This weekend we, in Englsnd & Wales, have two bank holidays or public holidays), and, in quick succession, there's both May Day and Whitsun. In all, on a normal non-Jubilee and non-Royal Wedding year, we get 8 days off in this manner.
We're actually quite low in the league table of days off for public holidays compared to other countries around the world, and there is what feels like a interminable campaign to make the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar into an extra day's holiday in the autumn (always good to celebrate historic military victories over what are now close political allies - NOT!).
People seem to like bank holidays; I guess people just like having a day off.
I find bsnk holidays both patronising and feudalist.
Yes, workers should have a number of days off each year and it is right that there is legislation to protect those days off from any unscrupulous employer, but, really, in the 21st century do we really want a government to dictate when we have to take those days off?
Isn't that a bit of an archaic approach to labour laws?
Surely we should be able, in negotiation with our employer, be able to choose when we have those days off?
As an atheist, I don't want days off to celebrate fictional events from 2,000 years ago, but I might want a couple of days off in September instead. And if I want to spend those days with my friends or family, is it beyong the wit of man for us to be able to organise our calendars in such a way that we are all off together?
Ok, some jobs have restrictions on when holidays can be taken. Teachers, for instance, can't take a couple of weeks off mid-term and that makes sense, but I don't see why any government has a right to choose my days off for me.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Friday, 23 March 2012
OPINION: Time to add solar panels to all houses
I do find it quite extraordinary that any new house is built without sufficient solar panels to cover the consumption of a regular family.
Additionally all new shops, schools, office blocks, etc. should be fully equipped with solar panelling.
I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether man made climate change is real or not (I'm firmly in the it's real camp) but, even if it's not doesn't it make good economic sense for families to be able to turn their backs on fossil fuels and use only renewables for their household needs? After all sunlight is free!
But, let's be honest, that's not going far enough. Why don't the government pay for all new households to have solar panels fitted?
It would cost around £7,000 per house (probably less as part of an organised campaign). And then, beyond occasional maintenance costs, every household would have no household electricity bills.
How cool would that be?
So why don't they do it? My guess is that the big oil companies and their shareholders, which probably include a large number of MPs and their families, block actions that might harm their profits.
Whether man made climate change is real or not the economic argument would support a move to minimise the use of fossil fuels at the earliest possible moment. It couldn't harm the environment or make man made climate change any worse and it would surely eliminate fuel poverty at a stroke.
Let's stop funding wars, and investing in pollution causing industries, and have some vision for the future.
Additionally all new shops, schools, office blocks, etc. should be fully equipped with solar panelling.
I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether man made climate change is real or not (I'm firmly in the it's real camp) but, even if it's not doesn't it make good economic sense for families to be able to turn their backs on fossil fuels and use only renewables for their household needs? After all sunlight is free!
But, let's be honest, that's not going far enough. Why don't the government pay for all new households to have solar panels fitted?
It would cost around £7,000 per house (probably less as part of an organised campaign). And then, beyond occasional maintenance costs, every household would have no household electricity bills.
How cool would that be?
So why don't they do it? My guess is that the big oil companies and their shareholders, which probably include a large number of MPs and their families, block actions that might harm their profits.
Whether man made climate change is real or not the economic argument would support a move to minimise the use of fossil fuels at the earliest possible moment. It couldn't harm the environment or make man made climate change any worse and it would surely eliminate fuel poverty at a stroke.
Let's stop funding wars, and investing in pollution causing industries, and have some vision for the future.
Monday, 20 February 2012
OPINION: Selling cigarettes in plain packaging
The government is to hold a consultation to find the public's opinion about whether cigarettes should be sold in plain, unbranded packaging.
The Australian government has recently passed legislation that will make them the first country in the world to ban cigarette branding and, it seems, the UK government is interested in following suit.
The logic is that unbranded packets don't appeal to young non-smokers and so fewer will start to smoke. Anti-smoking campaigners look at recent branding that has seen cigarettes being marketed in packets that look like perfume and make up. The anti-smoking lobby claim such packaging is deliberately targeted at youngsters, finding the next generation of smokers.
