Manifesto of a

Benevolent Dictator of the UK

Where our Country should be going

Issue 8 – xx Feb. 2018

Word Count = 27,446

Author

Norman Harris

CHAPTERS

Issues of the document 4

1. summary of main reforms of this benevolent dictator 5

2. our grave situation 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Methodology 8

2.3 BREXIT & Europe 9

3. Our fragile democracy 11

3.1 Introduction 11

3.2 The Civil Service 12

3.3 Local Government Policy 13

3.4 Boundary Commission 14

3.5 Devolution & Constitutional Reform 14

3.6 Electoral Fraud 16

4. CENTRAL Government spending PRIORITIES 17

4.1 Defence and Security 17

4.2 Fabric of Government 21

4.3 Education 22

4.4 Key Infrastructure 24

4.4.1 Overview 24

4.4.2 Energy 25

4.4.3 Transport 26

4.5 Health 32

4.6 Sport, Culture and the Arts 33

4.7 Overseas Aid 34

4.8 Government Savings Principles 34

5. Local Government Funding & Spend 36

5.1 Local Taxation 36

5.2 Housing 38

5.3 Social Care 39

5.4 Local Funding of Health 40

5.5 Benefits 40

5.6 Sport, Culture and the Arts 41

5.7 Overseas Aid 41

5.8 Government Savings Principles 42

6. Government Taxation policy 44

6.1 Government’s Need 44

6.2 Taxation - Principles 45

6.3 Introduction - Taxation Methods 46

6.4 Other Taxation Issues 52

7. additional social change 53

Acknowledgements 55

main references 56

appendices 57

1 RESPONSE TO The LONDON mayor’s transport Strategy 57

2 Energy Policy 60

2.1 Climate Change 60

2.2 Food Production 62

2.3 Energy Sources& Production 63

2.2 Meeting our Climate Change Obligations needs CCS 64

Issues of the document

Issue No.	Date	Size (words)	Recipient	Location
1	4 May 2017	3067	Dr Bill Beazley	Texas
2	10 May 2017	4857	David Tarbox-Cooper	Devon
3	18 May 2017	7309	Hilary Joyce	Dorset
4	27 May 2017	12309	Betty Barber	South Carolina
5	7 June 2017	16284	Abhishek Garg	London
6	15 Sept. 2017	18491	Talmadge Heflin	Texas
7	4 Feb 2017	22365	Geoff Swartfigure	Hereford

Authors Note

Napoleon chose the title of “Benign Dictator”, but become anything but, so hence my suggestion of “Benevolent Dictator”.

1. summary of main reforms of this benevolent dictator

Transfer of much funding from central to local governments, with local decision on standards applied above the national minimum
Rural areas cannot have all the service conveniences of towns

10. Abolish Faith Schools

11. Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural does not mean multi-lingual when dealing with their daily lives

12. Transport must be a level playing field

13. Two more third runways

14.

15. Brexit will be abandoned.

16. Income Tax will move toward a Sales Tax

17. Income tax will be simple, with few allowances and be made to stop distorting the markets and will be progressive up to 50p.

18. Defence spending will be increased by 40%.

19. Benefits to Armed Forces veterans shall at least meet what is given in American veterans and their spouses.

20. State funding of Councils will move toward Local Taxation

21. Compulsory military service for youth committing low grade crime.

22. Some vile murderers and terrorists are only a cost and a danger to keep alive. When there is no reasonable doubt, they should be executed.

23. Subsidies do distort the market and will be stopped except for limited periods for new technology.

24. Roads are the most flexible form of transport and will not be discriminated against. Road tax will cease.

25. Other than the NHS which is an insurance, the user of a service pays. Mitigating grants are possible for those on low or no income.

26. An NHS Court to be created to sort dispute more quickly and cheaply.

27. Overseas Aid will not be provided when austerity is required at home.

28. Gift Aid will be stopped to allow the donor to claim the tax refund.

29. Faith schools will be phased out.

30. Sport, Culture and the Arts will not be supported by Government after the school years.

31. Agencies and Quangos will be required to demonstrate they are value for money.

32. Translation of official notices into multiple languages will cease.

33. Abandon the BBC Licence fee, cut them down to size.

34. Move Admin away from the Sate to the taxpayer.

2. our grave situation

2.1 Introduction

Our citizens must start to take more interest in politics. Apathy is the major enemy of democracy and freedom. It is rare for the elected UK Government to get more than 40% of the popular vote. Although in 2017 they did but did not pick up a majority with that good, 42.4%, percentage of the poll. But that is a first past the post system (FPTP) which politicians and the majority of the electorate do not want to change.

With a national turnout that has been less than 70% (69% in 2017) of the electorate since 2001, this means that around less than one third of the electorate actually agree, in general terms, with elected government. In the 2017 Unite trade union vote for their nationally influential leader it was a very close result with his opponent and only 12% of the union members recorded a vote. We must never forget that Hitler came to power by largely democratic means. When power was secured, it quickly became first more dangerous, then impossible, to dislodge him. In our first election after the war the turnout was close to 85%, our fathers knew then that not taking care of their democracy was dangerous and seemingly wanted to direct the changes that were at issue. The right to vote was hard won for ordinary men and women. It is a RIGHT and a DUTY of all citizens to vote if our democracy is to remain healthy. In Australia voting is compulsory, as in France. One Australian voter in 2017 deliberately spoiled his paper, but voted.

With this document, it is my intention to write a comprehensive policy for the future of the UK. Even though I will assume that I am a Dictator, it will not be too dictatorial. Unlike most of the Dictator breed, in general I will be benevolent. In reading the first completed version and comparing it with the major party manifestos of 2017, I see policies of Conservative, Labour, Liberal Documents and no party included within it. So every major party will find something they agree with, Tory, Labour, LibDems even the SNP on Brexit (but not Independence) and yes even UKIP and Trump (accepted that he is not a party). And much that they do not agree with.

In the context of being evolutionary, neither the Thatcher nor Blair Governments were that revolutionary, domestically, when they had their dominant positions with 100+ majorities in Parliament. Thatcher is mainly remembered for taking on the miners and generally reducing Union power, and the Poll Tax, and Blair for Iraq. All inititives with the best of intent but politically unpopular.

I recall an Obama speech in which he said that “Government should provide its citizens what they could not provide for themselves”. To the best of my knowledge this thought was not developed or practiced in any detail. But to me it means smaller government. Basic (but not low) standards supplemented locally by local choice and taxes. It does cover all the key areas of spending to which Section 6 of this Manifesto is devoted.

I am probably a more political animal than the next person, my beliefs are that I am against Brexit, we must balance our national budget and nationalisation does not work. But I am not a politician. A fact that may become obvious as you read this document and why I need to acquire the “dictator” label. My first venture into politics was joining the Electoral Reform Society to promote the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Then I was a member of the Conservative party when Edward Heath was PM, perhaps the dying days of the One Nation Tories, and we joined the EU. I remember that cross party campaign well.

I left when Maggie Thatcher started to show her shades of ultra-blue. I was a Founder Member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and was the last Chairman of that party for the Croydon area. My inclinations remain for realistic economic policies and as much social mitigation of any adverse consequences as possible. At present, I am not yet a member of the LibDems. Some of their VERY “liberal” policies grate with me. For instance, relaxtion of drug laws and votes for 16 year olds. Also I do not have a problem with an Identity Card. If you have nothing to hide you still have nothing to fear in our country. Many of us carry photo driving licences which are very much the same thing, (universally used in the US even for checking 70 year olds getting a drink in a bar). I did not vote for the LibDems in GE2017, I voted tactically and succeeded as the Conservative majority was reduced by one in my constituency. I believe that these policies may deter voters from supporting them as a party with the SNP, wholly against Brexit.

The LibDems with the Greens and the SNP are wholeheartedly opposing Brexit, so I am heading towards them, but they have got to have a reasonable chance of winning on my constituency or my vote is wasted in our FPTP system. I appreciate that the Greens have similar anti-Brexit views, but they are more extreme, in my view on their environmental opinions, I say later in this document that I believe that technology can solve most of our energy and environmental problems, if given the political backing, but our breed of politicians does not understand technology.

I often lampooned liberals as being the most illiberal people around. I may be just confusing that for the passion with which they hold their views. But it is remarkable that as a small party, supporting STV and needing to cooperate to gain influence and power, that their rank-and-file seem so against “arrangements” and coalitions. Their leader Jeremy Thorpe declined to cooperate with Heath. In my opinion, they shafted the SDP/Alliance after the post Falkland’s general election, when the SDP was much larger and then their voters shafted their own party for cooperating with Cameron. Would we have even had Brexit if those voters had not done so?

This Manifestos an attempt to change the future, by changes in direction and to foresee their impacts and better manage their consequences. A comprehensive, strategic understanding of the political/economic climate and macro business drivers that condition the future will help determine actions, which “go with the flow” and can thus subtly change the course of the future to the advantage of my life, our country and our world.

Many of the techniques used are part of the progressive approach of analytical thinking that The Open University has done much to promote with its Systems Thinking courses. I include much more information on Systems Thinking on my website – http://twentycc.squarespace.com/definition/.

2.2 Methodology

As the Master Document was being created, segments were released two or three times per week announced via Twitter, with a fuller description on LinkedIn and Facebook. Each of these will direct the reader to my website, which contains an introduction to the latest version which is available in full on request.

The full version of the report will be sent to anyone who requests it.

This document’s series of thoughts, where I will concentrate on documenting Objectives and Principles, is the beginning of a progressive and integrated peer into what I would hope to be the future policies of our Governments. Some suggestions might already be the policy of one party or another. I believe there are parts of every recent election manifesto, yes every, but some will be new and perhaps some may even be adopted.

I invite feedback. Therefore, comments are welcome and may be used to strengthen my arguments whether I agree with the comments submitted or not.

I also hope that dialogues will develop on each of the social media sites.

2.3 BREXIT & Europe

I wish BREXIT was not happening and that the ultimate outcome is that it does not happen. GE2017 certainly raises hope that the outcome maybe just a re-negotiation of the key issues such as immigration. This issues still has some way to run.

I was in favour of Europe when we first voted for the Common Market in 1973. No, I do not wish for an unbridled political union, but we have secured many opt outs and no doubt, we will negotiate more if the demands for more political union get too counter to our national interest and inclinations; we are not alone in that desire, significant sections of the public in France, the Netherlands and Austria all seem to have similar concerns.

There have been many benefits of the EU to our prosperity and to our peace. In addition, the EU has not taken over our courts, or our currency or our border controls, as the Brexiteers would have us believe. Yes, there is the free movement of people, but much of that movement is to the benefit of our economy. Indeed in general it is not migrants form within the EU that are causing us problems. Consider the NHS staffing, already raising concerns over the dramatic drop in applications to nurse here and also some of the higher academic talents. In addition, immigrants often work in the lower range of skills, many of which the Brits do not wish to apply themselves. Also, many Brits do not seem to be keen to spend time on training themselves for many much needed skills. In any case, I suggest that migration will ease over time as their home country’s economies become more prosperous within the EU.

The June 2016 referendum was poorly devised to satisfy, the Conservative right and stave off UKIP. It was not clear if it was binding and what the level of turnout had to be to make it valid and what majority was needed to represent a binding decision. The result was narrow and in my opinion inconclusive. I could accept the result, albeit believing it to be wrong, if both sides had not lied as a routine, so that the electorate could not fully understand what they were voting for. Post election interviews indicated that many voters decided to vote against the EU about non-EU issues, even that it was not fair that London was the capital of the UK. In short, the EU was the scapegoat for whatever any Leave voter thought was wrong with their lot.

As voters will realise every day on the news, Brexit is complex and costly beyond anything that they were told. The impacts on inflation were predictable, just that most political leader chose not to mention them.

So we have to keep fighting to reverse this decision, in the Courts, through by-elections as they arise and making our MPs vote the way that in their hearts, they believe is right for the country as a whole. However, the Labour leader was indecisive and is now favouring Brexit to counter UKIP who are attracting some of their core voters.

When this was document was originally drafted, the June 8^th 2017 General Election had not been called. The rush to call the election was stimulated by the Tory poll lead over labour, the expected rise in inflation because of the fall in the pound, which is now happening and the possible prosecutions of 30 Tory MPs over election expenses now settled with a wrap on the knuckles, except for one MP of Thanet. I and I suspect many other voted anti-Brexit case I was vindicated by reducing the Conservative majority by ONE.

I have not re-joined any political party yet, but I have joined More United and The Real British to try to reverse the poor light some of xenophobic citizens have shown us in.

The Real British Group on Facebook believes:-

If you want Britain to remain Great, it must stay in the EU. Brexit will destroy our nation.

We are the Real British and we want our country back!

We are the British patriots, who want our nation to succeed in the modern world, not in a fantasy of the past.

We want the Britain of tolerance.

We want the Britain of peace.

We want the Britain of mutual respect.

We want the Britain of mutual care.

We want the Britain of diversity.

We want the Britain of many cultures.

We want the Britain of welcomes.

We want the Britain of Sanctuary.

We want the Britain of modern thinking.

We want the Britain of openness.

Above all:

We want Britain as a full member of the European Union.

There are many more pressure/protest groups against Brexit. I wish they could be combined to become an irresistible force in England to get this exit process abandoned.

I recognise that the LibDems and the Greens wholeheartedly oppose but they are never going to win a controlling majority, a balance of power perhaps at the next election. But Labour is the party that must change. However, a cross-party alliance with anti-Brexit Tories and similarly minded Labour MPs would be a stronger force. As many political heavyweights as possible are needed to speak for the reversal of what is bogusly named “will of the people”.

If we can learn anything from this “will” it is that if you feed the mass of the public with lies (from both sides of the debate) then you will relearn the old IT maxim – rubbish in = rubbish out.

3. Our fragile democracy

3.1 Introduction

The British Parliament or Mother of all Parliaments as it is known throughout the world is in danger of losing its reputation, largely by its own actions and inactions. Our Civil War established the supremacy of Parliament. Such a war is of course unthinkable today, but the principle of supremacy over the Executive must stand. Brave souls such as Gina Miller and our Supreme Court’s judges are ensuring the principal stands despite despicable criticism from the Press and key Government ministers, who should know better.

