AIMS

The aim of The Slog is to offer Homo sapiens a better and more realistic culture in which to nurture community and personal fulfilment.

In the immediate term, the key priority is to protect creative and vulnerable Small from controlling and powerful Big.

I would put some flesh on all that as follows:

If you’re genuinely radical about the West’s need to change direction culturally, a tremendous sense of isolation weighs on you at the moment. The biggest single trend of the last six or seven years in the US and the UK has been the retreat into tribalist views of socio-politically-defined economics – and the need to trash the other side’s viewpoint. Be it climate change, economic models, globalism or banking reform, everyone now is labelled “either with us or against us”.

As a ‘citizen species’, we are fracturing. And everywhere in the variously unpleasant but always braindead power centres of the West, lots of people are rubbing their hands with glee. For a divided Resistance is exactly what the Establishments want. I use the word ‘Resistance’ advisedly.

Those who come here regularly will by now understand that both status quo and Pol Pot Year Zero are the very opposite of what I’d like to see. My non-Utopian but achievable best bet follows below. The short-term objective, however, isn’t going to change: the need to protect creative and vulnerable Small from controlling and powerful Big.

In the longer term future, I advocate the development of a scaled-down and reconfigured model of economics and government in three main ways:

1. No State, less Bourse, and more mutuality in business.

2. Less global, less mercantile, more sufficiency, more entrepreneurial, more agricultural, more communitarian capitalist in political economics.

3. Abolition of the Civil Service, cutting of the MP/Constituency link from Westminster, massive devolution of power away from Parliament towards community, abandonment of nuclear weapons, withdrawal from any EU with federalist control aims, and a proper constitution driven by accountability in national governance.

I realise we are back in the cuckoo-land of systemics here, but none of the above will work without a massive cultural shift in citizen attitudes and behaviour. Much as this terrifies libertarians, I cannot see any way to drive it other than through education – which in turn remodels how people see families, school, sex, the workplace and the community.

Education, like health, has been a political scrum for decades: utterly f**ked up by ill-considered, anti-empiricist models of what education is for -  and smothered by tons of pointless paper pouring out of Whitehall. My position is that education needs to be more holistic and grounded.

Holistic in giving a much larger role to civics, mental and physical health, cultural history, and personal responsibility.

Grounded in returning the role of ‘teacher’ (in its more eclectic sense) to being one of inspiration, discernment of individual student metier (talent), and the achievement of practical skills in all the key areas of maths, language, media, technology, business, and the Law.

The aim of such an education system would be to make future generations far less vulnerable, in possession of far more self-esteem, and able to grasp not just that fellow-citizens are as important as them, but why.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now, the way to achieve none of this is by:

* Accepting the continued existence of any obviously dysfunctional item in the status quo

* Believing that with Just One More Heave, one’s own political tribe can dominate the scene and everything will be lovely

* Continuing to use the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

The Government of this country is a scam, and the Opposition is a sham. Grow up and get over it.

A Resistance united behind the aim of restoring ethical cultures and keeping extremist ideologies out of the process is the only path I can see likely to lead somewhere better – without degrading into a dictatorship very quickly…..as all rigid belief-think tends to do.

Anyone who thinks this can be achieved at this point without unpleasantness is clearly off with the fairies.

And anyone trying to claim me as a signed-up member of the Left or Right in British politics, please cease and desist: blinkered control freaks come in all the sizes, colours and genders available, but I am not of your number. Do try to take this on board before I die a frustrated old bloke scrunched up by tediously circular and point-scoring arguments on comment threads.

Which pronouncement (sorry about that, but subtlety rarely works) brings me back to where I started: people like me feel disenfranchised. But I don’t see why we should feel isolated. Literally millions of us know – without any reference to Party loyalties – that when we go to vote, it is for a choice between relative evils from the past, rather than between genuinely brave ideas about the future. In a democracy for which our grandparents fought so hard, that simply isn’t good enough.

British citizens need to vote for the dismantling of self-serving Party machinery – in favour of new ideas for tomorrow…ideas designed to free us from the controlling instincts of those in charge today. But above all, the Brits need to rise above their tribes, and work in concert to ensure they create a united front against The Dark Side.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Some specific policy aims

(The value of these ideas may go up or down depending on what the gargoyles do next. Before taking any financial decision, always consult a financial advisor, and then to do the opposite of what is suggested to you.)

