Conservatives - The way forward - Part Two

The previous post on this issue dealt mostly with economic matters.  Today I want to expand on ways that the UK Conservative party can return to its roots and present a conservative alternative to the leftist policies put forward by the Labour Welfare party and the Liberal Democrats.

Some that read the previous post will no doubt have thought that the spending side changes were lacking in detail but please read on and maybe this will help to fill in the gaps and demonstrate how the Conservatives can take a step, a yard or two 'rightwards' and bring Britain beading into the right direction.

Crime
Let's start here.  I believe that the true conservative way is not about trying to 'understand crime and the causes of crime'.  We can leave that to those on the left who see that all of society's problems can be put down to being the responsibility of 'society' rather than being the responsibility of the individual.  In fact that really is the core of the difference between Conservatives and leftists.  Conservatives believe in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, whereas the left always seeks to subsume the individual into the collectivist state, where no one has responsibility (but just to prove it, they will commission a publicly funded enquiry or review with a pre-conceived outcome, saying that provision by the 'state' is best!). 

For Conservatives, crime should be about law enforcement.  Not about creating more and more laws but about enforcing the ones we have and enforcement, as the word suggests, should mean the strength and power of society coming to bear on those that infringe the laws that society, collectively pass.

For criminals, prison should be a deterrent.  That means the conditions need to be harsh, harder than those that prevail on the outside.  So no access to television or computers or the internet.  No access to drugs.  Regular but random searches  of the prisoner and cell.  Long periods where they are simply locked-up.  

Leftists regularly talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Prison should be about rehabilitation.  The rate of recidivism is high because of society, etc. 

I would posit that as a means of rehabilitation, prison mostly doesn't work.  There will be some that are so traumatised by the event that they never commit another crime but many are career criminals and they 'need' to commit crimes to fund the lifestyle that they (and certain sympathisers) believe that they are entitled to live.

In relation to criminals, Conservatives should put forward policies that put criminals behind bars and, leave them there and make their stay in prison a 'hard' experience.   I don't believe that society can rid itself of criminals in the true sense, all we can (and should) do is to get them off of our streets..

While we are at it, why do prisons need to be so conveniently located?  As part of the necessary prison reforms, build new prisons in more remote and inhospitable places rather than in city centres!  The message needs to be clear.  We don't care for prisoner welfare - prison is to be about punishment - we only care for the victims of crime. Period, as Americans say.

Speaking of Americans, how about a three strikes and you're out rule.  Something like, anyone that is convicted for the third time, for an offence that carries a sentence of greater than 5 years, then that individual, on the sentence for the third offence, has 10 years added to the sentence.  If after release, there is a fourth offence, then  the next conviction would automatically carry a life sentence.

Which neatly brings me to sentencing and particularly life sentences.  Put simply, the current parole system kicks in way too early.   We have had the spectacle of convicted Members of Parliament being released just a few weeks into a six month sentence.  They though, are not alone.  Criminals seem to be eligible for parole once they have completed one third of their sentence and, because of so called 'overcrowding' the impetus is to err on the side of releasing them.  The 'overcrowding' is a myth.  See above!  Prison isn't about being a holiday camp.  Multiple cell occupancy is a must - I wouldn't have any problem in recommending dormitory style accommodation rather than the 'own room' hotel-like comforts that some now enjoy.

A life sentence should be seen as a serious deterrent.  So 'life' should mean a minimum of 20 years served (I wouldn't argue too strongly if someone said it should be 25 years).  Remember, the Conservative way is that criminals should be put away!  We believe that we cannot cure or rehabilitate some people, so the only solution is to take those people out of circulation for a long time.

It will come as no surprise that a Conservative does not allow prisoners the right to vote, while they are prisoners.

Social Matters
I am not in favour of abortion.  I simply think it is wrong.  I think that Britain has allowed itself to be a place where abortions are so readily available  and publicly funded on the most false of pretences.  The 1967 abortion Act (as amended down the years) keeps on talking about the abortion being needed to 'prevent a grave threat to the mother'.