There is a difference between our Parliament and many of the parliaments that have followed it. Whereas most others have a semi circular layout and are intended to be more consensual. Ours is adversarial in layout, two swords lengths apart, and in style. Our Parliamentary debates and especially PMQs are regarded as some form of robust entertainment in the United States. There are now many parties and factions in the House. It might seem strange for a Benevolent Dictator to seek consensus, but of course I do not agree with the woman who tried to be ours this year, the wrong Dictator is the worst form of Government. It is not however rare, as Russia, China, Turkey and Egypt are already so governed along with many more in Africa and South America.

I have mentioned the UK – the United Kingdom. Never in recent centuries has there has been such danger that the United will be no longer the case. It will probably still be a “Kingdom”, but Scotland and now Northern Ireland may find that they are more at home with the EU than the UK. With Scotland, it may be a case of the best excuse yet to break away, although the GE2017 in June put a dent in that intention. To me Scotland seems currently to have substantial control, short of Independence, indeed as much as the German Lander. I argue in several places in this document that the standard of local services should be debated, set and paid for locally.

With NI it may be expediency about an EU border, but the sectarian dangers involved are hard to assess and very unpleasant to contemplate. The Irish Republic still yearns for a united Ireland. But we, dissenting English and Welsh have now to contemplate two land borders with Europe on our own islands.

We have got here because of 2 disastrous decisions by Conservative PMs looking only for the needs of their own party and not the Country as a whole. David Cameron set us on a Referendum course not thinking that it would be lost, but he took part in a campaign that was ignorant and and untrue. Then Ms May thinking she may get a better majority took the country to the polls and lost again. Europe can be justified in thinking that the Government is not negotiating in Brussels on behalf of the British nation.

We could be on the verge of more socialist government that the UK has ever had, although deep down the voting numbers are not as good as the Labour activists may wish the nation to think. Exposing the nation to the 2017 conference’s more radical speakers from the floor in precedence to senior MPs, may also work against them.

I would be better pleased with a united British Isles. That is impossible for a century or two! Indeed the pressure throughout Europe is the opposite and seems to be to break up into small historically tribal states rather than the “mega” groupings such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK. The UK following devolution has pressure to have regional assemblies. A guide to this is perhaps found in a post nuclear attack survival plan of the 50s when the UK was divided into 12 regional administrations. Rather complex, but not impossible for normal peacetime.

3.2 The Civil Service

As an aside, thank goodness, that the UK does not have a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary as is the way in the USA. The Supreme Court Judges and downwards to all Federal Judges are political appointments. When the President changes, whole rafts of the US Civil Service go causing much loss in experience. A factor in the chaos of the early days of the Trump Presidency.

In many ways, our State and Local Civil Servants are in a privileged position, their job security and terms and conditions of employment are usually much better than the equivalent level in private industry, although they have suffered a a period of pay restraint of late. In part designed to thin out the numbers no doubt, but unfortunately it may be that it is the best who go first. However, the policies outlined below will bring upon them a need for change such that they have never seen before. They must be guaranteed no compulsory redundancy. They must also be encouraged to re-train and to switch to other Branches and Agencies and especially toward local government as the burden of governing will move in that direction and so numbers in that sector will need to rise as those in Central Government will need to fall. If there are jobs to be dispensed with, it raises the need for much better planning of the recruitment into and age profiles from this large combined workforce.

Any Civil Service employee responsible for an action which brings about justified public and media criticism must face enquiry and possible demotion or dismissal. As should their Minister if he/she was directly involved.

3.3 Local Government Policy

The Government and this Dictator feel that more powers should be devolved to Local Councils. Revenue raising powers should also devolve. The Calman Report should be applied to more regions than just Scotland

Local Government funding has been dabbled with too many times. Margaret Thatcher had the thought of spreading the burden more widely and fairly, but events showed Poll Taxes are fatally flawed in the public’s perception. But the power to raise tax revenues for their services would have a favourable impact on the interest in local politics and turnout in local elections. Central Government should provide funding for the basic service and regulation setting out the standards needed. If more than that basic level is required then the local populace should vote for it and pay for it. We know enough about the make-up of local populations from the 10 year Census to make any necessary adjustments for the variation in populations. I say in section 3.2, above, that civil servants should be prepared to transfer to Local Government as centralised activity is run down. It seems clear to me that local government managements may need an injection of new talent following Grenfell Tower.

I attended courses on the fundamentals of economics and do recall that the basic asset of a local government is the land in its area. The area of land that you control the use of, as an individual or family group, should be proportional to the tax rate applied. This would free up under-used and derelict land. The tax would have to be phased in say with no more than a 6% increase per annum for any individual, but for a limit of 5 years, to give time to adjust and to protect the old for whom the thought of moving and leaving their memories is unbearable. Progressively a nationally set multiplier could be applied to zone land use more effectively in the local interest. Typical values would be:-

Well maintained properties 1

Recreational & Leisure 1.5

Unmaintained 2

Unused 2

Unhygienic 3

3.4 Boundary Commission

The Boundaries Commission has the remit to establish, in terms of population, roughly equals sized constituencies, bearing in mind natural and social boundaries. The current recommendations have become political and are not happening to schedule. So at some point in the future they will be out of date. This is a great pity and means the issue that there are too many MPs especially now considering the devolved legislatures, is kicked into the long grass again. In the US, the gerrymandering of boundaries is a fine art meaning that very few seats ever change party representation. The same is true here with too few constituencies being marginal and thus prone to the unseating the sitting MP or party.

3.5 Devolution & Constitutional Reform

The strength of Britain is its components and its traditions. Tony Blair’s excursions into this area were never part of a fully thought through plan and, now added to the strains of Brexit, could prove to be the undoing of the UK. As an ordinary individual I can hope that reason prevails, but as a Dictator I would stop it.

Clearly the MPs expenses situation needs urgent attention; it has already done considerable damage to their collective reputation in the eyes of the public. What could be simpler than expenses being “Receipted and Reasonable”? Even with a complex set of rules, judgments calls will still have to be made. So let us have a powerful independent committee assessing all expenses and “second jobs”. Lock the Party leaders into accepting the decisions taken on their “subordinates” calls on the public purse. Far better than any recall system as it is hard to see how it could be guaranteed not to be used inappropriately. Better instead to have automatic disqualification for certain misdemeanours.

Fundamentally we do not pay our legislators too much but we do have far too many of them. Since I would wish to include MEPs and Regional Governments in any formula on the total number of legislators covering an area. For example, as powers devolve to the Regions those areas should require fewer seats in Westminster. And revenue raising powers should follow and central subsidies reduced. Then such legislatures will have to tax for their money and be answerable for those taxes. The same argument can be extended to the Metro Mayors. The Calman Report deserves our support and to be applied beyind the borders of Scotland.

Fixed term Parliaments are also to be welcomed. But the 5 year term was overturned the first time that it became inconvenient. I would plump for SIX years. I only wish to be a dictator for a while to straighten out the country that I love and then return it to normal democracy.

So the limited Devolution and Constitutional reform that there has been, has been carried out in a half-baked way. They are both incomplete. The powers of the three devolved assemblies vary from one to the other making the arrangements open to the leap-frogging of each Parliament/Assembly wishing for the same powers as their sister nation. Further devolution has taken place with the creation of Metro Mayors. This will not doubt create more local civil servants. However, not so far the reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster. The roughly equal populations of constituencies’ requirement of the Boundary Commission should settle that. Parliament should be free to recommend the desired average population size. However, their aim should be to reduce the number of MPs to the mid-400s not the 600 currently planned.

I indicate above that the Boundaries Commission recommendations should not be blocked by Parliament or its procedures. We are over-represented by MPs, AMs & SMPs. Their numbers should be reduced. A declining number even as the size of electorate increases. Although being anti-Brexit I am grateful to the SNP for a solid wedge of opposition to Brexit in Westminster. We may yet all be very grateful for this.

Then there is the House of Lords. The debate on an elected or appointed Upper House needs to be finalised. The “heart” says elected, but the most thorough analysis that I have seen, from one of my students, who then worked in the Palace of Westminster for her Open University (OU) Systems Thinking project, indicates that appointed individuals would serve the nation best. This was repeated on The Politics Show (BBC1 14 June 2009) by the then recently retired Black Rod. The automatic 26 seats to the Church of England is archaic. On the latest figure only 15% of the population say they are Anglican and it is far less when you select a young age bracket.

Members should be appointed, but the method of appointment needs review. One route could be eminence together with a willingness to put that eminence to use for the good of the country. The other by appointment from published party lists (though the younger and most ambitions politicians, will opt for the Commons) in line with the proportion of votes cast in General Elections. Why not have a mix of both. Some may fear parties like the BNP getting a seat, but there can be a percentage threshold, but more exposure to their extreme views may encourage a few, but will deter the many.

One thing that can be said about the House of Lords, is that it works. Several times in recent years, it has constrained the Government of the day. However, its constitution cannot be defended. Rather than being the last bastion of patronage by all party leaders, the qualification or experience of appointees should be defined and rigorously applied.

3.6 Electoral Fraud

This is a new or at least recent phenomenon in the UK. Shades of a banana republic. It is thought by many that one reason for the early Election in June 2017 was the potential prosecutions of 30 Tory MPs for not following the rules on election expenses. In the end only one prospective candidate was charged.

The pressure to remove barriers to voting by making it progressively easier to register to vote is opening the door to voter fraud. The Electoral Commission must do a better job here.

As I state in the second sentence of this Manifesto, apathy is a major enemy of democracy. Apathy’s allies are corruption and lack of respect for societies “norms” and any obvious anomalies and unfairness. So compulsory voter registration and voting with an “opt out” is needed.

4. CENTRAL Government spending PRIORITIES

I list below what I believe should be the sequence of priority for the settlement of the Governments spending department’s budgets. The reasoning for the sequence in this section will be explained in later pages of this document. The lower on the list the stronger the squeeze on funding and the demand for clearer priorities, effective methods of delivery and reduced expenditure.

The sequence is deliberate as I see the importance of settling the needs of each of the Departments in their order of priority to the nation. It is does not mean that they get all they ask for, they still have to show value against the requirements that are asked of them. But the funds will get progressively tighter as the sequence proceeds

The position on the list of Overseas Aid may get the hearts of some readers racing, as comes close to the early debate in the GE2017 campaign on whether or not to retain the 0.7 of GDP for Overseas Aid.

4.1 Defence and Security

“Defence and Security is the Number One priority of any Government to its people”, David Cameron made this statement and I believe most in the country would agree and certainly his Party’s voters. But nevertheless 17,000 servicemen posts were cut. This is initially equivalent to 17,000 more unemployed. And even more important we remain weaker in terms of both the world’s perception and the resource of boots on the ground.

So if the first priority of Government is to protect its citizens, I put the Intelligence Services, Armed Forces, and Police at the top of the Governments, Spending Budget Allocation list.

We undoubtedly live in dangerous, hard to predict times, as the 3 months April to June 2017 have shown, so the Intelligence Services do play a major part in providing the information to stop an attack before there is real damage done, MOST OF THE TIME. The sophistication of their operation and the effectiveness of their integration within the UK and with trusted allies abroad must be closely monitored by Parliament’s Security Committee.

The Armed Forces have their job laid down in the regular Defence Strategic Reviews, which is to defend our shores, protecting our oversea interests and projecting our power as and when required by Parliament. They can be the back up to the Police in times of emergency as was seen in recent terror attacks and the flooding disasters before.

The beginning of some defence co-operation with France is to be welcomed and I hope that it continues. Combined we are still very powerful on the world stage, but without the complications of a European Army. Germany when it boosts its military spending to 2% could join later. All this within the framework of NATO, but with the three strongest European powers combining much more closely. Poland is one of only 4 European NATO countries, who with the UK spend spends 2% of GDP on defence. All the others must do better. It is one of the few things that I agree with President Trump about.

Border Control and Immigration Enforcement are also part of our national security. As in these modern times, must be cyber security, although all major IT users need to be active with their own security measures.

I have defined above the broad outline of what the organs of state in this field must accomplish. After consideration, I moved paramedics, ambulance crews and the Fire Service into what I have termed the Fabric of Governance. This is in no way a disrespect to these brave men and women, but they are first responders and not there to prevent or defend against external threats or terrorism. The Fire Service are also valuable in promoting fire safety domestically and in industry,

So, in summary, the Policy Objectives of Defence and Security are:

· Defend our shores
· Defend our Overseas Territories
· Project Power at the instigation of our Government to deter aggressive acts of other nations

This last point may be carried out under the NATO or UN banner, but having talked to military men about UN missions the troops must remain under British command.

Defence – NO CUTS in our Dangerous World

I know some believe passionately in disarmament. All of us want to live in a peaceful world. However, weakness is not a guarantee of this desirable state and in the current world we have to be strong or shelter behind the skirts of the USA as long as they let us. I would be ashamed to be a citizen of some European countries, who never put their troops in harm's way, why have them at all? And what happens to those European countries when the US may decide to regard some of them as expendable. Three cheers for Canada, always in support of NATO.

With North Korea, Iran and even an occasionally belligerent Argentina, how can we deplete our forces at all? I repeat that, this why I put Defence and the protection of our society as the highest spending priority. Ukraine and the concerns of Poland, Norway and Sweden underline this.

The Cameron Government cut our Armed Forces manpower too much. The reasons were clear and understood and to our credit, we remain the only major European NATO member spending 2% of GDP on Defence. France and Germany should be ashamed that they are not achieving this target. However, Cameron did authorise the construction of two aircraft carriers and provided that we keep them confirms our status as a major power. He was also behind the replacement of Trident. Our nuclear deterrent must not be reduced.

With the additional support ships that capital ships, such as carriers need to protect them and the development of two rapid reaction brigades based around them, the UK can remain a force to protect the peace in many of the troublesome areas of the planet. America needs support as I know many of its citizens weary at being the policeman of the world.

It now looks that Ms May may increase defence spending, not sure where the money is coming from, there cannot be many more hidden billions in the Treasury, after the DUP have had their sweetener.. How and by how much are key questions? This would be just about her only policy that I agree with.

The now regular anniversaries of the heroics of WWII should remind us of the parlous position of our defences when that war broke out. Indeed our weakness and a then pacifist USA could have helped start that war, as any deterrence was of words only. Dictators act when they see weakness. They always have and always will. In the context of modern war, a country would not get a second chance as we did after Dunkirk.

