ConservativeHome's 100policies

Aristeides: Three for the road

> Policy summary

Three simple road transport policies to enhance the experience of road users in the UK: raising the speed limit on motorways, introducing countdowns on traffic lights and reforming the vehicle registration system.

> Policy explanation

Road users are the poor relations of Britain’s transport system. Encumbered with ever more irritating obstacles and road signs, entrapped by ever more sophisticated spy and camera apparatus, and taxed at astronomically high levels, the average road user could use a few breaks. The experience of vehicle ownership and usage should be altogether less burdensome.

The first policy would be to raise the speed limit to 80mph for cars on the open motorway. The current limit is hopelessly out of date and barely observed. Advances in car and road safety have been huge in the time since the 70mph limit was invented, and it is time this obsolete level was changed to something approaching realistic. Dynamic limits on motorways during hours of congestion are the absolute norm already, so there is no sense in which this could be construed as irresponsible. This policy would also support the introduction of variable speed limits to reflect conditions on the road, although they are generally (but not compulsorily) advised on most stretches of motorway these days. Those who wish to continue to drive at 70mph would be free to do so.

The second policy would be to abolish amber on traffic signal. This quaintly confusing “Ready, Steady, Go” signal could quickly be replaced with proper signalling of the time, counted down in seconds, until the lights are to change. This improved level of information will help all traffic at junctions, as well as pedestrians, and it will stop unnecessary revving of engines and vehicle creep in anticipation of the lights changing.

The third policy would be to change the vehicle licensing and number plate systems. The number plate system is an almost purely state command and control system, with bizarre and unmemorable registrations being doled out at the state’s illogical whim, whilst it profits from undermining its own system with “cherished” numbers. 

If the state gave out email addresses in the same way, it would make you have to have the year 01 in it, even if you were born in January 2002, and if you were born in Luton or Northampton, the address would have to start with a K. The second hand car market makes it pointless to have the vehicle’s origin suggested in the number plate anyway.

The whole daft system needs to be scrapped and replaced with vehicle registrations at the choice of the vehicle owner, just like choosing an email address. There would be a higher annual charge for the fewer numbers and digits used. The licensing system would be merged with the number plate system with a single yearly charge to abolish the need for tax discs. In other words a seven digit registration such as NEWCAR1 would cost £110 or £175, depending on the size of the engine, minus the administrative savings. The registration CAR 1 would cost, say, £310 or £375 per year. Random seven letter registrations could obviously be generated for those who do not wish to choose their own, as it is appreciated that some people do not like to make a choice, even when offered one. All existing registrations would be charged at the £110/£175 rate until non-renewal or transfer.

Furthermore, anyone should be able to manage payments and documentation for renewal over the internet, without having to send a clutch of important documents to be lost in Swansea. DVLA systems already integrate with insurers and the MOT system, so cross checking documents is no longer necessary.

> Political risks and opportunities

The political opportunity here is to get votes from frustrated road users who will understand and support clear, simple and commonsensical road policies. These are the sort of policies people will think “I wonder why we didn’t do this years ago?” about.

The political risk it that one will get bogged down in arguments with road safety and environmentalist fanatics, for whom anything which does not make life harder for road users cannot be contemplated.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is 80 mph the right upper limit for motorways, or should it be 90mph?
• Have you seen traffic light countdowns being trialled anywhere in the UK?
• Does anyone consider the current car number plate system logical or comprehensible?

> Costs

Raising the speed limit on motorways would cost practically nothing as national speed limit signs were designed with potential changes in mind. The benefits in reduction of congestion and journey times would be of some benefit to the overall economy.

Changing traffic lights from the amber system to a countdown system could be done in the course of normal maintenance to signalling systems. The software required to operate the LEDs should really not be very costly. Indeed, countdown systems are quite common in countries such as Thailand and India, so they cannot be too expensive.

The number plate system would deliver efficiency savings via the abolition of tax discs and the bureaucracy that comes with them. The annual registration fee would be aimed at being revenue neutral after the cost savings with an equivalent bonus to the Treasury for income generated by plates with a lower number of letters and numerals to that gained today by the sale of “cherished” numbers. It would not be the specific aim of this policy to change the different initial rates for different car engine sizes.

Overall, these policies are designed to make road usage and vehicle ownership a more human and user-friendly experience, with greater consumer choice.

Phil Taylor: Untax the poor

Phil Taylor (blog) runs a small business in Hammersmith and is a councillor for the Northfield ward.

> Policy summary 

Untax the poor - pay no tax or NI until you earn £10K.

> Policy explanation

Right now the worst paid in our country, and typically the worst able or inclined to deal with the "system", have to deal with it twice.   They have to pay income tax and National Insurance at a stupidly low threshold of only £5,035 per annum, or barely £100 per week.  They then have to get snared in Gordon Brown's evil tax credit system to get some of their money back.  Not only does this waste the time and lower the quality of life of the low paid but thousands of bureaucrats have rubbish jobs in battery offices taking money off people and giving it back to them and dealing with all their problems.  The whole edifice is a waste of life.

The new adult rate for the minimum wage came into force last October.  £5.35 per hour.  Anyone working a 37.5 hour week on the minimum wage is earning £10,432.50 and paying £931.79 in income tax.  Our munificent chancellor will gives a single person over 25 years old £421.31 in Working Tax Credit, meaning they make a net payment of £510.48.  This represents a net rate of tax of 4.89%, a rate that is increasing steeply with fiscal drag (see table attached).

The Office of National Statistics' Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) for 2005 shows that average (mean) annual income for all workers in the UK are £23,400.  What they call the 25 percentile is £11,513. In other words 25% of their sample earned £11,513 or less.  This is the minimum wage territory.

By setting the tax and NI thresholds at around £10K we would take almost 25% of workers out of the tax system.  As a side effect we would increase incentives to get into work as the attraction of keeping your own money is great compared to getting benefits or taking on low paid work and having to claim means-tested benefits to make ends meet.

Lost revenue would be replaced by reducing or even eliminating GB's system of tax credits.  Savings in terms of cost of collecting tax and NI from itinerant, low paid workers would be significant both for the state but also employers.  If there were still a shortfall we should look at indirect taxes and new environmental taxes but untaxing the poor should be our priority.

> Political risks and opportunities  

Risks: Would be expensive in terms of short term lost revenue that would need to be replaced. Might look like LibDem policy but they only propose to remove lower rate of tax.

Opportunities: Strong message to the disenfranchised and the underclass that the ladder is being lowered down. Reinforces change message because it prioritises the lowest paid

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you feel that it is right to exclude the poor from paying tax? 
• When should people start to make a contribution?
• Should we keep tax credits for children? 
• Should family life be recognised through allowances (for all) rather than tax credits (for the poor only)? 

> Costs

Working out the cost of this would be a job for the IFS rather than me! Clearly it would be costly but it could be argued, Laffer style, that additional incentives to work, increases in indirect taxes, corporation tax, etc would, over time give rise to a net increase in government revenues. Much of the cost, as I have said already, could be recovered by dismantling the tax credit system and not having to deal with the least capable in society.

David Cooper: Opposing road pricing and tracking

David is a solicitor who has practised in employment law for 20 years, advising many small and medium sized businesses, and is a branch chairman of the party in South Staffordshire.

> Policy summary

Clear and robust opposition to the Government’s stated intention to introduce road pricing and vehicle tracking (“RPVT”).

> Policy explanation

The broad reasons to oppose RPVT – another tax increase upon already overtaxed motorists (promises of revenue neutrality ring very hollow indeed), the fact that fuel tax already reflects mileage, Government “form” on infrastructure overspends and poor results from technology based projects, and the onward march of the surveillance society and the Bully State – are well rehearsed. A number of further detailed grounds, non-exhaustive and possibly overlapping, are set out below. Some may sound trivial and far fetched but there are analogies with the time honoured principle of today’s satire becoming tomorrow’s reality!

Economic Damage: -

1. Areas served mainly by premium rate roads would become wastelands as their business occupants moved out or ceased trading.

2. Job mobility would decline as a result of increased disincentive to drive to better paid work, with income tax revenue falling in parallel.

3. Great hardship for key workers who needed to drive but could not charge for their overheads, e.g. doctors, health visitors. Exemptions would be perceived as unfair and open to abuse.

4. Mobile service industry (e.g. home deliveries, tradesmen) severely affected as higher overheads were passed on to end users who then reduced or stopped their custom.

5. Consequential unemployment as disposable incomes fell, and inflation as the worst affected sought to recover their increased overheads via higher prices.

6. Possible “last straw” inspiring more high earners to emigrate. 

Hidden Costs and Inefficiencies: -

1. Unproductive public sector payroll increased – car inspectors, camera watchers, data processors, etc.

2. Drivers’ time and resources wasted in attending for fitting of in car monitoring devices. Insult to injury if drivers forced to pay for the devices.

Increased Crime: -

1. Risk of more “hot cars” on the road, untaxed and uninsured, with consequential effect of their involvement in accidents – all the more so if the inevitable increase in the cost of driving instruction led to more unqualified drivers on the roads.