As it is all cigarette packets sold in the UK have to carry large and prominent health warnings but this doesn't seem to be making any sugnificant impact on the numbers who take up smoking annually.
Statistics suggest that one in every two smokers will die of an illness caused by smoking - and yet the numbers smoking stay solid.
Those opposed to plain packaging highlight three downsides:
1: There is no evidence to suggest that branding does anything to encourage smoking. It is there to identify different brands but not to entice people into the habit.
2: Plain packaging will make the job of counterfeiters much easier. They will no longer have to make different, and sometimes complex, packets for different brands. The same size and colour of box will just require a few words of print on it.
3: The more that the tobacco companies are restricted in advertising, sponsorship and the branding of their product the more their profits increase, unless the restrictions have the effect of cutting consumption.
Personally, I think governments need to do whatever it takes to stop the illnesses and deaths attributed to smoking. Sadly, because of the hefty wack of tax revenue the exchequer collects from the sale of cigarettes, the one thing that should be done, the total outlawing of cigarettes, hasn't been done by any of the weak-willed governments we've had in recent decades. Until a government does the right thing and outlaws cigarettes, though, it is worth trying anything in the hope of protecting stupid people from the evils of cigarettes.
The Australian government has recently passed legislation that will make them the first country in the world to ban cigarette branding and, it seems, the UK government is interested in following suit.
The logic is that unbranded packets don't appeal to young non-smokers and so fewer will start to smoke. Anti-smoking campaigners look at recent branding that has seen cigarettes being marketed in packets that look like perfume and make up. The anti-smoking lobby claim such packaging is deliberately targeted at youngsters, finding the next generation of smokers.
As it is all cigarette packets sold in the UK have to carry large and prominent health warnings but this doesn't seem to be making any sugnificant impact on the numbers who take up smoking annually.
Statistics suggest that one in every two smokers will die of an illness caused by smoking - and yet the numbers smoking stay solid.
Those opposed to plain packaging highlight three downsides:
1: There is no evidence to suggest that branding does anything to encourage smoking. It is there to identify different brands but not to entice people into the habit.
2: Plain packaging will make the job of counterfeiters much easier. They will no longer have to make different, and sometimes complex, packets for different brands. The same size and colour of box will just require a few words of print on it.
3: The more that the tobacco companies are restricted in advertising, sponsorship and the branding of their product the more their profits increase, unless the restrictions have the effect of cutting consumption.
Personally, I think governments need to do whatever it takes to stop the illnesses and deaths attributed to smoking. Sadly, because of the hefty wack of tax revenue the exchequer collects from the sale of cigarettes, the one thing that should be done, the total outlawing of cigarettes, hasn't been done by any of the weak-willed governments we've had in recent decades. Until a government does the right thing and outlaws cigarettes, though, it is worth trying anything in the hope of protecting stupid people from the evils of cigarettes.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
OPINION: Is your child fit for purpose?
Reports suggest that increasing numbers of pupils arrive at the school gate still wearing nappies, unable to use a knife and fork, incapable of changing themselves into a PE kit, and some, unbelievably, don't actually know what their name is.
How can this be the case in the UK in 2012?
This generation of semi-feral children can't be blamed but the generation of bad parents can. Why haven't they spent the time to teach their children such basic life skills? I wonder how much time these bad parents (yes, that's where they are, there's no getting around it) have spent with their offspring? Did they just ignore them as they grew up? Were the parents just too busy drinking or going out?
Sure, many people work long hours and have difficult lives but that is no excuse for child neglect. Presumably these children were being looked after by someone who might have noticed that the child was socially retarded. Or is this abuse of the youngest members of society a generational thing? In some families is it actually not the parents fault but the grandparents fault?
