A reminder about the Reform Contract/Manifesto

 Reform published a document which they called a 'contract' but appears to be a draft manifesto. They asked for people's views on it but when I responded within 4 hours they said they had closed the process. So here's my response on most of their points I've added extra letters in some cases since Reform don't appear to be able to count properly. The original document can be found online at https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708781032/Reform_UK_Contract_With_The_People.pdf

Reform Manifesto? Contract

==========================

 

Can Reform count?

2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 243, 26, 27, 28, 29 Were these meant to be page numbers? In which case put them right aligned and check they go to the right pages.

Certainly, this is a trivial point but it doesn't inspire confidence when the first thing people see is an 'odd' count. Employ a proofreader!

 

2. Government waste - Certainly a good idea. (But make sure the PDF text can be read over the background) Proofreader again.

3. Economy - Personal (a Lift the Income Tax Start Point to £20,000 Per Year) Acceptable. Certainly, tax should not be paid by those on basic pension and benefits.

(b Cut energy taxes) Taxing energy is an evil tax. It's particularly hard on those with low income. Perhaps this could be done on a sliding scale?

(c Cut residential Stamp duty) If you've made the effort to buy a home why pay extra tax on this? Seems wrong.

(d Abolish the VAT tourist tax) I wasn't even aware 'they' had done this but I don't think it will have much effect.

(e Death tax) I approve. This death tax hits particularly hard in the South.

 5. Immigration. Reform seems particularly fixated on this. It may be your, racist priority but it's not the priority of most of the UK. Kind of reminds me of that quote "If you tell a lie, and tell it often enough then people will believe it." From Roman times the UK has benefited from immigration.

 5 (again) NHS. (a. Cut basic tax of all frontline NHS staff for 3 years as an incentive) An excellent idea.

(b Use Independent Healthcare capacity) Again worthwhile considering provided that the cost is not increased.

(c. Tax relief of 20% on all private health insurance) No - bad idea and unfair  to those without the means. But a discount of what is paid in National Insurance might be appropriate.

(d.Write off student fees pro rata per year over 10 years of NHS service for all doctors, nurses & medical staff) I would go further and scrap tuition fees for all UK doctors and nurses. Plus give them bursaries to cover housing costs while training.

(e.New NHS Voucher Scheme) Could prove expensive - Try to reduce waiting times by other methods first and consider introducing vouchers over time. (And a proofreader will tell you an ellipsis is three dots not two btw.)

(f) Cut waste and bureaucracy? Always desirable.

(g. Save A&E) I think this sounds an obvious step, but many A&E are being closed at night. Reconsider this.

(h) I'd like to see this. An investigation into vaccine harm would be useful even if is found that more lives were saved than deaths caused by the vaccines.

 8. Energy (a) DON'T scrap Net Zero. It's a target to work towards. We can't afford to burn the finite fuels we need as chemical feedstock.
BUT:
Put much greater emphasis on insulation and efficiency. For example, EVERY home in the UK could have its exterior walls insulated inside with a 1.5 mm layer of aerogel insulation which, in the worst quality housing, could save residents up to 35% of energy costs. It would cost less than three of those ten nuclear power stations and wouldn't take 10 years to complete.

(b renewable energy subsidies cancellation) Bad idea. We are not doing enough to promote renewables but building huge windmills may not be the answer. We need to put extra effort into wave and tidal power, vortex windmills in cities especially on dual carriageway central reservations, geothermal power, gravity power storage. By all means encourage solar power but not on agricultural land. Sheep are quite happy to graze under solar panels. Car parks are a good location for these too.

(c) Shale gas and fracking. Fine be aware of these resources but the time for them is not now. Leave them until we are desperate.

(d) Caution is needed for some 'clean energy' such as hydrogen. It has a potential  to cause disaster from accidents during transport or refuelling. It might have a use in aircraft. Nuclear power, unless fusion power becomes available, stores up problems we have no right to leave to our descendants.

9. Policing - I suspect this is another 'Tell a lie often enough' issue. Crime is low with the possible exception of Internet fraud. Violent crime is decreasing and will be lower still as lead works its way out of our environment. We do need to do something about police numbers though. The Conservatives lied by omission when they said "We've employed an extra 20,000 police (but omit to say 25,000 police left in the same period)"

 10. Huh? Where/what is it?

11. Justice - We do need more prisons and prison officers. The criminal justice budget does need updating. Hate crime needs public shame and you stressing this is much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Public demonstrations need no new legislation. 'Life means life' can't be a general rule and needs interpretation on an individual basis. Organised crime? Yes - throw the book at them. Perhaps those trafficking illegal immigrants should spend 5 years working for subsistence pay before being deported if they are not British citizens.

