Your top 3 priorities for government

[Chuck Fadanoid]

Elect Hugh Abott.

[thechap]

Pretty much similar to what Noos said.

 

(1) Crime, it's time to get back to basics with harsher punishments and less hand-holding. People need to start taking responsibility for their own behaviour and the bahaviour of their children especially.

 

Our local council has just been given 25k by the Government to fund 'diversionary activities' for youths of an evening on Friday and Saturday. I.e PCSOs playing football with them.

 

While this may sound rather innocent, it says to me that we've basically resorted to keeping people busy, because if we don't, they get bored and go and set something on fire. Which is a pretty ludicrous state of affairs.

 

What should happen, is that said teenager should think "hmm, quite fancy smashing that bus stop up, but if I do, I'll spend a week in a young offenders institution, and then I'll be under enforced curfew for the next 6-12 months and will have to stay in the house under fear of arrest after 7pm, and my mates will come to the window and take the piss out of me, I could try sneaking out, but that'll be another month down the institute followed by an 18 months curfew"

 

Crime and punishment is pretty simple fair, for thousands of years it's worked thus; Do something wrong, suffer, don't do it again. It really is that simple. What doesn't work, is absolving the criminal of all responsibility for what he's done, and then chastise him mildly. (only tonight I was watching a fly on the wall cop show, one bloke was fined £170 for having no driving license. At those prices, it's worth the risk not getting any driving lessions) And there's another lesson, when you stand to gain more by commiting a crime than you stand to lose if you're caught, things are fucked up - and crime will increase.

 

Negative reinforcement is where it's at. If a dog pisses on the floor, you smack it's nose and it knows not to do it again. What you DON'T do, is keep on giving it biscuits on the proviso that it keeps its side of the bargain and doesn't piss on the floor, good lad.

 

Included in the above, would be the complete removal of PCSOs and the purging of the existing police force of anyone who doesn't fit exacting phsyical and mental requirements, the force should be made smaller, but the people who are left should be the absolute best - spend the money you've saved on salary on top of the line equipment and training.

 

(2) Overhaul the benefits system. Make it so that if you can physically work, you have to take the job you're given, but also offer help in paying for night classes so that even if that job's shit - you're not stuck in a dead end.

In other words, if there's a choice between the dole and ANY job, no matter what it is, then there IS no choice to be made as far as I'm concerned.

We've been treading water with the benefits system here for years, and the fact we're importing people to do manual work while others collect handouts is a frankly ludicrous situation.

 

(3) Nationalise the UK-based energy companies. They should not exist for the means of making profit because they are the lifeblood of the country. They should make enough to cover their costs and the cost of refining their processes, and should not make a single penny more than that.

Free markets are all very well when you're dealing with consumerism, but energy isn't a consumable product which we can choose not to buy, it is literally the difference betwwen life and death. No private firm should have that level of power.

 

Jesus, I'd rep you if it would let me but it won't. I could not have put it better myself. A pint on it's way over if ever see you in the pub.

[tokyojoe]

It would be electoral suicide for any party to say that. We don't even publicise our "legalise pot" policy any more because even that gets us into bother.

 

The unfortunate fact is that politicians are led by public opinion, and even if many of our MPs (and no doubt some from the other parties) wanted to come out in favour of decriminalisation, they'd be crucified by the media.

 

For what it's worth, ending the "War on Drugs" would be my #1 priority in government. It costs taxpayers a fortune and causes more crime than anything.

 

Agree with you entirely on that but it'll never happen because of the huge reduction in government power it woukd entail.

[tokyojoe]

Minimum 1%.

 

More like bloody 50%++. Give me the books and I'll do it, without cutting services.

 

I'd have a round of golf in the afternoon.

[Neil G]

A bit late to this, but here goes.

 

 

1. Take drastic steps to fight global warming. It's the most urgent problem facing the world, everything else has to be a lower priority. All the other measures to improve health, education, transport, the economy, law and order and the rest of it mentioned in this thread aren't going to count for shit when the planet is uninhabitable for human beings.

