Manifesto 2010

From Bolton Interweb

Anna Conder, Political Editor

Here are some suggestions for the political parties standing for election in 2010. No copyright so feel free to steal!

Contents 1 Industry 2 Energy 3 Transport 4 Pensions 5 Health 6 Compensation Culture 7 Planning Laws 8 Interest and Banking Charges 9 Corporate Responsibility 10 Immigration 11 ID Cards 12 Education 13 Crime 14 Economy 15 Cider and Binge Drinking 16 MPs 17 Electoral Reform

Industry

There is no point in harking back to the old days of British industry. Some of it was good, some of it was bloody awful, inefficient, and propped up by the taxpayer. For the most part we cannot compete with Chinese and Indian production costs for mass market goods like clothing and electronics. But we can and should exploit high value, high tech new industries, particularly those relating to clean and renewable energy that we will need to survive in the future. We should be leading the world but are lagging behind. Public investment and strategic incentivisation of energy corporations

Energy

Forget global warming - too controversial. But pollution and reliance on unstable carbon fuel markets are bad. Energy security is essential to our future economic wellbeing and success. We need to push for low cost micro-generation, council-run local renewables projects from which profits can be reinvested in local services, research into more efficient solar, wind, and tidal power schemes, and incentivisation of energy companies to switch to renewables.

Transport

The rest of the UK to adopt the Scottish laws that ban private wheel-clamping. Add to that a ban on private ticketing of cars. Private company access to DVLA records must be stopped as an infringement of privacy unless it is specifically authorised by the person concerned, e.g. for insurance purposes. The public are told not to take the law into their own hands but some of the biggest crooks around are encouraged to do so when it comes to car parking.

A ban on parking charges for genuine hospital patients, staff and visitors who cannot afford extortionate fees, managed by a system of permits. Capped charges for other users at no more than the local going rate and profits to be donated to Hospices.

Withdrawal of free travel permits to under-65's. Sorry, these are hard times and those in work, or who can afford to retire at 60 should fund their own transport. Extension of London's Oyster Card across the country, preferably with similar fares structures that encourage use of public transport. Local buses in Greater Manchester are ridiculously priced

For the moment we cannot afford to build new transport infrastructure - roads, high-speed rail, etc. Instead we should focus on ensuring what we have is in good repair. No to expansion of Heathrow - if the demand is there then it can be diverted elsewhere. Why not build a fast link, monorail or similar, from Heathrow to Northolt and develop that for domestic and short-haul smaller flights.

Pensions

Immediate raising of the state and public sector pension entitlement age to 65 for all. Migration to a state and public sector pension entitlement age to 70 over 5 years not 50 unless there are strong medical reasons for earlier entitlement. This is a question of affordability and the fact that people live a lot longer than was originally envisaged.

Health

Actually a lot of it ain't broke and don't need fixing. The NHS does not need radical overhaul, again and again. There needs to be some tweaking so that free treatment is limited to conditions that affect the quality of life, not lifestyle. Childlessness is unfortunate but a fact of life that the rest of society is not responsible for fixing, particularly when there is a need to make choices. Those choices have to be made in favour of those suffering debilitating conditions. Alignment of NHS Trusts to local authority boundaries and transfer of prioritisations to locally accountable elected representatives, not political appointees.

Encouragement of local community volunteer organisations to become more involved in their hospitals and ambulance services would help healthcare and community spirit.

Times are hard and budgets tight. Why not charge those who can afford it for overnight hospital stays and meals, and ambulance callouts. £25 would not be too much. £10 for a GP visit, again only for those who can afford it. Sorry but it is time to choose what procedures are life-preserving and what ones are life-style. A halt to fertility treatment, gender reassignment, and obesity procedures on the NHS and the resources diverted to cancer, HIV, dialysis, and other critical and life-threatening services.

Compensation Culture

Combined with Health and Safety, compensation culture has gone far too far. People need to be held accountable for negligence and victims cannot be left out of pocket. The trouble is that we have all ended up victims of spiralling insurance, nutcase health and safety restrictions, and money that should go on services being diverted to lawyers and payouts. Tariffs or caps on compensation amounts should be introduced and the system streamlined to minimise legal costs for all parties. A ban on no win no fee arrangements that encourage spurious claims.

People have to take more responsibility for their own safety and use their common sense, look where they are going, and assess their own risks. It should not be the case that community events are discouraged because of the cost of insurance. A not-for profit state-run insurance scheme should be set up for such events and with caps on compensation claims and a more balanced view of personal responsibility, the insurance premiums should be minimal.