A 'grave' threat.   I seriously doubt that most of the cases where an abortion is carried out, truly represent a 'grave' threat to the mental or physical condition of the mother.  I do accept that for some an unexpected pregnancy could be 'inconvenient'.  It might impinge on the career prospects of the mother or the lifestyle but surely these cannot be said to be 'grave' reasons?

Needless to say, the rights of the unborn child are never considered.  Around 200,000 babies are aborted each year, in Britain and the media and others are more concerned about some TB-carrying badgers being culled.  Warped priorities doesn't really come close.

So, the rules on abortions need to be more strictly enforced.  The nature of the 'grave' risk needs to be clearly found and 'inconvenience' not be a reason for foetal murder.

Abortion on the NHS to no longer be state-funded.  If someone wants an abortion, then that person should pay for it.  Much as one might say, in relation to crime, 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' so in respect of abortion, one has to consider that the plethora of contraceptive options that are available should preclude the requirement for just about any abortions.

Same-Sex Marriage - regular readers will be aware of my views on this.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Any legislation that says to the contrary, to be repealed.

Education reform is now underway, with the 'free schools' programme.  This needs to be enhanced.  We need to get government, in any form,  out of the class-room.  Taxpayer funding of education, through a voucher system should be the extent of governmental involvement.

Foreign relations

Let's start with the European Union.  Throughout the time of its membership, Britain has been seen as a difficult member  of the EU.  Conservatives look at the free trade aspects and think that this is good but then we worry about the subsidies that are paid to various industries.   Worry turns to grave (proper use of the word) concern  for just about everything else that the EU does. 

I have just been reading 'How we invented freedom' by Daniel Hannan - highly recommended!

In this book Hannan captures the historical 'separatedness' of  Britain.  We are not part of Europe.  Geographically, we are on the fringe but politically, Britain has, for more than a thousand years, had a different approach to political matters and how society manages its affairs.  Our history is one where government is answerable to the people.  Where no person or organisation, is above the law.  Where the rights of the individual are understood and protected.  These are not concepts that are universally held within the EU.  Where something more than lip-service, to these practices, is followed, this is a new concept and its very immaturity poses a risk. 

Therefore, Conservatives need to dis-engage from the European Union, as the number one foreign priority.  Ignore all of the threats about lost trade opportunities etc..  These are empty.  People in other nations buy products or services from Britain because what is offered is of the required quality and at the right price.  If that quality or price were to change, after Britain exits the EU, I would suspect it to only be for the better.

While we are on dis-engagement, the UK should leave the United Nations.  This organisation has outlived its usefulness.  As evidence - the massacre at Srebrenica happened while the people were ostensibly under UN protection, the UN appointed Gadaffi's Libya to the UN Human Rights body! Time to leave and forgo the lectures from the various fools that populate that body.

Scotland 
On September 18, 214, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum on 'independence'.  'Independence' is written so because it's kind of a strange independence that moves from a union of equals - where Scottish votes have the same weight as English, Welsh or Northern Irish  votes do -   to a place where most policies are set by a foreign wanne-be supra power - the EU

Anyway, if Scotland stays within the Union, all well and good.  However, there should not then be any kind of further devolution of powers to Scotland as some kind of thank you or sop to the Nationalists. 

If the Scots choose to secede from the Union, then we will be sad to see them go but would wish them well.  However, they take with them a proportionate share of liabilities of UK Inc. and we should not offer them any kind of currency union.

BBC
The Conservatives must end the TV tax - aka TV licence.  Nothing more to be said!

Energy
Much as Conservatives are against subsidies, it is clear, that since the long term energy needs of Britain, will require a very large element of nuclear power in the mix, then state subsidy is required to support the economics.

In terms of Shale gas, we need to be realistic.  This does offer an opportunity for exploitation of our natural resources but we need to recognise that this is not a 'silver bullet'.  Recovering this resource will not be easy but it will be a little easier to get the large number of land drilling rigs mobilised and natural gas companies involved, if government views the opportunity as one of national strategic importance and lets companies drill.  As in, bring the full force of the law down on 'nimbys' and eco-activists and push through exploration and then, hopefully development, plans.