 

I'd massively tax oil, coal and gas and use the money for research and development on renewable energy (including plug-in cars and a smarter and more efficient energy grid) and also for payments to people on low incomes to ensure that they don't suffer from the increased costs of fuel. I would borrow the money to start the spending on research straight away, but would delay the tax for several years to give the R&D time to bear fruit, and to give business and the public time to prepare for it. The objective would be that by the time the tax comes in, renewable energy will be much cheaper and more widely available than it is now, and will be a more viable and competitive alternative to fossil fuels so that the tax increase doesn't turn out to be too much of a shock to the system. If this happened it would kick off a positive cycle of further research and investment, continuing to bring down the cost and eventually making fossil fuels obsolete.

 

Of course there's the possibility that renewable energy will be so wildly successful, and fossil fuel use will drop so much by the time the tax comes in, that the tax take from it won't be enough to cover the cost of the R&D. If that happens though, then frankly it'll be a nice problem to have. If we don't do anything then we're going to have a much more serious budget deficit, from repairing the damage to the country caused by increasingly extreme weather and from fighting and/or limiting the damage from wars over oil and water as they both begin to run out.

 

 

2. Reform the electoral system to make it more proportional. This isn't just about making the system fairer for smaller parties, although that's important. It's about making sure that every person's vote counts, so that the main parties start giving a shit about everyone and not just a few swing voters in marginal seats. If they have an incentive to appeal to the voters in safe seats that are currently written off, then maybe they'll dare to introduce some really radical and effective measures to tackle poverty and crime in deprived areas, instead of the watered-down, focus group-tested, tabloid-safe mess that currently passes for policy.

 

I wouldn't have complete PR, as it's essential that voters have a local MP that they can take their concerns to. I'd roughly double the size of parliamentary constituencies, and have just half of MPs elected on a constituency basis. People would have two votes in a general election: one for their constituency MP, and the other for a party. The other half of the MPs would be elected proportionally based on the percentage of the second vote received by each party. Voters often face a conflict between who they want as their MP and which party they want to run the country, so giving them separate votes on each would mean they wouldn't have to make that choice.

 

This system would give extreme parties like the BNP seats in Parliament, but at the same time it would go a long way to solving the problems that have made them so popular in the first place. People in deprived areas are voting for the BNP in droves because they perceive, correctly a lot of the time, that the main parties just aren't interested in helping them. A more proportional system would also force parties to work together more and co-operate on genuinely good ideas, instead of engaging in the constant pathetic posturing and slanging matches that currently waste so much time and energy in Westminster and turn so many people off politics. The non-constituency MPs could be petitioned by anyone anywhere in the country who wanted to raise an area of concern, so that all voters can have direct access to an MP who shares their beliefs and will give them a sympathetic hearing, and also who can act independently of any local constituency pressures.

 

People will no doubt say that nothing will get done without an overall majority government, but that's simply not true. Coalition governments are common across Europe, and the continent isn't gripped by political paralysis as a result. The two main parties in the US have to work together all the time, both within Congress and between the President and Congress when the majority is of a different party from the President. These countries appear to have done better at finding grown-up ways of getting their elected representatives to work together than the Mother of Parliaments has.

 

Under this system I'd make it a rule that members of the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet could only be MPs who'd been directly elected via the constituency route, so that the people making the big decisions are people who've been directly accountable to voters and have had to listen to and address their concerns. At the same time I'd also consider adopting the French system whereby members of the Cabinet give up their constituency duties and appoint a deputy to take over this role while they're in the Cabinet. Voters everywhere should have equal access to their MP, but this right is denied to those people whose MP is preoccupied with a Cabinet post or even leading the country. (How many constituency surgeries did Tony Blair hold in Sedgefield after he became Prime Minister?)

 

Labour and the Tories can bang on all they like about wanting to reconnect the public with politics, but until one of them has the balls to look beyond their own electoral interests and reform the electoral system then it's all weasel words.

 

 

3. Close tax loopholes so that the super-rich pay the percentage of their income in tax that they're supposed to, just like everyone else has to. Bollocks to the scare stories that they'll all up and leave if they have to pay their fair share. Business leaders have a habit of reacting to additional demands on the private sector, however just they might be, with apocalyptic warnings about how they'll destroy this country's economic dynamism. Remember how the minimum wage was going to cause massive unemployment because employers wouldn't be able to afford to take people on? Quite. Britain will still be an attractive place to do business if a more just tax regime for the super-rich is instituted and enforced, not least because of the huge improvements in public services that could be funded by the taxes that are currently being legally avoided.