To introduce list system PR as our voting form, and abolish the constituency system

To withdraw immediately from the EU

To reduce the power of Westminster in favour of local communities

To clear monied influence out of politics and fund Parties via the State

To clear commercial interests out of government

To ban the Party practice of whipping

To abolish the Civil Service

To abolish personal income tax 

To cap inheritance from one generation to the next at an absolute level

To reduce the tax burden of small business

To ban media ownership by expats and foreign nationals

To drastically reduce citizen surveillance

To remove health and pension provision from government, and fund it via mutualised insurance and employer schemes

To reduce the role of the City in funding capitalism

To encourage banks to focus more on retail and small business banking

To bring social, health and curricular education closer

To stop all immigration regardless of skill level, ethnicity or gender

To cap new home-building, and invest heavily in extending the amount of farmed land in Britain

To depoliticise and increase investment in police numbers and training

To reintroduce free Grammar and Technical schools

To reintroduce University Grants for high-performing colleges attracting genuinely bright students regardless of background…and drastically cut the percentages going to University by raising standards

————————–

John Ward, June 2013

61 thoughts on “AIMS

  1. Pingback: Romney gifts the election to Obama, and unwittingly highlights the Western economic dilemma | A diary of deception and distortion

  2. Most of it gets my vote, apart from funding the troughers via the state. That way lies ossification. Far better to severely limit the amount they can spend, I think – and possibly fund candidates and not parties.

    But then there comes the question of who decides who qualifies. No easy answers in this area.

    Anyway – no income tax? Woof!

  3. Nice one John, but surely this needs expanding:

    ‘To stop all immigration regardless of skill level, ethnicity or gender’

    A suggested expansion –

    ‘All immigrants not ‘economically active’ to an extent sufficent to support themselves and their families are to be served notice that their benefits will cease on a given deadline, after which they will be deported forthwith to their country of origin. If necessary, an earlier award of British citizenship will be abrogated.”

    “All immigrants involved in criminal activities are, on completion of their sentences, to be deported to their country of origin, together with their families. If necessary, an earlier award of British citizenship will be abrogated.”

    “All immigrants involved in behaviours not commensurate with the values and traditions of the UK (e.g. displaying signs calling for the beheading of whoever, or the termination of democracy/personal freedoms) are, on the clear provenance of their behaviour in a magistrates court, to be deported forthwith to their country of origin, together with their families. If necessary, an earlier award of British citizenship will be abrogated.”

    I can’t see many members of essentially Caucasion nations, Hindu, Sikh & Jewish communities et.al being much affected by this!!

    Just for interest, after the attack on multi-culti – more correctly, on the Muslimic hordes here in Germany – by Thilo Sarrazin a couple of years ago, Thilo has now acquired a compagnon. The mayor of the district of Berlin-Neukölln, Heinz Buschkowsky, has written a book called “Neukölln is everywhere” (Neukölln ist überall).

    If you can read German,

    http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/integration/buergermeister-neukoelln-heinz-buschkowsky-26224140.bild.html

    Tomorrows episode: “When Hartz IV becomes the basis of life and German standards no longer apply”. For those that don’t know, Hartz IV = Benefits.

    But one should not have too much sympathy with the bloke. He has been the district mayor for some 11 years now and is PERSONALLY responsible for the state his borough is now in. A typical lefty – too stupid to grasp the meaning of “unintended consequences”, but he has now suddenly woken up.

  4. Well it’s a good starting point. There are a number of other issues that perhaps remain taboo. For example the number of children for which one can receive allowances. In the small Shropshire town I lived in most young ladies, who did go away to college, had a kid as soon as possible as it was the only way to become independent and get a pad. Far easier than working for minimum wage in an old peoples home.

    Limit child support to one or perhaps two. Not limitless.

    No person can stand for Parliament unless they can show they have worked for a living for at least 20 years, independently of political party organizations or family or friends of family.

    Anyone called Boris should be incarcerated

    Public schools abolished.

    That’ll do for now.

  5. Without doubt the Welfare system has been abused. It was intended as a temporary safety net for citizens in economic difficulties due to loss of work or ill-health.
    It now has been extended to every shyster on the planet who calls himself an asylum seeker. The signpost points to Britain and reads” come to Britain and retire for life, we will give you a home and a money for life, no work required.”
    No wonder we are submerged in lay-abouts.
    I believe there should be no welfare to people who have not contributed to the system. Maybe harsh, but necessary. We have reached the tipping point and our society is disintegrating. Charity begins at home.