2. No guarantee of data security, e.g. dishonest camera watchers passing details of airport car park users to burglars.

General Law of Unintended Consequences: -

1. Congestion not cured but only moved to non-premium rate roads.

2. Adverse effect on tourist areas poorly served by rail, e.g. Cornwall, Lake District.

3. Risk of serious injustice from system errors, number plate cloning etc.

4. Disincentive for leisure pursuits needing car travel, e.g. sport, out of hours school activities – indirectly, a less healthy nation.

5. Family ties weakened (e.g. deterrent to visit far flung parents in rural areas) and pensioners virtually imprisoned.

> Political risks and opportunities

With our party’s prior support (albeit lukewarm?) for the principle of road charging, misguided as many may have believed this, a fresh policy of unequivocal opposition to RPVT might inspire more allegations of “flip flopping” and “not wanting to save the planet”. Indeed, the grounds for opposing RPVT may be dismissed as scaremongering. We should not hold back on asserting that the grounds for its introduction are far more deserving of that charge, indeed that they amount to a giant confidence trick.

This is, of course, a policy of opposition and does not expressly set out to propose an alternative. The principle remains that the status quo is infinitely better than RPVT. A general question for Conservative Home readers may be “what practical measures not involving further high tax and erosion of freedom would it be better to take against the perceived problem?”

To the extent that face may need saving, there may be no problem confirming that if individual cities wanted to consider such schemes (and felt that they could live with the local consequences), a Conservative government would not stand in their way as long as this had no nationwide effects.

With the Downing Street petition opposing Labour’s RPVT proposals now exceeding 1,600,000, we surely would not want UKIP to tune into the popular mood by proclaiming themselves the only party to be unequivocally opposed to RPVT.

There is every advantage in putting clear blue water between our party and a manifestly unpopular scheme such as this. “No mobility tax/no Big Brother in your car under the Conservatives” is clear and distinct, consistent with our renewed robust opposition to ID cards and our ideal role as a party of incentives and not penalties, and a vote winner through and through. 

Avoiding the massive civil disobedience that might flow from RPVT going live must be a good incentive too (!).

Put at its simplest, RPVT would make our lives a misery. There are great gains to be made from clear, unequivocal and principled opposition to it now.

> Costs

In the first place, look at the savings of not implementing RPVT. The writing off of anything spent on it by Labour prior to its scrapping is a relatively minor issue (think of ID cards again and the marker we have just put down on that issue).

If a fraction of what would otherwise be committed to the infrastructure of RPVT was diverted towards driver friendly road improvements and better rail service, all well and good.

The supposed net profit from RPVT should be ignored in context. Leaving aside the inherent unfairness of such a further tax rise, it is well known that the only other example of road pricing in the UK – London’s Con Charge – is notoriously poor value for money and arguably only profits from penalties and fines.

 

Russell King: Bringing the school year into the 21st century

Russell is a Councillor for Balham Ward, Wandsworth.

> Policy summary

Our current school year consisting of three school terms with a long summer holiday originates from the need to have the children working in the fields during harvest time. I believe that in the 21st century a school year that reflects the economic needs of a modern dynamic economy would brings benefits to parents, kids, teachers and the taxpayer.

Conceptually my proposal is very straight forward - I am simply aligning the school year with the business year. There will no longer be school holidays. However, children will not be in the classroom for any longer than they are now. The extra time available to schools will be used for extracurricular activities such as sports, music and community work (potentially children who are behind in their academic subjects could sacrifice extracurricular time in order to catch up).

> Policy explanation

There are several problems with the current school year:

Impacts on teachers – anybody who knows teachers will be able to tell you that by the end of a school term teachers are exhausted and close to burn out. This is due to the nature of the school year. In effect we ask teachers to cram a full years teaching into about forty weeks. The only way that teachers can do this is to burn themselves out during term time by working excessive hours and then spending the holidays recovering. This is not a healthy lifestyle and has significant impacts on the quality of our education system. First of all, the quality of teaching inevitably deteriorates as teachers get more tired towards the end of term. Secondly, it leads to a very high incidence of stress related absenteeism amongst teachers and thirdly, it results in many teachers leaving the profession prematurely either through early retirement (in order to prevent burn out) or leaving in order to change their lifestyle.

Impacts on Parents – the main impact on parents is a financial one. During the school holidays many working parents have to pay for expensive childcare in order to continue to work. Additionally, holidays for parents and their children are very expensive because everyone is going away at the same time. 

Impacts on Children – the impacts on children can be seen in two areas. First of all, their education suffers as their teachers are often tired and they have to cram in their learning into forty weeks. Secondly, during the school holidays many children (especially those in more deprived areas), participate in unstructured (and often destructive) activities. This increases social problems such as obesity, anti-social behaviour and outright criminality.

Impacts on Taxpayers – we continue to get poor value for money from our education system, which fails to turn out highly educated children well prepared for the economy of the 21st century.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest single risk is how teachers will respond to these proposals. Although, I believe that there are significant advantages for teachers we know that any change will be met with some level of resistance. 

The advantages to many parents of these proposals will provide us with significant political opportunities.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers 

• One of the major issues that need to be tackled is when the children and the teachers get holidays. Conceptually the answer to this should be simple – at any time during the school year (exam times may require a holiday embargo). Teachers can have up to 25 days a year (similar to other professions). The disadvantages of not having a teacher in school for a day (or even a couple of weeks) should not be an issue when compared to the benefits of having energised teachers who have had plenty of time to prepare for lessons. I do not believe that taking the children out of the class for holidays will cause a significant headache for teachers. All children by the end of the year should still have had the same amount of teaching. Am I downplaying the holiday issue?
• One of the (many) problems in our education system today is that many policies from Westminster assume a one size fits all approach is best. In reality every school is different and faces different circumstances. Therefore, would we want to roll this out to all schools or would we want to run pilot schemes? Alternatively we could ask schools to opt-in or force schools to hold referendums allowing parents to vote on whether the school year changes.

> Costs

When the total costs of looking after our children are taken into account, including education, youth services, extended schools, childcare, etc and given that our schools and wider services are currently awash with cash, I do not believe that the extension of the school year has to incur an increase in costs (although there are issues about how this money is reallocated). I do not expect teachers to do any more work (teaching in the classroom being only one element of what a teacher does in school) than they do now. In fact, we are improving their quality of life. Therefore, I would not expect to see an increase in teacher costs.

 

Andrew Morrison: Close directors' dividends loophole

Andrew Morrison is a member of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party's Policy Forum.

> Policy summary

To close the tax-loophole whereby directors pay themselves dividends out of their own companies in place of a salary which often results in a nil tax liability whereas the typical employee of the same earnings would be paying 22% income tax and 11% national insurance.

> Policy explanation

Although technical in nature, it is important that the ordinary taxpayer comprehends this one issue because at its heart is a fundamental unfairness between ordinary employees, and self-employed people who are able to establish their own small private company, and become directors of that company.  Whereas the employed person receives a salary and must pay tax and national insurance on those earnings, often at very high marginal rates, the person who becomes director of his own company can declare dividends payable to himself amounting to approximately £32,000 per annum and have a nil tax liability.

The Inland Revenue recently entrenched this inherently unfair practice through their Inland Revenue Ruling 35 ('IR35' for short) which provoked an uproar among the accounting profession.  This ruling has served as a 'green light' to directors of smaller and medium sized entities (known as SMEs) to continue this totally legal tax efficiency practice.

The Inland Revenue has a definition in tax law of these smaller companies, which are referred to as 'close companies'.  A company is defined as being 'close' if it is under the control of the directors.  This in practice means the directors have a majority shareholding.

To redress this imbalance in the tax system which deprives the treasury of tax receipts each year, all we would need to do is change tax law so that any dividends made from a company defined as being a 'close company', to a director of that company, so that the sums are treated as being a wage instead.

> Political risks and opportunities

While the Conservative Party, and any other centre-right party for that matter, has typically been affiliated with at least the agreement that a low tax economy is a healthy economy, and at least harbour the desire for a tax cut even if its actual policies are contrary to that, it is important that by actioning this policy we spell out to the public that this is not a tax rise; instead, we are making the system fairer by closing down an easily exploited loophole.

The primary opportunity of this policy is if the treasury is collecting the proper amount of taxes that the spirit of the law intends, then the government will have sufficient funds to offer strategic tax cuts, such as for low earners and abolishing inheritance tax, without being accused of cutting back funds allocated to public services.  This reconciles with the party's pledge to maintain investment in the NHS, and improving the armed forces, schools, infrastructure and so on.

There may be some protests from groups championing the causes of the smaller entity however.  What is needed to counter these is a clear demonstration in layman's terms that we are restriking the balance to employees and directors of owner-managed small companies so both are taxed at the same rates appropriate to their earnings.  Support by the wider public would drown out criticisms from those benefiting from the existing unfair scheme, so long as the issue is put forward in a clear manner that the wider public can comprehend.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Does this tax reform seem fair, or do directors deserve to earn ~ £32000 per annum tax free?
• Can you think of a manner to sell this policy to the public, so we can gain more political capital from its enactment?
• Are there any other tax-loopholes which could be closed that come to mind?

