British Rail

The train services in this country are a joke, as many well know. The biggest mistake our country made was privatising the rail services. Rather than promote competition amongst the different rail companies to drive prices down, they each take particular routes and can charge what they feel like, ie. a lot. Not to mention the myriad of pricing scheme which can confuse and irritate the hardiest of commuters. What used to be an early 20th-century idyllic way to travel, is now a crammed-in-a-sardine-tin nightmare.

What I propose, is a simplification and hard-capping of the ticket prices and seating system, to keep the costs down and give the tax payers more bang for their heavily-subsidised buck. The rail systems could stay private if it was wished - it makes no difference to the system -  but somehow I doubt these greedy companies would want to stick around.

Ticket Pricing

Firstly, ticket prices should be always capped at the average fuel rate per distance travelled by car. Yep, that's right, by car. This is built on the premise that no public transport service can charge more than it costs to travel by car to the same destination. If the average cost of petrol is, say £30, back and forth from Southampton to Cardiff, then that's the maximum the rail service can charge for a ticket in Family or Standard class (more on classes next). Business Class tickets can be charged up to 20% higher, although can be discounted by businesses purchasing a relevant rail card or subscription specifically tailored to businesses.

Governments often claim that people should be using public transport more instead of travelling by car, and this would have them put their money where their mouth is.

Ticket Class

The original model of ticket classes would be scrapped, and a new system put in place consisting of the following:

Family Class 

Children accompanied by adults or any individual under 16 must be placed in this class. If the carriage allocated to this class are full, wait for the next train. If you're in a group, and one of you is under 16,  you have to have this ticket and seating. The carriages themselves could feature more group/table seating, perhaps even activity and play areas or boardgames built into the tables. Perhaps even larger luggage areas. Incentives for this class are children brought together to keep them entertained, almost like a makeshift travelling creche, as well as families not having to worry as much about adult conversations being overheard by innocent ears. Discounts could be achieved by group bookings.

Standard Class

This class would make up the majority of a train. The standard train experience we all know and er, love. 17 years and over, and you are able to travel in this class. This would also be the most basic and rigidly priced class, containing no discounts. The only possible way to get discounts would be either student or OAP rail cards. Because families with young children are segregated into their own class, this makes the journey more relaxing and enjoyable for those who prefer a quieter and more mature experience.

Business Class

This class is designed, through and through, for business travellers,  18+ only.Wi-fi and power points would be present here, as well as perhaps mobile signal antenna built into the carriages for constant signal coverage. Business Class tickets can be charged up to 20% higher, although can be discounted by businesses purchasing a relevant rail card or subscription specifically tailored to corporate travellers. There would be nothing stopping regular customers from booking in this class, but that would be a choice to pay more for a ticket than they needed to. Apart from the obvious incentives for electronic equipment, business class ticket holders would be secure in the knowledge that families and more disruptive passengers won't be disturbing them.

Other sources of revenue

So, some may argue, how can it be economically viable for these trains to run if the train companies charge so much at the moment? Well, let's assume that these rail companies are motivated by something other than greed, and actually need to cover more costs. What about selling advertising on the side of trains? We see bill boards in train stations all the time, but trains pull into and stop at stations for all to see. Projection systems could be set up in stations to directly video advertise on the surface of the train as they pull into the station. Or how about screens could be built directly into the train? Advertisers could pay per space on a carriage and for which stops on along the way.

What about screens within the carriages? Allow passengers to pay for a movie to show on the train for long journeys, or use touch screens to order snacks rather than having someone with a trolly guessing when you might be hungry or thirsty. The possibilities are mind-boggling, and the opportunities are all there for the taking.

No to HS2, Yes to Ultraspeed

Just a quick post, this one. I've set up an e-petition on the UK government website here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45118

All the info about Ultraspeed's proposal for a high-speed rail system can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Ultraspeed


As you can see, the system makes a lot more sense and doesn't upset so many people in terms of having noisy trains running through their back garden, compared to the proposed HS2.