Even a possible recurrence of a belligerent Argentina, with perhaps more US sympathy next time looking to their own oil company’s interest, how can we possible deplete our forces anymore? There is still a time gap until our aircraft carriers come on line.

In addition, we have to be able to spare a ‘copter or two to lend a hand in natural disasters. Helicopters have also been cut, literally cut along with many of our surveillance aircraft.

It is important to define all our national interests, but they must include the possibilities of wars in coalition with allies against smaller, but relatively well armed countries, who feel able to try to dominate their region. Iraq, did, Iran probably will, and North Korea is certainly trying.

In addition, Saudi Arabia is headed for regime change on the death of their current rulers. Will the appointed successor hold on to office. Who or what will replace them? The risks are many. STRONG DEFENCE will help insure against an unstable outcome.

We should also be able to speak proudly and assertively as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have a proud and unrivalled history in the world and we need to continue to project this. It may require surgical “police actions” supported by the aircraft carriers, when equipped.

In short, we need to do enough to continue to justify our permanent seat on the UN Security Council and be able to back up what we see is in the interests of the West and The World. Perhaps we could even create a Rapid Reaction UN Brigade, doing its bidding provided our Chiefs of Staff agreed the Terms of Reference and the Brigade remained under British command. That is, after we have our own well supported at sea and in the air, Brigades in place. In theory we have one Rapid Reaction Brigade and we should consider setting up a second Rapid Reaction Brigade put at the service of the world stage.

Defence and Security should never be unduly constrained in the manpower and equipment that they need. It is not too difficult to expand the forces if they are given respect throughout their service and after discharge, especially if they have been injured. I am always impressed how the US public reveres the American military. The Secretary for Veterans Affairs (the VA) is a senior Government appointment and charged with all service personnel’s care after discharge. The benefits also include their spouses and widows/ers. Prince Harry is doing his bit, on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly for those that have been disabled, but the Government should do more on behalf of the Nation.

We also have unemployment so the Services should be able to take on all candidates who meet their standards. A few more battalions will support our current overstretched forces, mop up some youth unemployment and produce better citizens, in the medium term. Our Reserves should be that, and called up for their contracted training or if they wish to be more active, but not as a matter of routine to fill gaps.

There are always too high levels of youth unemployment and I favour compulsory service for those youths who persistently engage in low-level crime before they graduate to something more serious. Strong discipline from those tougher than them will prove beneficial.

So anti-social youth behaviour should also be offered the forces as an option provided the military will accept them. The perpetrators do not realise that petty thieving brings disproportionate upset and stress to the victim. The stress is often out of all proportion to the value involved. But in the case van and tool thefts it is the victim’s livelihood as the process of insurance claims is tedious and never fully compensates.

Many retiring personnel from the Forces are highly skilled and a benefit to civilian society. The current forces have the ability to direct a large resource to a civil emergency such flooding, as has occurred in various parts of the country.

So my Central Government spending priority list starts with Defence and all aspects of Security and Civil Protection and incidentally offering more employment to young people in the great range of military and civil careers.

We need to have defence & security services as our number one spending priority. Also MoD housing must be fully modernised, stimulating the local economies and recognising the value of service personnel to the community. We need to continue funding the supporting of hi-tech R&D and manufacture, which compensates for our smaller numbers of manpower.

4.2 Fabric of Government

Although the costs are relatively small on the scale of Governmental spending I have grouped a number of areas that must always be adequately funded, into what I term “the fabric of government”.

These services cover the costs of Parliament, the Courts, Prisons and the Fire Service. The latter must be evenly provided for across the whole country. Although the funding allocation is more complex.

Although I have argued that we have too many legislators, we have got to have Government. But their costs should fall on the national budget or on the regional area in which they legislate. I am sure that this is already the case. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do pay for their own parliaments or assemblies. It is probably also largely the case for funding the Courts. But the variation that unfortunately permeates in areas like social care, in the administration of justice and the practice of sentencing is not good. This should be largely the same throughout the UK. I shall return to sentencing.

As should the cover provided by the Fire Services. It is interesting that in France they are a branch of the military.

Our coasts have a number of agencies involved. Protection is the Royal Navy and this falls under Defence and Security, but the Coast Guards (a fifth branch of the military in the USA) are more concerned with civilian jurisdiction. The military do provide a recently reduced Search and Rescue cover at sea. The Border Force do have boats. Lighthouses are Trinity House and coastal life-saving is the RNLI – a charity. The American model of an integrated service should be considered as it may have advantages.

Variations in sentencing certainly attracts the attention of the media. It is right that it should. It often the case of a judge stepping out of line. This could be avoided by a stricter matrix of the crime vs. the sentence. I believe there is such a rule, it needs to be continually revised, in the light of trends in crime, e.g. knife and acid attacks, and consistently applied. I would add a further column to the matrix, the death penalty. This is a case where it is often said that the public is at odds with their legislators. This could be tested by a referendum. But wearing my dictator’s hat I would re-introduce the severest penalty where there is no “reasonable doubt”. Such a case was the murder, nay assassination of Drummer Rigby. Almost carried our on TV, no doubt as to the perpetrators. Why keep them alive in our over-crowded prisons. They need extra guarding as they are a risk of harming and, worse, inciting others and other terrorists could act to release them and they cost the taxpayer as much as living in a good hotel.

Then there was Jo Cox’s murderer, again no doubt as to the perpetrator. Yes, I know of “balance of mind disturbed” – insanity, but I think everyone must be a little insane at the time of committing a murder, but the population have to be protected for the possible next time. If they were not insane then the act is even more heinous. Brady was another, kept in custody for nearly 60 years and he never gave up his secrets, the only thing he possessed of any value.

As a final footnote I regard anyone who covers their face as having something to hide. Their identity, WHY? There are hoodies, and religious zealots and those entering the Courts and this is fair until they are convicted, and then they should be seen and visible. They all disguise their identity and that is wrong.

4.3 Education

After Defence, it is Education, Education, Education.

In my dictatorial opinion, education would have a higher priority than health, because the more educated people are, the greater likelihood of them protecting their health. Clearly this is not always the case. But the individual’s chances of many diseases is not random, but lifestyle. Education is therefore has a purpose to fit children and young people for a fulfilling life in modern society, but also as long and as healthy one as possible.

So what is a fulfilling life in modern society? It is not endlessly lounging around or playing electronic games or doing nothing by choice. It is not getting into drugs which damage your health and bankrupt your budget and possible drive you to crime. It is not about getting a university degree which society does not value. Free education to 18 but not beyond to university. The individual must decide they are prepared to work and that there is a good chance the benefits of income will pay off the costs. A true life changing decision.

It is a choice to be made by the individual that they want to work on in education themselves. It is not a soft option nor a guarantee of future riches. Sitting around in uni, can some not even spell the full word? - university, for 3 years is not a right, it is to develop individual’s talents in some subject that society as a whole is prepared to pay for.

The move to make students loans have to be paid back was correct and I hoped that the student would research the earnings potential that might result from success in their chosen courses. However the safety nets put place have negated this effect. No student repays until he/she earns £21,000 pa and also the debt is written off after 30 years. All this now achieves is generous funding of many universities and inflated salaries of their Vice Chancellors in some, with my Alma Mata, I am sorry to say, leading the way. It is often forgotten that when the Government went for students paying the fees with the help of loans, they removed the limit an available places, thus expanding that choice. Unfortunately it seems that teaching quality has not always followed.

Business, Commerce and Society want people who have employable skills. To this end the move back into favour of apprenticeships is generally good. Too often is seems we get graduates in subjects such as media and other arts subjects, where there is a limited number of potential posts and they are not employable in society and so they move into teaching young people which tends to perpetuate the problem. I believe that these are disenchanted adults and that they have developed into a politicised teaching cadre, aided I understand by similarly biased textbooks. It is Business and Commerce that generate the wealth which pays for all the nice Education and Health and Social Services that we all value when we need them.

Education has to have a purpose. In the younger years it is to enable the children to read, write, be numerate and fit in to the society of their peers and family. In the teenage years to give them a deeper knowledge of their chosen subjects and understand society and to chose their first path of life. This does not have to be a degree.

Throughout this process the student cannot be shielded from competition in exams, on the sports field or elsewhere. Life is competition, for jobs, for partners and for our nation in this competitive world.

So Government must provide a good standard of primary, junior and senior education in all schools and FE colleges up to the age of 18. This seems to be pretty well monitored by OFSTED. As indicated above education after 18 must be a deliberate choice and available, but not free.

There has to be a formula to the per capita funding and I am unable to argue it in detail. But if x is enough in one area it should be enough in another. There can special issues around London Weighting, for example. It is local government’s job to make their area as attractive as possible to work in and to live in. It is easier now for them to do so now the heavy, dirty industries have largely disappeared from our landscapes.

There will always be less good schools and good schools and thus competition by concerned parents to get the best for their kids. Government must ensure that the poor school is above a minimum standard. If schools in an area need to be raised above that standard then it has to be a local effort. Good teachers, involved parents and extra cash from local funds.

My central theme will always be that Central Government pays for an adequate minimum standard. If an area wishes to better that they are free to do so if their local electorate is prepared to fund it through local taxation.

I do not favour Faith schools. Educating only Catholics, Protestants or Muslims exclusively together in their own segregated school is not fitting them for the real world where all these faiths and none need to work and live together, I would phase them out. The 15% who say they are Anglican are out of line with the 25% of schools controlled by the Church of England/

The teaching unions are a powerful voice and need to be listened to. But they have lost some of the public’s respect by strike actions, because this gives working parents problems to resolve, but their views must be heard but in return they must accept that their product (educated children) that they turn out have to be employable in today’s society. Employable means that they have at least basic skills and societal skills, able to add value in a job or vocation and fitted to develop themselves further through life.

Although I believe that Central Government should withdraw from Sport, Culture and Art, this should not be so in schools. Every child should be able to play in a team, compete and enjoy a range of culture and art.

4.4 Key Infrastructure

4.4.1 Overview

This topic tends to disturb the logic of my positioning the spending priorities. It is hard to justify spending on more rail or road improvements when the NHS needs cash. But as I say in the NHS Section it will always need more cash. More cash than society can possibly provide.

But the infrastructure is defined as Energy, Housing and Transport. So let me solve the positioning problem by naming this Section as Key Infrastructure.

Like Defence, the Government must see to it that there is enough power to heat, light and keep the activities of the nation going. There are no votes in power cuts and the impact on essential activities in hospitals and factories is disastrous.

Housing is also vital to the nation’s wellbeing. But whilst Central Government should make sure that Planning Regulations are not an undue constraint and that banks a willing to lend freely, but sensibly, it is up to the building industry to respond to private and local government social housing demand.

Roads are by far the most flexible form of transport in this country. Traffic routes itself around obstacles once it possess the information on a constraint. It is road that covers for rail outages. But I require that transport is a level playing field.

Rail has needed subsidies for years. Users object to paying for the modernisation programmes. On the other hand, road has been a cash cow for the Treasury. Road tax and fuel tax receipts are far greater than that which Government spends on roads. That should change. By all means add in social costs (air pollution, road traffic accidents) into the equation, but then make it a balanced playing field.

This is the first of several areas where the market distortion caused by taxation policy should cease.

Air on the other hand pays more in taxes than it receives. Arguably the demand for regulation is highest on this form of transport but it is undoubtedly covered by the tax inputs it makes to the State. I repeat all forms of transport should be on a level playing field costing and paying the State nothing when all the sums are done. My reason is that the economic movement of people and the cost of moving goods are fundamental of the cost of living.

On this note any further discussion on Transport is deferred to Section 6.6 Transport.

Many other networks are also essential to the smooth running of society. They carry voice and data, electricity and gas, and water. In my boyhood every sizable community had its own water company. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn wishes to take us back to those days, but we need a water grid as we have electricity and gas grids. The market generally does maintain them. Where we have problems is in the more remote areas for broadband. Many gas and liquid fuels can be supplied by road, albeit it costs more, I have little sympathy for those who wish to live in rural or remote communities yet demand all the facilities on their doorstep that they would have in the towns that they have shunned.

It is where new technologies are emerging such as carbon transportation that governments have difficulty in grasping the significance of the technology and taking the steps needed to assist its viability in the early stages of development. Government has failed, so far, in the case of carbon transportation. It succeeded in subsidising solar panels and wind turbines. The outcry when subsidies were withdrawn was incorrect as otherwise the market would have been unduly distorted. Subsidies are reverse taxation and can, as easily, distort the market.

4.4.2 Energy

The gap in the UK between installed capacity and maximum demand is the smallest it has been since the ‘50s. Indeed the gap is equivalent to one major power station. If one of our larger plants was to go offline at an unscheduled time, we could have brownouts. Our generation industry is owned by the French and Germans who have no need to invest in capacity here unless they can see a better return here than in their own EU countries. Successive UK governments have failed to fully comprehend the energy issue and they have not formulated a coherent policy and taken action to follow it through. Further all parties have made the energy companies villains. It will only get worse if we leave the EU. We are slightly better off than before with our Qatar and Norwegian gas contracts but they have the same underlying problem as the Russian oil lines, the supplies have to come a long way to get here. And recently Saudi has decided to attack Qatar politically.

These gas supplies need networks like the national electricity grid. To add to this, Government is long overdue in addressing a carbon grid if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets.

4.4.3 Transport

4.4.3.1 Transport – Generally: A Level Playing Field

Transport systems are the arteries which carry the economic lifeblood of our country. So this fundamental service is too important to be distorted by the vagaries of the taxation system. Transport should not be a revenue generator and if there has to be a tax burden, it should fall equally on all forms of transport. In short, it should be a level playing field. And my general rule is that the users of a service pay the full costs of the service.

The #BenDict Transport Policy, has the basic principle of recovering all allocated costs of infrastructure, environmental damage and social costs, but otherwise the economics not being distorted by tax or dogma, political correctness or otherwise. We cannot afford to subsidise any form of transport.

Journeys are NOT from A to B! The efficiency of journeys must be measured in cost and time over the entire route from A to Z. Journeys from D to T with possibly several interchanges along the way, as public transport often provides, are inherently less efficient in time, but necessary in crowded urban environments. Such journeys do penalise the less mobile whether it be through disability or carrying children. Dial – Ride is the ideal concept, but as far as I am aware you have to qualify and its operational range is limited to the Local Authority boundaries.