Planning Laws

OK, we don't want monstrous factories built in leafy residential areas or uncontrolled development on rural greenbelt. But planning laws that seem to encourage uniformity of housing design and force us all into closer and closer proximity to one another are wrong. On the one hand there is respecting the rights of neighbours and preserving the countryside. On the other hand why can't I live in a log cabin in the middle of some woods? Why can't I build an extension that doesn't interfere with my neighbour's right to light or their view? Why can't I have an unusual and individual design of house that isn't an exact copy of 20 other houses in the street? Sometimes there is a reason, e.g. in a conservation zone you would want to preserve the ambiance of the area. But too often these rules are applied to preserve a uniform look to housing estates where individuality would make for a more interesting outlook. So change the planning laws to make it far more difficult to refuse reasonable applications that do not interfere with anyone else's rights. Want solar panels and a wind turbine on your roof? No planning restrictions on those outside conservation zones.

Interest and Banking Charges

It is about time we followed other countries and stopped the charging of truly excessive rates of interest by credit card companies. Interest charges to be limited to no more than 15% above base rates. This would protect consumers and make those companies a lot more careful about how much they extended credit to whom.

There must be a right to a bank account enshrined in law and the creation of a public bank, using the Post Office, to deliver banking services at no profit to those denied accounts by commercial banks.

The creation of more credit unions would be encouraged and illegal moneylenders (unregulated or charging interest above the legal maximum) given mandatory long prison sentences and their assets seized.

Bank charges must be regulated in law. For the best part of the last 20 years I have paid nothing for my personal banking. But if I break the conditions of my free personal banking I am going to get hit with enormous and disproportionate costs, although the only reason why I would break those conditions would be a personal hardship. In my youth the bank would have taken account of my previous good record and want to keep me as a customer. Now they don't care about my previous good record because good records are a loss maker. Thus it is in a bank's financial interests to encourage poor financial housekeeping because that is where the profit comes from. We can see the end result when the economy takes a nosedive - everyone has to bail out or guarantee the banks. The banks cannot or will not change their profit model, reliant on defaulters, themselves so we must legislate.

Apart from promotions that last no more than 12 months, banks must set bank charges on all accounts that cover the cost of maintaining that account. They can then add a profit margin of their own choosing on all transaction charges. Neither of those sets of charges can discriminate between credit and debit customers. Charges other than transaction fees and a set account maintenance fee must reflect the true cost and no more. The aim is to create a banking system where banks have an incentive to want responsible customers and that do not incentivise poor personal financial management by making it very profitable despite the risks. Many of us will start paying bank charges again but that is a hell of a lot cheaper than how much it cost us to bail out and guarantee the risk-taking banks and the public expenditure on supporting people the banks have put into poverty. From a social angle it just isn't right that the poorest in society, are subsidising the banking services for the wealthier.

Risky investment banks must be legally separated from high street banks. If the investment bank goes bust then too bad, no bail outs and no guarantees. But all banks have to be robustly regulated and proper risk management a mandatory legal requirement. More, there have to be consequences for the people, not just the organisations, that take the risks but do not do their risk assessment properly. For example, a bank director must be required to sign off on investment schemes and if it turns out to be flawed then the director must be prosecuted for criminal negligence. I want to see irresponsible investment bankers that play poker with people's savings and pensions jailed in the same way as a fraudster would be jailed. Same end result, same punishment.

Corporate Responsibility

In the US, you see corporate directors in handcuffs being led off to the clink when a big company goes bust. Here we give them a knighthood and a job chairing a quango. Directors are responsible for the business they direct and must be held accountable for their decisions or lack thereof. The Boards of all of the collapsed banks in the UK should all have been in the dock answering for their decisions and actions. Any found negligent or responsible should be enjoying some time in one of Her Majesty's hotels.

Immigration

The policies are broadly right, the organisations broadly right, the administration sometimes wildly wrong. Genuine asylum seekers should know that the UK is a safe haven but not a soft touch. Those breaking immigration law should be deported and held in custody whilst awaiting deportation. Those convicted of all but the most minor offences should be automatically denied residence or citizenship, and deported where possible. Tough but fair. Counting people out as well as in must be a priority and very easy to do without huge investment or queues.

ID Cards

A waste of money and ineffective at doing what they were sold as doing. But the big money has been spent so lets see what we can salvage.

Education

A difficult one and so full of contradictions. Nationally we should decide what we want kids to be educated in and make sure the resources and policies are directed that way. Do we want engineers and scientists, or media studies students? I suggest that more vocational education is needed. Beyond national policy we need more local accountability and direction and directly elected eduction boards (no party politics) would do that. If your schools are failing, kick out those responsible.