Please sign the e-petition if you agree, and if we get enough signatures they'll have to debate it in the Commons.


Signing the petition only works for UK residence, so anyone outside the country is out of luck I'm afraid. not my rules, the government's.

Israel-Palestine: Two States.

Not directly something to do with Britain, but having some Foreign Policy would seem prudent. Let's dive straight in at the deep end.

This won't be a long post, as I'm not going to go over what the Israel-Palestine conflict is, assuming that if you are reading this then you already know. If you don't, read this first.

Here are some maps showing the changing borders of Israel and Palestine over time (taken from israelandpalestine.org):

Note, I am assuming we can agree that the presence of the Palestinian-held Gaza strip is primarily to maintain ties and borders with Egypt, a fellow Islamist country, and that the Palestinians have a right to a State.

Now interestingly, if you look at a population density map you'll notice a large drop in population in the southern half of Israel:

This would leave me to conclude that, if we wish a two-State solution (and I do), then this area is the most logical place to begin drawing Palestinian borders. Borders which must allow Jordon and Egypt (both Islamist countries) to meet with Palestinian State. However, the Gaza strip itself need not (and should not) be the solution to this, as it cuts a Palestinian State in two while at the same time surrounding the state of Israel. I think it's also fair, if possible, to allow Palestine to have ocean-going access for global trade and economic growth.

This is why I propose the following (note border is for illustrative purposes only, unless specified):

From the above, we can see that borders with Egypt and Jordon are maintained and that the border cuts through the least populated parts of Israel.  Palestine also now has complete access to the Gulf of Aqaba, taking control of the city-port of Eilat which has a tourism and trade economy. Israel, meanwhile gains full control of the west coast and exclusive access to the Mediterranean and Western Europe. It is no longer surrounded by Islamist States.

The process would of course, not be cut and dry, requiring negotiation over specific settlements and where they fall on the other border, but if done correctly, both States may profit from each other. For instance, Palestine could be contractually required to 'pay back' Israel over time for the infrastructure in towns and cities like Eilat that have changed borders, and the money could be used exclusively for the rehousing and compensating of those that have had to relocate back across the new Israeli border.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem looks unchanged on my map, however I would propose a unique opportunity presents itself. The city is holy to three religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity. I would propose that the city becomes a shared  mini-state. A neutral ground with a unique police-keeping force made up of people from all three Abrahamic religions. It must be inclusive. The Israelis and Palestinians could maintain 'quarters' on each side of the city by all means, but the government and police force must be made inclusive of all three backgrounds. Christians aren't of course in the same numbers as the others in this region, but having them included in this way ensures a third, more neutral representative to help keep the peace and maintain balance.


There we have it, a two-State solution.

Think of the Children!

Not beating around the bush, the child benefit and child care system in this country is not good enough. It costs too much money, and the money that is spent isn't necessarily going to the families that need it.

Child Benefit should be capped at £50,000 total income per household. That covers single earners on a moderate wage, and couples earning £25,000 each or below. Those wages alone should be more than sufficient in this country to raise a child. However, I do realise places like London have a much higher cost of living and, being an aberration, should be ring-fenced (temporarily) from this change in policy until larger problems are dealt with that can fix this and spread wealth more evenly across the country. All benefits would stop when children reach the age of 16, regardless of continued education.

In addition to this, Child Benefit should be a flat maximum rate of £40 a week (it could be tiered based on household income, going down to £20 a week at the £50,000 top level). This is not war-time. We are not in a state of baby-booming. The reality is that a per-child rate encourages a bad element that see children as a way to gain income, with no intention of using that money for their children's well-being. Population growth is at an all time high, and available space is falling way behind. While some generations were positively encouraged to have children, it should be a serious decision in today's Britain. In the future, this may change, but for now, we need to  suck it up and deal with the issue.