At the present time only roads bear a heavy burden of taxation in excess of subsidies. By all means apply levies to cover the measured environmental, social and accident/injury costs.

This view is supported by a Department of Transports advert for a Head of Strategic Transport Analysis & Review which says “Transport plays a vital role in all our lives, it is a key enabler of prosperity providing us with access to goods and services as well as business, employment, education, social and leisure opportunities. But transport also imposes costs, through pollution, congestion, noise and accidents. The transport systems of the future will need to maximise benefits, whilst reducing negative impacts.”

So I would see to it that distorting taxation and political dogma will be eliminated. All modes should be financed by the user on the basis of a level playing field. Taxes where applied should reflect their measured social and environmental impacts. To offset this all journeys to work or to seek work would be tax deductible at the cost of public transport. Current dispensations for students, the elderly and disabled would remain in force.

Another un-level field of transport is in marine transport, fuel taxes especially on carbon are not fairly apportioned between nations or controlled that much at all.

Most of the analysis below is written from the point of view of a passenger. It is how most of us see transport, although we should be alert to the movement of freight as its cost ultimately get paid by us in the Cost of Living. However whether goods are moved by road, rail, air or sea is an economic business decision. Although I project below that charges for congestion, pollution and loss of time, all influence the decision and cost. The decision of the passenger is similar except practicality is also in the mix. Car journeys are being moved to the category of anti-social and the lack of parking at the destination renders the mode impractical. London was recently judged the worst place in the country to find a place to park. Ever since WWII planning approvals have not allowed for the provision for adequate parking. If that cost had to funded, some of our city centre buildings may not have been justified.

4.4.3.1 Air Transport

Air transport needs robust public regulation and the provision of air traffic control, (NATS). There are perhaps social and certainly environmental costs and a calculation needs to be made to determine if the Air Passenger Duty (APD) and fuel duties cover those costs to the State and Society. If not adjustments will be needed.

APD is a quite steeply graduated tax on flight passengers. If the playing field is to be level, its justification has to be to cover the costs to society of flying. This is a highly arguable point as since we are an island much of the flying miles are over water and, in Europe, over other countries.

There is currently the demand for a third London runway. Long overdue through Government indecisiveness, but mainly lack of leadership over many vested interests. Which location, Gatwick or Heathrow or other could get private funding? That would decide it for this Dictator as then the taxpayer pays nothing. I would favour Gatwick as one runway is very limiting, but I would hope BOTH would get enough private funding. Fiddlesticks to Boris and Zac. We need Leaders not Populists.

The recent rise in drunken unruliness on flights needs strong addressing. I never could see the merit of loading planes before take-off with lots of often inflammable liquid and certainly intoxicating. Granted the bottles now are largely plastic. I would close Duty Free shops airside, at least for alcohol, the shops can remain on landing, but the Chancellor may have something to say about it. The drinks on board can be controlled by airline staff but not in airport bars. Ok so a few louts spoil the pleasure of responsible drinkers, but it is better no-one drinks than what now appears to be the all too common alternative.

4.4.3.2 Road Transport

It has been a trait of human nature for centuries; if not millennia that you aspire to afford you own personal transport. In history the progression from foot to horse to carriage. And now witness the growth of personal transport in India and China. First the bicycle, then the motor bike and now cars of all price ranges. Why? Only the roads go from your own front door to your (multiple) desired destination(s). All other forms involve enforced changes of the mode of transport, exposed to the elements, regrettably these days to dangers and time consuming. Add to that the reducing mobility of the UK's ageing population and of mothers handling babies and small children. Roads and buses are the “fall back” system for rail systems when difficulties are encountered.

But, popular politics is to drive people out of this most ubiquitous form of transport - their cars. But is it the majorities wish? Most probably not. Should the single, lone woman working irregular hours be forced to leave her car at home? If she can afford it and chooses to spend her income on a car, why should it be made more difficult, if not impossible? She may well change her job location instead. Cars for most of the day in most places still provide the shortest journey times and time is measured in either money or taken out of an individual’s limited and precious personal time.

Many measures force the road user to rail through offering no other practical choice, i.e. with little or no regard of the economic or social impact. So short of draconian bans, deterrents are bound to fall short of the desire of the ardent anti-road pressure groups.

But first a word or two on congestion. This is what people, whatever their choice (enforced or otherwise) of transport mode complain about most. It is also has a considerable bearing on increasing the cost and environmental inefficiencies of the entire system. On the roads there is much that can be done to reduce congestion.

If outright bans are to be considered, then pedal powered rickshaws should be top of the list. The stress and congestion caused to other road users are considerable. As well as the fact they are un-regulated and seem dangerous for the passenger. Cycles in generally do move faster and the rider is at least keeping fit. They rarely give way to pedestrians as they should as the recent case in the Old Bailey exemplifies and I hope the the punishment matches the crime. Although the logic of a 10 mph cycle going down a bus lane, followed by a bus capable of 30 mph does take imagination. Whilst on speed limits. The movement for large areas in towns to be reduced to 20 mph is a good idea, but not if the police find it impossible to enforce. Similarly on limits we are rightly exhorted to look out for motor-cycles, but often they are riding considerable in excess of the limit in build-up areas, their speed defeating the look right, left and right again.

We could ban delivery vehicles in town centres and develop INTERNET shopping even more, encouraging more delivery vans into the less congested suburbs. But what about those people living in the inner cities without a PC?

There is much that can be done by design, without bans. Many roads are being reduced in width. Sit on the upper deck of a bus and observe the original Victorian building line. Shops and pavement cafes have encroached on what the Victorians thought was a reasonable width of street.

It is said that prior to the introduction of the initial London congestion charge, that the phasing of lights was changed and then changed back again to show that the charge was improving traffic flows. It is to be welcomed that phasing is now to be reviewed on a case by case basis. I am sure that some are too short, but many are too long. One can often sit at a traffic light controlled intersection, with nothing happening at all in any direction. I recall a TV documentary on the topic, where the reporter had time to dance and twirl diagonally across the street. There are also many three way junctions that do not allow filtering, when it is clearly, safely possible. The adoption of the equivalent to “Right on Red” of the USA would be good. I also believe that ceasing the red + amber combination would be safer and simpler, red alone, green alone and amber alone and back to red.

The extension of the London Congestion Zone into Chelsea, apart from ignoring the public view in the consultation phase was clearly just a revenue raising measure as congestion in the original central zone would rise from many thousands more people resident within the enlarged zone.

Why not consider withdrawing DoT grants to Councils that allow parking on through routes, maintained by Central Government.

We do have the safest roads in the developed world. Whilst keeping up the pressure to design them to be safer still, bringing in more measures that the police have not got the resources to enforce or the prison room to incarcerate persistent offenders is not going to achieve society’s aims. That said causing death or serious injury whilst driving should as a norm get a serious sentence. If there are drugs, drink or evading arrest involved, even lengthier custodial sentences must follow.

I make it clear that I offer no support for the inconsiderate, selfish, dangerous, motorist. Unfortunately one sees them on every journey. So why not relocate the “speed cameras” to be truly “safety cameras” to cover the locations where these acts happen. Lack of lane discipline is one instance that causes congestion, rage and thus danger and yet rarely gets punished. So make transport a choice of balancing convenience and cost, with as few taxation distortions as possible.

Keep road traffic moving safely and smoothly should be a primary objective, not to slow it and hinder it at every possible point. Sensible design of controls, signage, etc. will help and the enforcement of penalties for poor or inconsiderate driving practices. Government currently takes c.£40bn in Road Tax and gives about c.£9bn in road improvements. With our price of petrol we do not need road pricing, the optimum system is in place.

By all means recover in full attributable social costs such as the damage to health caused by smoking, alcohol and certainly jailing dangerous drivers, so all accident and health costs are loaded onto cars and on other forms of transport as relevant. Assessing the costs of accidents is well established in examining the viability of any new investment in the roads, so the data is available.

The car industry is highly innovative and better at publicising itself than Rail or Air, partly because they have an eager audience. But Air and Rail “drivers” are certified for their high level of competence. This is not practical for the majority of road drivers. I want to give road users a break, by incorporating the Road Tax into the petrol excise tax, which is too high, so could stay unchanged. But I also want to drive bad drivers off the road. Every offence should not just get points on their licence, but an increase in their insurance premium. The price will drive them to be more careful or off the road. Driving without insurance would be an automatic jail sentence. Young drivers also deserve the benefit of the doubt until they have an accident. One method might be for them to have a normal premium but a very high excess backed by a guarantor.

Freight vehicles are individually the most polluting and need controls, but freight will only be attracted onto rail if it is more economic otherwise costs, prices will go up. This is probably a hard economy to achieve as loading on and off is a significant cost and delay.

The Economist many years ago did a revealing article on the progress of electric vehicles (EV) since 1906! They do transfer their carbon and other emissions to a more rural site but they also come a step closer to my vision of coming out of a bar, pressing a key on your communicator and around the corner comes a vehicle to take you safely home under automatic control.

4.4.3.3 Rail Transport

The movement of people by rail in urban areas is essential.

The nationalisation debate is interesting, as younger commuters tend to favour it and they did not experience the nationalised period of British Rail. Rail and Road are currently similar with their structure, like the roads the rails are state owned and on both the road and rail the vehicles are privately or corporately owned. However there is nothing magic about nationalisation producing better management. Indeed it is less likely as without the motive of and measure for some profitable return there are no reasons to censure managers who are not performing and politics will pervade all critical decisions even more.

The annual campaign against rail fare price rises has started as I update this section. It is understandable as no-one wants to pay more. The formula was set to improve the outdated infrastructure and one can see that this is happening. I started commuting in the days of slam door carriages! My transport philosophy is that of a level playing field and the users paying for what is consumed by their journeys. Rail are much favoured in this regard over roads. But I see no justice in the principle that UK taxpayers as a whole paying for reduced fares for London Commuters. Yes it will be hard when 25% or more of your salary goes on fares. But lack of skilled staff should encourage more businesses that do not need to be in Central London and to re-locate. Thus reducing the crowded commutes and gradually relieve the pressure on London housing and it prices.

4.4.3.4 Water

This final infrastructure need is clearly is not really Transport. I have long argued that clean, usable, water is the most precious world resource.

So water is even higher up the list of possible world crises than food, but far less obvious. In the UK it is already menacing us. Meters should now be compulsory and better efficiency regulation is essential, perhaps some form of franchising, which progressively erodes the area monopolised by the less efficient suppliers.

Yes there is water transport but I have not seen any realistic case for it winning back its trade uses of the 19^thC. It is however a wonderful leisure facility and should pay its way on that basis. There are many hobbyists prepared to stump up or work for free on any special renovation needs. All strength to them. Apart from its fuel needs it need not be taxed. But the land it occupies should be part of the local government area’s tax base.

But returning to water that we drink, cook, wash in, grow our crops and feed our farm animals for food. There are vast areas of this planet in both the developed and under-developed world that do not have a sufficient supply of usable water. The less thinking public say that it rained last week so we will be OK. There were floods last year so how can we be short. Flooding is an unrelated issue in the modern urban world as most of that water is wasted. Similarly in Bangladesh through deforestation and there are no doubt more areas to follow through the similar denial of the rules of good husbandry. Flooding is fine in the rice growing areas provided it arrives at the expected time of the season and in the normal volume. But water to use productively has to be managed. This management is under stress is developed places like southern California and south-east England. The problem is in more dramatic in places like northern Africa and southern India.

I am a firm believer that if technology was given its head by politicians with the experience to understand the technologies that many of our problems, not just water, could be solved. Three quarters of the earth’s surface is covered by water and we spend our time worrying about what if the level raises by 10 cms. It would fall if we channelled the seas and oceans into the dry areas using the heat of the sun which dominates such areas that I mentioned above to desalinate the water to create expanding areas to grow food. This is not impossible, many parts of the Middle East do that today on a limited scale. Yes it needs financing, but labour is cheap in these areas – and they once built the pyramids! The idea of moving the Mediterranean water to irrigate the Sahara Desert is not new, a French engineer proposed it in the 19thC, the idea should be revisited.

So the problem of water to live with can be largely solved and the suffering from having far too little eliminated.

4.5 Health

There will never be enough money for the NHS. With an ageing population and advances in all kinds of treatments, desired expenditure can only rise in real terms. Unrestricted demand will always outstrip the resources that the tax payer can afford. The NHS is a bottomless pit in terms of its cash needs.

When the NHS was created it led the world, but was in the main it was just that – Health. Now Mental Health and Social Care are inextricably linked.

Never would I consider removing the NHS principle of treatment free at the time of need. But, except for the accusation of jumping the queue, I do not see any problem with private treatment. It is one procedure less to be funded by the NHS and if a private hospital can, say do a quality hip replacement for less cost than in NHS, so be it, it will cost the NHS less to send and pay for that patient.

So since the starting flag has dropped on public debate with the recent report on the massive cash shortfall in the NHS. Everyone will agree that any rationing of treatment is difficult for all, emotional for many, possible life threatening for an unfortunate few and heart rending for their close family

As I say above the NHS is a bottomless pit in terms of its cash needs. However, all of us that have had cause to be grateful for the skills in the NHS, but will have seen that there is also much that can be done more economically. These issues have to be attacked without excessive union obstruction. Studies could be done to identify savings particularly in support services. They can save money immediately by not being obliged to offer translation into a myriad of languages. If someone is living here they should be able to function here in English. If they are a visitor they will normally have a resident friend or contact here. Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural does not mean multi-lingual when dealing with their daily lives outside of the family.

Where do the boundaries lie?

At one end of the social spectrum of conscience is the prolonging of lives of all ages, but especially for chronically ill and probably damaged babies and children, just because it is possible. Charlie Gard is a classic example. Why the authorities will not let him go to the US, the parents have raised the money, instead of the hard-pressed NHS squandering money on legal fees, equivalent to many hip replacements or transplants.

IVF for all, no matter if the woman has already had a child or children and/or where the parent/child age gap will make physical play with the child in its adolescent years difficult and communication gap may be more like grandparent to grandchild. And what about the increasing demand for the resolution of gender issues?