 

And even if enough wealthy individuals decide to leave for the national economic output and tax revenue to dip a little, so what? There are some things that are more important than GDP, such as the principle of fairness. If we're so desperate to attract wealthy investors and financiers to the UK, why don't we exempt them from even more of the obligations and restrictions that the rest of us have to adhere to? Why not let them drive in bus lanes, park on double yellows and drive without insurance? Why not let them smoke in pubs and restaurants? Why not let them take illegal drugs without prosecuting them? Why not weight their votes in elections so that instead of having just one vote like everyone else, they have a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand? We'd get even more of them bringing their wealth here if we did all that. Surely it's worth making all those extra allowances to increase the UK's economic competitiveness even further?

 

When even the Daily shitting Mail starts complaining about rich people not paying enough tax, you know something's seriously wrong.

 

 

I'm not traditionally a Lib Dem supporter, but at the moment they're the only party who are taking these three problems seriously. They deserve a chance to put their ideas into action, but because of issue number 2 they're unlikely to get that chance in the foreseeable future. I sincerely hope they do well at the next election though, as that would go some way towards making up for my disappointment that the Tories are back in.

[WaltonRed]

We're all doomed

[Michael Howard]

1. ID cards

2. More nuclear power

3. Complusary dancing lessons with Ola from Strictly Come Dancing for all former political party leaders called Michael.

[Catch22]

1. Completely re-appraise the government's role in adults making decisions for themselves.

Start from a principle that they should not be involved at all & the burden of proof should be very strong the other way.

Legalise drugs/prostitution etc etc for consenting adults; Remove smoking ban/licencing law restrictions/ absurd health&safety rules etc etc

 

2. Cut public spending.

Again the prsent attitude is completely wrong where civil servants progress by winning (& wasting) bigger budgets.

Start rewarding everybody in the system for cutting spending as they are at any private company.

"Budget is £100m this year If you get it down to £85m you get a bonus."

Remove all the ridiculous levels of political waste such as regional Parliaments, most local councils- less than 20% of people vote in council elections yet their budgets are huge.

It is our money not their's

£30bn on a new NHS IT system that still does not work....

 

3.Use the profit motive & invisible hand to work towards your 'society' goals rather than politicians & civil servants.

a)Switch from direct taxation (why penalise people for success?) to indirect taxation on externalities.

This could be linked to (1); Don't ban drugs, tax them as we do alchohol.

In addition it needs to be applied on enviromentally damaging behaviour.

Increase petrol tax & congestion charges,impose fuel tax on airplanes (would have to be done at EU level)

However NET given (2) there would be significant tax reduction.

 

b) Vouchers for health & especially education. Have a much more variable system of pay for those involved.

[Stu Monty]

1. Completely re-appraise the government's role in adults making decisions for themselves.

Start from a principle that they should not be involved at all & the burden of proof should be very strong the other way.

Legalise drugs/prostitution etc etc for consenting adults; Remove smoking ban/licencing law restrictions/ absurd health&safety rules etc etc

 

2. Cut public spending.

Again the prsent attitude is completely wrong where civil servants progress by winning (& wasting) bigger budgets.

Start rewarding everybody in the system for cutting spending as they are at any private company.

"Budget is £100m this year If you get it down to £85m you get a bonus."

Remove all the ridiculous levels of political waste such as regional Parliaments, most local councils- less than 20% of people vote in council elections yet their budgets are huge.

It is our money not their's

£30bn on a new NHS IT system that still does not work....

 

3.Use the profit motive & invisible hand to work towards your 'society' goals rather than politicians & civil servants.

a)Switch from direct taxation (why penalise people for success?) to indirect taxation on externalities.

This could be linked to (1); Don't ban drugs, tax them as we do alchohol.

In addition it needs to be applied on enviromentally damaging behaviour.