In the interim, Conservatives should support the British national interest and cease the closure of coal and gas fired power stations.  This will avert the next big crisis that is looming.

Charity
Two things.
Firstly, make all charitable giving tax deductible to the extent of 120%.  So if I donate £100 to a registered charity, I can deduct £120 from my pre-tax income.
Next, ban charities from public advocacy and lobbying.  Require that for them to retain the status of a 'registered charity' a minimum of 75% of all funds raised must be spent directly on the stated beneficiaries of the charity.  So overheads - cost of raising funds and employing charity workers - cannot exceed 25% of funds raised.  I don't like interfering but, one step further, no employee of a charity to be paid more than 3 times the national average wage - currently around £75,000.

Red Tape
Conservatives should be in the business of small government.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I work 40, 48 or 60 hours a week - Small government says that this is an issue for my employer and I.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I sell bananas (straight or slightly curved) in lbs or kgs - that is between my customers and I.

So along with a bonfire of quangos, a bonfire of regulations.  All regulations at the national and local level would be reviewed within a two year timeline.  The review would look at each regulation and consider the full costs of the regulation and the expected financial benefits of same.     Any national regulation, where the financial benefits do not exceed the costs by 25%, scrap the regulation.  Any where the benefits exceed by greater than 25%, have them reviewed and approved by Parliament.  For local regulations the benefit requirement for retention raised to being greater than 50% of costs.

Any regulation retained, to be reviewed every 3 years to see if it still meets the same cost/benefit thresholds.

All new regulations to have the test first applied, but the benefit threshold to be 30% and 60% respectively.

Hunhe gone - Time for a new 'policy'

Farewell Chris Huhne.  Can't comment on the case, of course (that might be considered perverting the course of justice!) but let's look at the state of UK energy policy, for which his former department is, in large part, responsible.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is very busy promoting the installation of renewable energy sources so as to help the UK reach its self-imposed target of a reduction in carbon emissions (30% of renewables and 40% of low carbon content in electricity by 2020).

They are furthering this aim, which no other industrialised nation is following, by subsidizing renewable energy sources, including Wind Power and Solar Power.

The latter programme took something of a blow last October when the Government announced, with very short notice, that they were halving the level of Feed in Tariff that would be able.  Cue panic from the 'greens' and  the Solar Power installers and a legal challenge which they won (so the reduction delayed).  The Solar Power installers spoke of there being 25,000 jobs at risk because of the government's action.  (Note:  The Solar Power industry employs a total of 25,000 people! - No scare-mongering there then!)

Wind Power projects have been heavily subsidized and generating capacity coming online, has  grown considerably in recent years and this is scheduled to continue and further accelerate in coming years, however, even with this massive and very expensive programme, renewable energy sources will struggle to reach government targets.

Cost of the Wind Power subsidy? There are widely conflicting numbers ranging from  £4-600 up to £1-1,200 per year for each and every family.  It is possible that the variation in the total cost of the subsidy is due to what is and isn't included and so the upper limit may include all energy subsidies.

I have written previously of the dilemma that Wind and Solar power sources produce.  That is, there is a requirement for fossil fuel back-up capacity to cover for the vagaries of the environment.

• Solar Power produces nothing at night!  
• Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind speed is less than 2.5 metres per second (around 5.5 MPH)  and must be switched off when the wind speed is greater than 25 metres per second (around 55 MPH) 

 Per Wikipedia:

On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, 2011, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydroelectricity than normal. The grid became overloaded and a transmission fault in the system "meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut". Wind farms operators "were paid £900,000 by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed". A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), described this situation as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was needed, adding: "In future we need greater electrical energy storage facilities and greater interconnection with our EU neighbours so that excess energy supplies can be sold or bought where required."