A policy that might be unpopular to begin with is to follow the US and French models that state education should be secular, i.e. not run by religious organisations. Religion is a private and personal matter for each individual, and the source of tension since the beginning of time. So many civil conflicts start there, yet we seem bent on building up a state system based on religion. There is no place for a particular religion in state-funded education. We all pay our taxes and should have equal rights to access all schools that benefit from those taxes - my kids should not be refused access to a school that I pay for because of my religion or lack thereof. Ending religion in state education will, over time, reduce the growing segregation of communities and effective ethnic cleansing that is going on in our major towns and cities.

Crime

I am not convinced that anti-social behaviour is any worse than when I was a kid 30-40 years ago. The last time I was victim of street crime was 1984. Indeed, I doubt the streets were safer at any time in our history with the exception of wartime when our young men were off shooting Germans. But the balance was different in the past and anti-social behaviour was not a human right. So the starting point is that where human rights of victim and criminal are in conflict, that of the victim always takes precedence. When you commit a crime you lose any and all human rights that are not reserved specifically for criminals. In other words, amend the Human Rights Act to make it clear what human rights criminals do have. I'm not saying that prisoners should have no rights, only that committing a crime reduces those rights.

Sentencing is another area of public concern. Parole and automatic release are perceived as being wrongly balanced. Automatic release must end, and parole available for the last fifth of a sentence not the last two thirds. All crimes should carry mandatory minimum sentences. Persistent criminals should be more heavily punished. The minimum and maximum sentences for a second offence should be doubled. Trebled for the third, and so on. That means more prisons but that is the price of what the public want - criminals properly punished. And the prison service is actually a very small element in the current national budget overall. Some crimes should be decriminalised, for example non-payment of council tax and TV licence fees can be adequately covered by civil law. Prisoners must work to subsidise their imprisonment, a modern equivalent of sewing mailbags. It is cheap labour so how can it not make a profit for society? Plus it gives prisoners tradeable skills for their eventual release. They earn money through work, some of it pays their keep, some to help support their families that would otherwise be on benefits, some of it may compensate victims, the rest is given to them on release so they don't immediately become a burden on the rest of us.

I would also seriously consider part-time jail for non-violent crimes to allow them to keep their jobs and families and, as above, pay their way. And there may be cases where house arrest is appropriate.

Economy

Ah, the big one. I'm no economist, but then neither is George Osbourne and neither is Gordon Brown. The concept of these numbskulls being in charge of the country's finances is pretty horrifying. When it comes to the current state of the economy, it seems to me that a double-header of Ken Clark and Vince Cable would be the ideal.

There is a lot of waste in the public sector still but the public sector is so big that eliminating it all would be impossible. Devolving budget control to elected officials in the areas of education and health, meaning they are directly accountable to electors for waste within their domain, in the same way as the Mayor of London is actually held accountable for specified areas of spending in London, would focus minds. I'm sorry but a lot of waste cutting means taking on public sector unions and that is never easy but should not be avoided at all costs. However, if possible, it is better for those delivering services to be on board. The Conservative policy of co-operatives to deliver public services is a good one.

Big firms make a fortune out of delivering services to Government and local authorities. Often their lawyers are better than the public sector ones at negotiating the contracts and you end up with sub-standard services at inflated cost. Where a co-operative solution is not possible, the public sector needs to be far more astute about contract negotiation. It isn't easy and the expertise is scarce and expensive but worth the investment. So importing the toughest commercial lawyers into the public sector is one expense I would support. But in general, returning many underperforming and/or expensive services to in-house delivery would be a good principle.

PFI is the government equivalent of buying your furniture on very expensive tick. If we can't afford something then we shouldn't be buying it. The truth is that when PFI contractors fail the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces so we get the worst of both worlds - over-priced services and later bail-outs.

Why can't councils get involved in delivering more services for their residents? Profit-making ones. For example, why can't the council become energy brokers and why can they not invest in local renewable energy schemes for the benefit of their council tax payers? Manchester Airport is a prime example of a commercial enterprise that is highly profitable and ultimately those profits come back to us in Greater Manchester. It is simply untrue that the public sector is incapable of running successful enterprises. Investing locally is also better than investing cash in dodgy Icelandic banks. Should your local McDonalds franchise be owned by the council? Why on earth not if that contributes to the council tax pot. I've seen places where a big chunk of local services were paid for by state-owned off-licences - fantastic.

Cider and Binge Drinking

I was shocked that fermented corn syrup can be called cider and benefit from the lower rate of alcohol duty. So we need some proper definitions. Cider and Perry containing 80% minimum fresh apple or pear juice qualifies for the lower rate. Other fermented apple and pear juice drinks on a par with beer, and anything made from fermented corn syrup forced to state on the label what it really is and taxed per distilled alcohol. Bottle sizes limited to 2 litres.