I think schools should require children to be able to do certain things before they're allowed to start school. I'd suggest being toilet trained is pretty fundamental but I think, before they are accepted into school, all children should be able to eat with a knife, fork and spoon; use a cup to drink (not a baby's bottle with a test); be able to change clothes without being helped; recognise their own name; be able to hold a pen/pencil/crayon appropriately; be able to sit properly on a chair... there's probably more.
Yes, if parents haven't done these things then school need to pick up the pieces but while the teacher, or classroom assistant, is busy changing some 5-year old's nappy, they're not able to give the attention the other 30+ kids in the class need and deserve. Why should one (maybe two or three) semi-feral children harm the education of the other 30+ children in the class?
And how embarrassing is it for the child when, as will surely be the case, that have that epiphany and realise they are socially retarded? And that their patents are bad parents?
It strikes me that we've had decades of social workers, social care, billions spent on people to help, oversee and identify problems in families.... we've got GPs and Health visitors who are meant to do checks on the development of children... we've got communities, neighbours, families, friends, babysitters, nurseries.... Where and why has it gone so wrong?
I agree that it's not just the parents' fault - so many others in our complex social network should be able to identify that there is a problem and for every child arriving at school unable to go to the loo properly there's a whole web of people who have failed but, surely, the bulk of the blame lands at the feet of the parents?
Bad parents are a niggling cancer on our society. Their actions, often their inactions, cast an ever longer shadow on the face of our civilisation. Their abuse of their poor patenting, which is really just a form of child abuse, causes problems for everyone including their own children who they fail to give a fair chance in life.
Something drastic needs to be done to stop bad parents, to bring a halt to generations of bad parenting, do that this cyclone of social destruction is ended.
In the meantime, I'd support any government who introduced minimum requirements to allow a child to start mainstream school and a clamp down on the various institutions that should be spotting these problems and doing something about it.It's time we made sure all children arrived at school fit for purpose.
How can this be the case in the UK in 2012?
This generation of semi-feral children can't be blamed but the generation of bad parents can. Why haven't they spent the time to teach their children such basic life skills? I wonder how much time these bad parents (yes, that's where they are, there's no getting around it) have spent with their offspring? Did they just ignore them as they grew up? Were the parents just too busy drinking or going out?
Sure, many people work long hours and have difficult lives but that is no excuse for child neglect. Presumably these children were being looked after by someone who might have noticed that the child was socially retarded. Or is this abuse of the youngest members of society a generational thing? In some families is it actually not the parents fault but the grandparents fault?
I think schools should require children to be able to do certain things before they're allowed to start school. I'd suggest being toilet trained is pretty fundamental but I think, before they are accepted into school, all children should be able to eat with a knife, fork and spoon; use a cup to drink (not a baby's bottle with a test); be able to change clothes without being helped; recognise their own name; be able to hold a pen/pencil/crayon appropriately; be able to sit properly on a chair... there's probably more.
Yes, if parents haven't done these things then school need to pick up the pieces but while the teacher, or classroom assistant, is busy changing some 5-year old's nappy, they're not able to give the attention the other 30+ kids in the class need and deserve. Why should one (maybe two or three) semi-feral children harm the education of the other 30+ children in the class?
And how embarrassing is it for the child when, as will surely be the case, that have that epiphany and realise they are socially retarded? And that their patents are bad parents?
It strikes me that we've had decades of social workers, social care, billions spent on people to help, oversee and identify problems in families.... we've got GPs and Health visitors who are meant to do checks on the development of children... we've got communities, neighbours, families, friends, babysitters, nurseries.... Where and why has it gone so wrong?
I agree that it's not just the parents' fault - so many others in our complex social network should be able to identify that there is a problem and for every child arriving at school unable to go to the loo properly there's a whole web of people who have failed but, surely, the bulk of the blame lands at the feet of the parents?
Bad parents are a niggling cancer on our society. Their actions, often their inactions, cast an ever longer shadow on the face of our civilisation. Their abuse of their poor patenting, which is really just a form of child abuse, causes problems for everyone including their own children who they fail to give a fair chance in life.