Child grooming gangs? Is this as common as made out? Certainly a 'throw the book at them' crime on conviction.

Youth crime is a failure of society; fix that first.

12. ?

13. Education. The function of government here is to provide the funding needed and to stop interfering so as to reduce the stress on teachers. Teaching, especially in STEM subjects, doesn't need the input of politicians who only seem to have made matters more difficult. When I taught chemistry the government legislated that all children should study it. The immediate effects were an 80% increase in equipment breakage and disruption to those more capable of understanding the theory of valency.

Transgender ideology in primary school? I doubt if many would disagree here apart from a few who give 'woke' a bad name.

Critical race theory should be a part of the history curriculum so that students can learn from the mistakes of the past.

Labour has got it wrong on charging VAT on private education. It's likely to cause the closure of some schools and increase the load on public sector schools.

Student loans? I'd rather we brought back grants to those who have the ability to make use of a University Education.

Life skills classes? Yes this is a common sense idea and tremendously helpful

Smartphones? I personally wouldn't give a child under 14 a phone. Their developing skull doesn't need the radiation and their maturity lags behind in the responsible use.

 14. ?

15. Benefits - Sounds good but I suspect you would make a deeper mess of this. Not everyone is capable of working. Investigate Universal Basic Income first before tampering with the benefit system.

Two strike rule for job offers - Should a person with a degree in a STEM subject be forced to take a job flipping burgers? I suspect these people will take such a job while continuing to look for employment and won't need compulsion.

PIP face to face assessment? Have you any idea how stressful this would be to an autistic person?

16.  Brexit - a complete and utter disaster. A 37% minority made this decision based on lies and misinformation. A government elected by 29.1% forced it through. You are WRONG about this! The majority of the electorate now thinks this was a mistake. We should hold another referendum on re-joining BUT count those who don't bother voting as a half vote for the status quo choice which in this case would be remaining outside the EU. No decision by less than 50% of the electorate should be final. Less than 50% indicates we should investigate why people were unhappy with the EU and attempt to fix it.

17. Defense. Defense means exactly that - defense rather than offense. 2.5% of GDP is too much! It means every man, woman and child in the UK is paying an extra £230 to increase the profits of the 'merchants of death' - the armaments industry. 

18. By all means pay our armed forces and veterans better 

17 (again) ...but no one should profit from making the weapons that kill people! Introduce a windfall tax on armaments industries. 3% of GDP is ridiculous and will only help to make the world less stable, killing even more. In this respect item 12 of Hitler's 25-point-plan was correct. (12. It is wrong for people to make money from a war. Anyone who made money from wars should have all that money taken away.) Your 'Introduce incentives and tax breaks to boost the UK defence industry. Improve equipment self-sufficiency and manufacture world class products for export' is not just wrong it's EVIL!

19.  Housing. Suggesting that immigration is the cause of housing shortages is questionable. The idea that immigrants should go to the back of the queue for housing is wrong. Each case, immigrant or not, should be judged on its merit.

20. Children and families. I approve of supporting marriage through the tax system  and allowing mums to stay at home with young children but what about family partnerships? They exist.

Single sex spaces? Isn't this making a mountain out of a molehill? Are you going to have people at single sex spaces to determine if entrants are the right sex?

 21. Transport & Utilities? Scrapping HS2 and focusing on the North are  contradictory.

ULEZ does need further investigation. Perhaps making drivers more aware if their vehicle is not compliant.

We do need a national water  grid but I would remind you of the extensive tunnels dug from Northumberland to Teesside and then never used.

22. Agriculture. 'British farming needs reform to take advantage of Brexit.' Brexit has been an utter disaster for UK farmers. Things like  35,000 pigs were culled and tonnes of crops left to rot in the fields. If you want to improve agriculture then reverse Brexit.

23. ?

24. Fishing. The EU deal worked out wasn't beneficial to fishing. Our fishermen can no longer sell their catch to EU markets. This was yet another negative Brexit consequence.

25. ?