Wikipedia . on the subject of standby capacity continues to inform:

There is some dispute over the necessary amount of reserve or backup required to support the large-scale use of wind energy due to the variable nature of its supply. In a 2008 submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, E.ON UK argued that it is necessary to have up to 80–90% backup. National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe. In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica  told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.

No one from the 'Green' lobby, seems prepared to comment on how the promotion of Wind and Solar Power can be seen as 'green' when they require such a high level of back-up supply capacity requirement.  Remember that these back-up stations can't just be switched on and off like an electric kettle, to meed the fluctuations in supply from these unreliable sources. 


This same 'Green' lobby is then opposed to the construction of these new fossil fuel power stations (e.g. Kingsnorth) and is strongly opposed the the greenest energy source - Nuclear Power.  Currently Nuclear power accounts for around 18 to 20% of UK needs.  Today this represents around 3 times the volumes  of what Wind and Solar Power are expected to contribute by  2020.

To me it is indisputable that by 2020 and indeed, 2050, we will continue to have a very heavy reliance on Gas, Oil and Coal for the production of energy in the UK.  For me it then follows on, that the focus should be on finding ways to 'capture' the carbon that is produced, rather than this being released into the environment.  I would suggest that this is where any energy subsidy should be directed rather than into inefficient (wind power typically operates at around 20 to 25% of capacity) and expensive  forms of renewable energy.

I would also suggest that, just as in America, the UK should quickly get engaged in the production of Shale Gas (personal interest already declared) and reduce our growing reliance on imported gas.

I welcome comments and particularly from 'Greens' so they can better help me understand the conflict between renewables that must be backed-up with fossil fuels.  
 

Energy - Make your mind up

What do you want?  Access to energy sources that provide a cheap (cash terms) solution such as natural gas and ultimately nuclear power or a return to some kind of green Utopia, where we all work within two miles of where we live, plough the fields and enjoy subsistence farming?  If you are a 'Green' you don't need to respond, I am sure I know your answer!

There is much debate about 'fracking' and the seismic and possible water-table contamination effects of this.  I must declare an interest as I work for an oilfield services company, though not on the technical side.  The seismic activity is very minor if and when it occurs.  Since the drill bore is lined with a cement casing, the possibility of fracking chemicals leaking into the water table are somewhere between zero and non-existent.  Those are facts but don't let that stop you from disputing them!

Consider the 'green' energy alternatives.

Wind Power?  I read a piece once, which concluded that the energy required to build and install a wind turbine would take 15-20 years at nominal turbine capacity, to be generated.  So 15 to 20 years just to stand still.  Consider also, that for all wind power capacity, standby generating capacity must be kept in place and kept running for when the wind reduces.

Solar Power?  I looked into this earlier in the year, before the changes in FiT came into place and the generating capacity of my roof, which is for a large 4 bedroom house, wouldn't be sufficient for my 4 person family.  So, fill the fields with solar panel arrays?  That might boost capacity at the expense of agriculture!?!?  Again though, we would need standby capacity to supplement those non-sunny hours.

Wave Power?  Can't see this being viable and strongly suspect that the transmission loss would make this unsustainable over distances.

Nuclear Power? Seems to me that this is where we will end-up, though the journey there is going to be difficult and made even more so by spineless politicians who know the answer but are in thrall to the media and don't want to risk any public backlash by telling people the truth.

Natural Gas?  Must be part of the shortish term answer.  Gas is very low-priced in the US because they use fracking to get at the gas and can thereby reduce their dependence on foreign sources of energy.  People in Ukraine have seen what happens when they try to assert themselves towards a big supplier (Russia).  How long before Europe kowtows?

In truth, all of these energy sources can play a part in meeting our needs but you are deluding yourself if you think there is a 'silver bullet' out there which means we wouldn't have to use natural gas and nuclear power.

Incidentally, why are we spending vast amounts of money which we don't have) on CERN and the Large Hadron Collider?  Why don't these scientists devote their time and efforts to finding sustainable sources of energy (preferably clean)?  Surely that is more important than the Higgs Boson?