Then there are those who after deep consideration wish to end their lives before their suffering becomes too great. Euthanasia has the potential to reduce healthcare costs, so with the right safeguards, why not?

Keeping hopeless cases alive, with long court battles over Human Rights. The costs of these battles reduce the money available for other, more routine cases. They illustrate the complexity of the debate and the emotions it will certainly arouse. Perhaps a new Court system needs to be established for litigation with the NHS that can be cheaper and somewhat more rapid.

So whatever rationing system is devised, I would see to it the preventative programmes and early diagnosis got a high priority.

And safeguards must be in place for the poor especially to keep them in work and those suffering with chronic disease that is not obviously self induced. But reflecting why I put Education before Heath in my spending priorities there are those who do not look after their health. Excesses of smoking, eating, alcohol and drugs can before it kills you involve huge demands for health services and indeed social care.

All this raises a debate on the value and quality of life. How much research should be done for a rare condition, compared with common afflictions?

4.6 Sport, Culture and the Arts

I will be regarded as an arch Philistine for these propositions, but I do not think Government money should be spent on Sport, Art and Culture. Nor the keeping alive of little used languages in the regions of our country. English is a world language and that is all our citizens need to master. It is helpful to learn Spanish, and even Chinese, Russian, & Arabic if they want to enhance their understanding of the world around us and in a few cases perhaps their careers.

Funding of the Arts by Local Authorities is fine if their electorate supports the taxation that will be required in the future.

Support from the National Lottery if it continues to be well controlled is great.

The caveat on all this is the in schools up to 18 years Sport, Art and Music must feature to enable the children to be informed enough to make satisfying choices in life. After that they join the adult world and if they want ballet, art or sculpture, they pay for that enjoyment, although much of the latter is free in museums.

I would also cut the BBC down to size. Major events, tragic or otherwise shows just how many reporters/presenters they have. The national ones elbow the loyal local ones out of the way, with several teams turning up, one from each channel. I would pull the BBC out of all local UK radio and leave that service to the local commercial stations. They BBC would still have the popular national channels and thus the listeners choice.

4.7 Overseas Aid

Whilst our Government is inflicting austerity on many sectors of the poorest in the UK, why give 0.7% of our GDP away. It may make many elite people feel satisfied or smug. But for me this money is needed to satisfy the needs of our poorest. If I were a rich man I would certainly give a percentage of my income to charity, but the charities chosen would be for the benefit of humans in the UK. I also feel that the better the wellbeing of the UK population the more they will give to good causes, wherever they may be. The recent huge response to the Grenfell Tower demonstrates this. So no Government overseas aid during an austerity drive, except where there is a natural disaster in a Commonwealth country.

We should not be giving money to the poor of India and Pakistan to improve their living, when their governments are spending on nuclear armaments. I would cite an exception. If the aid is building by a British company or by our military, then is should be allowed to go ahead.

I will be returning to the topic of Charities in my policies on taxation.

This is the appropriate point to insert my views on refugees. Their democracy or system of government has broken down with the disastrous consequences that we witness frequently on TV. Again like those in the UK needing our benefits system it is the children that get to your heartstrings. There are so many in large extended families. We cannot take them all and Europe cannot take them all and also many of them are economic migrants. That said the countries are probably not that kind to their poorest. We could and should set up a system to select the best against a points system of the skills we need, but not where it means taking a large swathe of dependents, probably destined to become dependents of our stretched State services.

An opportunity was missed in the Syrian conflict to set up a no-fly zone. The West has the military power to set up save havens and feed them there. They are closer to home when repatriation becomes possible. Russia should be able to be persuaded to help, especially if refugees begin to be re-directed to their land borders. They do not want large numbers of Muslims arriving in their southern regions.

The countries which are the sources of economic migrants must be pressured to be more democratic, develop their economies and helped in setting up systems of training. In other words deal with the problem at source. Giving money to countries in order to stem the flow or refugees at source is a great policy when we can afford it. Regrettably the starting point has to be shutting our back door.

4.8 Government Savings Principles

Taxation will be simplified and thus cost less to administer and to police avoidance.

All Quangos and Government Agencies must be ordered to produce a cost/benefit analysis of their work and achievements.

Charities would largely take over Overseas Aid.

Then there are “Efficiency Savings”. I would have a Cabinet Minister in charge that seeing that these savings are real.

The statistics below are worth reviewing and acting upon as I do in Section 7.

5. Local Government Funding & Spend

Local Government comes out low in my spending priority list. After setting the minimum standards, Central Government which at the present largely funds local government, should, I believe, progressively withdraw from the funding of Education and Social Care. Health may follow, but since it is a much larger budget, the process of local funding should be bedded in first. Central Government should start by transferring all operational decisions to local Councils and their officials.

Oversight would continue as at present via Ofsted and the CCC, with strengthened regulatory powers if necessary including strong powers to intervene directly if that be necessary. More decisions taken locally should enliven local politics. The population would be silly not to become more involved as the progressive increase in local taxes will ensure their voices are both stimulated and needed. They will be compensated by reduced State income tax and perhaps VAT. A formula for the transfer of funding source must be laid down. They can save money immediately by not being obliged to offer translation into a myriad of languages, unless their population demands it and pays for it. I regret that Welsh public offices require a degree of proficiency in the Welsh language this discriminates against most British citizens. We are heading in a similar direction in Northern Ireland. This is divisive.

Land is the fundamental resource of a Council and the area of land that an individual or corporate entity controls is an economic factor. Tax on that area could be set and this would accelerate unproductive land back into better economic use. A Zoning principle could be enforced by a multiplier effect on say a derelict building in the middle of a residential area.

A small sales tax could be introduced, but in a country of short distances between local boundaries, it is difficult to see how this could be done without distortion to the local economy. So I favour a tax on land area with the suggested multiplier to re-enforce the local planning.

5.1 Local Taxation

This section is not included in Section 7 of this Manifesto, for whilst it is taxation it is intended to reduce Central Government’s spending and its hence tax take.

It is now evident that I favour the principle more of what is spent locally should be decided and raised locally. It has the advantage of stimulating the interest in local governance. Demands for more or different services can be put directly by voters to local authorities (or the reverse is more likely) and agreed or otherwise by the voters and local Council.

The transfer has to be progressive over a number of years. Initially it could be restricted to the enhancement of local services in Social Care and later Education and Health probably in that order. So Central Government pays the cost of the nationally agreed standards of service in each of these areas, with a formula to take account of the variation in the population make-up of local areas. Then locally initiated, additional “top up” services are proposed, discussed and if agreed funded. The progressive percentage reduction of central government’s funding of the agreed national standard would be laid down in the formula I note above. It is inline with a form of federalisation presaged and the creation of Regional Assemblies and more local Mayors. We currently have 7, but they have varying powers. This invites leapfrogging. The powers should be standardised or at least on a scale related to the size of the metropolis concerned.

The problem is that local taxation needs to be on a different basis to national taxation. Local taxation cannot be seen as another income tax less fair than the taxes raised by the State. So what would be fair? We all remember the Poll Tax. The name has a political stigma as has also been attached to the Bedroom Tax and most recently to the Dementia Tax. Yet all were based on reasonable premise. The Poll Tax being that if there were 8 on one family and 2 in another, the 8 should pay more for local services. The Bedroom Tax that the social housing occupied by a family was too large, say the family had grown up and moved out, then tax should be levied to encourage the tenants to move. The only merit of Dementia Tax is that it is recognised that Social Care needed a new approach. I will argue in the Government Taxation Policy Section on the merits of taxation and poll taxes and poll benefits.

But here I am discussing local taxation and its impact on our nation’s local democracies and also on the Governments role and its total spending.

If some fair and acceptable means of raising money locally were in place, then Central Government could gradually divest itself of large areas of funding responsibility and leave it where it should be in response to local demand and political will. It is the acceptable nature of the taxation that is at issue, but I am after all - a dictator!

My economics course taught me that there are 3 basic resources, Money, Labour and Land. Only Land is mainly applicable in this context. Indeed the current local tax, the Council Tax is based, very loosely, on land. I return to this topic in Section 5.3:-

I attended courses on the fundamentals of economics and do recall that the basic asset of a local government is the land in its area. The area of land that you control the use of, as an individual, family group or corporate entity should be proportionate to the tax rate applied. It would free up under-used land. The tax would have to be phased in say with no more than an 8% increase per annum, to protect the old for whom the issue of moving is difficult and/or the thought of leaving their memories is unbearable. Progressively a multiplier could be applied to zone land use more effectively in the local interest.

This is the basis of my belief. The case for its fairness can be fefended. It will however be more complex and the principles will need to be largely determined by Central Government, with only limited scope for local variation. If a house stands on a large area of land it will pay more than one built on a smaller area. But this payment will be made on an accurate survey of the area of land involved. This will encourage the sale of under-used land or a resident living a property with too much land for their needs or income. One can see that flats would pay less as multiple owners share in the control of the land on which their building stands on. Here a factor could be introduced decreasing with the distance from the centre of the locality and its main services. But that is not nearly as important as the ability to drive out land usage which is not in line with the needs of the locality. Say a scrapyard or waste dump in the middle of a residential area. Cases of which have figured recently in the news. Leaving empty or letting the house of garden fall into disrepair would also increase the multiplier factor on a temporary basis until the property was put back into use or good order.

Progressively applied with detailed safeguards, this could be the way of fairly raising local funds for local needs and re-invigorate local government even to the extent that the election turnout exceeds that of General Elections.

5.2 Housing

In the developed world it is indefensible that many, many people are living in sub-standard housing. We need housing - lots and lots of it. There can be no ambiguity here. Good housing is a pre-requisite of good health and a happy, stable family group. But I see it not so much a government problem as political parties at election times portray. Government should see that the planning and regulation frameworks are sensible and not overly restrictive, in terms of the release of land for development. Planning regulations should make sensible building easier. I do not see a mixture of “affordable” and multi-million homes on the same site as a good solution. The multi-million homes need no subsidy whilst the the low cost homes may well do. And put rich and poor cheek by jowl is bound to cause jealous tensions. Road and rail planning must be kept in sync with new housing plans and the mortgage lending system must be only sensibly constrained.

After this it is up to the market to build homes that people want to buy and for local authorities to be free to finance the building of social housing. And Local Authorities should be free to borrow money to build to house their citizens in their area and attract people into their area if they so wish. They should be are empowered to have long range plans for their communities and I would require them to raise more of their local spend through local taxation. This will make sensible communities start to take a greater interest in the activities of their local governance. The sooner this impact begins to take effect the better for the communities who do so.

This is building to a more dynamic situation, with land being freed up by increased local taxes on under or inappropriately used land. More people being brought in needing to work or even to provide care services.

5.3 Social Care

Social Care in relation to age, appears to have started the process of transfer to more local funding. My latest Council Tax only rose because of the increased Adult Care Levy. As will be clear I believe that Social Care should regulated nationally from the centre. But it should be funded locally and be responsible locally. If it is not up to the needs tell the Council and they need to respond and if the majority of their voters support them, approve the increase of local taxation to meet the greater standards of service. Issuing Bonds to tide them over if needs be. There are natural checks and balances in both of these statements.

By Social Care I also mean care in the home, which needs funding especially if the carer has to give up work.

There are several transitions of here-:

The reduction of national funding
The move to raising more local taxes
Enhancing the social care provision
The stimulation of local democracy
The reduction is national taxation

These will need monitoring, which the Benevolent Dictator will do fairly.

There will be disparities in the number of people needing care as a proportion of the local population. Eastbourne and Bournemouth (and there are other places as well.) are well known for a high proportion of retired souls. Many of these people may be asset rich, but income poor, so changes will need to take place and these cannot be painless. As I state in Section 6 there is no absolute right in the UK for the children to inherit all of their parent’s estate. So the paramount thing is that great care is given and if the recipient has money, it will get used. I see the problem that this does not encourage saving during the working years, it is an issue I wrestle with. The rate of withdrawal of State funds can be kept between 3% & 5% depending on the age profile of the receiving authority.

There are also areas of many poor people especially in the North. But it need not be that way, I am a Tynesider and many parts of that great area are doing very well even after the loss of their traditional heavy industries. I believe that restoring the pride in and effectiveness of local government will improve things over time. But until then what is called the Universal Credit is administratively the simplest and the best course. Its roll-out typifies the Government’s (of all persuasions) poor performance in developing IT systems, but it is one source of administration and assessment. It must take special care of children, particularly where there is a high number in one family, often with no father or fathers around. But ways to ensure that the children benefit not the adults as their means of livelihood must be found, e.g. clothing, books and other educational aids.

5.4 Local Funding of Health

The transition of health to more local funding will take the longest and should not be started until Social Care and Housing with a local focus and funding are well established. But it needs to be considered as decisions on the future of local general hospitals, should be taken as locally as possible. The overall national strategy should be set for specialised care with local issues in mind. In due course if keeping a local hospital open is fought for, that fight should be backed up by local funding. The limit being what local funding, local people are prepared to pay. They could be prepared to keep a local facility open and pay a supplement to doctors or nurses to work in their area. All this will enhance the reputation of the area and make it easier to attract people and investment to it, in the future. Part of the citizens changing their towns for the good.

5.5 Benefits

REVIEWED

Pension and Unemployment benefits should remain unchanged. Although I have sympathy with the need to restrict universal benefits regardless of need, such as the Winter Fuel Allowance. However I suspect the cost of assessing the need will outweigh the savings involved, unless it was totally stopped, which would raise a storm – not that real dictators worry about that! Unemployment benefit should be supplemented by free travel to job interviews or training.

Disability benefits need to be provided as generously as the country’s finances allow. Each case should be assessed to comprehensive rules and time related. These should be:

·Applicant must be British
·Genuinely cannot work
·If not unable to work, is he/she genuinely seeking work with assistance, including financial, to seek work
·Then what is their need

If the recipient is never going to recover do not bring them back for re-assessment every year, although the continued existence of the condition needs checking occasionally and probably randomly. If however all might change in 6 months then that is the limit set, and the recipient will need to reapply.

Then there is the political hot potato of a Benefits Cap. There has to be one. First because a benefits recipient must not receive more than some one in work. Second because the funds of the State are not unlimited, so a cap must be set in line with the suggested new BASIC Cost of Living Index. See section 7.4 (More Babies) and section 8.