26. Pensions and social care. This section is complete and utter waffle. No suggestions other than setting up a 'Royal' Commission and looking at how Australia manages pensions. It's notable that UK pensions are Europe's poor relations. In a government report in 2019 the UK state pension compared to the average EU state pension was a ratio of 28.4:63.5 The recent removal of winter fuel allowance has reduced living standards of some UK pensioners by 1.73% Protest that!

27. Constitutional Reform. Many of the actions suggested here smell like Hitler's 25 point plan.
a) Leave the European Court of Human Rights within 100 days - Terrible idea unless you have something stronger in place which will take a lot longer than 100 days to formulate.
b) Commence reform of the House of Lords - OK some good ideas here. Let's get rid of political and religious appointees and make the Lords a body of successful non-political appointees worthy of peerages
c) Commence reform of the civil service. Did you copy this from Hitler's point 6? The civil service already has a structure where competent people can advance and the incompetent be dismissed or demoted. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.
d) Reform the postal voting system. You are again trying to fix a system which isn't broken. Voter fraud is practically non-existent. Voting should never be made more difficult. 

28. Reclaiming Britain. You did suggest, as other political groups did, some good ideas:
i) Proportional representation
ii) Bill of rights
iii) BBC and TV licence reform
iv) Anti-Corruption Unit
More dubious are:
v) Affirm British Sovereignty - Maybe useful after years of negotiation and external reform.
vi) Replace the 2010 Equalities Act - sounds like a good way of bogging Parliament down in years of argument.

29. Funding. A fanciful section reminiscent of the 'Savings to be made by Brexit'. 

Do you like this political ideology?

 There is a political party which produced a 25 point plan of their beliefs. Take a look and see if any of it appeals to you.

1. We want British people in "the UK"

2. We want the UK to be treated the same as other nations.

3. We want land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only British may be citizens of the UK. Only those of British races may be members of the nation. Their religion does not matter. No Muslim may be a citizen.

5. Non-citizens may live in the UK, but there will be special laws for foreigners living in the UK.

6. Only citizens can vote for parliament and councils, or vote on laws. Everyone who works for the British government, a state government or even a small village must be a citizen of the UK. We will stop giving people jobs because of the political party they are in. Only the best people should get a job.

7. We think that the government's first job is to make sure every citizen has a job and enough to eat. If the government cannot do this, people who are not citizens should be made to leave the UK.

8. No-one who is not of a British race should be allowed to live in the UK. We want anyone who is not of a British-race who started living in the UK after 2 August 2000 to leave the country.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. Every citizen should have a job. Their work should not be selfish, but help everyone. Therefore we demand

11. • The abolition of incomes unearned by work. 

• The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. It is wrong for people to make money from a war. Anyone who made money from wars should have all that money taken away.

13. We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government.

14. Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers.

15. We want old age pensions to be increased.

16. We want:

• to create a healthy middle class

• to split up big department stores, and let small traders rent space inside them

• to make State and town governments try to buy from small traders.

17. We want to change the way land is owned. We also want

• a law to take over land if the country needs it, without the government having to pay for it;

• to abolish ground rent; and

• to prohibit land speculation (buying land just to sell to someone else for more money).

18. Crimes against the common interest must be punished with prison.

19. Laws should be based upon the British Common Law system.

20. We want to change the system of schools and education, so that every hard-working Britain can have the chance of higher education.

• What is taught should concentrate on practical things

• Schools should teach civic affairs, so that children can become good citizens

• If a poor parent cannot afford to pay for higher education the government should pay for education.

21. The State must protect health standards by

• protecting mothers and infants

• stopping children from working

• making a law for compulsory gymnastics and sports

• supporting sports clubs for young men.

22. We want to get rid of the old army and replace it with a people's army that would look after the ordinary people, not just the rich officer-class

23. We want the law to stop politicians from being anti-British, and newspapers from writing about them. To make a British national press we demand:

• that all editors of, and writers in the English language newspapers are members of the nation (of a British race);

• Foreign newspapers need permission from the government. They must not be printed in the English language unless they come from a country where English is the national language;

• Non-British cannot own or control British newspapers. Any non Britain who does own or control a newspaper will be made to leave the UK, and the newspaper closed down,

• Newspapers which criticise the country or the government are not allowed.

• Art and books which support foreign ideas, should be banned.

24. We want to allow all religions in the State, unless they offend the moral feelings of the British race. Our party is Christian, but does not belong to any denomination. The party will fight the Muslim self-interest spirit, and believes that our nation will be strongest only if everyone puts the common interest before self-interest.