> Costs 

There are no costs envisaged in implementing this policy, other than resources spent in Parliament enacting the necessary legislation.  What would occur as a result of this however, is a boost to the amount of tax receipts receivable at the treasury.  Increasing tax receipts by collecting the proper amount of tax that the spirit of the law intends would in fact permit the government to cut taxes elsewhere.

 

Jonathan Munday: Rule by Referendum

> Policy summary

That all controversial social and constitutional topics should be put to a compulsory referendum and subsequently enacted.

> Policy explanation

When parliament was set up in the 13th century it took 3 weeks for MPs to travel from their constituencies and it was impossible for them to quickly consult their voters, who had to rely on their judgement. Now with the internet and modern communication it is far easier. There is no reason why important decisions of morality or constitutional or treaty law cannot be made by the electorate as a whole. Indeed there is increasing evidence that MPs as a class are failing to represent their constituents both for Party reasons and because they are different from them in kind - more male, more chattering class, more metropolitan. There is an economic theory called "the wisdom of crowds" that says that crowds i.e. the electorate as a whole are more likely to come up with the right answer than "experts" e.g. MPs.

Social issues e.g. gay marriage, GM foods, hunting, cloning and constitutional issues e.g. English parliament, EU treaties are issues which cut across party lines. Often they are unwhipped. They are issues where the personal opinions of 646 MPs are no more valid than that of their 60 million constituents. They are binary choices of morality or of constitutional importance well within the grasp of the electorate. MPs are elected because of their views on income tax and the NHS, not GM foods. Lords are not elected at all and their views are their own.

The Conservative Party has suffered much over the last 25 years from the media and from special interest group pressure for a social and constitutional agenda that is social democrat and profoundly anti-conservative. This has been promoted ubiquitously in the media and has become the new orthodoxy. To cavil against it has had us described as the nasty party. This proposal allows us to appeal over the heads of the media to the quiet people of England who are much more "small c" conservative. If we lose, at least we know that it is the popular will of the English people and not just the enacted prejudices of a metropolitan elite.

This proposal is that we should enact a law that all these issues should be put to a referendum and then the result enacted. The detail of any law would be left to the government and MPs in the House but as a security, the Law Lords must issue a certificate that the law enacted was in accord with the letter and the spirit of the referendum result before it could take effect. If the government refused to bring in a law, then it would be up to the electorate to punish them at the subsequent GE. Perhaps in the case of a constitutional question, the Queen should have the duty to dissolve parliament and cause a general election, if no law is forthcoming within 24 months of the referendum.

Any political party, which had more than 2m votes in the previous election would be able to suggest 3 referendums over the lifetime of the parliament and any pressure group would be able to ask for a referendum if it could present a petition to parliament with 500000 signatures of voters on the electoral register. Referendums would take place at the next national election i.e. EU or GE so that the electoral admin. and cost were kept to a minimum. In order to stop perpetual referenda on key topics, the Law Lords would have the power to refuse a new referendum on any topic until 10 yrs after the enactment of legislation that they deemed to be on the same topic.

> Political risks and opportunities

The cost of the ballot papers. All campaigning costs would be borne by interested parties.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you trust your MP?
• Can we call ourselves a democracy when there is no capital punishment in the UK despite 20 years of opinion polls suggesting that that is what people want?
• How long are you prepared to wait for an English Parliament or another vote on the EU?
• How well is the House of commons working these days as a democratic tool?

Do you have a policy idea?

We're running out of policy proposals from our initial batch, so if you have any ideas please email sam@conservativehome.com with a synopsis of what you would propose.

If you have already had a go feel free to have another! Final drafts need to be in the structure shown by all previous policies.

We're also a bit behind on counting up the votes from the last few policies, but we'll do them all in 24hrs so you still have a chance to vote for them.

Deputy Editor

Chris Palmer: Nationalise the BBC

Chris Palmer is a Conservative political blogger who regularly contributes to ConservativeHome. He is also co-founder of the Reinstate Roger Helmer Campaign and an active member of the Conservative party in Somerset.

> Policy summary

To nationalise the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation.)

> Policy explanation 

This policy would entail a Conservative Government giving direct ownership of the BBC to the people of this country. The BBC would be established as a Public Limited Company in a similar manner to the privatisation of British Steel, Gas and Telecom during the nineteen eighties. However, unlike privatisation, the next Government and Treasury would not benefit with an immediate financial cash injection from this nationalisation of the corporation since the shares in the BBC plc would not be sold on the market.

Every eligible member of the electorate (ie. all those on the electoral register) would be given a certain number of shares in the BBC. The number of shares per member of the electorate could be distributed as proportionate to the number of years that person has been a taxpayer/on the electoral role, or simply indiscriminate of electoral age and tax contribution with every person being able to own the same number of shares (for example, one share per person.) Either way, only members of the electorate would be initially eligible to own shares – no companies or organisations or the Government would be able to own or buy shares in the BBC.

The people of Britain would therefore be free to do what they wish with these new BBC shares. They could chose to keep them, which would provide certain ownership benefits such as a say on important BBC decisions, a vote on the election of BBC board members, the receiving of dividends, along with any other normal shareholding privileges. Alternatively owners might wish to sell those shares on the open market. The decision is entirely theirs. Further, potentially the initial (first) sale and profit gained from the selling of BBC shares may be tax exempt. (This factor may be open to some negotiation closer to the time.)

At the same time, the license fee would be abolished along with the tearing up of the BBC’s Royal Charter. British television consumers would no longer be forced to pay a broadcasting tax if they did not wish to watch BBC channels.

> Political risks and opportunities

At the beginning of the 21^st century, in a changing world where we now have access to 24/7 multi-channelled television and radio, should Government still own and to an extent control a corporation which was created and ran at a time when there was only one or a few television stations and it served political purpose to control the content of that media?

There are numerous and far reaching political consequences and opportunities that would arise from such a policy being enacted.

The nationalisation of the BBC would, for many people be the first time they have owned shares in a company. This first taste of ownership may perhaps encourage more people to take an interest in shares, prices and how the market works while at the same time giving shareholders a sense of control over the previously unaccountable BBC. It would be their BBC.

The BBC on television, radio and on the internet would be opened up to much needed competition which would increase standards across the broadcasting and online markets due to the BBC license fee funding monopoly being annulled. Currently, the BBC dominates online news in Britain, stifling alternative attempts to enter the market. Forcing the BBC to compete on even terms with other private companies would benefit the consumer and the market as a whole.

The electorate would be empowered by being given the freedom of choice to do as they see fit with their property. Power and decision making over a previously independent government organisation would be opened up to higher and more rigorous levels of scrutiny.

Within the broadcast news sector the BBC is no longer impartial – despite desperate and angry bleating from a small few to the contrary. Once nationalised this would probably end once and for all the dominant liberal left bias and control that has held sway over the corporation for many years – and even if it remained, then that would be largely acceptable since not every television viewer would be indiscriminately forced to pay a tax for the propaganda that they show. The decision about paying for the BBC would now be about personal choice, which is ultimately the fairest method.

However, the political risks of this policy are, in my opinion, also quite substantial.

The BBC is much loved by the left and liberal ends of the political spectrum. If people of such persuasion believed that their beloved corporation may be broken up or their political stranglehold and monopoly over influential broadcast news and internet published news was to be radically curbed, then they will be out in full force to prevent this occurrence. This policy and issue would be a battle and not a quiet one either. It would be very public for all to see and judge and therefore would have to be handled with the utmost care with all Conservatives engaged in the debate needing to be fully briefed and knowledgeable on the matter.

Further, I do not doubt that many politically and financially motivated employees of the BBC will be out to do their very best to prevent this policy coming to fruition; many of them will certainly have some sort of adverse reaction to the idea that their wages and productions may be opened up to real competition. Jonathan Ross on £8m a year for example may start to worry (and so he should.)

Some comments that may arise from such a policy:

“Privatisation by the back door”: This is not a policy of privatisation though it is comparable in certain respects. The Government will no longer own the BBC, but there will be an improvement over previous privatisation in that any funds raised will be the result of a personal direct decision by the electorate, and that the BBC will not be sold to “private” investors but instead given to the general public.

“Selling the crown jewels”: Though a Conservative Government would be creating a public limited company out of the BBC in a similar fashion to that of British Telecom and British Gas under the previous Conservative Government, no “selling” of shares would be taking place. The people of Britain would be empowered by being given the opportunity to do as they wish with their rightful slice of the BBC (since the BBC has always belonged to the people and has only been held in stewardship by the Government.) If shareholding members of the electorate wish to sell on their allocation of shares, then that is their choice – it’s called individual responsibility.