5.6 Sport, Culture and the Arts

Funding of the Arts by Local Authorities is fine if their electorate supports the taxation that will be required in the future.

Support from the National Lottery if it continues to be well controlled is great.

5.7 Overseas Aid

I will be returning to the topic of Charities in my policies on taxation.

5.8 Government Savings Principles

Taxation will be simplified and thus cost less to administer and to police avoidance.

All Quangos and Government Agencies must be ordered to produce a cost/benefit analysis of their work and achievements.

Charities would largely take over Overseas Aid.

Then there are “Efficiency Savings”. I would have a Cabinet Minister in charge that seeing that these savings are real.

The statistics below are worth reviewing and acting upon as I do in Section 7.

6. Government Taxation policy

6.1 Government’s Need

Central and Local Governments need money to cover the spending that the majority of their citizens wish them to cover. So all Governments need money, but a fundamental principle, espoused by Adam Smith, is that Taxation should NOT distort the natural market. The best everyday example of this distortion is that of taxes on the car that are a revenue earner, yet bus and rail transport costs the taxpayer money for every journey. Our life and national economy is not improved by such distortions? Ideally taxation should be a way for governments to raise the most money with the least distortion of economic activity. (The Economist www.economist.com 2 May 2009).

Taxation can be used as a powerful weapon to change the way people behave. Such as harmful activities, smoking, excessive alcohol or other drug abuse. Powerful arguments can be used to support this use of taxes.

I have the following aims:-

To sustain a progressive improvement to our material wellbeing.

This document is a non-partisan policy suggestion for a tax regime that will sustain growth and have public endorsement.

It sustains growth because it recognises the issues needed to sustain the environment and still increase the standard of living year on year.

It will command public support because it does the above and is clear and fair to the vast majority of society.

6.2 Taxation - Principles

I have some guiding principles on Taxation

· Taxes should not distort the market indefinitely
· Complex taxes encourage avoidance and expensive collection and policing activities, so make the rules of all taxes, simple and clear, minimise deductible allowances and pass the administrative burden on to the taxpayer or their agents as far as possible
·
·
·
·

There are constraints.
- I favour that the total tax take from individuals should not exceed 40% of GDP.
- Also that Governments should only borrow to cover expenditure on infrastructure and even then keep it under control so that the interest costs can be contained within the 40% limit of normal government expenditure.

6.3 Introduction - Taxation Methods

There are six main forms of taxation.-

· Business
· Purchase/Sales Tax
· Income
· Property
· Wealth
· Trade Tariffs

Now let us consider some of the pros and cons of each of these taxation sources.

Business

The main business tax is Corporation Tax. This varies with political wills or whims. But we are generally competitive with our competitors in the developed world. Our failure is in Productivity and no-one seems to have answers here. I would commission all relevant professional bodies to look at this and come up with suggested answers.

There are also Business Rates, but these should revert to the local authority on which the business property stands and would become theirs to regulate to meet their local plans and voter demands.

There are also licences and levies and although they need to be justified they are a marginal cost to business and the citizenry. In principle though I against levies as I comment upon in the Government Taxation section of this report.

If of course Brexit prevails then we could be faced with a raft of Custom Duties and these would be the most damaging of all as they affect competitiveness across international borders as they are intended to do.

Purchase/Sales Tax

Spending must be taxed, it is after all a tax on consumption and is therefore good for the environment. Now it is termed VAT, but it used to be called Purchase tax and Sales Tax is a common term internationally. We should use this mechanism to restrain consumption.

VAT would be used to reduce consumption over time, what could be greener than that! People would be made fully aware that spending taxes would rise progressively so even if there is deflation buying now will be cheaper than in the following year.

So sales taxes, VAT, or whatever it chosen to be called is generally good for the environment as it discourages consumption which generates pollution, through waste and the non-renewable energy used in production. But consumption taxes are the hardest on the poor. A solution to this is not raise any taxes on the basics in the Cost of Living Index, such as food and children’s clothing. It has some relationship to wartime rationing, when it is said the nation as a whole was at its healthiest. But if the item is a luxury or has to be imported, then the rate should escalate with distance of goods transit.

As examples the Sales Tax on most foods would be zero. There will be exceptions on expensive, scarce items or non-basic foods that travel long distances. E.g. 10% from Europe and 15% from the rest of the world. Luxury items could be 25% or more. Whilst I am not saying, that holidays are a luxury but those abroad should attract tax on a sliding scale.

Cars could be taxed on a sliding scale up to 25% or more for a town-based 4x4 off-roader. However, in general I am against complex road pricing policies, believing that transport should be a level playing field. The level of tax on fuel automatically compensates for distance travelled and the level of congestion encountered because of the time chosen for the journey and we can have added levy to cover the costs of accidents and the green impacts. The fuel tax could be engineered to recover the Road Tax and basic Third Party insurance. Leaving only Fully Comprehensive as a voluntary add-on.

The Sales Tax would also be used to squeeze out the black economy. It would be a legal requirement on the populace to get a receipt showing that tax had been paid on goods and services (It so in Italy, even if it is still ineffective in the south) and the buyer would be liable if they have no valid receipt. Builders, painters, decorators often operate cash in hand. Local Planning officers could inspect the receipts when checking the compliance of the the more extensive home improvements to Building Regulations. Surplus VAT officers would quickly establish the profiles of service companies prone to the cash-in-hand payment methods. A further step to squeeze the black economy would be to greatly increase the registration of all trades. A continuum of registration from the very specific of home plumbing and joinery skills to the general requirements for Chartered Engineers. The GDP would immediately increase by up to 10%.

Whilst in favour of free trade, the UK would likely be alone in placing a greater reliance Spending Taxes, which would lean more heavily on imported goods.

Income Tax

With a higher burden of the tax take coming from consumption (sales) taxes, the income tax structure will need sensitive and progressive reform to compensate and protect those hit hardest.

Income tax should be gradually reduced by phasing more and more people out of the lower tax bands completely. Far fewer allowances would apply. This reduces the resources spent on avoidance and collection – costs that are a waste to both Government and citizens.

Taxes should be progressive and not have any distorting step changes. Perhaps a start at 10% going up by 5% with every £5,000 and upwards until the budget balances. Will there be a 100% tax rate? No, 70% is above the often talked about 50% rate and that would be the maximum for what are the very few who have other means of securing their future. There must be a generous personal allowance, at least equal to the maximum possible benefit, so that work always pays more than living on benefits. Each family member will be taxed in his/her own right.

NI payments would cease and PAYE would have to pick up that extra revenue. NI is stepped and biased in favour of the rich whereas the new Income Tax would be progressive.

The reduction of income based taxes would support the elimination of the Poverty Trap. A simplification of the Benefits system is long overdue and now underway. More targeting of benefits but not cuts except to those who are cheating.

Investment Income

We do want to encourage people to save for their old age or a rainy day. So assuming income tax has been paid and an individual or family has surplus cash let them invest it without further tax, more or less as they can for pensions. So whilst income from savings is not taxed. If there is a capital gain or loss then that is to the benefit or sorrow of the investor.

Personal saving, especially long term and for pensions must be encouraged with legitimate pension deduction in work being free of tax

Expand ISAs – take away any limit, in effect this will create a marked difference between money put away for the longer term and a short-term savings “buffer” for the proverbial rainy day.

Wealth in Life

Let us assume people have paid their taxes. There is still without doubt, a disparity of wealth in this, as in any other country whether developed or under-developed.

Redistributive taxes in life are wrong. Breaking up wealth is bad for investment in the economy. What is important is Equality of Opportunity and not Equality of Wealth.

Suppose we could redistribute wealth what would happen?

First what do we mean by wealth. If it includes non-cash assets then property would have to be sold, there would be a break-up of land and a consequent demand for developments in the previously green and pleasant lands, art and jewellery would be sold to the highest bidder, probably from overseas and pension pots destroyed causing chaos in the Stock Exchange. The luxury end of the market would collapse so some of those people would have had their wealth taken off them and now their income stream destroyed. The net effect would be a respectable 5 figure handout to everyone at enormous administrative expense. Then there would be a boom in holidays, with rapidly rising prices and richest of the state would become travel agents and hoteliers. In short the share out would not be enough to really change lives for the good in the long-term.

But through Equality of Opportunity, everyone should have the opportunity by hard work and ability to become rich, even very rich. Although we have to bear in mind excesses. The Economist dated October 21^st 2017 on page 20 shows the gap between rich and poor to be the widest of any developed nation.

Taxing Wealth in Death See The Economist Nov. 25^th 2017 (2 articles)

Then there is Inheritance Tax (IHT) or Death Duties is it is often termed. Breaking up wealth in the past is one reason why many of our Stately Homes are now leisure facilities. This is not wrong, there is a fair valuation and then tax is taken above a set limit. But it breaks up collections of art and period furniture, valued highly but are not cash, without selling the collections on to often overseas investors. So it raises the question of different kinds of wealth and whether they should each be taxed differently.

IHT is a moral question. On one hand, as I say, I believe that we must encourage saving. The question then is do you take some of the unconsumed savings to the State or allow the benefiting relatives to take the remaining assets over. One course would benefit the Exchequer and the other the lives and micro economy of the, perhaps extended, family. I am still in two minds but I am sure that the assets acquired in life should be used to support the closing years of the life. But I know it is a conflict with the encouragement of saving against spending as the money comes in, in one's earlier years.

The argument for it is simple - it shares wealth out. But it does it? It goes into the Governments coffers and apart from reducing the wealth of an old established family, none goes to even up society’s income and wealth in general, perhaps it holds back the rises in other axes on income a miniscule amount. The arguments against are about reducing the incentive for families of more modest means to save and that tax has already been paid once on the income that created the wealth. These are valid but I come down in favour of IHT. But we must not discourage saving in life so I would look closely elsewhere at Investment Income Tax and Capital Gains taxes. I also believe that wealth can only do good when it is collected into reasonable sized accumulations and perhaps causing the creation of charitable trusts.

So I wrestle with this. These issues are complicated by those people who could have saved but chose not to. Those who genuinely never could afford to save should not be penalised, although some of these folks, for one reason, or another may not have made the best of their opportunities in life. It is also complicated by family members who give care for free. Is it merely that they cost of living is going up the reverse of when you were a child and parents were fit enough to give you loving care for free and the State did also help a little then.

How much care you need in our latter days is a lottery, it is in the genes as I often say. The NHS philosophy is that you pool the risk, but should this apply with end off life care. Everyone should get the care, but they must take life’s chances they pay (after death) or the State pays for it. Children have no God given right to inherit their parents fortune, large or small, they did not work for it. If it remains after death great, but then….As I say I wrestle with this. If a family member needs to live in the parent’s house for say 5 years then it should be free from IHT.

Property

The annual tax taken on property is for the local authority to set and receive. I have said elsewhere that it should be based on the Land Area controlled by its owner. There would be multipliers based on how close the land use complied with the need of local plan. Thus waste or unused land would be taxed more. Occupants of tall buildings would pay less and increasing distances for the centre of conurbations would attract decreasing tax. These moves would free up under utilised land and take some pressure of town and city centres.

6.4 Other Taxation Issues

Black Market

We all enjoy the black market and look for cash in hand traders who save us VAT. But it is wrong and potentially dangerous on several fronts. Steps could be taken to reduce this trade. An example is many home improvements. If you need Planning Permission that the Inspector of the final works should be required to take copies of the receipted bills. Most traders of repute will be or should be VAT Registered.

I am sure that other simple means could be devised to detect and stop this illegal avoidance of what is termed earlier in this document as a Consumption Tax.

Enhanced Monitoring & Budgeting

There will need to be much more precise monitoring of the impacts of all these changes on the Basic Standard of Living. The GDP, Debt Reduction will also need close scrutiny, indeed “rolling” mini budgets on a quarterly basis may well become the order of the day. Reduction in Income Tax would be at least one quarter ahead of the imposition of a revenue compensating Sales Tax. But each must have a predicted direction of travel in order that industry and households can adequately plan and adjust. The current measures would clearly show that inflation would rise over 2 years as prices went up in return for the increase of people’s disposable income. But the Standard of Living should increase as well.

Unemployment

It must be the case that is pays to work, if you are able. So benefits have to be controlled. Work should be encouraged and one step is by allowing the journey from home to work to be claimed against income tax. Vouchers for the unemployed to travel to job interviews could be provided. Community work should become mandatory after a set number of weeks of unemployed benefit.

More Babies

And we need to encourage babies, but not in reckless numbers as a means of securing a livelihood from benefits. More children should be helped, by offsetting their care and education costs against tax. So benefits should cease or taper off rapidly after the third child. I know we are then left with a distressing problem of the multiple child, single Mum. These are special cases and need to be individually considered. I want to avoid the trap of people receiving more on benefits than working and their true status of partnered or not has to be monitored. I do not want the children to suffer, but they must cease to be a burden on the State at 18.

Charities

Major charities are big business.

Giving to Charities should be encouraged to remove more of the Aid burden from the State. Although Charities will not like it, I am of the belief that making gifts to approved charities tax deductible will be a bigger inducement for people to give than the present GiftAid system. It could go hand in hand with the tighter control of Charities (there are just too many of them, often overlapping) and too much of the donations spent on executive salaries, marketing etc. And also a reduced focus of support from the donor in many areas. Overall it is probably administratively simpler and transfer some of that burden away from the State to the charity to issue receipts.

The Charities Commission is meant to “register and regulate charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence”. I went on to their site to see how many Charities there are. There was no total to be found. I suspect the number is in the 100s of thousands and the control is extremely light.

In any personal giving I look at the CEO salary and amount spent on marketing to see just how much gets to the target group.

Major charities are, as I say above, big business.

7. additional social change

There should be two Cost of Living Indices. The Cost of Living Index, which covers only the basic essentials of life, taking account that the travel to work will be tax deductible, but no air fares for foreign holidays. Intended to show how much is needed to survive in a healthy manner. A state of life which it is intended will normally be transient for those actively seeking (better) employment.

And the Standard of Living Index. This can allow some elements of the “good life”, such as a cinema trip, a package holiday, an occasional meal out. Intended to show if the nation’s wellbeing is improving over time.

Tax Evasion crackdowns noted by all political parties, must be rigorous with severe penalties.

All commercial invoices to be paid within 14 days or disputed in writing.