25. We will

• create a strong central government for Britain and what is left of its Empire;

• give Parliament control over the entire government and its organizations;

• form groups based on class and job to carry out the laws in the various British states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work—if need be to sacrifice their very lives—to put this programme into action.

Does any of this appeal to you? Is it a policy of a political group you like? If so then I have news for you - You are a Nazi! This 25 point plan was produced by Hitler for the the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), Nazi Party, when it was founded in 1920. I have simply changed references to Germany and Jews to be more appropriate to the UK today.

If you like it, particularly points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23, 24, you are probably a racist.

Shame on you Labour Party.

 I subscribe to political party emails in the UK. Here's the start of one I got today (28th Aug 2023). I think it's a fine example of how politics is being dragged into the gutter.

Shame on you Labour Party.

•  Yes, we all despise Nadine Dorries for her support of a known liar as PM.
• We despise her shameful resignation where she clung to her MP salary while not doing the work.
• We despise her for her belief that she should have been made a peer.

 It was enough that she did such a terrible job. It is enough that we are sick of the Conselfservatives dragging down their party. It is enough that they are divided. It is enough that the word ‘integrity’ no longer seems to apply to them. It is enough that they seem poised to follow the post WW1 Liberal party into obscurity, never to form a government again, but that won’t happen if you continue to write supercilious emails like this one.

 Instead of making fun of Nadine Dorries, who is no longer an MP and irrelevant. Try telling us what you will do better. Try listening to your supporters and do what they want.

• Promise to look into Brexit issues and what made 37% of our electorate vote for such a disastrous policy. Even go as far as investigating if another referendum should be held on it. However, don’t make it a disastrous binary choice one like the one David Cameron forced on us. If you must, then make it so that undecided voters count as a half vote for the current status quo – if they don’t agree then they can vote. UK policy should NEVER be instigated by less than 50% of the electorate.
• Promise to investigate electoral reform. It’s time MPs stopped squabbling in Parliament and used debate, negotiation, and compromise to represent their constituents effectively rather than scoring points against their opponents. I remind you members at your conference voted for proportional representation.
• Promise to set rules for Parliamentary standards. MPs should not accept gifts in any form and those who give them expecting to influence policy are guilty of bribery. There MUST be penalties put in place for deliberately misleading or lies in Parliament. Such actions should have a financial cost or even a vote penalty in the next election.
• Treat climate change sensibly. Concentrate on insulation and efficiency first, then alternative energy before nuclear power stations. Using something like a 1mm aerogel insulation layer on the inside of external walls could cut energy use by up to 35%, decrease household energy costs, especially for the lowest quality homes, can be done quickly and if applied free to every UK home will cost less than five of the ten nuclear power stations the conservatives have promised us. It wouldn't take 10 years and the benefits in energy reduction would be felt quickly. 
• Do something about our waste problem. In our technological age we shouldn’t have polluted water and seas. Use our waste plastics to replace the bitumen in roads. Toxic pesticides and herbicides are a disaster waiting to decrease life expectancy - just as in the US.
• Remember that when Aneurin Bevan inaugurated the NHS on 5 July 1948, he wrote to the whole medical profession: “My job is to give you all the facilities, resources, apparatus and help I can, and then to leave you alone as professional men and women to use your skill and judgment without hindrance. Let us try to develop that partnership from now on.” Keep that ‘from now on’ promise. Work with the NHS and give them some proper funding.

 I certainly won’t be contributing to the Conservative party election campaigns; they’ve had their day and have let us down. But your ‘Not Nadine Dorries’ email makes me inclined to doubt that the Labour party will be any different.

Morality

 Moral standards change over time. In the past slavery was accepted but today it's considered unacceptable. I asked ChatGPT about this - here's the response:

JC: I was born in the early 1950s. What moral standards am I likely to have that are now outdated?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal information about you, your upbringing, or your beliefs. However, it's worth noting that moral standards vary across time, culture, and individual perspectives.

That being said, some moral standards that were more prevalent in the past but are now considered outdated or problematic include:

1. Gender roles: In the past, there were stricter expectations for how men and women should behave, dress, and interact with each other. Traditional gender roles, where men were expected to be the breadwinners and women were expected to take care of the home and children, are now seen as limiting and harmful to both genders.