    • It’s not just asylum seekers. It’s the natives too. And the disease is not limited to Britain – France, the USA, most of the ‘democratic’ world suffers the same way, and it has led to the mother of all bubbles (you thought the credit crunch was bad ? wait till the government debt bubble bursts).

      http://bit.ly/moneyweek-end-of-uk

      Watch this moneyweek presentation – it talks about the ‘Welfare system’ and how it startedin 1903 with the first pension – and how it has been downhill ever since then, with voters voting in whoever offers them the most chocolates and hides the price from them.

  6. Drop the council tax and have a local tax based on income and ability to pay.

    Nationalize the water system. (and invest capital in modernization).

    Increase national gas storage facilities to a least three months capacity.

  7. May I add the following suggestion:
    One vote for every person (Fairly democratic!)
    Plus One vote for every £1000 in income tax paid, subject to a maximum of 5?).

  8. Not sure about PR you get more choice but the parties decide who goes on the list and where. How about compulsory voting and a box with ‘none of the above’

    If we stop all immigration do we get a situation where other countries prevent UK citizens settling?

  9. That’s a bit sweeping about immigration John. I’ve worked all my life and never had a penny from the state. Love can strike at any time, and for me, it struck with a wonderful lady from abroad. Are you saying that no UK resident should ever be able to bring home a wife? I know some enclaves take the piss, but we had to jump through hoops to get her here, and her papers are endorsed in big capital letters “No recourse to State funds”, which is also fine with me.

    Having gone through the process I can attest that there is certainly no open door policy. It is extremely hard, stressful and expensive to keep your family together. I almost emigrated in disgust, taking my productivity with me. I may still yet do so.

    The net immigration figures, are, by my thinking, not far shy of what one would reasonably expect to be the “churn” of our existing population. People come and go, work abroad, study, travel, meet each other.

    Maybe you meant “Stop all economic migrants” ie people who come here only to work. I have no problem with that, but to ban all immigration totally, would cause genuine heartache to many families, including traditional white caucasian ones like mine.

    There have been a couple of “cause celebres” in recent years that the tabloids got hold of, and then the politicians got in on the act. One was a stupid priest who went to jail for arranged marriages, and the other was mass corruption in the educational visa arena. The result was that immigration law was really tightened up – I mean really! It is very difficult to get into this country, it really is. I suggest that the majority of the numbers we do have are genuine folk who have proved their case and have a good reason to come here.

    It is also my assessment that the government regard immigration as a cash cow. The fees bear no resemblance to the work involved. And don’t forget that everybody now has to pass an English language test and a citizenship examination. People think these are a joke, but I assure you they are hard and expensive to pass.

    Think twice before you marry that foreign beauty guys and gals, you are looking at 2 years of distance relationship followed by 5 years to citizenship and a bill well in excess of £20k, and all through the process you will be treated like…..well let’s just say it’s not pleasant.

    I am not talking about asylum – that’s a completely different subject.

    • Funky
      You make extremely fair points: but the lunacy of past Governments in this area has taken fairness off the agenda I’m afraid. There are many indigenous berks in the UK I’d like to export (starting with Jeremy C’unt) and swap them for folks from say Botsawana – who, in my experience, are law abiding, hard working and good citizens.
      But kick the can down the road too many times, and you wind up shooting everyone wearing glasses.
      So stay long in contact lenses.

    • Sadly I think there is a lot of cheating in the ‘passing the English language test’ department. You just need to try having a conversation with someone who has ‘passed’ that test. Perhaps if you fail the test but you have money, you can go to a corrupt testing agency who as a premium service, give you the list of answers to memorise overnight. The next day you provide these answers in the right order during the exam, (which is taped – hence they have to get you to actually do some work). As long as you memorised those answers, you passed.
      I can’t believe (well I do, sadly) how incompetent govt are in not doing random followup tests to keep a lid on cheating; and any test agencies that turn out to have been helping candidates should of course be dealt with accordingly. Govt are obviously just covering their ass and not interested in really getting results. (I think that sums up govt nicely, actually.)

  10. I agree with the Aims.

    A good start would be ‘OUT of the EU’ and ‘NO MORE IMMIGRATION’ but that is anathema to this Socialist Government.