“Advertising on the BBC”: Would the BBC turn down the path of so-called “dreaded” advertising if it no longer had the license fee to fund it? Potentially, yes, the BBC may have to start using advertising to pay for some of its costs. Without the license fee, for example, it would be extremely difficult to charge people for listening to BBC radio stations. However, on the other hand, with television the BBC could implement a subscription system similar to that of Sky Movies or Sky Sports. Those that wished to watch BBC channels and BBC programmes advert free could pay directly to do so [maybe with some sort of discount if they remained a shareholder] instead of under the previously grossly unfair system where you paid the BBC an expensive broadcasting tax even if you didn’t want to watch any of their productions.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What about those people who have not paid the license fee and/or do not own a television? Do they deserve to have a share in the BBC?
• Is this policy issue too controversial to be initiated during a Parliament where the Conservative Government only has a small majority?
• Would this policy ultimately prove popular with the British public?
• Is “Nationalise” the correct term to describe such a policy, or should “Privatise” or perhaps another analogy be used?
• Should the BBC be broken up in the process of nationalising? For example into three different outfits; television, radio and online?
• Can you think of any other opportunities or risks that I have missed?
  

> Costs 

The costs of such an undertaking are of course variable depending on the circumstances at the time of nationalisation, though I think they could probably be predicted to some extent.

Let us assume for the moment, that the electorate stays roughly the same as it was at the 2005 General Election. That would mean that an estimated 44.2 million voters are eligible to receive shares. Also, assuming a minimum of one share per voter, that would suggest that 44.2 million shares need to be issued. Along with other necessary administrative costs of such a venture, the expenditure on this policy project would therefore appear at face value to be relatively high.

As for the transformation of the corporation, a closer look at the costs of privatising BT and other previously state owned organisation in the 1980s would give a clearer idea of the costs of turning the BBC into a public limited company and the problems that would entail.

Time. How long would the procedure of this policy take? Could the next Conservative Government spend parliamentary time on another “needier” cause? Again, a look at previous privatisation attempts would provide a clue.

   

Jonathan Munday: "Medicalise" illegal drugs

> Policy summary

To "medicalise" the provision of currently illegal drugs, by providing them through NHS clinics to British Citizens. The sale is subject to an excise duty to help fund the NHS.

> Policy explanation

Prohibition of illegal drugs has failed just as much as prohibition of alcohol failed in the USA and with the same terrible consequences to public morality and law and order. But legalisation of drugs is politically inexpedient and would legitimise the businesses of some of the nastiest criminals in the UK.
Drugs should be available at cost plus an excise duty to registered users at special NHS clinics. The price in the NHS clinics should be adjusted quarterly so that it is half the then current street price. If need be, initially, the NHS would give the drugs away free until the monopoly was secured and the illegal drug industry driven out of business by the law of the market.

The NHS would become a monopoly supplier of illegal drugs and use the power of the market to undercut and drive out the dealers. Drugs would remain illegal and anyone caught dealing (or in unregistered possession) would be subject to the full might of the law and employers would be able to sack employees stoned on business. The clinics would dispense clean needles, syringes etc and provide uncut pure product. They would supply any drug requested in any quantity, provided it could be proved to be for personal use (by consumption of a test dose on the premises).

Ultimately, it must be accepted that prohibition has failed and will continue to fail. If children are going to take drugs, would you rather they got them from a gun-toting psychopath on a street corner or from a doctor in a clinic? Telling teenagers that drugs aren't daring or clever but mean that they are sick and need to go to the doctor for them is a very powerful message for that age group. Once the government had achieved a monopoly, it could start to raise prices to cut consumption, as with cigarettes.

This is not just a policy for drug addicts. They are buying and using the drugs now and it is better that this share of the GDP swells our government's treasury, rather than those of Afghanistan and Columbia. It is a policy for the rest of society. Most petty crime is drug related as addicts steal or prostitute themselves to maintain their artificially expensive habit. Cheap pure drugs would leave them too stoned to steal. Most of the medical consequences of drugs are a function of their illegality. Cut impure drugs risk overdosing and dirty needles spread HIV. This would be much less an issue.

What medicalisation actually does is to nationalise the illegal drugs industry. Nationalising an industry to ensure it decays and collapses is a very Tory policy - privatisation in reverse.

> Political risks and opportunities

The chief problem with the policy is the amount of political will it would need to see it through. Admitting that 50 years of drug policy was wrong is hard enough. Telling the Chief Commissioners that you no longer need half their police forces or most of the prisons and numerous social and charity workers that they can stop bothering now is an attack on some of the most vested interests in modern Britain.

Then there is the problem of the public brainwashed by 50 years of ceaseless official propaganda into just saying no - although the size of the current illegal industry does suggest that this might not be as big a problem as those some officials may expect. Finally, there is the attitude of several senior Colombian and Russian businessmen, who may "vote" against the politician that brought this idea forward.

It is vital that the logic of the system is carried through. In order to gain a market monopoly, the NHS must be prepared to dispense any quantity of any drug for personal use. There will inevitably be a view that dispensing the drugs indicates official recognition or support for drug taking. This is partly offset by their use remaining illegal to unregistered users. Drug counselling would be available in the clinics and might even become compulsory.

Dispensing illegal drugs would risk making Britain a Mecca for every addict in Europe, so clinics would only be open to UK citizens, via an Identity Card.

> Costs

The system has start-up costs, setting up the clinics (the legal production of illegal drugs costs peanuts) but much of this is already spent on hospital DDUs. NHS doctors could be invited to tender for the service in their locality. This also already happens to a limited extent with GP Enhanced services.

The system produces very considerable savings in the medium term:

a) £2-3 billion in excise duty would help fund the rest of the NHS.
b) Since 70%+ of minor crime is reckoned to be drug related and many city murders are score settling between drug gangs, the monopolisation of the market by the NHS will significantly cut crime resulting in huge savings in prison and police costs.
c) Cutting crime will also reduce insurance costs for home and car insurance
d) The current illegal drugs market is perhaps £9-10 billion. All of it is imported. Eliminating it involves a huge improvement in our balance of trade "invisibles".

 

Ernie Warner: Aid Partnerships (AP)

> Policy summary

A new approach to foreign aid through “twinning” communities in the UK with communities in developing countries to their mutual benefit. The UK Twin partner becomes the aid delivery vehicle. Its objective is to develop economic achievement and understanding through practical support and appropriate exchange of knowledge and resources. Twins could be cities, counties or both. The scheme could apply to:

• Manufacturing
• Infrastructure and transport
• Agriculture
• Recycling of plant and equipment
• Education
• Health and welfare

> Policy explanation

A region or province of a recipient country produces something that is used or needed in the UK twin community, thus providing the vital link. A manufacturer could set up a factory in the recipient country, for example, employing local labour for everything from the building of the plant and infrastructure through to the eventual manufacture. Supervision would be provided by British organisations until local staff in the recipient country have acquired the skills. Outside of manufacturing, twin partners in Britain could free interchange of personnel and activities, e.g. tourism, health and education.

Products of the scheme would be treated as if produced within the U.K and exempt from import duties. Personnel would move freely without the usual immigration restrictions (movement would be limited to the operation).

The new factory generates revenue initially through a guaranteed market overseas from the outset, then from its home market, expanding locally before moving on to regional export.

The main scheme could be further enhanced by creating ancillary businesses, such as packaging or transport, to operate alongside the manufacturing plant. Production and employment opportunities create a need for homes and infrastructure. Using local labour provides opportunities for Britain to provide trainers, who in turn enhance their own skills and experience, not least by having to learn foreign languages and working within a different environment.

Management would be from within and not by any Government Agency. There should be equal representation among the management from recipient and donor bodies, with a chairman elected by the groups themselves.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest risk is that AP’s are set up in countries where the government is corrupt or inept, and funding or product becomes sidetracked.

The reward for Britain is that it offers a way to expand our economy by increasing the size of the developed world, allowing recipients to trade their way out of poverty. Central to this opportunity is the fusion of government with enterprise, the former to enable, the latter to do.

> Costs

Apart from initial “pump priming” from the Overseas Development budget, the cost to the UK taxpayer should be minimal. Eventually, these “Aid Partnerships” would become self-funding and self-governing. Donor Companies would be expected to largely fund any development costs of plant and infrastructure (although UK or European Government grants must be applicable).

   

John Allen: Statistical Ombudsman

John is a Conservative activist in Bosworth. He has had a career as a mathematician and manager in electrical, gas, and consulting and network communications and is a member of the Operational Research Society.

> Policy summary

Appoint Statistical Ombudsman.

> Policy explanation

The electorate are regularly subject to spin, where the powers that be select facts that support their message and totally ignore all the facts and analysis that would prove the spin wrong. It is not that the facts are untrue; it is the message that misleads. One well known area is road safety, where there has been an obsession with reducing speed limits to below the average observed and use of cameras to raise revenue. An established trend over several decades saw fatalities reducing by 3 percent or so each year – this appears to have ground to a halt under New Labour.

Remember when the General Medical Council struck off paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow after his "misleading" evidence in the Sally Clark case. He was an eminent expert in his own field but was asked to give statistical/DNA opinion. The prosecution & judge should have realised he was not an expert witness regarding probabilities so should have asked for an expert in that field.

