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.

The looming UK power crisis

Don't worry, this may not turn out to be a 'doom and gloom, better just slash your wrists' post!

The UK power generation regulator, Ofgem, has warned of the increasing risk of power outages (cuts to you and me) from 2015 onwards.   Think this is scare-mongering?  In March 2013, it was reported that the UK was within 6 hours of running out of gas.  6 hours!

The reasons given are the Global Financial crisis, tough emission targets, the UK's dependency on gas imports and the closure of ageing power stations.

Let's de-construct this a little.

Global Financial crisis??  I have tried to understand what this has to do with the lights going out but just don't see it (maybe I am in the dark?).  Okay, if there is no money around, you can't afford to pay for electricity but that isn't the issue here.  The issue is about generating capacity, or rather the lack of it.

Tough emission targets - This links up with the other two - increased dependency on gas imports and the accelerated closing of ageing power stations.  All three factors can be laid at the feet of the UK government.  The Labour party, when in power adopted idiotic policies to reduce reduce CO2 emissions in a unilateral attempt to solve a problem that wasn't there - so called 'man made global warming'.  The Coalition government slavishly allowed the Lib Dems to take the lead on this and followed the Labour party's pseudo-science and eco-posturing.

You may know that the UK produces less than 2% of global CO2 emissions and might ask yourself how will these tough UK emission levels impact the global levels and quickly come to the conclusion that these will make somewhere between zero and no difference to overall CO2 levels.  We don't need to have any kind of argument about whether there actually is such a thing as 'man made global warming', the simple fact is that the UK position is pointless and fatuous posturing.

As a result though, power stations are being forced to close.  These are described as ageing, though the truth is, like many of us, they still have a viable working life ahead.  It is somewhat ironic that at a time when people are being told they have to work longer because we are living longer, we now tear-down power stations because they are 'aged'.  Part of their ageing comes from recent accelerated usage and it is a kind of vicious circle.  As power stations get taken out of the system, those remaining have to take up the slack,  As they take up the slack, they use-up their allotted remaining generating capacity and so become 'aged' even earlier and get to meet the wreckers ball sooner.

The earthly paradise of a renewable energy fueled economy is proving to be as elusive as the fictional   'Shangri La'.  Except, that the fictional valley wasn't despoilt by hideous bird and bat killing machines.  Wind power makes a minute contribution to the UK's energy needs and must always, always be backed up with a fossil fuel (as in CO2 emitting) alternative, because the wind doesn't always blow or sometimes blows too hard!

So gas imports then.  From Russia and Qatar (and Norway, to a certain extent).  At some point though, you run into the closing power station issue!  DO we really want the UK to be dependant upon Putin's Russia for our energy?  Really?

Of course, we do have gas on, or rather right under, our own doorstep.  It's called Shale Gas.  This, along with Shale Oil, has completely changed the USA's energy market.  They are predicted to become a net exporter of energy in the coming years.   As shale reserves have been developed, the US economy has seen energy prices plummet.  That this has a very positive knock-on effect in the overall US economy , should not be overlooked but staying with the actual price of energy, natural gas prices in the US,  are now around half of those in the UK.  And the gap will continue to widen as more and more green taxes are loaded into the UK energy market and as capacity constraints take an even greater hold.

The British Geological Survey estimates that in one 'reservoir' area, in the north of England, there are reserves of around 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas.   To put that into context, the UK currently uses around 3 trillion cubic feet of gas, per year.

Obviously, the 1,300 trillion reserve is unlikely to be fully recoverable.  Let's be very conservative and say that 10% was recoverable.  That would be 130 trillion cubic feet or, looked at another way, 43 years of gas, based on current usage.  Consider that.  No import dependency, tax revenues from natural resource exploitation (all sub-surface reserves belong to the UK state) and no need for punitive green taxes, reduced fuel poverty, even increased employment.   And that 10% recovery level is very conservative

Oh, and that is just the north England basin.  There is a potentially far bigger one in the central belt of Scotland and others in the south of England.

So, why isn't this being exploited?  Frankly because of lazy journalists and politicians.  The latter should come as no surprise for many people.  There are exceptions but many MPs and MEPs live in a bubble where information is fed from lobbyists and single (minority) interest groups.  Journalists though, we might have expected more of.  We are not talking Woodward and Bernstein, but maybe some basic research?

Much of the opposition to shale gas comes because the extraction process requires something called 'fracking'  This is the fracturing of the reservoir formation with water and chemicals under high pressure.  An American, Josh Fox, produced a movie called Gasland which seemingly showed all sorts of consequences from 'fracking'.  This movie was picked-up and pushed by lazy media types and Hollywood 'celebrities' as well as a few from the even lazier US political circles and became the stick which they and their eco-loony 'watermelon' fellow travelers use, to attack evil 'big oil'.

This movie did indeed contain some very worrying claims and these would give any politician cause to pause and ponder.  Presumably that is what the leaders at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change did.

Pity then that they don't seem to have taken the time to view Fracknation.  A documentary by Phelim Mcaleer and Ann McElhinney.  In a measured and fact-based way, they take on all of the allegations from Gasland and refute and discredit them.  Every one of them.  (Oh, and if you're an eco-warrior and thinking this documentary was funded by big oil, think again.  The project was funded by hundreds of indviduals contributing $5, $10 $20 etc.  The single largest donation was $5,000!)

So you might think, since there are no major environmental concerns when will this natural windfall come to the aid of the UK?  My advice, not this side of the 2015 General Election and then only if the Conservatives are elected (maybe).  The Lib Dems  are so in thrall to special interest groups and has a strong 'eco-wing' so don't expect them to have an original thought on the issue nor to come out of their 'there is no such thing as man-made global warming' denial phase.  As for Labour?  Well, they put these lunatic green policies in place and never let facts get in the way of doing the wrong thing and following the wrong policy.

I challenge any reader that has got this far, to watch Fracknation and then, if you are as persuaded as I am, write to your MP and to local and national papers, demanding that the Department of (lacking) Energy and Climate Change take immediate action to accelerate shale gas exploitation and call a moratorium on all closures of power stations and reverse the imposition of green taxes.