Now, concerning childcare, I realise our country isn't in any fit state to take on a free child-care system. But we could learn a lot from the Swedish model in lieu of using it wholesale.

For instance, having our government subsidise nurseries (rather than pay for them outright), to bring the childcare costs down for parents, would be a step in the right direction. A new department in Social Services would perform regular inspections of these nurseries, as well as assign the approval system needed to qualify for government subsidy, which would take proximity to schools and playgroups into consideration.


If more can be done, we could initiate a second phase where we move some of the more impoverished (say with a household income less than £20,000), into free child care completely. However, families would only qualify for this if one or more of the parents are in employment. Unemployed parents would only be permitted the child benefit, not the free child-care.

Or even further, ages 2-5 could have their childcare free across the board, encouraging children at the developmental stages spend those crucial first two years exclusively in parents care, and their following pre-school years developing important social skills while their parents are able to get back to work.

Consequently, more nurseries would spring up, creating jobs and encouraging a competitive market. Even niche markets could be accommodated, such as having nurseries for parents that work unsociable hours overnight.

All this may seem a bit idealistic, but remember I'm assuming a more idealistic (at least in my eyes) Britain altogether when combined with my other ideas.

Education (Secondary)

Whether or not you like them as an examination system,  when it comes to GSCEs, the biggest criticism that can be laid at their door I find, is the pressure on students.

Two years of work culminating in one two-week exam period before their last summer holidays. Agonising weeks spent in complete ignorance about whether they are going to make it to the next step in their education. Their entire future coming down to one set of results.

Perhaps the next biggest criticism  is how useful they can be in the 'real world' if students can't or won't go to further eduction and on to University following those results.

I aim to suggest alternative solutions to combat both.

Part 1: staggered subjects

Currently, all subjects (let's say 10 for argument's sake), are taken at once, and coursework is tackled over two years, with a final exam at the end. Of all these subjects, there are the 3 'core' subjects: English Language, Maths, and Science. Now, while the optimum result is full marks in all subjects, these three subjects are key. Currently, a syllabus looks something like this:

Year 1-2

History
Geography
Art
IT
English Language
English Literature
Maths
Science
Religious Studies
PE

All with exams at the end of the two-year period. One chance, one shot. No middle ground.

What I'm proposing, is that subjects and exams should be divided between each year. The same amount of study, but the subjects per-year are halved with their respective exams being taken at the end of that year:

Year 1

Maths
English Language
IT
Art
English Literature

Year 2

Science
PE
Religious Studies
History
Geography

Now, important subjects could be retaken if failed in the first year, replacing a less important subject in the second year. Students would of course be required to take at least two core subjects (or perhaps all of them) in their first year to increase their chances of success.

For example: If Student A fails his Maths exam in year one, he/she would be encouraged to drop Religious Studies and take Maths again in his/her second year.

The exams don't have to change, we don't even have to stop calling them GSCEs, but what this change does do is ensure our children are given every chance at a better education. Doubly-so when combined with the following.

Part 2: Applied Knowledge

At least a couple of those non-core subjects should be vocational-based in skills which have immediate and broad-ranging employment applications and highly recommended to students who do not have strong starts in their first year core subjects.

Examples:

• C Programming – ideal for mathematically minded students, a core programming language that is a gateway to all others. Students who have grounding in this can go on to do a wide variety of jobs in the modern world.
• Cookery –Pure cookery and basic chefing would give students a great basis for working in any restaurant, seeing the world or even starting their own business.
• Carpentry – One of the most wide-ranging and skilled disciplines in the building trade.

There are of course many options, but those three I would recommend as obvious choices. These could also be swapped with other subjects over the years depending on what demands are in the job market.


Not only do these practical courses have an immediate application, but combined with the right GSCE subjects, they could give a student a significant advantage. For example: A student who completes Maths, Programming and Science GSCEs is going to be well-placed for any science-based degree later down the line, but also have the groundwork laid if they decide to go straight into the job market.