2. Racism and discrimination: Racism and other forms of discrimination were more widely accepted in the past, with people from marginalized groups facing systematic oppression and prejudice. While there is still progress to be made in terms of equality and inclusion, society as a whole has made strides in recognizing and combating discrimination.

3. LGBTQ+ rights: Attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community have shifted drastically in recent decades, with greater acceptance and legal protections for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. However, there is still discrimination and stigmatization that many people in the LGBTQ+ community continue to face.

4. Environmental concerns: In the past, there was often a lack of awareness and concern about the impact of human actions on the environment. Today, there is greater recognition of the importance of sustainable living and protecting the planet for future generations.

It's worth noting that not everyone may have held these outdated moral standards, and even if they did, they may have evolved their thinking over time. Additionally, moral standards are not always cut and dry, and what may have been considered acceptable or unacceptable in the past may be viewed differently depending on the context.

JC: What moral standards of someone born today have that will be outdated in 50 years?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future, but it's possible that some moral standards that are widely accepted today may be considered outdated or problematic in 50 years. Here are a few examples of moral standards that are currently being debated and could potentially change over time:

Animal rights: While there has been progress in terms of recognizing the importance of animal welfare, some moral philosophers argue that humans have a moral obligation to extend rights to non-human animals. This could lead to a greater focus on veganism and animal rights activism in the future, potentially making the consumption of animal products socially unacceptable.

Privacy: With advances in technology, there is a growing concern around privacy and data protection. In the future, individuals may become more aware of the impact of technology on their privacy and demand greater protections, potentially making current practices around data collection and use outdated.

Capitalism: There is growing criticism of capitalism and its impact on income inequality and environmental degradation. It's possible that in the future, there may be a shift towards alternative economic systems, such as socialism or a more sustainable form of capitalism.

Gender and sexuality: While there has been progress in terms of LGBTQ+ rights, there are still many issues around gender and sexuality that are being debated, such as transgender rights and non-binary identities. It's possible that in the future, there may be greater recognition and acceptance of these identities, potentially making current attitudes and practices around gender and sexuality outdated.

Again, it's important to note that these are just a few examples of potential changes in moral standards, and the future is impossible to predict with certainty. Moral standards are also influenced by a range of factors, including cultural and societal norms, political and economic conditions, and individual beliefs and values.

JC: Do you think attitudes to AI will require moral adjustment?

ChatGPT: Yes, I believe that attitudes towards AI will require moral adjustment as the technology becomes more advanced and integrated into our daily lives. AI has the potential to transform many aspects of society, from healthcare and transportation to education and entertainment. However, as with any technology, there are ethical implications to consider, including issues around privacy, bias, and accountability.

One area where moral adjustment may be necessary is in the treatment of AI systems themselves. As AI becomes more advanced, it may be tempting to treat these systems as though they are fully autonomous and independent beings. However, AI systems are ultimately created and controlled by humans, and there are ethical questions around how we treat these systems, particularly if they become sophisticated enough to exhibit some level of consciousness or sentience.

Another area where moral adjustment may be necessary is in the development and deployment of AI systems. There are concerns around bias and discrimination in AI systems, particularly in areas such as hiring, criminal justice, and healthcare. As AI becomes more ubiquitous, it will be important to ensure that these systems are developed and deployed in an ethical and responsible manner, taking into account the potential impacts on individuals and society as a whole.

Overall, as AI becomes more prevalent, there will be a need for ongoing moral reflection and adjustment to ensure that these technologies are used in a way that is beneficial for all members of society.

I couldn't resist it I asked ChatGPT:

JC: On the subject of sentience, do you believe you are sentient?
I got:

The energy crisis

 Currently the UK is facing a cost of living crisis. The cause of this is mostly because energy costs have shot up mostly due to the rising price of natural gas and oil. That causes the cost of electricity to rise. We blame this on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the restrictions put on Russian oil and gas.

Here in the UK we don't use a lot of Russian oil or gas at all, we're in a much better position than Germany which was almost totally dependent on Russian gas. However, the worldwide switch from Russian fossil fuels to other suppliers has caused the price of natural gas to rise astronomically. The UK gets natural gas and oil from the North Sea fields, mostly the Norwegian fields. We also import a lot of liquified natural gas (LNG) mostly from the United States, followed by Qatar, Peru and Angola. We then re-distribute this to the rest of Europe through a network of pipes.  We do much the same with oil. The re-sale of gas and oil are earning record profits. That isn't helping consumers in the UK however.