Increase petrol tax & congestion charges,impose fuel tax on airplanes (would have to be done at EU level)

However NET given (2) there would be significant tax reduction.

 

b) Vouchers for health & especially education. Have a much more variable system of pay for those involved.

 

You know that vouchers for education and health are bullshit right? You know that they aren't vouchers at all but money-off coupons which are great for the rich and of no use whatsoever for the poor. If is costs £15000 for a year at a private school then a voucher for the value of £2500 isn't going to get you a year there if you're broke, so the voucher will go unused and you'll stay at your shit school. It is going to give you a sweet discount if you're already rich enough to be paying that.

 

76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher scheme was to parents of children already recieving private schooling.

 

And the double whammy is that due to the state handing out these vouchers the other schools where the poor are stuck have to pick up the tab and make cutbacks.

 

They're a truly terrible idea.

[Strontium]

You know that vouchers for education and health are bullshit right? You know that they aren't vouchers at all but money-off coupons which are great for the rich and of no use whatsoever for the poor. If is costs £15000 for a year at a private school then a voucher for the value of £2500 isn't going to get you a year there if you're broke, so the voucher will go unused and you'll stay at your shit school. It is going to give you a sweet discount if you're already rich enough to be paying that.

 

76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher scheme was to parents of children already recieving private schooling.

 

And the double whammy is that due to the state handing out these vouchers the other schools where the poor are stuck have to pick up the tab and make cutbacks.

 

They're a truly terrible idea.

 

 

Stu, I think you've made the assumption that these vouchers could be "topped-up". That's a very Tory thing (indeed, McCain is advocating them in the US) that would do nothing for the worst off in society, and would only serve to - as you say - subsidise the education of the rich.

 

Non-top-uppable, capped vouchers, however, are a different kettle of fish. Capped vouchers would empower parents with a greater choice. It wouldn't necessarly be a straight choice between send your kid to the local comp or pay for their education any more. Capped vouchers also gives the option of independent providers.

 

I must say, I don't think vouchers for health services are a good idea though.

[Catch22]

You know that vouchers for education and health are bullshit right? You know that they aren't vouchers at all but money-off coupons which are great for the rich and of no use whatsoever for the poor. If is costs £15000 for a year at a private school then a voucher for the value of £2500 isn't going to get you a year there if you're broke, so the voucher will go unused and you'll stay at your shit school. It is going to give you a sweet discount if you're already rich enough to be paying that.

 

76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher scheme was to parents of children already recieving private schooling.

 

And the double whammy is that due to the state handing out these vouchers the other schools where the poor are stuck have to pick up the tab and make cutbacks.

 

They're a truly terrible idea.

 

 

I want vouchers for all pupils & all schools would be privately owned.

The state would pay but the market would be there to provide better supply as it usually does

 

Groups of very good teachers owning their own school, changing peoples' lifes for the better & benefitting financially....

 

And i would happily support higher value vouchers for kids from less well off backgrounds to help reduce inequality of opportunity which we have at the moment & is an appaling reflection on society.

[Catch22]

Stu, I think you've made the assumption that these vouchers could be "topped-up". That's a very Tory thing (indeed, McCain is advocating them in the US) that would do nothing for the worst off in society, and would only serve to - as you say - subsidise the education of the rich.

 

Non-top-uppable, capped vouchers, however, are a different kettle of fish. Capped vouchers would empower parents with a greater choice. It wouldn't necessarly be a straight choice between send your kid to the local comp or pay for their education any more. Capped vouchers also gives the option of independent providers.

 

I must say, I don't think vouchers for health services are a good idea though.

 

 

 

Yes correct

 

I admit health is more difficult because of information asymetry but its a no-brainer in education

 

We are failing our kids at the moment not just because of the waste of potential resources but teh inequality involved.

[WaltonRed]

I'd ban private schooling

[Stu Monty]

I want vouchers for all pupils & all schools would be privately owned.

The state would pay but the market would be there to provide better supply as it usually does

 

Groups of very good teachers owning their own school, changing peoples' lifes for the better & benefitting financially....

 

And i would happily support higher value vouchers for kids from less well off backgrounds to help reduce inequality of opportunity which we have at the moment & is an appaling reflection on society.