This policy would provide an avenue for any citizen to request a professional analysis to be carried out, with the Statistical Ombudsman able to demand the necessary data from the ministries, police and local authorities to get an un-biased analysis done. 

> Political risks and opportunities

The Conservative Party has emphasised honesty; this policy would clearly show that we will put it into practice. The policy would encourage un-biased analysis before a bill is drafted. The downside is that many unfounded beliefs will be shown to be unsupportable by thinking people – didn’t everyone think that the world was flat etc.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

You may want to extend the range of the policy idea to other scientific and arts areas. The “Speed kills” statement has the merit of simplicity but little else. Accidents happen when observation, interpretation, judgement or control are lacking. Can anyone believe that terrorism has not increased as a result of an illegal, and illogical, war against Iraq?

> Costs

The cost of the policy will be a minor fraction of the savings achieved by not embarking on ill-founded actions.

 

Gareth Knight: A modern "Finishing School" for all

Gareth Knight is the head of Projecting Politics, the country's leading provider of political resources for schools and producer of the Untangled Web series of publications. Gareth worked for 5 years as a Conservative Party Agent and is a school governor in Friern Barnet.

> Policy summary

A mandatory six week course for school leavers taking place between the end of the GCSE examination period in late June and GCSE result day in early August.

The course would be focused on preparing students for the ‘real world’ and would aim to increase the life and social skills of pupils at the key time between school and work or college.

> Policy explanation

I am shortly to turn 28 and have been told that you know when you’re no longer ‘young’ as you start complaining that today’s teenagers are lacking in social awareness and all the basic social skills that we had ‘in my day’. I therefore fully expect to be brought to book on that point!

The education system is incredibly over-crowded with demands on teachers’ and pupils’ time. Indeed, a recent policy decision by this website demands that yet another subject, history, be made a compulsory GCSE topic. This pressure on the schools has led to the decline of education as a people-enhancement issue as schools devote so much time to making sure pupils pass exams rather than prepare them for life.

The argument always comes up that teachers are educators not parents; that it is the responsibility of family life to build characters. This is entirely true. Character is formed by parents, friends and family. What is lacking is not character, but basic non-academic education.

If you regularly speak to 16 year olds, and by that I don’t mean Young Conservative types with a strong or even passing interest in politics, you have no doubt been surprised by the lack of basic knowledge they have about politics, the media, religion and etiquette.

Indeed, when I first met a 21-year-old close friend of mine, I couldn’t believe that a highly academic student who had spent a year working in the civil service and is expecting a first class degree could not know the difference between a councillor and an MP. She looked completely blank when I once mentioned the GLA and had no idea what an MEP was at all.

This is far from an exceptional case. There are dozens of people entering work, regardless of university, who have no idea about a basic part of the British political system.

This can also be said for the media, taking the word of a newspaper as fact and religion, not realising the theological closeness of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

If a 16-year-old applies for a job the most knowledge they will have will be based on some vague idea of what a CV should look like. They certainly wouldn’t know how to work out their own taxes and benefits, then, come to think of it, many 50 year olds don’t either.

A key element of the ‘Finishing School’ would be etiquette. For example, I cannot be the only person that gets quietly infuriated at the way some people hold their knives and forks. Just sit in any pub during a Sunday lunch carvery and you’ll see what I mean. Take a look around you and look at the people. You will see people of all ages and all backgrounds. You will quickly realise that holding a knife and fork is a generational rather than a class issue. The grandparents and parents, be they suited up or dressed in a football top with tattoos will hold their knife in their right hand, the handle under the palm and they will use it to cut food. They will hold their fork in their left, again, the handle under the palm, the spokes curving downwards. Then look at the younger people. Invariably they will have their fork in their right hand in the scooping ‘soup spoon’ position and their knife will be used to tear up food, often on the table when not in use and when being held in the ‘pen’ position.

Sound familiar? This may sound incredibly petty but it is a damning indictment on the UK when our upbringing can’t even teach us to use a knife and fork – hardly rocket science.

A lack of basic etiquette – be that at the dinner table, at a drinks reception or in the pub is the slippery slope towards idleness, an idleness that can in turn become a lack of respect that can, for a small minority, lead to a lack of compassion and empathy. Hence, crime and a lack of opportunity and responsibility.

My proposal is that the six week ‘Finishing School’ would be a mandatory pre-requisite to getting your GCSE results – you have to sit the school to get the results. This would apply to those going on to do A-Levels, those doing vocational courses and those leaving education altogether (yes, a policy that recognises that the vast majority of young people are not either planning on going to university or planning to become criminals).

The six-week course would be an intensive back-up to the basic things taught in PSHE and citizenship lessons earlier on in secondary education. Four of those weeks would look at: political citizenship, the media, self-management (finances, taxes, credit, benefits, job applications), religious citizenship, first aid and culture. One week would be spent with a voluntary organisation.

The key week would be a residential, away from the student’s school and with no other pupils from that immediate area. Groups of students who have never met would be put together and taken through basic teamwork, etiquette and interpersonal skills training. Students would be taught basic etiquettes regarding conversation, drinking, eating, even the basics of dancing! By the end of the week, they will have been forced into meeting people from many different backgrounds, in most cases for the first time, and they will have a far greater understanding of the world outside their home town and school.

> Political risks and opportunities

Opportunities:

• this policy would be immensely popular with a ‘middle England’ increasingly frustrated at ‘young’uns today’ and their lack of social skills
• this policy actually recognises the need to support all post-16 people whereas there has been an obsession with young people meaning just criminals or university students – only around 4 in 10 young people are either of these!
• providing 16-year-olds with basic social skills will be a genuine move towards tackling ‘the causes of crime’ as everyone is made to work with others, even if they don’t know them
• it will give people the practical experience of supporting a voluntary organisation, thereby increasing the likelihood that more people will be active in voluntary work in the future
• it will fill a void for basic self-management teaching which may discourage debt
• it will make the workforce considerably more attractive for business
• it will encourage mobility

Risks:

• the accusation that this is a ‘nanny state’ approach, doing the job of parents for them
• objections from the teaching profession as they lose holiday in the summer
• objections from the metropolitan elite who believe that all children are destined to be litigation solicitors and civil servants
• the policy could be branded as elitism, particularly in terms of the etiquette part of the course
• the policy could be branded as old fashioned and dictatorial if we allow it to be labelled ‘boot camp’ or ‘national service’
• objections from parents of troublesome kids who think ‘they know best’ despite little Jonny being a convict-in-waiting – anyone who is a school governor will recognise this group!
• sadly, one unexpected incident at the residential could lead to the whole project being labelled such things as ‘paedophile’s paradise’ and so on
• with any political or religious element there will be some criticism that we are ‘brainwashing’ people
• there will be ‘outrage’ from some who will say “this has nothing to do with GCSEs and so why should they be withheld from students if they haven’t done this course?”
• the cost (see below!)

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• If this is not the answer then what is? Please bear in mind that some parents simply will not teach their kids much of this because they weren’t taught it themselves. So please don’t say ‘it’s the parents’ responsibility, it may be, but we are where we are!
• Should there be a language element in the course?
• Should this course, or a slight variation on it, be extended to include all immigrants into the UK as part of their introduction?
• Should this course, or a slight variation on it, be extended to include undetained criminals and prisoners on their release?
• Should the course be available to all people regardless of age on a voluntary basis?
• Should the course, or a part of it, be assessed? If so, bear in mind that employers would start asking for job applicants’ scores.
• Should this be paid for through general taxation or targeted taxation (see below)?

> Costs

The cost of doing these courses would be huge, particularly the residential element. I hope the benefits would considerably outweigh the costs but I propose that this be funded by a temporary direct tax, paid by the student themselves upon starting work.

There are circa 750,000 students in each school year. The cost of extending the school term for these students would be met with an instant demand for a pay increase by teachers. A 15% increase would be the equivalent of around £125 per pupil. Extra costs associated with the scheme (school utilities, resources) would probably come to around £25 per pupil.

The residential week would be highly expensive. Each week during the period in question, 125,000 16-year-olds will be in conference hotels and venues across the country. Having briefly spoken to conference organiser friends of mine, they estimate that the costs per pupil would be between £1,000 and £1,500 depending on the venue and the details of the schemes. According to the same friends, they believe around 1,000 venues in the UK could presently cope with this kind of scheme meaning that each venue would have on average 125 students present (university campuses and large hotels would obviously be able to cope with far more students without any loss of quality). Travel from the student’s home town to the venue would be a further £50. Insurance would add on another large cost.

On these figures, the cost would range from a minimum of £1,200 to £1,700 per student, or £900m to £1.275bn in total. Let’s assume for a moment that costs spiral (as they always tend to do whenever a government is involved) and round it up to £1.5bn. Let’s also therefore round up the cost per student to £2,000. That could be paid for through taxation but I would suggest that all students would pay a special ‘Finishing School levy’ of 1p in £1 on their income until it is paid off.