As for general binge drinking, I seem to recall my generation getting drunk on cheap beer in student union bars, and if you go back far enough it was cheap gin. People have been getting drunk since someone first discovered the effects of fermented fruit juice. Ban or tax too high and home brew becomes a ready replacement - I remember my father having weird and wonderful "wines" bubbling away in the cupboard under the stairs. But alcopops are designed to appeal to the young, and often underaged. So that group I would ban - if you have to mix it then you need a glass which makes it a bit difficult to consume on street corners and rec grounds. Drinking in pubs is far better than on the streets if, and it is a big if sometimes, publicans and bar staff apply the rules about when to stop serving people. I would be inclined to ban the sale of alcohol from supermarkets and make the minimum age to buy from off licences 21, keeping it at 18 for pubs. Actually I really like the idea of all off sales of alcohol having to be sold through state-owned off-licences as happens in some European countries and some US states to control price and enforce responsibility. Sorry, £50 fixed penalty is not high enough when it comes to drunken anti-social behaviour. £200 minimum, £500 minimum if aggravated.

MPs

You pay peanuts and you get monkeys. And the House of Commons is full of baboons. If you want the best people to represent you then you can't pay them less than a local headmaster or GP. Why should a local headmaster or GP stand for election and take a big pay cut? So generally you get lawyers who treat parliament as a sideline to their main occupation, or young career politicians who progress from researcher to advisor to MP with no knowledge of the real world. If you pay a decent wage then you will attract people of experience and make it more difficult for the careerists to progress. I'm thinking of £120k minimum but full time. Also fewer of them - say 400 not 650.

Expenses are a tough one. There should be government owned accommodation - apartments and hotel rooms - in London for the use of MPs from outside a 30 mile radius. No second home allowances. That is the Swedish system. Also free rail warrants and publicly provided vehicles for travel purposes. Receipted meal allowances matched to the civil service. We also need to review the employment of family and friends at public expense, and how local offices are funded - perhaps a party grant for the latter.

Abolish the House of Lords and set up a proper second chamber, a Senate, comprised of elected but unpaid Senators on a geographical basis plus a selection of the "great and good" appointed for the life of a Parliament only to provide expertise and experience.

If the voting systems used by Wales and Scotland are good enough for them, then why not for the national parliament. It works in other countries too. So top-up seats to make parliament representative of the people and an end to 40% of the voters (about 25% of the actual electorate) having total power over the 75% majority for 5 years.

Let's end the payment that MPs get when electors chuck them out - we should not be rewarding political failure. If they retire then there is a perfectly good pension scheme that pays out. If they leave to get another job then it is their choice. It is just another of those gravy train perks no-one else gets. Perhaps they would look after their constituents better if they got more pain when booted out.

Enshrine in law and the oath that an MPs primary allegiance is to his or her constituents not their party. This could mean looking at separation of the executive and legislature and nothing should be ruled out. But I want my MP making decisions and voting on local interests not their party interests. At a minimum we could avoid the threat of having whips taken away by removing whips. Votes could be persuaded but not forced on threat of party punishment.

Elected mayors focus accountability. So this should be the norm. Since it works well in London the first step should be elected mayors for the other main metropolitan counties. I'm not bothered about electing a mayor of Bolton or Bury but a mayor of Greater Manchester would be a proper contest with some heavyweight contenders interested in the job.

Electoral Reform

Absolute power based on 40% of the electorate voting for a party is dictatorship by a minority and not democracy in any way, shape or form. A legitimate government should need a minimum 50% support and that means proper proportional representation. It does not necessarily mean weak government but it does mean consensual government so only good laws get through and bad laws stand no chance. Party list systems of PR are bad news as electors cannot reject individual candidates so it is not an easy one to solve - single transferable vote does appear to be the best option.

Let's face it, if we want to remain a Union, the UK has to start thinking Federal Union, and we are three quarters there. We need an English Parliament or Parliaments on a regional basis.

The House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced by a properly accountable upper house - a Senate. But we want to keep the experience and expertise and avoid the place becoming a party-list gravy train for washed up politicians. The single transferable vote seems the best way but constituencies based on the regions not the number of electors. It should not be possible for English senators to outvote those from other parts of the UK. 100 such elected Senators should be enough. To those add 100 nominated Senators for the life of the Parliament. 25 allocated to parties based on proportion of the vote (the Senior Statesmen), 25 allocated to faith organisations based on membership. And 50 Independents drawn from medicine, business, science, education, and so on. Full time, salaried.