Something drastic needs to be done to stop bad parents, to bring a halt to generations of bad parenting, do that this cyclone of social destruction is ended.
In the meantime, I'd support any government who introduced minimum requirements to allow a child to start mainstream school and a clamp down on the various institutions that should be spotting these problems and doing something about it.It's time we made sure all children arrived at school fit for purpose.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
OPINION: Taxation - a new way is needed
I'm watching Nick Robinson's programme "Your Money and How They Spend It" on BBC2. It's very interesting but, I'm afraid, I think it misses the point completely re: taxation.
First. I think that, if we continue to use income tax as a major form of taxation, everyone should pay the same percentage of their income - a flat taxation system. It's wrong that there are bands of taxation. Yes, there should be a personal allowance under which taxation isn't paid and, I'm sure, that would mean some low earners would pay no tax, but to have bands is anti-competitive and anti-success. It's right that everyone pays the same amount. equal contributions make for a fairer society. taxation shouldn't be about class war and, let's be honest, those on the left who defend high taxation for high earners, and yet call themselves socialists, are fighting a class war and/or have a deep-rooted envy. They don't want fairness, they want to beat the successful with a stick as hard as they can. Very, very wrong.
Yes, a flat taxation would mean tax rates going up for many but I've always strongly argued that we, as a nation, pay far too little tax. We should be pleased to pay our bit. We should be proud to contribute to a fair society.
Seond. I'm actually against income tax because, in its current form, it's easy to avoid through exceptions and exemptions and loopholes. I'd like to see income tax actually phased out over, say, 30 years, and replaced completely by sales taxes.
Sales tax are much better: not only are they harder to avoid and evade, but those who use me pay more - it's greener. Highly polluting things could be taxed at higher rates, greener things could be taxed lower, unhealthy foods taxed higher, healthy foods taxed lower... or not at all.
To change to sales tax is a big step and, with our highly conservative (with both a big and small c) political parties it is unlikely they would ever do anything that forward thinking but it would change the way society sees taxation. Success would no longer be seen as a bad thing that gets taxed higher but greed and excess would be hit by higher taxes. Surely that's a fairer system?
It would mean everyone gets all their salary with no tax or NI deductions. They can then choose exactly what to spend that mo ey on. Isn't that better?
Yes, it needs to be done internationally otherwise one nation becomes hugely expensive to tourists but, at a time when many are looking more loosely at the economy, maybe the time is right for a far more revolutionary approach and one which can lead us into the future far more securely than we can ever imagine under the current system.
First. I think that, if we continue to use income tax as a major form of taxation, everyone should pay the same percentage of their income - a flat taxation system. It's wrong that there are bands of taxation. Yes, there should be a personal allowance under which taxation isn't paid and, I'm sure, that would mean some low earners would pay no tax, but to have bands is anti-competitive and anti-success. It's right that everyone pays the same amount. equal contributions make for a fairer society. taxation shouldn't be about class war and, let's be honest, those on the left who defend high taxation for high earners, and yet call themselves socialists, are fighting a class war and/or have a deep-rooted envy. They don't want fairness, they want to beat the successful with a stick as hard as they can. Very, very wrong.
Yes, a flat taxation would mean tax rates going up for many but I've always strongly argued that we, as a nation, pay far too little tax. We should be pleased to pay our bit. We should be proud to contribute to a fair society.
Seond. I'm actually against income tax because, in its current form, it's easy to avoid through exceptions and exemptions and loopholes. I'd like to see income tax actually phased out over, say, 30 years, and replaced completely by sales taxes.
Sales tax are much better: not only are they harder to avoid and evade, but those who use me pay more - it's greener. Highly polluting things could be taxed at higher rates, greener things could be taxed lower, unhealthy foods taxed higher, healthy foods taxed lower... or not at all.
To change to sales tax is a big step and, with our highly conservative (with both a big and small c) political parties it is unlikely they would ever do anything that forward thinking but it would change the way society sees taxation. Success would no longer be seen as a bad thing that gets taxed higher but greed and excess would be hit by higher taxes. Surely that's a fairer system?
