ID Cards Scrapped
Posted: Wed 22 December, 2010 Filed under: Cynicism, News, Politics Leave a comment »At long last, the UK ID Card Programme has been officially scrapped. According to the Home Office :
This means that all ID cards will now be cancelled within one month and the National Identity Register, the database which contains information of card holders, will be destroyed within two months.
The Identity Card Scheme and other biometrics work has already cost the taxpayer £292 million. The Act has saved £835 million in planned future investment.
That’s one heck of a lot of money to have already spent – but far better to have saved the rest instead of spent it on such a massive white elephant.
Honest Intent
Posted: Fri 5 November, 2010 Filed under: 1BEM, Domestic, People, Politics, Security, Thoughts Leave a comment »On this particular day, remember that Guy Fawkes is still the last person to enter the Houses of Parliament with honest intentions.
The Gunpowder Plot is a healthy reminder that terrorism really is nothing new. Mind you, if the risk of terrorism now were to involve being hung, drawn and quartered, I wonder how many would still think it such a cool thing ?
Taxing
Posted: Sat 4 September, 2010 Filed under: 1BEM, Cynicism, Domestic, Politics, Stupidity, Thoughts, Weirdness Leave a comment »According to the BBC, Tax through PAYE has been (in some cases) utterly stuffed for the last couple of years.
In the story, about £2bn has been underpaid – but about £1.8bn has been overpaid. Now to me, that’s a case of “Oh sod it, it kind of balances”. But no, in a fit of efficiency (or at least Inland Revenue’s version of efficiency – which isn’t efficient at all) they’re going to send out six million letters telling people that they’ve over- or under-paid, and the differences will be refunded or paid back in the new tax code.
So. Six million letters. Even in second-class post, that’s a minimum of 32p per letter. Which makes a cost of £1,920,000. Doing the letters first class would be a cost of £2,460,000.
Let’s look at this sensibly.
We’ve underpaid £2bn in tax.
We’ve overpaid £1.8bn.
Which leaves £0.2bn to pay.
And Inland Revenue are going to spend £2 million to get back that £0.2 billion.
Is it just me that sees the idiocy in this? Talk about throwing good money after bad.
And actually, why the flying fuck should the people who have underpaid – through no fault of their own – be penalised by having to pay extra this year for a mistake made by Inland Revenue itself ?!?
Speed Cameras
Posted: Wed 28 July, 2010 Filed under: 1BEM, Cynicism, Driving, People, Politics, Thoughts 2 Comments »It’s currently looking like one of the victims of this new political Age of Austerity (AKA The”Can we cut it? Yes, we can!” years) will be the funding for speed-cameras. Sorry, ‘safety cameras’.
So far Oxfordshire is one of the first to say they’ll be turning the fixed cameras off, which will save them some £600,000 a year.
I have to say that I really don’t have an issue with this – I think that getting rid of the cameras will (in most cases) actually make the roads a bit safer. Yes, there are rat-runs where people are stupid and drive too fast – but in my experience, speed cameras cause far more dangerous driving than they prevent.
One prime example of this is the A11/A14 around Cambridge (and I think I’ve written about this before) – the intersection where they join has a speed camera just after it. I’ve seen far too many near-accidents at that point, where people have been feeding in just fine from the A11 at 70mph(ish) and then have to slap the brakes on because the people in front of them have dropped from 70mph to 50mph to get past the camera. Yes, it’s down to human stupidity to drop to 50mph – 70mph is fine for going past that particular camera – but it’s still a much more dangerous junction because of the speed camera.
You see the same thing all over the place – people suddenly slowing from an already-legal speed, just to “make sure” they don’t get done by the camera.
So yeah, I think that getting rid of the cameras might just be an improvement to road safety in general, rather than a detriment to it.
My Own Policies
Posted: Fri 7 May, 2010 Filed under: 1BEM, Charm School, Cynicism, News, Politics, Thoughts 2 Comments »Thank the lord, we’re finally through all the election guff. At the time of writing this, I don’t know who’ll have won the election.
I do think, though, that a plainly-put list of policies and ideas would’ve been a far better idea than the wanky ethereal guff spouted in most of the manifestos this year. And I reckon that if a party had put forward the following list, they’d have had a pretty good chance at getting in. I could be wrong, but I figure it’d be a set of policies I’d vote for, anyway.
The policies I’d put in are (in no particular order, but as they occur to me) :
- Banning HGVs and coaches from the outside lane of all multi-carriageway roads. That would mean HGVs and coaches could overtake etc on three-lane motorways by using the inner two lanes, but wouldn’t be able to do so on dual carriageways and two-lane motorways like most of the M11
- Reducing fuel duty
- Reducing our energy imports by increasing our nuclear-power capacity and promoting green energy
- Making Inland Revenue into an efficient organisation
- Local authority management reductions
- NHS improvements – removing managers, increasing “front-line” staff
- Speaking plainly and clearly rather than evasive waffle
- [Added later, because I forgot] – Electoral reform, making it law that everyone eligible has to vote, but there is a “None of the above” option on the ballot.
- [Added later, because I forgot] – Enforcing use of fuel duty/road tax to maintain/upgrade transport and roads
- [Added later, because I forgot] – Looking at re-nationalising train service, along with investment from the above point to upgrade rail network/rolling stock
How would this be paid for? By (to a greater or lesser degree) :
- Increasing tax for earners of >£100,000
- Chasing non-dom non-taxpayers
- Increasing VAT by 2.5% to 20% – when it was dropped from 17.5 to 15% everyone said it was a piss-poor reduction – so will they complain if it increases by the same?
- Improving efficiency – not by cutting costs, but by improving efficiency and reducing red tape and crap
There’s probably other bits I could add to this, but it seems like a pretty good list so far.
Mind you, I fully expect to be ripped apart on some of these by certain readers. 🙂