If for example a student starts work at 16 on a salary of £14k, it will be paid off when they are 30 if they never get a pay rise. At that point their income tax will essentially drop 1p. If the student starts work at 21 on a salary of £22k, it will also be paid off when they are 30 if they never get a pay rise. Using this system, a half-way house between a student loan and an ear-marked tax, no current taxpayers will have to pay for the scheme but the scheme will be funded.

 

Richard Robinson: Remedial year for eleven year-old pupils who aren't ready for secondary school

Richard Robinson is Chairman of Surrey Conservatives and Deputy Chairman for the SE Region. He was a candidate in 2004 European Elections.

> Policy summary

Children who fail to reach the required standard in English and Arithmetic at Key Stage 2 (11 years old) should undertake a year’s remedial teaching before progressing to secondary education.

> Policy explanation

I would like to propose a modest change to the organisation of primary education that I believe would have a significant impact on the literacy and numeracy of our children.

We currently test our children at age 11 (SATS Stage 2). Over a fifth of students fail to achieve the expected standard (level 4) in English and Arithmetic (or both). I propose that children failing to achieve level 4 should take a remedial year (6A) in primary school before “graduating” to secondary education.

Over 20% of adults in Britain are functionally illiterate: that is they would have difficulty completing a simple form or finding, for example, a plumber in the telephone directory. This figure seems to have remained fairly constant since at least the 1950s and has effectively been institutionalised by SATS tests, for which the government’s target is that 85% should achieve the required standard in English at age 11.

SATS are used to produce league tables of schools’ performance, but appear to be insufficiently used for what should be their primary purpose, as a diagnostic of student achievement. Students who have failed to master the basics of numeracy and literacy at eleven go on at the moment to study a secondary curriculum for which they are inadequately prepared.

It is unsurprising that such teenagers become disengaged from education, truant and become involved in drugs, petty crime, and worse. The costs to the State of our failure to provide basic education to all our youngsters is difficult to quantify but undoubtedly significant. The relationship between poor basic skills and a propensity to involvement in crime is fairly well documented. 35% of prisoners in our gaols have a reading age below seven.

> Political risks and opportunities

Much has been written about the merits of phonics as opposed to whole word teaching of reading to young children and experience both in UK and US suggests that reading skills would improve if teachers concentrate on phonics. The experience of the Texas Literary Program that George Bush instigated as Governor, however, suggests that state-mandated testing and the requirement that all students pass the state reading test before admission to fourth grade were responsible for improved standards. (91% of third grade students passed the test in 2004 compared with just 76% in 1994.)

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Would a remedial year significantly change the outcomes for failing pupils?
• Are there better ways of ensuring that all children are properly equipped with the skills to study the secondary curriculum?
• Would this be an effective use of scare resources?
• Should policies like this be made by central government, local government or by individual schools?

> Costs

The costs in terms of specialist remedial teachers and relatively small class size would be significant (of the order of £300 million net), but equate to just 0.5% of the total education budget. But by providing early intervention for children who would otherwise be unable to benefit from secondary education, we will raise the quality of the labour force, engage young adults who would otherwise be socially excluded and provide them with the skills to deal with the challenges of adult life.

 

David Cooper: Regulatory freedom for small firms

David is a solicitor who has practised in employment law for 20 years, advising many small and medium sized businesses, and is a branch chairman of the party in South Staffordshire.

> Policy summary

The liberation of small business – employers of 20 or fewer – from the burden of unfair dismissal legislation, statutory disciplinary procedures, the discrimination regime and similar regulations.

> Policy explanation

Since 1997 small business has faced a hostile employment law regime. The former compensation cap of £12,000 for unfair dismissal now exceeds £58,000. The requirement for two years’ qualifying service has been reduced to one year. Procedures more suited to large organisations with dedicated personnel departments bear down on even the smallest of firms troubled by poor performance and misconduct. The need to abide by parental leave rules and “family friendly” policies takes its toll on productivity, alongside a discrimination claims environment where the burden of proof is now tantamount to guilty until proven innocent.

A big business can shrug off a bad outcome in the employment tribunal or an expensive settlement. The same payout might send a small business to the edge of insolvency, if not all the way there.

A succinct Employment Law Reform Bill is all that is needed to put this right. For example: “In the case of small businesses, the tribunal compensation limit in both dismissal and discrimination claims shall be capped at £10,000”; “the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures, and the regulations relating to parental leave and flexible working, shall not be binding upon small businesses”; “an employee seeking to bring a tribunal claim against a small business must have been continuously employed for two years”; and so on.

Small businesses need to be liberated as far as possible from the dead hand of regulation and the waste of time and resources that it inflicts. Their owners can be left free to choose whether to recruit their 21st employee, and enter a tougher regime, as and when they have prospered sufficiently to bring themselves up to that level.

> Political risks and opportunities

The major risk - the inevitable talk of sweatshops and bullying from our political opponents - is mere scaremongering. The overwhelming majority of good employees in small businesses will want nothing more than to trade their time and skills, not talk of their rights. Just as the owner will want to grow the business by encouraging and rewarding them where due. Common sense does not need legislative gold plating.

Set small business free from these burdens and watch the reward: greater productivity, higher tax revenue and further employment opportunities.

The fact that EU regulation (e.g. the Social Chapter) was the driving force behind many of these legislative burdens will call for greater political will to put these countermeasures in place and face down the consequential criticism, but this is not something to be shirked.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

In context, a call for readers’ practical examples may be more useful. My interest in such a policy reflects almost 20 years’ experience as an employment lawyer and partner in a small firm of my own with a number of small business clients whose confidentiality I cannot breach.

> Costs

Direct cost, zero, save perhaps for the medium term financing of redundancies within the departments affected by the anticipated drop in tribunal claims that this reform would achieve. Contrast this with the direct and indirect reward as described above.

David Cooper's overall conclusion: "Our party ought to be the champions of those who consider themselves, under this government, to be over taxed, over regulated, over governed, badly governed and “governed by the wrong people” (aka the EU). A policy such as this one ought to strike a chord within that general context, without being open to criticism as a mere dog whistle issue."

   

David T Breaker: Tax relief for 'homeworkers'

David is a student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Essex.

> Policy summary

A £500 tax break to encourage more people to work from home, and to encourage businesses to employ more teleworkers, as a means of boosting the potential labour force, reducing welfare dependency and cutting car usage.

> Policy explanation

According to the Office of National Statistics, 3.1 million people work from home in the UK, a total of 11% of the current workforce. Having more people working from home has many benefits. To start with it reduces congestion and traffic, however its benefit is far wider. People working from home can live anywhere, making it ideal for rural and deprived areas. For many people, working from home could be an alternative to unemployment or incapacity benefit, increasing the UK’s labour force and reducing welfare dependency.  By giving a small tax break to companies employing people in their own homes, and to the employees themselves, the government could encourage and support the growth of this idea.

In 2006 the opportunities for home working are huge. We’ve all heard of call centres moving to India, but virtual call centres exist too, connecting callers automatically to people in disparate locations. Call once and you could talk to Polly in Leeds, call again and speak to Norman in Chingford. As a system it already happens. But of course, it isn’t only for call centres. The internet means anyone, anywhere, can be linked to the World.

Under my idea, every homeworker would receive a £250 income tax rebate, whilst their employer would receive a £250 corporation tax rebate. A homeworker would be anyone working from home, but able to attend a out of home ‘office’ once per week.

> Political risks and opportunities

I don’t see many political risks, although it may be attacked as open to fraud. Opportunities however far outweigh the risk…it’s environmentally friendly, good for deprived areas and areas away from the South East, good for people with children, promotes flexibility, good for people with disabilities, good for retired people, good for employment. And, it’s a way of getting a tax cut!!!

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Who are ‘homeworkers’?
• Can we stop fraud?

> Costs

The base cost of the scheme would be £1½ billion per year, based on the 3.1 million people working from home. Naturally, the more people take up the scheme, the higher the costs. That said, there would be savings in benefits for every new home working employee, plus extra tax revenue from them. It could quite easily pay for itself. Cutting taxes is good for the economy anyway.

Stewart Nairn: Two items of regulatory legislation must be repealed for every new piece of regulation enacted

Stewart is a Social Worker who splits his time between work in Glasgow and home on a West Highland croft. He doesn't have a picture of himself, but has a nice one of a cow and a horse.

> Policy Summary

A policy to arrest and reverse the exponential growth of legislation by requiring that a new piece of legislation can only be passed if at the same time two existing pieces of legislation are rescinded.

> Policy explanation

We are burdened by an ever increasing weight of rules and regulation, of legislation and proscription. As the state assumes more and more of our responsibilities is it surprising that we, without responsibility, act irresponsibly?

It is in the nature of legislators to legislate. Their motivation is honourable and some of their product no doubt beneficial. Unless their industry is fettered, however, our every movement and thought will be regulated with the entire population employed by the state to spy upon, inspect, regulate, prosecute, counsel, minister to, pursue, tax, fund and harangue the entire population.