It would mean everyone gets all their salary with no tax or NI deductions. They can then choose exactly what to spend that mo ey on. Isn't that better?
Yes, it needs to be done internationally otherwise one nation becomes hugely expensive to tourists but, at a time when many are looking more loosely at the economy, maybe the time is right for a far more revolutionary approach and one which can lead us into the future far more securely than we can ever imagine under the current system.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
OPINION: We shouldn't get a warm glow from telethons
Yesterday, the BBC's Children in Need set a new first day fundraising record raising £26 million from all sorts of activities. Lots of praise has followed from celebs (all very keen to promote their latest book or song) and online in places like Twitter.
But, really, isn't it a disgrace that, in 2011, telethons are seen as a normal way of raising money for things which ought to be there, provided by the state?
Let's put it into a bit of context. £26 million is considerably less than the £40 million cost of the civil list (money given to the Queen) each year and, when put into contrast with the £202 million total cost of the royal family, it makes you wonder what 21st century Britons' priorities are. Why not scrap the irrelevant and anachronistic monarchy and use that money to fund hospices, youth centres, medical research, etc.
Then let's look at taxation. We (Britons) seem to expect everything without paying more tax. This is moronic on a level that only George W Bush could equal. We NEED to pay more taxes in order to find essential services - and it's not simply a case of the rich paying more, we all need to pay a bit more. In return, we'd have a better society. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that what the majority want?
If every tax payer in the UK paid an extra one pound per week in tax (hardly enough to bankrupt anyone) it would raise over £2 BILLION pounds each year. Yes, I'll say that again, £2 BILLION - that makes yesterday's £26 million seem rather pathetic doesn't it? It shows how greedy and selfish many Britons are.
But, of course, Children in Need's trump card last night was to keep repeating that all monies donated would go to UK-based projects and charities. Yes, the xenophobic, if not racist, card. Nigel Farage must have been grinning to himself all day.
The poverty and suffering experienced by British children is nothing in comparison to the poverty and suffering of children in the Third World but, oh no, Children in Need, unlike Comic Relief, is only helping the children in a country who can well-afford to eliminate poverty and suffering affecting its own children overnight.
Anyone who watched the hours of inane nonsense last night shouldn't feel a warm glow but a deep embarrassment that they, like me, live in a society that puts greed and self above caring for others and sharing resources.
Any good Prime Minister should be embarrassed that telethons like Children in Need are providing essential services in a nation that can easily afford to fund those services, but I wonder if Cameron cares. I'm fairly sure he doesn't. Not do the vast majority of politicians in Westminster.
The time has come for a new Britain, with new priorities and an egalitarian outlook. If there is any compassion in this country then last night should be the last ever Children in Need. Sadly, I doubt it will be. There are too many who just don't care.
Remember, £1 per week from every taxpayer would raise over £2 BILLION pounds per annum. Imagine, with that as a starting point, how quickly the UK, and then the rest of the world, could be transformed.
_____
See also: http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-don-want-to-give-to-charity.html
But, really, isn't it a disgrace that, in 2011, telethons are seen as a normal way of raising money for things which ought to be there, provided by the state?
Let's put it into a bit of context. £26 million is considerably less than the £40 million cost of the civil list (money given to the Queen) each year and, when put into contrast with the £202 million total cost of the royal family, it makes you wonder what 21st century Britons' priorities are. Why not scrap the irrelevant and anachronistic monarchy and use that money to fund hospices, youth centres, medical research, etc.
Then let's look at taxation. We (Britons) seem to expect everything without paying more tax. This is moronic on a level that only George W Bush could equal. We NEED to pay more taxes in order to find essential services - and it's not simply a case of the rich paying more, we all need to pay a bit more. In return, we'd have a better society. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that what the majority want?
If every tax payer in the UK paid an extra one pound per week in tax (hardly enough to bankrupt anyone) it would raise over £2 BILLION pounds each year. Yes, I'll say that again, £2 BILLION - that makes yesterday's £26 million seem rather pathetic doesn't it? It shows how greedy and selfish many Britons are.
