II and George I), and for them to abdicate under pressure (Edward VIII).
There is an outstanding question as to whether the UK head of state should be ceremonial head of state for Commonwealth countries. If the latter were to be the case, should the electorate be expanded to include all Commonwealth countries accepting the appointee as ceremonial head of state?
Substantial funds are spent by fully taxpayer funded organizations. Such organizations include the police, the armed forces, the NHS, and state schools. We should aim to reduce net government spending. We can do so by recognizing that for 100% UK-sourced goods and services, up to 60% of the cost is returned to the Government through taxes paid by the workers and shareholders of the organization delivering the goods and services. Thus, the net cost to the taxpayer of UK-sourced goods and services may by about half the list price. Many taxpayer-funded organizations have a misconceived notion of economy. Examples of such false-economy purchases include Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) against Covid. Most of such equipment was imported at prices only marginally less that that of better-quality UK-made PPE. The net cost to the taxpayer of buying UK-made equipment (allowing for taxes paid by UK companies) would have been much less that that of the imported goods. Similarly, many schools are buying cheap imported food, whereas the net cost of buying food grown on UK farms would be less. At the same time, the imported food does not meet the environmental standards demanded of UK-produced food. Recognizing net cost to the taxpayer would greatly increase the proportion of goods and services sourced in the UK. By purchasing UK goods, the Government (taxpayer) has greater influence in promoting low-pollution, low-energy production.
A greater emphasis on net taxpayer-cost can complement the desire to have all equipment employed by the armed forces to be made either in the UK, or in countries with which we have formal defence collaboration agreements. There may be similar concerns for NHS supplies; imported medicines or devices can be at risk during periods of conflict.
We welcome criticism, but cannot guarantee any quick response.
You can send your comments to mail@3DLabour.org.uk or return to the home page HERE