    I see that Lisa Nandy is campaigning hard to see Labour adopt voting at 16. IMO voting age should either stay the same or be put up to 21 years not down to 16 years. And only Immigrants of so many years of British Nationalisation over the voting age should be able to vote, and certainly no prisoners should be given the privilege.

  11. “To cap inheritance from one generation to the next at an absolute level”

    How about this.

    a. Cap the tax-free inheritance tax at £100k and keep the cap at some multiple of median full time earnings.

    b. Tax the excess at about 50%.

    c. Provide relief from inheritance tax for any amount of money left to a ‘descendants trust’. This trust would pay out an income to all of the descendants of the deceased and to anyone else the deceased decides to include. Each descendant gets to pass on their share of the income to their kids and so on. The income would be a percentage of the size of the estate but the income is capped (say at 1 X median earnings).

    That way you get to leave all your hard earned cash to your kids and over time (admittedly a very long time) the wealth gets distributed to pretty much everyone.

    • Bill
      I should explain that I wouldn’t allow the money to go anywhere near Westminster, or any elected politician at any level.
      I would abolish the lottery (a tax on the poor) and use this as a super-fund to improve Britain’s educational and infrastructural investment.
      I wouldn’t allow a penny of it to go to wealth redistribution directly. It doesn’t work – the evidence is overwhelming.

      • John, the problem with politicians is that whenever there is a pot of cash, whatever it is ‘intended for’ ends up meaning very little. Silken tongued slippery politicians have long fingers that always find ways of misallocating our national wealth in the here and now; by the time we need to use those funds they will be depleted; then they will use that as an excuse to suck more blood from the public in the form of taxes, and the merry-go-round continues. This is exactly how our welfare state got bloated.
        So we’d need to lock down in some kind of law (that cannot be conveniently unlocked by politicians) that prevents them from doing that. One way would be to have a Constitution in which any politicians that allow a budget overrun has to spend three nights in the Tower of London sleeping on the floor.
        Good educational listening on these kind of topics from Harry Browne’s radio archives at http://bit.ly/11pzqiK.

  12. Plus
    1) Remove private banks ability to create money , that should be a function of state controlled by a constitution with safeguards to maintain a stable purchasing power.
    2) General anti avoidance principal and an absolute mandatory disclosure of all facts regarding offshore vehicles to HMRC. A public policy which prohibits contracts with tax haven/secrecy jurisdictions only. (Withholding taxes on all payments to these jurisdictions unless there is complete automatic and full disclosure of owners..
    3) Use of technology to liberate democracy, Introduce powers of recall on sitting MP’s if for example there voting record does not agree to their pledges/manifesto.
    4) Investment in r&d and technology examples being thorium reactor builds and energy storage, via a hydrogen cycle or similar. Funded by direct state creation of money, condition being 99% of all the IP etc is the property of the state.
    5) Any energy efficient investment with a robust payback of <2-3 years years should be eligible for full funding from the state, secured on the asset financed.
    6) Mutual state-banks created to fund new private business based on a robust business plan which has been endorsed by other private full reserve bank which funds the majority of the requirement.( Private bank will rank lower in security than government funds). The state bank exiting after viability established
    7) Maximum salary of say xx times the average salary.

    • Hmm, don’t cure just the symptom, cure the disease. Which is fractional reserve banking – where money is created through debt. About less than 1 in 1000 people understand this (I still scratch my head about this). Some good explanations on Youtube, if you look. We need to stop bankers having the ability to create money – full stop. Why the hell should someone have the privilege of being able to counterfeit money legally ? And to counter the effects of a resultant strong currency, we should do what the Swiss do – produce Quality that people will want to pay for.

  13. Nothing on repealing the HRA. Is that deliberate? I’m not suggesting that rights shouldn’t figure. But the Act as written is long on rights while omitting responsibliltes. And many roads lead to it.

  14. Your suggestion to abolish income tax is well founded. In fact all taxes of any kind applied on the supply side should be abolished for the simple reason that consumers necessarily bear the entire cost of those taxes in their purchases, but are in ignorance of the true burden they face every day.

    The employee thinks that income tax is his burden, but in reality he is used as an unwitting agent of government to collect tax from his customers ultimately individual end consumers. Hence payroll income tax deductions to automate and speed the process.

    We are all subject to the implicit consumption tax resulting from accumulated taxation incurred in the supply chains of goods and services we buy, which is today equivalent to an overall tax rate taking half of consumers’ spending money on average.