Excessive Environmentalism is certainly harmful to our wellbeing, by going back to the living inconveniences of decades or even centuries ago. It is not wonderful that a carnivore, the wolf, has been released into the wild in very environmental Oregon? They are now prospering and straying south into California causing some concern in that green state.

However the charge on plastic bags has probably been effective, although mine have always been re-used to wrap rubbish. I have now to buy another plastic bag to do that. Bottle deposits would be more effective than recycling, I would like to know how much recycling costs the Council Tax payer. I would impose yet more taxes to cover the clean up of chewing gum, cigarette ends and street distributed flyers, usual ending up on the pavement within 10 yards of the distributer. The despicable acid attacks on the mot vulnerable delivery job of pizza and other fast food deliveries should have insurance provided by their employer whether employed or not.

Climate Change, manmade or not must not dictate Energy Generation Policy when mitigation of the carbon by-products is possible.

I am not convinced that we need high speed trains to take 15/20 minutes off the journey to Birmingham or Manchester. As we are always told for cars, higher speed means more fuel used. Believe it or not the same is true for trains. Like electric cars they transfer the carbon emitted into the atmosphere to a power station site more remote from the vehicle.

Acknowledgements

My friend, Bill Beazley, Texas for being the first to make constructive comments.

My cousin, Hilary Joyce for her helpful editorial advice.

main references

Systems Thinking Analysis Manual by Norman Harris with acknowledgement to The Open University

The Economist, nearly every issue has something of note for a document of this nature.

The Economist Vol 410 Issue 8877 March 8 2014 page 73 on rise in Earth’s temperature

appendices

1 RESPONSE TO The LONDON mayor’s transport Strategy

INTRODUCTION

There can be no problem with the objectives set out in the Background to the MTS, that of a healthy and good quality life for all who live and visit London.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy is intended to last until 2041, yet is disappointing as it does not seem to take account of the huge technological changes certain to happen in that extended period of time and all destined to reduce air pollution. The Strategy should prepare London for these changes as its first priority to keep London as a major city of the future. Are we still going to travelling on bicycles and buses as now in 2041? The focus of the Strategy leans too much to reducing pollution, but missing some key short-term measures, rather than creating a City of the Future.

HUMAN ASPIRATIONS

The fundamental need of any traveller especially into a big city is the easiest passage over the entire journey, usually measured in time, although cost is important. But especially for the elderly, partially disabled or parents with one or two children, it is the need to go from door to door as easily as possible. When I go to London for a meeting, it is a walk to the tram, a walk to a train, a walk again to a bus and then a walk to meeting room. Imagine if I was partially disabled or encumbered with a small child and a pram. Efficiency is usually measured in time, so I challenge the statement public transport is the most efficient. It depends on how efficiency is measured and in London also on the time of the day.

It has always been a human aspiration to have your own means of transport, through horse, cart/carriage, cycle, motor cycle and now car. This will not change unless something more convenient is offered. In other words a true City of the Future.

PAST PLANNING ERRORS

So do not repeat the planning errors of the past. . The mistake after WWII was that every building should have been made to be able to house the cars that their function attracted and so were housed off the roads. Much of the US does that very tastefully and here buildings would only be built if the parking overhead made it still worth it. It is too late to reverse this now but it contributes to the recent accolade of “London being the worst place (in the UK) to find parking”.

The consequence is the clutter of cars on the roadside and also, I regret to see, on new housing developments. Many roads in the inner cities are now narrower than they were in Victorian times and traffic policy is designed to slow the traffic thus creating pollution in current vehicles. One can sit at many traffic light controlled intersections with nothing happening in any direction, only cyclists chancing their arm to jump the light. This idle time also causes pollution. Cyclists travelling in bus lanes at 10 – 15 mph with a bus capable of a safe 25 mph behind does not reduce pollution or increase efficiency for the majority. Not to mention the hazardous pedal rickshaws.

IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTIONS

So start now with less dramatic schemes to reduce pollution by eliminating bottlenecks, check the timing of light controlled intersections and installing filters wherever possible. Take the largest buses off the many lightly used routes out of the busy hours. One can see only a handful of people on many large, 92 seat, double deck buses after 8 p.m.

Streets are 80% of public space but what of the total space and how quickly does air pollution disperse away form major thoroughfares. I believe the pollution does not spread that far from the main roads so create cycle free, footpaths running parallel with the thoroughfares but out of the worst pollution.

The laws on taxis should be modernised, combining the best features of black cabs, mini cabs and Uber. This is not revolutionary and whilst the black cab lobby will protest we are way behind many taxi services of Northern Europe.

But environmentalists cite cycles as king and cars as the villain once again, when in practice the progress on car emissions has been outstanding. Streets for walking dismisses the premise that it is point to point travel that is needed in a commuter and indeed visitor’s busy schedules. Exercise is an anathema to some and many will feel they have not the time. There are limits as to how far you can walk whether unburdened or loaded down. Cycling is not on for me or the young Mum without special seats and skull protection. I have seen Dutch ladies with a child in front and behind, but oh how unstable they looked. And I wonder if people will still cycle to work on 2030 and 2040. Home working will be more common still and cycling could well revert to a recreational activity rather than a money saving one.

I see little about delivery vehicles. The more they are hampered, by No Entry signs, Congestion or Low Emission charges and forbidden routes, the more they pollute and the more the costs of goods and services will go up. If shops are not well stocked or get too expensive, then the alternative will be more transfer of shopping to online. In extremis, Central London would then become a theme park. But transport in such parks as Disney parks demonstrate still needs to be extremely well ordered.

It is this Vision that will drive people out of London to work and shop leaving it a historic theme park. If the vision included what autonomous vehicles will do over the next 25 years then it would a great vision indeed.

THE FUTURE

We are on the verge of electric cars becoming the norm and autonomous vehicles will not be far behind and both certainly will arrive well within the timeframe of 2041. I have always imagined us getting back to the days of the cowboy. He is inebriated, but as he leaves the bar, he whistles and his horse comes to take him home. Substitute now the mobile phone and an autonomous vehicle.

Of course, today, we need rail to get to large conurbations, but even that could change with modern technological development. The convoying of vehicles is currently being tested over longer distance, but it is not a big step to imagine vehicle convoys ferrying people from out of town railway stations to Central London along the rail tracks, where the same vehicle could indeed become the driverless runabout available to the public.

The days of driverless cars and convoys of cars are almost upon us. What could this mean? We could have a plentiful supply of one to six person vehicles that could take their passengers over their entire journey.

This scenario would be something to aim at for London. Creating a CITY OF THE FUTURE

2 Energy Policy

It would be great if all power was carbon free but it is not and will not be until nuclear and carbon capture are the norm, and many fear the former and the purists doubt the latter. Delays in the authorisation of new builds will mean a mad rush for gas once more and even more dependency on overseas gas supplies with adequate onshore gas storage capacity.

A useful website- which shows the power the nations is using minute by minute and what source generates it.

http://www.ukenergywatch.org/Electricity/Realtime

Energy is the lifeblood of more than just the economy, but civilisation. Even though the consumption in the developed world is plateauing in many countries the demand from the developing economies (BRICs) can only increase proportionate to their rising standards of living. I still remember my first trip to the USA when every desk station I visited had a radio playing an electric pencil sharpener, these were the days before PCs. The Americans still use electric power in quantity, they need air conditioning and heating in good measure, depending on the time of the year. They seem less conscious of this, but are very conscious of petrol usage even though their price is about an eighth of ours!

There are several drivers of the “plateauing” that I mention above. The media focus of the topic, its price and the onset of more efficient machines, domestic and industrial.

The number of possible sources of power is increasing and more are becoming viable, driven in some measure by the Climate Change Treaties. Before I discuss energy sources let me let off some steam on Climate Change.

Let us begin with some questions and (my) answers:

· Are humans increasing the heat of the planet = yes
· Are they the only cause of that =no
· Should we try to mitigate the effect from whatever source = yes
· Should climate change be the major determinant of any policy = no
· Are the consequences as dire as prophesised = not known

2.1 Climate Change

UK Weather forecasts are rarely better than 80% correct 25 hours ahead, so how can climate predictions 25 years hence be regarded as the basis of immutable polices. I suggest two reasons:

Media/marketing people love it as they can pray on emotions, such as you are not doing your bit for society or jeopardising the future of your children!

Pre the Copenhagen Climate Change summit in 2009, the headlines were predicting a temperature rise of +6C and then the prediction dropped to +3C against a target for the world falling off the cliff of +2C. The UN’s IPCC always takes the worst case scenario and by the media saying it often, and the brainwashing of school children in their lessons, it must become the truth.

Actually the rise in the Earth’s temperature between 1998 and 2013 was 0.04C compared with 0.18C throughout the 90s. Yet CO2 in the atmosphere continued to rise without interruption. Something to ponder. The whole system is unbelievably complex and even the best computer modelling can amount to best guesses.

I sometimes think that the claims are deliberately made more extreme to attract publicity and increase the chances of the award of more research funds.

The recent IPCC report continued to seek to frighten and dropped out of the news in a couple of days. Many BBC interviews with ordinary people indicated deep scepticism. It is probable that any possible damage any shale gas extraction is many times less than prophesised for climate change. And shale gives us secure cheaper energy on which we can control carbon emissions.

My son is a conspiracy buff and believes the IPCC is in the hands of the West to try to keep China & India from industrialising. For my part if I were also so minded I would think the Government announcement of the increase from 5 to 7 vegetable portions a day was linked to the IPCC seeking to reduce red meat consumption.

Climate Change, manmade or not must not dictate Energy Generation Policy.

I have doubts on whether man is the major contributor to any Climate Change that may be taking place. Indeed the powers that be (the UN Committee and the UK’s Committee on Climate Change) who influence many Governments have acknowledged this possibility, that the sun's activity has some impact. First some time back by changing the term from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. And more recently to note that not all the severe weather and climate events that we witness can be man-made. The last Ice-Age was a mere 11,000 years (a blink-of-the-eye in the earth’s time) ago underlines this.

See http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-doggerland.htm

A page which in summary says:-Doggerland is a "lost land" that existed in the present-day North Sea, between England, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Doggerland existed towards the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, when glacial ice in northern Europe had melted but sea levels were still low enough that the area was not flooded as it is today. Sea levels were about 120 m (394 ft) below current levels. Other areas around the world that were made dry by these sea levels include seas around Indonesia and the Bering Strait, which was crossed by hunter-gatherers into the Americas.

Doggerland was a rich habitat in its heyday, a paradise for humans and other animals. Being a low-lying area, it had abundant swampland and water for drinking, and was frequented by many animals. It formed a land bridge from mainland Europe to England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Southern Britannia was intermittently occupied by humans during the Mesolithic, but the most populated area appears to have been Doggerland.

Could it be that the more active phases of the sun are causing much of the problem?

Except in the USA, few doubt that we must save resources, but many such measures are counterproductive. Consider Council Recycling sites. How much do they cost the Council Tax payer? Sorting by and restrictions on residents are mandatory to help the economics of the process. And because the times of opening of Recycling Centres are one of the restrictions, there are often lines of traffic with a lone driver(engines running of course) waiting to gain entry. My local council has mandated no energy from a waste facility, but they are profitable wherever they have been allowed. They remove the need for landfill, gather some of the best recycling and produce energy from fuel that is very cheap, i.e. just the transport costs.

The Government’s commitment to wind ignores the cost of harnessing this green fuel and the need for inefficiently used back up power, the spinning reserve. Possibly because he was “off message”, the BBC only showed once the comments of a Cambridge Professor, who stated that you would need an area the size of Wales to provide wind power to the country – that is assuming it is blowing strong enough, but not too strongly. But the rest of the interview portrayed him with no reservations on wind power. Though he still felt able to say that we would need “many nuclears” as well. The problem is that nukes are not suitable to run on “standby” or as spinning reserve to use the correct terminology. Fortunately CCS for coal/gas/oil is flexible to operate.

But in summary, it is possible that man is not the major contributor to climate change, and we are not certain what happens to the world if temperature rises and of late is the average even rising at all. See the Economist Vol 410 Issue 8877 March 8 2014 page 73. In short, of course the presence of people in the current numbers will tend to heat the earth. But the consequences are not proven to be as dire as the powers to be insist.

2.2 Food Production

Medium projections of the world population and productive land predict food shortages. I believe that some of this is over pessimism in the scientific analysis community. Land can with technological help be brought back into productive use. GM will help crops grow in less than the current optimum conditions.

Food waste prevalent in the developed world. This is a social crime. So too is eating too much and damaging your personal health at the cost to local health services and of distress to yourself. Obesity must be discouraged. It would good to devise a tax to discourage it. Stopping healthcare for what is essentially self harm is not going to ever get public consent of even a dictators wishing to keep his head. Another approach is to tax manufacturers who use unhealthy ingredients including import duties if they do not fall foul of International Agreements.

2.3 Energy Sources& Production

We should not allow energy policy to be dictated by dogma, political correctness or climate change. Let the market decide between clean, variable energy and steady supplies of nuclear and fossil fuels with the carbon removed.

This report is based on my ongoing review of published literature and the Internet and is being developed daily. If your interest and time allows, regular visits are therefore recommended. This Appendix has a bias is towards the politics that govern energy policy actions, but also with an eye on the available technologies.

A recent reference that I have added to my Database of useful references is from the Charlemagne page in The Economist (January 25 2014), my favourite read. It is titled "Europe's Energy Woes". It follows on from an earlier article in that week’s paper that Germany's problems are due to high subsidies of renewables and their rapid flight from nuclear. It points out that when the sun is not shining in one part of Europe it is in another or if not the wind is blowing. It assumes a pan-European policy where countries will build excess capacity of sun power (Spain), Hydro (Switzerland), wind (Portugal) and nuclear (France) and transport the power over a Europe wide smart grid. A tall order!

It is perhaps 10 or more years ago that the Institution of Civil Engineers stated in their rather grandly titled State of Nation report, that we needed urgent action on authorising the construction new power generation capacity if we were to avoid the lights going out. Nothing very positive has happened since on the supply side. Although the demand side has saved us from problems as it has declined, but people being cost sensitive and purchasing more efficient appliances.

No nuclear, no CCS, but lots of wind in two senses of the word spring to mind. The message on gas is more positive with more storage capacity and sources are under construction.