There are many redundant laws that it will be easy trade off for new laws. However, as this supply dries up the policy will begin to bite and there will be shift of responsibility back from the state to the individual with the state retaining only those powers that it believes most important.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is the risk that the legislatures enthusiasm for new legislation will not be curbed by this self denying ordinance. The logical conclusion to removing two laws every time you create one is that the number of laws will reduce to one. At which point since there are not two to rescind no new one can be created. It might be interesting to ponder what that ultimate law might be.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is this totally pie in the sky?
• Is it possible to quantify legislation?
• Given that it is impossible for the regulation to continue to grow exponentially what, short of the collapse of civilization, will actually stop it?

> Costs

No cost. It would save a fortune.

   

Charlie Elphicke and Mark Field MP: Modernisation of public sector pensions to pay for 50% council tax discount for pensioners

Charlie Elphicke is a partner with a leading international law firm, a research fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies and Deputy Chairman of the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association.  Mark Field MP is Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster.

> Policy Summary

To halve Council Tax for pensioners whilst modernising public sector pensions.

> Policy Explanation

Council Tax has increased dramatically since Labour came to office.  Government figures show that Council Tax for the average household is £898, up from £412.  A rise of 118%.  The most recent budgets have placed even greater administrative burdens on local authorities without commensurate central government grants.  Nowhere has this rise been felt more strongly than by pensioners. Here is why:

• The average Council Tax paid by pensioners amounted to £720 after Council Tax Benefit according to the latest available figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS).  Meanwhile, the average income of all pensioners after state pension was £13,336. 
• This compares with the average pre-tax income of working age households being £35,954 in 2004-05.  The ONS figures show that the average Council Tax of non retired households was £874 after Council Tax Benefit.
• Council Tax therefore equates to 2.4% of the pre tax and benefits income of non retired households.  Meanwhile, it is equal to 5.4% of the pre tax and benefits (but taking into account the state pension) income of retired households.

So it is not hard to understand why so many older people feel very angry about Council Tax. And it can immediately be seen why Council Tax reform for pensioners is not a "good to have", but a matter of fundamental fairness for pensioners. Halving Council Tax for pensioners would reduce the burden of this tax into line with the burden it has on everyone else.

> Political risks and opportunities

The reform of Council Tax would be real step forward in providing help to pensioners who have been really let down in recent years.  The issue is going to be cost.  We Conservatives are now to fiscally responsible party that believe in stability and reject so called unfunded mandates.  So we see the Council Tax reform being paid for by the parallel modernisation of public sector pensions.  In our view this is about fairness for the many, not the few.  With this reform, pensioners will celebrate, yet public sector workers are much attached to the incredibly generous benefits they get and are less likely to be so enthusiastic.

> Questions for Conservative Home readers

• Other than Council Tax, what more can we do to help pensioners, who have really suffered under this Labour Government?
• If we were to reform public sector pensions, should we do so in a “big bang”?
• The savings from the modernisation of public sector pensions will take time to come through.  How should we best handle the timing gap – e.g. borrow in the meantime or filter through the savings as and when they arise?
• Does this reform proposal sail too close to the winds of hypothecation.  This is the tying together of tax and spending which the Treasury very strongly dislikes (for a number of very good reasons).  If so, do we care or should these reforms be presented as entirely separate policies?

> Costs

The cost of halving Council Tax for older people will be £2.35bn on the basis of the ONS 2004-05 figures. So the current estimated cost of this policy is £2.5bn.

The Council Tax reform is intended to be paid for by the parallel modernisation of public sector pensions.  This modernisation would mean greater fairness as between public sector workers and move the retirement age to 65, as it is for everyone else in Britain.   This modernisation will save in excess of £2.5bn over time calculated as follows (numbers obtained from expert actuaries):

• All civil servants retiring at 65 will save £2bn – but over time;
• The schemes are all 1/80ths across the board will save £170m; and
• All civil servants make contributions which are fair (i.e. 6%) will save £520m

A further benefit of the modernisation of public sector pensions would be to reduce the long term liabilities of the nation. For further details of these liabilities and why this reform would therefore be doubly attractive, see the recent Your Platform piece by Brooks Newmark MP. Brooks Newmark sets out a useful summary of the position described in the paper Simply Red: The True State of the Public Finances (Brooks Newmark MP and Stephen Hammond MP).

   

Dr Jonathan Munday: A Federal Parliament

Jonathan is an NHS GP in central London and chairman of the Victoria Commissioning Consortium, commissioning secondary healthcare under PBC for 45,000 patients.  He has been a local councillor for sixteen years and was Mayor of Kensington & Chelsea in 1998.

> Objective

To correct the current imbalance in the constitution by which Wales, Scotland and NI have parliaments or assemblies but England has none.

To correct the current imbalance in the constitution by which Scots and Welsh MPs have the right to vote on English matters of Health, Education and the Environment, when they have no right to vote on those issues for their own constituents and when English MPs have no right to vote on these issues in Scotland and Wales.

To provide an equal, simple and coherent constitutional settlement for the whole UK together, thus providing our last chance to maintain the UK with fairness to all.

To cut the Gordian knot of reform of the House of Lords by abolishing the second chamber entirely, saving public money on Peers' expenses and secretariat.

> Policy

Abolish the current bi-cameral Parliament, Scots parliament and Welsh and NI Assemblies.  Hold a border referendum in England, Scotland, Wales and NI separately to confirm democratic consent for continuing the Union. If passed:

• We should set up a federal Parliament with four national parliaments, elected by FPTP, for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Conservatives should agree to run candidates in NI on non-sectarian lines.
• Each national parliament would have all the powers of the current Scots parliament but including immigration and social services policy and would have full tax raising powers to decide tax levels for UK residents domiciled in its own area.
• Citizenship and tax liability would be decided by domicile of main residence. National parliaments would not have the right to restrict domicile after they are set up.
• The English parliament would sit in the old House of Commons chamber.
• Each of the four national parliaments would send representatives according to their national populations to a Federal UK parliament. There would be no separate elections for the UK parliament. UK MPs would be nominated by the national parliament speaker in consultation with the political parties represented in the national parliaments. The political balance of the representatives would be as per that in the national parliament.
• The UK parliament would sit weekly in the old house of Lords Chamber to decide laws on non-devolved issues of foreign policy and defence. It would administer a Cohesion Fund, analogous to the EU Cohesion Fund, which would transfer revenues from richer parts of the UK (England and Scotland) to the poorer parts (Wales and NI).
• The UK parliament would levy a tax on a GDP basis on each national parliament to pay for diplomatic and defence expenditure of the UK as a whole.
• The Prime Minister of the UK parliament would have the power to make treaties for the UK as a whole. All such treaties would need confirmation by UK wide referendums.
• The PM of the UK would appointment ministers for the MoD and Foreign Office.
• The PMs of the four national parliaments would appoint ministers for Health, Education, SS, the environment etc.

> Costs

The policy would save public expenditure by abolishing

• The House of Lords and its secretariat
• The salaries of current Celtic MPs
• The Scottish Welsh and NI offices in London.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

The UK parliament (as set out above) is subsidiary to the national parliaments, of which it contains representatives. It has a tax levy. This could be on a population basis but it is probably fairer that it should be on a GDP basis, as this reflects ability to pay. The Cohesion Fund requires a levy on a GDP basis. It is possible that the UK parliament should have separately elected MPs but this adds to costs and sets it up as a rival to the national parliaments and would certainly lead to constitutional clashes. Issues of foreign policy and defence, whilst important are rarely controversial and usually bi-partisan. Political debate on issues important to the voter will take place within the competencies of national parliaments. Thus in general the English Prime Minister will be more politically important than the UK PM, although they will often be the same person. They could not be the same person if UK MPs were separately elected.

Giving the national parliaments their own tax raising powers will lead to differing tax rates. People will be taxed according to their place of domicile. This could cause population movement. The alternative is that people should be taxed according to their place of birth and not be allowed to change according to their domicile. Although this is administratively more complex, it would put pressure on national parliaments to restrict tax rates and not lead to middle class flight from high tax areas. However, only with national tax rates will national parliaments be completely independent and accountable to their voters.

   

London Salmon: A new structure for London Government

This policy suggestion comes from the blogger London Salmon.

> Policy Summary

To reform the GLA so that the powers of the Mayor of London are suitably balanced to reflect the wishes and views of all Londoners.

> Policy Explanation

The Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority (GLA) were created in 1999 in response to the unique governance problem in London. After the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) in the 1980’s, a power vacuum was created in which 32 Boroughs and central government tried to come together to deliver services in London, with arguably little success. Regardless of our view of the GLA, it is here to stay, so we must reform it to be the genuinely streamlined authority that we were promised.

After a London wide referendum, the Mayor of London was created - the first time a genuinely powerful directly elected individual was created in the U.K. The post was designed to operate on the regional, strategic level and given vast powers over transport, and some over housing and police. The government’s intention was to create an executive heavy power structure, with the London Assembly, a 25 member elected body only given soft powers of oversight. However, despite the understandable focus on strategic power, the lack of a powerful check and balance leads to problems in any organisation, as excessive power nearly always corrupts.