 

You're admitting the market cannot provide fairly then. That's why you're dabbling with higher value vouchers.

 

The market system would see those at the bottom rot.

[Catch22]

You're admitting the market cannot provide fairly then. That's why you're dabbling with higher value vouchers.

 

The market system would see those at the bottom rot.

 

 

 

No the market provides the best supply as people are provided with proper incentives.

 

Education is too important not to be left to some sort of market

 

i would give higher vouchers to those from lower incomes to somewhat reduce the inequality of opportunity.

 

Theorectially would you accept inequlaity of outcomes is actually a good thing if lifechances are equal (& i know it is totally unrealistic)?

[Stu Monty]

It's more an inevitable thing than a good thing. Inequality of outcomes is just unavoidable, you just need to be making sure that if you're increasing the standard deviation on those inequalities it's at the top end whilst keeping a good base level.

 

How do you see the incentives to lift the lowest performers to a better standard working, hombre?

[mattyq]

I don't get this market stuff at all.

When you say that it provides the best incentives are you just talking about more cash?

I'd remove anything market related from education/health/transport/defence/police.

Independent schools get the best results as they have more resources thrown at fewer pupils with fully engaged parents. Nothing to do with markets

[Strontium]

I'd ban private schooling

 

Why? Even if you resent people paying for the education of their children, they take a huge burden off the taxpayer.

 

You haven't thought this through...

 

 

You're admitting the market cannot provide fairly then. That's why you're dabbling with higher value vouchers.

 

The market system would see those at the bottom rot.

 

 

Like Catch says, you just give more money to educate those kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Our policy terms it a "pupil premium". Schools then have an incentive to take children from low-income families, where perhaps now they don't.

 

 

I don't get this market stuff at all.

 

When you say that it provides the best incentives are you just talking about more cash?

 

 

Right now all state-funded education is provided by the local education authority. Throwing that monopoly open to independent schools with vouchers drives standards up as they compete for pupils. That's the theory.

 

The Netherlands already has vouchers, and they have much more social mobility than we do, so it does work. Lib Dem policy basically copies the Dutch system (not coincidentally, Nick Clegg is half-Dutch).

[Paul]

This notion of a market in education might not be completely laughable if there was any consensus on the fact that different children have different academic abilities. However, even assuming you do agree on that, how do you then make a meaningful comparison between schools with different intakes of kids? The term "market" when applied to education is probably one of the most chilling things I've ever heard; it certainly screams, "I've got no idea what either schools or children are like (or for, for that matter)".

[Michael Howard]

The term "market" when applied to education is probably one of the most chilling things I've ever heard; it certainly screams, "I've got no idea what either schools or children are like (or for, for that matter)".

 

I was reading the local Wirral free paper last week and i was staggerred by all the state school adverts competing for pupils. Its weird.

 

I went to school in Wallasey and there were 3 schools to choose from . It never crossed anyone's mind to apply to schools on the other side of the Wirral just because they were higher up the league table. Kids should be able to go to a good local school in the area where they live.

 

Problem is do you prevent parents or children opting to go out of catchment? (or indeed can you?). Vouchers etc will only exacerbate the issue. You'd get even more brighter kids deserting their local schools and flocking to the supposedly best schools (ie higher up the league table).

I fear such a policy would widen the divide between good and bad schools and not raise the overall standard through competition.

[Paul]

I was reading the local Wirral free paper last week and i was staggerred by all the state school adverts competing for pupils. Its weird.

 

I went to school in Wallasey and there were 3 schools to choose from . It never crossed anyone's mind to apply to schools on the other side of the Wirral just because they were higher up the league table. Kids should be able to go to a good local school in the area where they live.

 

Problem is do you prevent parents or children opting to go out of catchment? (or indeed can you?). Vouchers etc will only exacerbate the issue. You'd get even more brighter kids deserting their local schools and flocking to the supposedly best schools (ie higher up the league table).

I fear such a policy would widen the divide between good and bad schools and not raise the overall standard through competition.