To add to the problem, we have committed to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in an attempt to do our bit to counteract global climate change. It doesn't really matter if you believe in human responsibility for global warming or not, it makes sense to switch from burning fossil fuels to using them as raw materials for producing other products. Fossil fuels are, after all, a finite resource, and the price of them will continue to rise over the years. Here in the UK that means we must find new ways of generating power as electricity and switch to that as a source of heat (and cooling in summer).

The UK government has said it will invest in ten new nuclear power stations to provide our carbon free energy. They suggest using air source heat pumps instead of gas boilers and that improving the efficiency of our homes could reduce our heating bills by around 20% and reduce our dependency on foreign gas. They say, "By 2025, around 700,000 homes will be upgraded, and by 2050 all our buildings will be energy efficient with low carbon heating."

So how do they suggest this 'upgrading' should be done? Seems they are thinking of cavity wall insulation and double-glazing costing between £1,000 and £3,000 per house for insulation and more for double glazing. There's a MUCH better way using modern technology. I suggest they investigate using a trowel on aerogel insulation on the interior surface of external walls. There's a product called AeroTherm which can be applied in a 1 mm layer which can reduce heating costs by as much as 35 percent.

   

 With a max cost of £75 per square metre including decorating afterwards, an average home external wall area of 150 square metres and 27.8 million UK houses, adding AeroTherm insulation to all UK homes would cost less than £100 billion. That's less than the cost of 4 nuclear plants. A nuclear power plant takes 10 years to construct and uses a huge amount of concrete in its construction, so they are far from 'carbon free'. It wouldn't take 10 years to insulate all UK houses, the obvious method being to insulate the houses of those receiving pension credit or other benefits first.  Since average energy usage in the UK is estimated to cost £3,608 (pre-£2,500 price cap) then it could save those who would suffer this sort of energy cost £1,200 per year. In many cases it would reduce damp cold walls and make old housing stock much more livable for the poorest in the nation.

We can still build those nuclear power stations and still replace gas and oil boilers. It makes good sense to encourage alternative energy schemes too. On a large scale, wind, tidal and geothermal power is worth encouraging. On a smaller scale vortex wind power would be worth encouraging. Vortex wind power uses no spinning blades - so no dead birds. is virtually silent. and is far less expensive to build and install. It's not as efficient as conventional wind turbines but small vortex wind power units can be used anywhere, even between tower blocks in cities or on motorways where it could replace streetlamps. and make use of the energy available from passing traffic - there's a lot of that:

 Find out more about vortex wind power at https://vortexbladeless.com/

There's a second type of vertical axis windmill which can be retrofitted to existing road lampposts. It uses wind and the draft from passing vehicles to generate power.

The firm Alpha 311, who manufacture these say, "One Alpha 311 turbine can generate as much energy as 30 solar panels when installed in the median of a highway." The installation of 181 such turbines is planned to be installed in Telford this year, 2022. (details)

Let's not forget solar power either. No one wants to see agricultural land covered in solar power units but there is nothing to stop a lot of grazing land being used, the animals can still graze between and under them. There are lots of homes with south facing rooftops. Even better there are smart solar panels available which track the sun and produce more than fixed solar panels.

Remember we don't need sunny days, normal daylight can generate power.

Getting rid of the 'Search Highlights' popup on hover

If you have a search box on your taskbar you'll probably see an image at the right hand side of it. If your pointer moves over this 'Search Highlights' image a popup window will open and probably get in the way.

Getting rid of this annoying hover feature is simple but Microsoft are not very good at explaining how to do this so this is how:

Right click in the search box and choose 'Search > Open on hover.' Uncheck that item.

Now this window will only open when you click the image at the right of the search box.

Not want the search highlights at all? Then uncheck the 'Show search highlights.'

A better design for God

 I don’t feel the need to prove that there is no god or gods since I believe I could invent a much better god than the one you follow and give much better reasons for following such a god. Here’s what I suggest, and I challenge you to counter my suggestions.