Part 3: Subject changes (11 years+)

Language

Further to the above, I would suggest that a second language be considered core (I think you are already doing this), however I would push for more useful second languages than the current system. In this country we tend to favour French as they are our close neighbours, and others such as German or Russian seem to be selected by schools almost at random. My suggestion would be to get schools to focus on Spanish and Mandarin Chinese as these are the top two languages spoken in the world next to English and would give students a more positive grounding in the emerging global markets.

Religious Studies

I would suggest having a single subject for this, and it being studied prior to GSCE-level (ie 11-14 years) and it covering all major world religions in a non-biased format. This would remain balanced. As an alternative, if parents do not wish for their children to attend this more balanced subject, I propose Philosophy. Getting children to approach things in the abstract as well as the logical is great way to teach different ways to solve problems and think. Philosophy in a more advanced form  makes a great GSCE-level non-core subject as well.

History

I would consider splitting History into Ancient (Greek, Egyptian, Roman) and British (medieval, WWI+II, industrial revolution), and rotating a subject term-on-term. Many times schools end up focusing on just one or two of the dryer or darker subjects (industrial revolution, WWII), while the more romantic and fun ancient eras tend to be more engaging for younger minds. Rotating them ensures a good measure of both, and I feel it is important, as Britons, we focus on British history rather than, for example, the American Civil War.

Conclusion

The far reaching consequences of the above changes would mean the following:

• Students less stressed about exams without sacrificing their educational learning, and a better understanding of their possible lives after education.
• Multiple career paths and options that begin to open up at 16, not just an expected path to University, which means less people going to University by choice. This could have a trickle-down effect of University fees dropping for those that choose higher education, as the demand is decreased.
• A bi-lingual generation that will always be able to compete in the global market.
• A generation that better understands the country's roots and history.
• A generation that understands religion must always be a choice in a free-thinking nation, and understands that abstract thinking works alongside sciences to promote debate and advance civilisation.

Drugs and Decriminalisation

We have a classification system in this country for illegal drugs possession and supply. However many would argue, including myself, that it is woefully over zealous and responsible in large part to overpopulation in prisons and, consequently, the lack of rehabilitation that leads to re-offending.

Currently, the system looks like this (take from the Home Office website):

To put this in some form of perspective, the minimum murder sentence in the UK is 14 years, and many sex offenders get 5-7 year sentences.

With that in mind, I would advise the following:

As you can see, we are retaining harsher punishments for dealers, and easing off on drug users. I've also reclassified Cannabis, Ecstasy and Mushrooms. Cannabis, because studies show it is no more dangerous than Alcohol (some say less so), and the others because they are far less addictive (some would argue not addictive at all), than the rest of those in Class A.

You will note that those in Possession of a Class A drug would be expected to attend rehabilitation  which would be covered by NHS (in line with all my other future changes, this may indeed be possible without extra cost) in an ideal world, but could also be volunteer or even privately run.

Note also, that it is assumed that 'unlimited fine' refers to a judge's discretion on the means of the person involved. ie. there is little sense giving a £1000 fine to a heroin addict that has little or no money.

The above leads to a decriminalisation, yes, but it also hits the supply line, which is, after all, the point of this system, while at the same time discouraging drug users.

VAT

Recently in the UK, the government has been calling for the closing of  tax loop holes, to stop 'evil' corporations like Amazon from circumventing the VAT charge in the UK and paying a reduced rate.

This suspiciously seems like another squeeze that'll end up hurting the economy rather than helping it. I'm of the mind that VAT needs to be cut down to 15%, and taken off many items entirely (utility services for a start). Get people spending more, and get businesses growing within the UK, don't choke the life out of everyone and everything that seems to have a few extra quid. Encouragement, not demand. I'm all for closing tax loopholes, but I'm not even sure this qualifies as one.