    The truth is employees neither earn what they think nor are taxed what they think, and for all of us the more we spend the more tax we pay.

    Economists and politicians represent our present stupendously complex tax system as some higher form of “progressive” taxation. And, it does conveniently conceal the huge burden of tax that we all pay and there is no doubt that we are happier in our ignorance. We are also firmly of the belief that, while the rich are evidently paying at high rates, they should be paying a lot more to support us. But ignorance of this kind means that voters are entirely at the mercy of the political elite.

    There only needs to be one form of tax and that is an explicit tax on personal consumption equivalent to what we pay today, but then it would be clear to all that some of the money could be better spent by ourselves.

  15. (I’ll bite)

    Good list John, I agree with almost none of it though, especially

    ‘To ban the Party practice of whipping’

    There should be more whipping not less, a random Member should be dragged live each week onto Newsnight and flogged to within an inch of his or her life by a random voter to show them who’s the boss.

  16. I like a lot but am troubled by the negative effects of these:

    “To cap inheritance from one generation to the next at an absolute level”

    To unspecified for my taste. We want to encourage savers, particularly for pensions and other expenses in old age. Make it a lottery as to whether you die the richest man in the graveyard or in penury depending on how long you live and it will encourage the ‘might as well spend it as lose it’ thought process. Unless of course you make it several hundreds of thousands in which case what is the point?

    “To encourage banks to focus more on retail and small business banking”.

    Not enough teeth for me unless you are being whimsical in your use of the word ‘encourage’.

    And finally no mention of the Criminal Justice system in there apart from police.You will never train or have enough police unless you do something to stop the revolving door system as is. We need prisons and until someone finds a way to invent realistic methods of rehabilitation ( they haven’t yet ) we need to lock people up for real terms and make it known before, what the next conviction will bring and mean it. I know this will increase violence from resisting arrest but that can be dealt with through normal channels.

    Difficult to give you an argument on the rest.

  17. Many groups are thinking along the same lines. This “representative” democracy no longer works. It can’t when the choice has been so limited. The political parties may as well amalgamate and call themselves a dictatorship for there is no real difference between them. They are essentially defunct, not needed as power has been passed to their Masters in Brussels.

    http://bit.ly/QJ5D2e

    “We demand” is the beginning of a new structure in politics, for the people, by the people and without foreign interference.

  18. Pingback: THE SATURDAY ESSAY: Public naivety and media cynicism are so endemic in Britain now, the Establishment could get away with anything. | A diary of deception and distortion

  19. I’d argue some of those points – but I agree with the general thrust.

    What I find curious is that there doesn’t seem to be a party even debating issues of this level of importance. Current party politics are broken, with all parties arguing over very minor details, with no one discussing the herd of 300 foot elephants in the room.

    I’ve only just stumbled across this site, but I suspect I will spend a lot of time reading. I particularly applaud your stance on Jeremy Hunt.

    Keep up the good work.

  20. Reduce the the overall cost (and size) of the state and instead of spending over £100 billion more than we raise in tax each year we should limit our expenditure at £500 billion and use the left over tax to pay £100 billion of our national debt each year.
    Britain has too many public spending committments and not enough tax money to pay for them.
    There should be no sacred cows!
    By the time of the next election Cameron and Osborne will have doubled national debt to £1.4 trillion from what they inherited from Brown!
    And for for all of you who believe we are already ‘cutting too far, too fast’ just a modest increase in the amount of interest we pay on our borrowed money could result in any future government (Labour or Tory) being forced to make drastic cuts to our most precious public services in order to continue servicing our debts.
    We should end the ‘culture’ of public sector employment by increasingly outsourcing public services as private companies are unlikely to employ people in luxury non-jobs (no more publicly funded outreach workers and sports instructors). Overtime this could also help reduce the burden of public sector pensions as this will be passed on to the private employer (at least for new employees).

  21. “To stop all immigration regardless of skill level, ethnicity or gender”

    Aswell as the aforementioned consequences to foreign spouses and family members of which a good friend of mine has personally experienced (he married a lovely Chilean lady and the process of gaining citizenship was so stressful, personally and financially, that it almost broke them up). I feel the damage to academia would be severe. I am currently studying International Politics at university and a significant proportion of lecturers and phd students are internationals. The loss of their wealth of experience and knowledge which would occur under the “stop of all immigration” would seriously damage further education and the advance of academia as a whole. It would close a priceless stream of knowledge and opinions which would cripple the advance of critical theories especially relating to the international dimmensions of society.