 

Taken as a whole, the principle of parental choice has been a disaster for education. It takes completely arbitrary data, presents it out of context and applies entirely subjective meaning to it. If your intake as a school has a high level of poverty indicators and SEN, then you will never get near to the mostly middle-class grammar schools on the headline data. Parental choice should be axed. However, as that would be political suicide for any government, the league tables should be abandoned and parents should make decisions based upon Ofsted reports, the value added measure and - most important of all - visits to the schools under consideration.

[Elmyn Noos]

Taken as a whole, the principle of parental choice has been a disaster for education. It takes completely arbitrary data, presents it out of context and applies entirely subjective meaning to it. If your intake as a school has a high level of poverty indicators and SEN, then you will never get near to the mostly middle-class grammar schools on the headline data. Parental choice should be axed. However, as that would be political suicide for any government, the league tables should be abandoned and parents should make decisions based upon Ofsted reports, the value added measure and - most important of all - visits to the schools under consideration.

 

 

But are most schools equipped to deal with such a randomly selected wide range of abilities, Paul? You get kids like mine, clearly from excellent stock with two married professional parents living in a nice house with two cars - kids who are clearly going to work harder and be achievers themselves, getting held back by Johnny Asbo and his scummy mates off the local council estate who is one of five kids with different fathers being neglected by his single mother, who is essentially just killing time until he is old enough to go to jail.

[Michael Howard]

But are most schools equipped to deal with such a randomly selected wide range of abilities, Paul? You get kids like mine, clearly from excellent stock with two married professional parents living in a nice house with two cars - kids who are clearly going to work harder and be achievers themselves, getting held back by Johnny Asbo and his scummy mates off the local council estate who is one of five kids with different fathers being neglected by his single mother, who is essentially just killing time until he is old enough to go to jail.

 

I think your exagerated critique of the one size fits all comprehensive is a fair point. My old school used to be a streamed comprehenisve with 3 bands of abilities which was selected after year one. It was essentially a grammar school and a secondary modern under one roof.

A few years back it stopped streaming. It now struggles to get 45-50% GCSEs grades A-C whereas 15 years ago it was at 65% A-C level. Given we all know exams are easier these days ;) that is a worrying decline. There is no obvious decline in the catchment area which suggests either that it has been abandoned by many of the local brighter kids or that the overall standards have been suppressed by the comprehensive model.

Bit of both I suspect and not sure which came first.

[Paul]

I think your exagerated critique of the one size fits all comprehensive is a fair point. My old school used to be a streamed comprehenisve with 3 bands of abilities which was selected after year one. It was essentially a grammar school and a secondary modern under one roof.

A few years back it stopped streaming. It now struggles to get 45-50% GCSEs grades A-C whereas 15 years ago it was at 65% A-C level. Given we all know exams are easier these days ;) that is a worrying decline. There is no obvious decline in the catchment area which suggests either that it has been abandoned by many of the local brighter kids or that the overall standards have been suppressed by the comprehensive model.

Bit of both I suspect and not sure which came first.

 

Mine too. Mine was destroyed by the following all happening within a two year period: the decision to close the 6th form (the biggest on Wirral at the time) as part of the opening of Birkenhead 6th Form College; the loss of many of its best teachers to that college in one fell swoop; the decision to become co-ed (whilst leaving a parallel single sex girls school open down the road); and the retirement of the head.

 

As for Noos' point, I would be very surprised if grammars could handle many of our kids as they have zero experience with them. However, I know we can teach the top end, because we always push a handful of kids to As and A*s every year - often smashing expectations in doing so.

[Elmyn Noos]

Mine too. Mine was destroyed by the following all happening within a two year period: the decision to close the 6th form (the biggest on Wirral at the time) as part of the opening of Birkenhead 6th Form College; the loss of many of its best teachers to that college in one fell swoop; the decision to become co-ed (whilst leaving a parallel single sex girls school open down the road); and the retirement of the head.

 

As for Noos' point, I would be very surprised if grammars could handle many of our kids as they have zero experience with them. However, I know we can teach the top end, because we always push a handful of kids to As and A*s every year - often smashing expectations in doing so.

 

But are they the kids that would achieve anyway? Would more not achieve those grades if you didn't have to deal with the scumbags? If so, shouldn't those kids be off to a better school to fulfill their potential whilst you concentrate on the dummies?