h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here is my election manifesto:

Tax: All tax to be taken at source. Income taxed at 30% with a £14000 threshold. This would result in no VAT, council tax etc. The result of the simplified tax system would mean less wasted money and hence investment in the country.

Forces: To be disbanded together with the police, fire service and all other civilian services. A civil force would then take up the skills required. To fulfil the UN Peace Keeping force treaties and defence of the realm this civil force would then be utilised. This would allow more to be invested in skills and equipment whilst retaining a highly trained miltary force.

Transport: Heavy investment in rail. Ban on HGV's. Small electrical vehicles would provide the link between local rail depots and the recipient. A national high speed rail network across the country and one centralised airport.

Foreign Policy: Break ties with the US until they comply with human rights, give freedom to their people and take a less repressive stance on the world. Trade with local companies (i.e Not part of multi-nationals) who employ local people under good working conditions.

Renationalisation: All public services to come under government control. Transport, NHS, Gas, Electrity, Telecomms. The result would be heavy investment coming from the savings in nationalisation

Other: No consultants. All projects will be managed in house and not put out to tender. Red tape cut. Investment in green energy (not Nuclear Power).

This country wastes so much money as most is diverted to pen pushers and consultants. This country has gone to the dogs. The views of the ordinary person on the street has been directed by te sensationlist media such as The Daily Mail and ITN. Society needs to get it's values back and tackle the causes of problems, not paper over the cuts. An example would be inner city degredation. Improve education, prospects and self worth rather than relying on charities to help a few.

Lets not turn this country in the 51st state of fear. Vote Neb X

No thanks. Much of it is well-intentioned. Other parts are based on knee-jerk logic.

If it is logic then why hasn't been done before. Nothing knee jerk It is all well thought out and takes parts from different political spectators' ideals.

OK then...let's start with 'Red Tape'. Define, please. I hope, for example you don't mean the processes by which organisations provide democratic accountability of thinks like their financial probity, fair and anti-monopolistic operation, safety, compliance with equality legislation...

And why disband the forces, only to put them together in a different guise? And are we allowed a Swedish-style highly-armed home defence force?

And how are we going to invest in green infrastructure if we only trade with local companies? I don't think your party has a particularly sound grasp of the basic principles of finance.

And what is meant by 'Break ties with the US'? Does this include commercial ties? If so, I guess we'd better start designing microprocessors and running in Linux pdq. I note that you don't advocate breaking ties with, say, China, though. Isn't sensible engagement more effective at steering rogue nations in the right direction?

And consultants...are they *really* responsible for our national malaise? In what way? I'm a little biased here, I admit, because I are one. I have a specialist skill which my company sells to other companies who don't need a whole one of me, full time. It diesn't sound especially efficient for every enterprise to directly supply all the resources required by a modern company. (Should they provide their own communications? How about their own software?). And should they be responsible for auditing their own books and inspecting their own safety systems?

I could go on. It's a not a political platform, is it? More a statement of wishful thinking.

(No insult intended. This is all part of the democratic process.)

Hope you don't mind me answering by quoting you:

QUOTE: OK then...let's start with 'Red Tape'. Define, please. I hope, for example you don't mean the processes by which organisations provide democratic accountability of thinks like their financial probity, fair and anti-monopolistic operation, safety, compliance with equality legislation...

REPLY: I quite agree that processes need to be in place to prevent fraud, maintain human rights etc. It's processes such as legal investigation, consultant reports etc. Most is a complete waste of time is is mainly to keep someone in a job. I shall give an example. At work they wanted an inhouse phone line put in. There was already a spare line and our inhouse engineer said he could do it but electrical drawings and an engineering report had to be done. It would cost around £700. Our engineer said it was pointless and just plugged 2 phones in saving the company £700. It is the same with any process in this country. Six people are involved when 1 or 2 would get the job done quicker and safer (less links in the chain).

QUOTE: And why disband the forces, only to put them together in a different guise? And are we allowed a Swedish-style highly-armed home defence force?