Now OFGEM warns that the spare capacity will drop to 4% in 2015, the same timeframe as the State of Nation report forecast.

Several of the larger UK stations exceed 4% of the UK installed capacity, sometimes up to 7%. So an unscheduled outage of any one of these in periods of peak demand will cause brownouts in some areas.

The UK Government proposing to legislate to make the tariff to consumers be as low as possible will aggravate the shortage in capacity by further deterring investment in new capacity of any type. There is absolutely no reason why French and German owned power companies should dig us out of this fix, they rightly serve their shareholders and will build where the profit potential is greatest.

On the supply side restricting prices and loading the cost of smart meters onto the suppliers are blunt weapons, but better than the tax and subsidy strategies that are in place.

The irony is that CO2 is a basic chemical block of this world and has many uses, which correctly handled could mean that it need never be released to roam the atmosphere in excessive quantities.

We need leadership that can only come from the government. The only game in town at present is EMR - Electricity Market Reform.

EDITED SO FAR

2.2 Meeting our Climate Change Obligations needs CCS

CCS is essential or can we survive without fossil fuels?

CCS is essential if we are to meet the UK’s Kyoto targets AND keep the lights on.

CCS is operating

The adoption of the technology in North America and Scandinavia is of significant proportions. There are established processes. In the UK there are 2 FEED projects underway – White Rose and Peterhead. The process selected is impacted by whether it is a new build or a retrofit.

There are commercial issues in measuring flows (NEL) and inhibiting corrosion dependent on the purity of the CO2 being transported. North American installations may offer some solutions.

Cameron gave Crown Estates storage to Scotland, They do not need as they produce no carbon and therefore England must go to shipping it.

Lord Oxburgh report on CCS

Energy storage many methods batteries and heat

THE POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF UK ENERGY GENERATION

Energy Policy Essentials, security of supply, affordable costs and the mitigation of carbon output. Adding the concern of Russian Gas supply, but in general Europe needs the gas and Russia needs the revenue. So a balance of threat, but at the moment Russia seems to be the more single minded. The IPPC predicts wars over water. Potable water is indeed our scarcest resource, but the suns energy could remedy this through de-salivation. But we are already close to war with energy security a central issue. Energy must be secure, not exclude those of limited means or damage the relative competitiveness of UK industry.

Confidence in Government Policy, if the advice of engineers was taken we would have been building new, clean nuclear and conventional energy generation for the last 10 years. Politics has rarely been so unpredictable in decision making.

That dull, windless cold day, we have to be conscious on the reliance on renewable sources, which in the UK means offshore wind. Their recent best figure is 11% of our needs. This is done with subsidies which squeeze out other sources, yet we need a spinning reserve for those dull. Windless, cold days.

Secure Renewable sources is covering that there are other sources than offshore wind. The subsidies and inherent costs all make them expensive sources of energy. And the most secure of all – Energy from Waste.

Energy Supply the essential message is that the price of energy must be kept within the general range of competitive industrial economies. AND the various types of generation should compete on a level playing field the Planning and Environmental Laws of the UK. Much is demanded of Electricity market Reform (EMR).

**********

UK Energy Policy Essentials

There are three components to UK Energy Policy, according to logic and confirmed by PWC, see reference 1.

Energy Security

Top of the list must be security of supply. Exceeded only by the defence of the realm, top of any Governments list must be keeping the lights on and the wheels of industry turning - there are no votes in brownouts. What are YOU going to do without power? I am seeking odds for the first major brownout being during or following the 2015 Rugby World Cup if two home nations are in the final. The surge when England won in 2007 is well documented.

Energy Security is of paramount importance, even if the energy costs a little more. But if we buy on the open market when the price is right and have multiple sources and robust reserves we should never be held to ransom.

Energy Security requires a mix of fuels/sources, which this report enumerates in later sections. We are now headed for overwhelming dependence on gas, albeit now from some more reliable sources (Norway & Qatar) than just Russian gas trans-Europe pipes. Indeed our capacity to import now exceeds consumption so we are much better placed provided there is not a war in the Middle East. Ukraine and the perceived energy related restriction on how we and Europe are able to respond is the current case in point. Russia needs the revenue; we need the gas, so there may be a balanced international reaction. But for the moment weakness is allowing Ukraine to be attached economically and physically and unsettling all the former Soviet satellites. And there will be more Ukraine’s.

As a footnote to this in once again my favourite read The Economist Reference 6 shows the dependence on Russian gas. For the previous Soviet satellites it is still almost 100%. Then it decreases almost proportionate to the distance from Moscow. Unfortunately this dictates that the rigour of the policy and level of protest against the Russian adventure in Ukraine.

To indicate the level of pressure being put on a bankrupt country, the price has been increased twice in 4 days and is now 80% higher than it was less than a week ago. Ukraine is already in arrears and Russia is commercial entitled to cut off supplies, but the pipeline flows on through Ukraine to other countries. Ukraine cannot let its people freeze or starve so it is likely to take some of the gas destined for others. A politico-commercial mess. Reference 7.

The Price of Energy.

Highest in the public’s mind is keeping the cost of energy reasonable. Rising prices cause anger even when the UK has lower energy prices than much of Europe. The facts are that renewable sources, even though the fuel is free, are pushing up the price, despite what the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) may wish the public to believe. Current conventional fossil fuel energy production costs are around £50/Mwhr, unpopular onshore wind costs £100/Mwhr and the heavy Government investment in offshore wind costs are near £150/Mwhr. Solar on which Germany has focussed major effort and though the panels as are becoming cheaper as a consequence it is still expensive source in the UK because of the high land usage and weak sunlight. Its costs are around £125?Mwhr, but falling.

Mitigating the Carbon output

Third is bringing the carbon output of power generation down. This is because of the belief in climate change is due to the increasing percent of carbon in the atmosphere and the fact that this a-by-product of man's development on the planet. Whilst the latter is true, the former may not be.

Carbon free is the often intermittent wind solar, wave, and classically tide on a 12 hour cycle; although subsea current is more steady but expensive to harness. But in the medium term it can only be wind with its huge unaccounted costs of transmission lines and a spinning reserve. Mitigation will in part be forgotten in a further rush for gas to keep the lights burning.

Does the Energy Industry have Confidence in the Government getting the Policy Changes right?

Not if you believe a poll at the Annual Conference of Energy UK. The 200 delegates from all aspects of the industry were asked which Government Department (i.e. those who advise the Minsters) understood the industry. OFGEM scored highest with 31%, the key player DECC gained only 16% and “none of them” was top of the list with 41%.

Reputable engineering bodies (the Royal Academy of Engineers & the Institution of Civil Engineers) have long warned of power generation shortages since at least 2003. Reference 4. Regrettably energy and politics are now inextricably linked. Energy companies, 50% foreign, are the politician’s whipping boys along with bankers. While the facts are that UK prices are lower than in Europe and the companies are getting a poor return on their investments overall, discouraging further investment throughout Europe. The three main UK Parties threaten them with price restriction or freezes.

The political scene for the UK has never been so confused in living memory. The European elections in May could see UKIP doing extremely well. What would that result do to the Conservative party? Would it split, it would certainly become more anti-Europe. Then in September there is the Scottish Independence vote with an uncertain YES or NO and unpredictable Westminster response. Much of the Energy industries resources are based on Scottish land or waters. And in May 2015 the Westminster elections. Who can predict the outcome for the parties at this stage? But a compromise and even a complex coalition seems most likely.

None of the above suggests that sensible Government decisions on Energy will be taken before the middle of 2015. Then if there is a prospect of an IN/OUT Europe election in 2017, will the German and French energy companies change their attitude to their UK investments?

That dull, windless cold day

The first comment against dependence on renewables is the example of a cold, sunless, windless day. They happen often, as is the case as I write this. The renewable experts respond that the wind is always blowing somewhere in Europe. We could suggest the locations of an (Independent) Scotland, a (Devolved) Wales, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Are these secure supplies for the UK/England?

But this further suggests two things a vast transmission infrastructure, cables strung across the countryside, no problem, there will be no objections to that! A Pan-European energy policy to share power from all sources, including from windblown remote areas of Europe to those more still. What chance, is explored in the Economist see references 2. Spain has problems sharing its water between North & South, not to mention former Welsh objections to their water going to Birmingham a few years ago.

Onshore winds attract objections of unsightliness and the danger to birds. Offshore wind is expensive and only now are we moving to marine current, a stable, hidden source of renewable, unobtrusive, but expensive energy.

Cheaper onshore building of wind generation is very unlikely to make much headway. The other long term source will be nuclear even though we are standing on more than a century of coal and it remains the most plentiful energy source in the world.

Defining Renewables

The usual contrast is made between Renewable and non-Renewable. Recently I recall a poll on whether Nuclear was one or the other. Clearly on the strict definition of whether it extracts from the large but finite resources of the Earth it is non-Renewable. But it is unlikely to run out as oil may. However, the issue is whether the conversion of the earth’s resources puts more harmful gases into the upper atmosphere or not. On that count nuclear is in the clear. The last ditch arguments on the need to expend carbon to build a nuclear power station apply to any construction. Then there is the over-hyped issue of safety and the extent of any damage because of an incident.

I only intend to digress for a paragraph or two, but any large energy activity has its dangers, e.g. Deepwater Horizon. On nuclear we have three incidents to provide a baseline. Chernobyl (USSR), caused by incompetence, fortunately in a remote area, with a never to be known number of deaths. Three Mile Island (USA), a close thing, but no deaths. Fukushima (Japan), also in a populated area and no doubt considerable deaths yet to be determined and announced. There will be as much uncertainty in this issue as it is related to, I expect even many more tsunami deaths. The issue may be why build a nuclear plant on a known fault line.

There are many, many more incidents of death from industrial enterprise, Piper Alpha, Bhopal, Seveso all spring to a Process Engineers mind. Coal mining used to be a major killer. In contrast we have exemplary safety record of the French Nuclear industry.

Secure UK Renewable resources

Energy from Waste is another area where (local) politicians have amplified emotions. We will always create lots of waste, despite re-cycling efforts, which at one time involved shipping paper and plastic waste to China to be worked on in unsuitable if not dangerous conditions. The calorific value of these materials is high, the gases created are not the most difficult to scrub and the residue is minimal. The valuable materials can be mechanically or hand- picked from the conveyor belts. An initiative like the Government proposals for fracking where the local Council reaps a financial benefit would be good. Perhaps all those local impacted could get free power/heat. References 8 & 9.

Marine energy is available all around the UK in our territorial and International waters. Wind is being expensively harvested as noted earlier. But there are tide and sub-sea currents. There are highly developed maps of where the tides are. As with wind some are a long way offshore adding enormously to the expenses of build, operation and transmission. The tides, like wind, can also be excessive in magnitude, thus forcing the need to shut the machines down. Inshore tides are less of a problem here, but like on the Severn, there are certainly endless arguments about the disturbance caused to the birds, after the loss of amenity. “Excessive But sub-sea currents are stable and predictable are much neglected. Indeed my collection of references does not yet cover this topic in depth.

There is an additional fringe activity to this – Air capture. Very simply air is blown through a small process plant and heat converts the CO2 in the air to petrol. The idea is disparaged by the theory that you cannot get more energy out that you put in and this is cleanly true. But in remote areas where there is a wind turbine or a solar panel and that output is not needed for a period you have the concept of “stranded energy”, which would be wasted or can be regarded as free to dive such a mini plant. I likened it to a remote farm not on any grid going down to the wind turbine to collect the petrol almost like collecting the eggs!

Energy Supply

Fifty percent of the Big Six suppliers looking at the European market as a whole. The will invest in the countries and technologies where they think they are getting the best return. At they are losing their shirt throughout Europe. Reference 5. This is due entirely to political decisions on climate control, subsidies and ignoring the technologies of power generation. In Germany conventional suppliers were forced to pay the central grid to take the power that they could not stop generating. Meanwhile if the rules are similar to the UK wind power producers would be paid for not producing.

The consequences, more costs to the consumer and less much needed investment.

Energy Supply Side Pricing

It is a delicate issue to avoid the media's emotional appeals of vulnerable people having to choose between food and fuel. But that is really the territory of an effective benefits system. Pricing can be an effective discriminator on use. However many of our prices are not fair. To argue as the Climate Change Committee does that green energy is not more expensive is false. Subsidies to build and operate wind in hostile conditions and the need to cover the intermittent supply mean that is must be dearer and it is.

More important to the economy than the media chosen sob stories is the pricing of energy to UK industrial users. This must be kept broadly in line with their overseas competitors.

Energy Demand Side Pricing

We suffer from too many distorting subsidies to the market. In business terms investing in a wind is a no-brainer. They are paid over the odds to build and for their output and also paid if the Grid cannot accept their power. What business would go through the long planning cycles, environmental camps and demonstrations to build a clean station using fossil fuel? What is more wind costs do not take account of the spinning reserve that needs to be available to cover the still days when they output little.There is also the demand for a much more extensive and upgraded infrastructure to deliver wind and wave power for remote locations, far away from the user. Indeed could learn from Africa’s use of the mobile phone and bypass extensive land based delivery options, with many smaller generating options.

Electricity is bought by the grid in half hour units. It is possible if the renewables of wind and tide are producing well that the slower to respond base station such as nuclear may have to shut down and/or sell at a loss. Base load should be priced for long term steady supply and variable top up.

This shows the real-time power output of the UK by fuel type. Coal is still the largest producer of electricity and CO2. The figures portrayed on this website may change markedly when the LCPD (Large Combustion Plant Directive) comes into effect. Carbon producing CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) is next and then nuclear which is being closed down a third significant component of power generation. There must be doubt that we cannot achieve our CO2 reduction commitments and keep the lights on without a significant roll-out of CCS.

UK technical press is full of articles on electric vehicles (EVs). The Economist on October 9^th.2010 page 18 did a revealing article on the progress of the EV since 1906! They do transfer the carbon emissions to a more controllable power station site, and also come a step closer to my transport vision of coming out of a bar, pressing a key on your communicator and around the corner comes a vehicle to take you safely home on automatic control.

Efficiency in the use of energy in all aspects of our life makes economic sense first and environmental sense second. But this is not true, if political correctness is substituted for real efficiencies.

Electrical vehicles will not just become the norm because the Government decrees it. There are challenges which the Government must see are addressed.

Information for Professionals