But, of course, Children in Need's trump card last night was to keep repeating that all monies donated would go to UK-based projects and charities. Yes, the xenophobic, if not racist, card. Nigel Farage must have been grinning to himself all day.
The poverty and suffering experienced by British children is nothing in comparison to the poverty and suffering of children in the Third World but, oh no, Children in Need, unlike Comic Relief, is only helping the children in a country who can well-afford to eliminate poverty and suffering affecting its own children overnight.
Anyone who watched the hours of inane nonsense last night shouldn't feel a warm glow but a deep embarrassment that they, like me, live in a society that puts greed and self above caring for others and sharing resources.
Any good Prime Minister should be embarrassed that telethons like Children in Need are providing essential services in a nation that can easily afford to fund those services, but I wonder if Cameron cares. I'm fairly sure he doesn't. Not do the vast majority of politicians in Westminster.
The time has come for a new Britain, with new priorities and an egalitarian outlook. If there is any compassion in this country then last night should be the last ever Children in Need. Sadly, I doubt it will be. There are too many who just don't care.
Remember, £1 per week from every taxpayer would raise over £2 BILLION pounds per annum. Imagine, with that as a starting point, how quickly the UK, and then the rest of the world, could be transformed.
_____
See also: http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-don-want-to-give-to-charity.html
Thursday, 8 January 2009
The politics of weight loss...
I popped into the supermarket to get a few bits and pieces: milk and fruit mostly. As usual there weren't enough tills open and so what should have been a quick in and out involved a long queue and lots of wasted time. I really don't understand why the shops can't work out the right number of staff they need on specific days and times based on analysis of shopping patterns! It's not, to use a phrase I hate, "rocket science".
Anyhow, whilst wandering up and down the aisles it struck me how the food that's supposedly bad for you tends to be cheap whilst the healthy food is expensive. Surely this is absurd?
Now I realize this is because of the "free market" and supply and demand but surely any government with any interest in the health of the nation would do something about this ridiculous situation?
And this isn't an attack on just the current government, it has been the case with governments of all colours over the past few decades - do the easy and popular and let's not give a shit about principles or tackling genuine problems. In the meantime the nation is slowly killing itself in an ocean of fat, salt and sugar.
So what should they do? It's so, so simple. All foodstuffs need to be classified properly by how good they are for you and how much harm they will do to you if you eat them. This shouldn't be tricky - a tomato would, I would suggest, be in a good and healthy category 1 while a burger from one of the popular fast food chains would be in category 5. And foods of other levels would fall somewhere in between. All the category 1 foods (and drinks) would have a zero rated Healthy Eating Sales tax added while the higher levels would get higher and higher.
it's often the only way to stop people doing harm to themselves and to others - hit them in their pocket. Tax them so heavily on crap food and use that money to subsidize healthier options that there is no argument for not changing habits.
Sure, I hear a cry of "but it's not just the content but the quantity that's an issue" - this is true but it would help enormously if the fat-laiden, salt soaked and sugar heavy ready meal cost £20 and the ingredients to be able to make it yourself only cost £2! Or, if people are too lazy or stupid to try to cook for themselves, a healthy ready meal is £5.
And this wouldn't just benefit the individual it would benefit the whole of society by reducing the tax burden of the NHS by having a healthier and fitter population. That money could, again, be spent on more beneficial things like free swimming passes for everyone or annual check ups for all
The same should be done with alcohol - the tax should be so much higher and the monies raised used to encourage and, to some extent, force people to cut down their booze intake.
Maybe politicians are too far up their own arses to do anything, maybe they're too scared they might upset someone, maybe they just don't care as long as they get their big salary and all the perks but with each piece of tokenism they simply tinker with the problem of a society of lard arses, they're not really tackling it and not really doing anything that will genuinely change the habits of a nation who need to be pulled by the scruff of the neck into the modern world.
Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)