REPLY: Our forces are highly skilled and so are our civilian services. Their skills cross in so many ways: Medics, policing, search and rescue. The difference is our civilian services suffer from crippling lack of investment. Why not cross the two and use the skills for good? There is so much waste of money in the current forces. Our forces still have practices that are not applicable in the modern world.

QUOTE: And how are we going to invest in green infrastructure if we only trade with local companies? I don't think your party has a particularly sound grasp of the basic principles of finance.

REPLY: The kid of thing I had in mind is the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC). They had an ideal that all the revenue made from petroleum and it's derivatives would be used to improve the life of the Ghanian. They wanted to train and use the skills of the locals instead of the big multi-nationals exporting all the oil together with all the profits (such as happened in Nigeria). Unfortnatley pressure from the big western companies backed by their goverments has resulted in Ghana giving drilling rights to outside companies with little or no involvement from the residents. Yes there are times when this cannot be done but when the local populace can be involved then they should. Another example is the British shipyards.
As for green technology there is plenty of small outfits who hold patents for renewable technology. Many previous green technology rights have been purchased by the big oil companies and placed in a dark vault.

QUOTE: And what is meant by 'Break ties with the US'? Does this include commercial ties? If so, I guess we'd better start designing microprocessors and running in Linux pdq. I note that you don't advocate breaking ties with, say, China, though. Isn't sensible engagement more effective at steering rogue nations in the right direction?

REPLY: The American government only understand the language of money. Everything they do boils down to making their rich richer. Yes, the world's link with America is a highly relient one but if just a few countries break away things do start to work. Many of the designs for microprocessors and the reaserch done on them and their programming is done in the UK so the skills are here. If we don't have the skills then many "friendly" countries do. Just because a American flag flies above the head offices doesn't mean that it is an entirely American outfit.
China is keen to please but in the current climate breaking ties would severely dent profits and shares. The Chinese hate losing face and if someone turned around and said that they disapproved with their human rights and their occupation of Tibet they would soon move in the right direction. As for force, you beat a hungry hedgehog it will stay in a spikey ball. You offer it food it will come back to feed again. Military force just puts a wall of fear between the two sides which results in a dangerous stand off.

QUOTE: And consultants...are they *really* responsible for our national malaise? In what way? I'm a little biased here, I admit, because I are one. I have a specialist skill which my company sells to other companies who don't need a whole one of me, full time. It diesn't sound especially efficient for every enterprise to directly supply all the resources required by a modern company. (Should they provide their own communications? How about their own software?). And should they be responsible for auditing their own books and inspecting their own safety systems?

REPLY: If you want your house plastered, then you go to a plasterer because he has a skill. Same with your job. The kind of consultant I am talking about are those who are provided as part of the red tape in all government decisions who are not needed. You get fired from one job in government then you become a consultant charging the tax payer an exhorberent rate. There is a system of jobs for the boys. Skill and service trades is one thing but the few that hold things back but make themselves necessary are not clearly in the public interest.

QUOTE: I could go on. It's a not a political platform, is it? More a statement of wishful thinking.(No insult intended. This is all part of the democratic process.)

REPLY: Isn't politics wishful thinking somewhere down the line? It is whether it is benficial to the people who put their ballot paper in the box for you hoping you will change their life for the better.
Not insult taken because you have voiced an opinon (very good ones I might add) and as you say we hopefully live in a full democracy.

Please take this in the spirit of stress-testing your policies.

>>Most is a complete waste of time is is mainly to keep someone in a job

Most? Please quote some figures on what proportion is useful and what is 'just keeping someone in a job'. Please provide information on your methodology. Otherwise I as a voter might reasonably conclude that it sounds like empty tub-thumping. Maybe you could also comment on whether (and how) you're going to decide on which pieces of tape to cut and which to keep in place.

>>Our forces are highly skilled and so are our civilian services. Their skills cross in so many ways.

Ah! So by 'disband' you meant 'reorganise'. I'm not necessarily disagreeing - I'd just like more of a cost-benefit analysis. And maybe a little thought on stuff like harmonisation of organisational structures, Ts&Cs, etc. How are you going to Change Manage it?

>>Another example is the British shipyards.