    Thoroughly agree with the majority of the points and the overall vision.

    • Indeed, we just need to apply sensible approaches to Immigration like they do in NZ, Aus and CA. A simple points-based objective system would do the trick. In NZ, for example when I emigrated from here back in the late 90s, I learned how non-native English speakers have to pass a fairly decent exam. You could still get in without passing, but have to put down a not-insignificant bond, which you can get back if you pass that exam within the next three years.

      I believe if that “$#! Enoch Powell had bothered about such things after his merry-go-round in the commonwealth in which he enticed folk like my parents to come to this country (‘Come to Britain, come work in our factories, we love you’) – Well, if he had set up such a financial incentive for immigrants to learn the language, I believe my Mum would be fluent in English now. Not only would Dad not have stopped her, he would have actively encouraged her to learn.

  22. You might want to add to your list ‘remove politicians who go in for sexual peccadilloes including whipping’.

    Feel like adding: ‘take 20% of the £12.3trn in wealth of the richest as a one-off premium to clear the national debt, use £200bn to recreate a publicly owned affordable housing sector, £100bn to set up commercial retail/SME investment funds for the regions outside London, SE and EE, £200bn to build a new generation of power stations, £200bn to endow research in this country in perpetuity, £100bn to build a new hub airport, £200bn to complete a network of hsR and £200bn to be spent clearing the debts of the NHS and the Universities ‘.

    The rich would still be fabulously wealthy you know. And a whole bunch of the gripes and problems could be solved like that.

    It would then become far easier to enshrine in law that state spending must balance taxation over a 10 year period.

    Then a lot of the rest would be a lot more achievable.

    Do you think 80% of a humungous amount is enough to live on after carrying out the huge societal benefit of clearing the National debt, doing a hell of a lot more?

  23. Pingback: THE SATURDAY ESSAY: UKIP – it’s easy when you don’t know how. | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  24. Pingback: John Ward – The Saturday Essay : UKIP – It’s Easy When You Don’t Know How – 4 May 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  25. Good manifesto, you’d get my vote but I have a problem with a couple…

    “To cap inheritance from one generation to the next at an absolute level”

    Hmm… I don’t know why you would want to do this and I don’t know how you would do it.

    How do you know which part of the wealth left to the next generation came from the previous and how much was created during the current generation?

    I really wouldn’t get too hung up on inherited wealth. If someone isn’t worthy of the money, they will lose it one way or another. If they are, then they will respect it and treat it nicely.

    Either way, it isn’t anyone else’s money by any form of “right”.

    “To stop all immigration regardless of skill level, ethnicity or gender”

    Really? No, sorry. This is just a bit silly.

    “To reintroduce free Grammar and Technical schools”

    Free? Are you sure they’re actually “free”? No, you don’t. You’re too intelligent. Someone has to pay for these things. Here’s a radical idea… how about the people who use them?

    “To cap new home-building, and invest heavily in extending the amount of farmed land in Britain”

    And who will do this “investing”? Who will benefit? Do we really need more farmland? I can show you places near here that are nothing but grass with about ten sheep roaming about it.

    There’s already an in-built mechanism for restricting the building of new homes – demand. If you were on a desert island with nine other people, you’d have to be a bit of a plank to build eleven houses.

    Other than that, loving the site. Have only just discovered it but it’s now on my daily “circuit”!

  26. Pingback: From the archives: Why Crash 2 will vapourise the LABoraTORY | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  27. Pingback: John Ward – From The Archives: Why Crash 2 Will Vapourise The LABoraTORY – 29 June 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  28. I would add to the list, ‘Simplify and reduce the amount of legislation so that it becomes accessible to all not only lawyers’ HMRC is one good example but not the only one….
    Also given that all this would spell the end of the big party system as we know it, your long list of alternative policies is effectively another big party manifesto which maybe defeats the starting point. Personally I could agree with most if not all but I think what people want is the opportunity to cherry pick each policy so the logical extension would be to have one minister for one or more policies each with its own prospectus……..vote for him and his policy irrespective of geography. He would get 5 years to achieve results against stated objectives, these would be monitored at regular intervals on a website. He could be rewarded with a good salary plus an equivalent bonus at the end of the five year if his targets are met.
    Just my idea…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s