VAT was originally implemented as a luxury tax. A far cry from what it is today, and given that it is a regressive tax, lowering it means more money to spend within the economy rather than a direct payment to the government.

VAT applies to items currently like this.

However, I think it should look more like this (exempt items are unchanged):

Standard Rated (15%) Alcoholic drinks Biscuits (chocolate covered or with filling) Cakes Bottled water (inc. mineral water) Calendars & diaries Carbonated (fizzy) drinks CDs, DVDs & tapes Chocolate Confectionery/sweets Electrical goods Electricity, gas, heating oil & solid fuel (business) Food & drinks supplied for consumption on the premises (at restaurants, cafes etc) Hot take-away food & drinks (inc. burgers, hot dogs, toasted sandwiches) Ice cream Fruit juice & other cold drinks (not milk) Nuts (shelled, roasted/salted) Potato crisps Road fuel (petrol/diesel) Stationery Taxi fares Tolls for bridges, tunnels & roads (privately operated) Water (industrial) Brochures, leaflets & pamphlets Books, maps & charts (not ebooks) magazines & journals Clothes & footwear (priced over £20)

Zero Rated Children's car seats Electricity, gas, heating oil & solid fuel (domestic/residential/chairty non-business) Energy saving materials (permanently installed in residential/charity premises) Maternity pads Mobility aids for the elderly Sanitary protection products Smoking cessation products Prams & pushchairs Clothes & footwear (priced under £20) Cereal bars Salt Aircraft (sale/charter) Bicycle & motorcycle helmets Biscuits (not chocolate covered or filled) Bread, rolls, baps & pita bread Building services for disabled people Canned & frozen food (not ice cream) Cereals Chilled/frozen ready meals, convenience foods Clothes & footwear (for children under 14 only) Construction & sale of new domestic buildings Cooking oil Donated goods sold at charity shops Eggs Equipment for disabled people (inc. blind/partially sighted) Fish (inc. live fish) Fruit & vegetables Live animals for human consumption Meat & poultry Milk, butter, cheese Newspapers Nuts & pulses (raw for human consumption) Prescription medicine Protective boots & helmets (industrial) Public transport fares (bus, train & tube) Salt (culinary) Sandwiches (cold) Sewerage (domestic & industrial) Shipbuilding (15 tonnes or over) Tea, coffee & cocoa Transport in a vehicle, boat or aircraft (not fewer than ten passengers) Water (household)

Items that I've altered or moved are in red, Items crossed out are no longer relevant. Briefly going over this:

• Everything that was at a reduced tax rate is now zero VAT, apart from a few choice items that have moved to VAT status.
• Magazines, journals, brochurs, leaflets and non-ebooks are now under the VAT bracket. This does not include toilet paper for obvious reasons. This should also have a nicely crippling effect on junk mail (although banning direct mail entirely would be my preference). Newspapers remain VAT exempt as they are considered public interest journalism (optimistic, I know).
• Salt for industrial as well as culinary purposes is now VAT free. If you look at what it's actually used for, it seems entirely arbitrary that this was previously taxed.
• Cakes including the famous Jaffa Cakes, are now included under VAT. They are a luxury item, so the idea that they are VAT exempt seems to be something of a War-time affectation. I have also added biscuits with filling to the VAT list. Put simply: Rich Teas = Zero tax, Custard Creams = Taxed.
• Prams and Pushchairs are now VAT exempt. These seem to be the total opposite of a luxury item to me.
• Clothes are now no longer split into adult/children and are merely covered in a price range. This means the more expensive fashion items will be taxed, while the more functional wear, will not. The price range will have to be looked at periodically due to inflation.
• Cereal bars are VAT exempt because I don't see why people should be penalised for choosing a healthier option. Bottled water remains, however, as it involves plastic use.
• You'll notice that shifting things in this way has actually (sometimes quite by chance), given our economy some 'Green' policies such as the zero tax rate on permanently installed energy saving equipment and reducing reliance on paper.