As it happens, I know a little about British shipyards. But I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying, for example, that we shouldn't join up with, say, a French company to build ships in them? Which is the current plan to keep them going.

>>As for green technology there is plenty of small outfits who hold patents for renewable technology.

Fine. But they need investment. Where is this going to come from? Solely from UK sources? If so - might we not reasonably expect other nation to set up reciprocal trade barriers? In economics terms, we're not an island.

>>Re. America:

So you want to cut us off from a major market? Fuine, if that's where our moral principles are leading us. But please understand that this will simultaneously render us poor and thus unable to afford the other developments you're proposing. If you were suggesting disengagement from US foreign policy, on the other hand (say, looking more towards the EU?) I'd have been with you. But that's not what you've said.

>>The kind of consultant I am talking about are those who are provided as part of the red tape in all government decisions who are not needed

See above. Unless you have a way of clearly defining *which* consulants and how we identify them...then what you've proposed is no more than reactionary rhetoric.

>>Isn't politics wishful thinking somewhere down the line? It is whether it is benficial to the people who put their ballot paper in the box for you hoping you will change their life for the better.

I entirely disagree. EXAMPLE. It is a laudable aim to remove a country's autocratic government in order to bring about (what the Grauniad's Steve Bell calls) 'Freeman Moxy'. It's a whole different howsyerfathers as to whether and how this might can be achieved. *That's* what politics is. I'll vote for a party that convinces me that it is competent to do what it's proposing, thanks.



Which brings me to...

Why am I engaing in this?

My basic message is that we should acknowledge that politics is a messier and more difficult business than we sometimes pretend. It's not just about aspirations. It's about how to deliver on them.

>>>Please take this in the spirit of stress-testing your policies.

Not a problem. Nice to engage in intelligent debate.

>>>Most is a complete waste of time is is mainly to keep someone in a job. Most? Please quote some figures on what proportion is useful and what is 'just keeping someone in a job'. Please provide information on your methodology. Otherwise I as a voter might reasonably conclude that it sounds like empty tub-thumping. Maybe you could also comment on whether (and how) you're going to decide on which pieces of tape to cut and which to keep in place.

The problem is there are sections of governmental processes that work very well ad efficiently whilst other departments haemorhage resources. Down to earth figures are impossible to quote and you cannot pigeonhole all the problems into one solution. Being radical with the workings of government will then show how much wastage there is but until then it is impossible to say. One example of where resourses have been saved resulting in huge savings is that of Breckland, South Cambridgeshire and other councils who have pooled together their resources in collecting council tax. They now enjoy the lowest council taxes in the country as the savings have been passed down to the payer. Cut red tape, improve resouces and simplify processes and you would without question see huge cost savings without loss of service. You would even see an improvement as the systems would be simple to understand.

>>>Our forces are highly skilled and so are our civilian services. Their skills cross in so many ways. Ah! So by 'disband' you meant 'reorganise'. I'm not necessarily disagreeing - I'd just like more of a cost-benefit analysis. And maybe a little thought on stuff like harmonisation of organisational structures, Ts&Cs, etc. How are you going to Change Manage it?

'Reorganise' is a weak discription of what I am proposing. It is changing the entire system of civil and miltary service. As it is so radical the cost benifits would be untested and therefore it would be ill advised to provide out of the air figures as this would end up misleading the public. What I can say is that you would see an huge improvement in service and cost savings to the tax payer. How can I say this? Simple: The miltary get a budget of around £40bn a year. The civil forces get around £1-5bn year. The miltary and civilian skills cross in so many ways. You would get a highly organised and efficient civilian force who are highly skilled beyond that of the current police, fire service etc. The lack of engagement of the miltary and it's refocus on peace keeping and realm defense would result a better use of skilled manpower and a change in foreign policy which would hopefully be dependant on diplomacy rather than fear and aggression which has been proved not to work.

>>>Another example is the British shipyards. As it happens, I know a little about British shipyards. But I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying, for example, that we shouldn't join up with, say, a French company to build ships in them? Which is the current plan to keep them going.