The Mayor has unfettered executive power; on any proposal within his remit; all he is legally required to do is hold a formal consultation. He is not bound by the results, and there is no requirement for him to take on any of the views expressed in the consultation. So, measures like the West London Tram and the western extension of the Congestion Charge have gone through, even though the majority were against them.

The London Assembly has no power to vote on or veto any Mayoral proposals. They do have a vote on the budget, but that requires a two-thirds majority to agree on a budget amendment that only considers headline figures. Because of the electoral system of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR), a two-thirds majority on an alternative budget has never been agreed.

My policy would be to amend the GLA Act 1999 so that the London Assembly is given the power to vote on every Mayoral strategy (as his proposals are termed), including the budget, with a straight majority needed to confirm or defeat the proposal. This would require any Mayor to listen to the concerns of Londoners, and amend their policies accordingly.

I would also require the Transport Commissioner to be confirmed by a straight majority vote of the Assembly, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They would be subject to U.S style confirmation hearings to ensure maximum transparency.

In addition, I would also propose changing how the Assembly is elected. Currently, there is a mix of 14 ‘GLA constituencies’, which often cover areas with two or more Boroughs in them, with the remaining 11 members chosen on a European style party list system. Members are elected at the same time as the Mayor. The original intention was to ensure smaller parties to get a fair hearing, however what has happened in practice is that two members were elected from UKIP, who espouse policies which have nothing to do with London government and two from the Green party, who use their swing votes in the budget round to add needless pork to an already bloated budget.

I would change this drastically. Instead of having another layer of politicians elected to do nothing for four years, I would enlarge the Assembly to 32 members. However, these members would be not elected, but be appointed representatives from each London Borough, selected from the current pool of elected councillors only. So, if party A won control of Borough A, they would appoint a councillor to be the London Assembly Borough representative for Borough A, with an extra allowance and a minimum number of days they would have to be available for Assembly duties. Currently, the Assembly only meets for a maximum of twice a month, with each Committee meeting once a month; this would not be an unmanageable addition to a councillor’s workload.

Whilst there would be more members, the bill would go down. Assembly members currently get paid £50,250 a year, with no minimum attendance, and no formal record kept of votes or meetings attended. Despite the excellent quality of some of them, this is not value for taxpayer’s money, especially as they have no powers.

Having members as councillors would also increase local accountability, so that Boroughs could fight for their interest and have the powers to stop the Mayor going against residents’ wishes. A body of 32 members would also guarantee against parochialism, with compromise being required on major, London wide issues.

This electoral system would be similar to how London Councils work (formerly the ALG), except that with a stronger, Borough represented Assembly, we could abolish London Councils and transfer their remaining functions over parking charges to the Assembly. Political control would depend on the wishes of voters in Borough elections, and would be separate from the politics of Mayoral elections and keep extremist, fringe parties out. Hung councils would have to agree on the political membership of their representative.

Finally, I would change how the Mayor is elected. Currently he is elected by a 1st/2nd preference system, which means there is second round counting the second preference votes, and means tactical voting becomes more prevalent, discriminating against those who voted differently. For example, Ken Livingstone won the last election because the 200,000 odd people who voted for the Lib Dem candidate voted for Livingstone as a second preference to keep the Tory out. I would change it to a FPTP system, and let the best candidate win.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

A stronger Assembly might, in the future, hold a Conservative Mayor to a policy they don’t like and may strike down some very sensible future policies. The political complexion of Boroughs may change in the future to one we do not like. However, these are no arguments against rigorous accountability, in fact any party which believes it genuinely has the best policies and is willing to put in the political energy to achieve them should not be daunted by having to meet a higher standard.

A fully, Borough based, FPTP system for the Assembly would totally exclude smaller parties, but that is not to say their issues will not be heard. A green Conservative party, for example, is far more likely to effect real environmental change than a small but vocal Green Party. And Boroughs have a lot of independent and smaller party representation. Indeed, councils are where smaller parties have the best opportunity to make the breakthrough; both Green members of the Assembly are local councillors, and they have more opportunity to effect change in their respective Boroughs than they do as Assembly members.

The biggest opportunity would be that Londoners would be given a real voice, and reigning in the Mayor would be popular. Stronger accountability would re-engage Londoners in politics, pushing up turnout and keeping out the extremists. These are proposals that every genuine democrat should welcome, as they are sorely needed.

> Questions for Conservative Home Readers

• Would you keep the existing 25 member Assembly, instead of enlarging it to 32?
• Would you make them all directly elected, or just give the existing body more powers?
• Is it better for fringe parties to be in local government or strategic regional government?
• Would having members chosen by their respective Boroughs be accountable enough, instead of directly elected?

> Costs

This is the best part; having a stronger Assembly would stop the Mayor wasting millions on pet projects and having appointed Borough representatives would save the £50,250 a year cost of each current Assembly member. And using FPTP to shut out smaller parties would stop the horse-trading leading to less pork in the budget, whilst making sure their views were heard through the Borough councils.

   

Anne Main MP: Council tax rewards for homes that improve their carbon footprints

Anne is a member of the DCLG select committee which has looked into delivering sustainable communities

> Policy summary

We must help tackle global warming through Green Council Tax Tariffs for homes that have significantly improved their carbon foot print.

> Policy explanation

Older Homes will continue to contribute to significant harmful carbon emissions unless we incentivise home owners to adopt greener measures.

Global warming is an accepted fact, we need to look urgently at the problem in the round and try to see where we can have a “win win” situation that people will buy into.  I believe to help tackle our carbon emissions we should incentivise greener homes through a green council tax band rating triggered by significant upgrades in the green rating of a home.

Currently approximately 27.3% of all carbon comes from the estimated 26 million homes in the UK, many older and poorer families live in older less energy efficient homes, these families are often hardest hit by fuel bills and indeed council tax.  They are conversely least likely to be ale to afford to put in measures that improve the overall green rating of their homes.

Currently if a green system such as solar panels is installed little if any pay back is seen by the investor and because of low volumes these systems and others remain expensive and not the norm. The elderly and the poor suffer the most from soaring council tax and fuel bills, but all of us would welcome homes that are cheaper and greener to run. In areas like my constituency of St Albans, which has one of the worst carbon footprints in the UK, few homes have adopted environmentally positive measures.

The Government has tentatively looked at new build homes and is suggesting, but not legislating, that they be greener.  However builders resist what they see are expensive investments that do little to add to the value of a home.  We need to break this cycle. Nothing in the Queen’s speech was said which would help us tackle the carbon emissions from homes. Only the motorist and air traveller are in the sights of the Government and it appears sticks rather than carrots are becoming the order of the day.

It is worth noting that new houses will only ever form a small percentage of housing stock and so if older homes made significant improvements to their energy and carbon ratings then they would be cheaper and more efficient to run and reduce carbon emissions and contribute significantly to carbon savings.  Upgraded, greener more environmentally homes should then be rewarded with a lower cost green council tax band rating, making them cheaper to run and afford.  The Government would recognise and compensate for any loss of council tax revenue through a proportionately higher grant award to the council.

I believe that, as Conservatives, we can argue from past experience that encouraging homes to upgrade can be well received and deliver real results.  We did after all pioneer concern for the environment and indeed set up the first Department for the Environment in the world in 1970.  We went on to build on this innovation in our 1974 manifesto by committing to seeking methods to avoid waste and unnecessary consumption of fuels and energy - this led to an energy saving scheme that included a loft and tank insulation drive in the 1970s. Those eligible obtained grants and soon focus was shifted onto delivering energy economies within the home.  It was popular and because it was seen to be cost effective it was well taken up.  Now we need to take this principle and yank it firmly into the 21st century. My policy would adopt the same principle but drive it much further.  A listed building on a company site called Renewable Energy Systems in my constituency has achieved a totally zero carbon foot print, that is beyond many of us but shows what we can all aspire to.

> Policy risks

• This policy will need to clearly identify and give guidance to councils as to which environmental measures are considered to significantly improve a home and thus attracting funding via the Government and qualify for a council tax discount.
• Government must commit to refunding any grants etc given by councils and ensure there is no shortfall of funding to Councils who see a significant number of homes achieving a lower council tax rating through green improvements.

> Policy opportunities

We can achieve less carbon emissions, and ensure homes are cheaper to run and show an ongoing return on investment in green measures through the council tax reduction which benefits pensioners and those on low or fixed incomes the most. It is not just a one off grant that only benefits the original installer as the home will remain in the green council tax tariff. The council tax burden will be eased.  Environmental systems should start to become cheaper as volume purchase occurs.

The Stern report says we must see environmental improvements as an investment and the Government accepts this.  This is an opportunity to demonstrate in a positive and concrete way our commitment to investment in our environment.

> Questions

• Should we extend this concept to non domestic premises?
• Should grants on a sliding scale be available to all or only those on lower incomes?
• How many grades, if more than one broad band, of improvement should be considered-heritage houses may struggle to adopt more than a limited range - or should be seen as a percentage upgrading on the current carbon situation?

> Costs

Not known at this stage but cost of doing nothing is an ever growing contribution to carbon emissions and global warming.