The skills are here in this country to build ships. At the current time we have to work together with foreign yards as the current british yards are woefully inadequate thanks to British orders going abroad and lack of investment. The quality of production in this country is second to none even though we are not the cheapest. I think the pay back from giving british workers jobs and skills would be huge in improving society and personal self worth. The outlook for kids would be a promising one as they know they could leave school at a certain age and get vocational skills through apprenticeships. Today the big problem is that someone who goes to university can walk straight into a managerial position without having any concept of the shop floor. This ends up in an 'us and them' attitude.

>>>As for green technology there is plenty of small outfits who hold patents for renewable technology. Fine. But they need investment. Where is this going to come from? Solely from UK sources? If so - might we not reasonably expect other nation to set up reciprocal trade barriers? In economics terms, we're not an island.

Are you talking private investment? As I have already stated there would be huge renationalisation. Investment would be 100% of profit without shareholders. The more efficient processes that would be put in place would cut overheads. Yes there still would be trade but reorganised trade routes would change the face of world economy and help people all over the world who would not ordinarily be part of the western trade supply chain.

>>>Re. America: So you want to cut us off from a major market? Fuine, if that's where our moral principles are leading us. But please understand that this will simultaneously render us poor and thus unable to afford the other developments you're proposing. If you were suggesting disengagement from US foreign policy, on the other hand (say, looking more towards the EU?) I'd have been with you. But that's not what you've said.

If a major western country stood up to America with a strong stance you would find many countries would be behind you. This would render America poor and I think you would see a change of American policy. How can you refuse to work with dictatorships while lieing in bed with the the most repressive country in the world who still think torture and death penalties are a good idea. They force countries to accept their laws and values. You can only get countries to improve if they do it on their own terms and evolve their society slowly.

>>>The kind of consultant I am talking about are those who are provided as part of the red tape in all government decisions who are not needed
See above. Unless you have a way of clearly defining *which* consulants and how we identify them...then what you've proposed is no more than reactionary rhetoric.

The surplus consultants are only a part of the reorganisation. Through the reorganisation you would see which areas need people and which are top heavy. I can give an example of how much some of these consulatants are not needed. Two railway stations are built each having 2 platforms are are nearly identical to each other. The first took 8 years to build costing £15million, the other took 2 years and cost £3million. The first was in the UK and the other in the Netherlands. £12million of the first station was used to pay consultants, needs studies etc.

>>>Isn't politics wishful thinking somewhere down the line? It is whether it is benficial to the people who put their ballot paper in the box for you hoping you will change their life for the better.
I entirely disagree. EXAMPLE. It is a laudable aim to remove a country's autocratic government in order to bring about (what the Grauniad's Steve Bell calls) 'Freeman Moxy'. It's a whole different howsyerfathers as to whether and how this might can be achieved. *That's* what politics is. I'll vote for a party that convinces me that it is competent to do what it's proposing, thanks.

I would disagree. Politics is simple. It is made complicated by those who try to show how clever they are. It is the same in law. Law in essence is simple but the involvement of jargon and oneupmanship gives it that impression of something it is not. I know plenty of solicitors who work to socialist principles and are fed up with the current system. I heard a quote the other day which could easily work in politics. It was in the Saturday evening program 'Kingdom': You are an honest lawyer and they are rare as hens teeth, but you will never be rich.



>>>Which brings me to...

Why am I engaing in this?

My basic message is that we should acknowledge that politics is a messier and more difficult business than we sometimes pretend. It's not just about aspirations. It's about how to deliver on them.

Again I would disagree with that statement. Politics is aspirations. Thats how political revolution happens and what drives change. As I have previosuly stated, politics needn't be messy. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. My basic methodolgy is to move away from the focus of the concept of money and more to self worth and feeling you are working to a better society.

I would like to add that some of my ideas are already used around the world and they have been highly sucessful. The major one is that of 30% income tax with no other tax. In one country (I forget which but it is a baltic state) dropped their tax to 27% as they made so many savings in the whole tax system.

So far my ideas have been well recieved but feel unfulfilled that no-one has challenged my ideas and make me take a laterial view of them. For that, many thanks!