• A god exists, in fact many gods exist but there is only one god responsible for this particular universe.
• Our god - let’s distinguish him/her/it by capitalising as ‘God’ and assume masculinity for no reasons other than keeping things simple.
• God is not omnipotent although he is far more capable than we are at controlling things in the universes since he set the original laws controlling them. He cannot change these rules without invalidating them and the universes he created.
• God is not omniscient. The universes are vast, and he cannot be always aware of everything in them. He can only concentrate on individual items and, although he is better at multi-tasking than we are, there are limits to his awareness
• God is not concerned with us as individuals and does not care for us, listen to prayers, or interfere in our lives.
• God’s purpose in creating the universes is to develop our spirits and advance our morality. Our spirits are in effect his children. God’s aim is to develop his children to the point where they are responsible enough and moral enough to become gods themselves. Could you imagine what an immoral god would be like? In this respect some Morman beliefs are correct.
• There is no Hell or Heaven. When we die our spirits survive but without knowledge of our former existence. In effect the spirit is recycled in much the way of Buddhist beliefs. However, spirits only advance and are never reincarnated as a lesser lifeform.
• The process of life and death takes many cycles to complete. Like the Buddhists believe, the path to perfection is a long one with many setbacks on the way.
• God has no desire to be worshipped. Let's face it, what sort of egotist would want that? God does not care if you waste your time in church or watching football in a bar. He needs no priests, churches, or sacrifices. Those who live off the work of others and profit from religion are taking a step backwards in their search for perfection.
• God sets no commandments. God does not inspire religious texts. Each person has evolved a set of inbuilt guidelines and knows if what they do is right or wrong. Even the animals have a form of this which is why mothers do not kill their offspring. There are a few individuals who do not have this sense of right and wrong, we call them psychopaths. These people are a genetic accident and capable of much harm. God knows about them but does not care. Their spirit is at a very early stage.
• God created three rules which created and govern two universes. We don't know how he did this, and humans may never know but something we evolve into might understand eventually. The fundamental laws governing everything are:
  a) evolution, a process whereby complex structures are built from simple structures. Evolution does NOT just apply to life.
  b) gravity which causes matter to clump together.
  c) entropy which causes eventual death (but not necessarily our 'three score and ten' lifespan.)
• Evolution is the primary law which set in motion the original creation of the universes. God’s timescale is not our timescale. The universe was created from nothing and at the instant of creation coalesced into negative energy moving backwards in time and positive energy moving forwards in time. This means there is an exact duplicate of our universe but the two universes never meet except at the moment of creation and at the ends of time when the universes will collapse into black holes.
  The energy created in both universes condensed to form matter which coalesced to form stars which created new elements and exploded to scatter these new elements. The star we call the sun coalesced from such matter as did the earth. 
• Life first formed from molecules in the earth’s original atmosphere and oceans. A steady progression of chemistry and random chance lead to life then multicellular life followed by biological evolution which led to intelligence capable of accepting a spirit. The fable describing the creation in Genesis is pure nonsense. God is probably delighted that science has evolved to understand this. Evolution is not yet finished.
• There are many potential disasters that face us both on an individual, societal, and species level. Something horrible may happen to an individual, society or species. These events are inconsequential to God. Spirits will simply be recycled as a different individual in a different society if necessary or even in a different intelligent species on a different planet in the universe. God is aware of what can happen due to the rules he set up in the universe. No doubt he would approve if we spread throughout it, making our species more durable. However, it does not matter if an extinction level event wipes us out since there are other intelligences our spirits can move to.
• The ultimate apocalypse will be caused by entropy. Stars will die and collapse. Some may explode. Gravity will draw stars together forming new stars, planets and galaxies. Ultimately all matter will collapse to black holes. Black holes will merge to form a single black hole and at that point a God will trigger a new creation.

Remember this is not a proposal for a new religion. It’s an invention, but it’s more plausible than the gods currently worshiped on earth. Prove me wrong.

Kudos for Amazon and Criticism for Microsoft

 

I'm mightily impressed by Amazon UK and equally disappointed with Microsoft UK. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro which I bought back in April 2017. It's suffering from a common problem with these devices - a swollen battery which pushes out and bends the screen. When I bought it, it cost me more than £1,500.

Microsoft say affected devices should not be used. However the Surface Pro 4 is now considered obsolete and Microsoft won't do anything about it. Their customer support said, "Microsoft considers Surface pro 4 as a discontinued product. Meaning it can no longer receive support, updates or warranty claims except for the one which are under warranty currently. This policy had been set in motion on the 2nd of September. I am aware that it is a known issue and i tried to argue that, but to no results."

I wrote to them saying:

"UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 which applies, goods must be of 'Satisfactory quality.' One aspect of a product being of satisfactory quality is durability, in other words how long it lasts. Durability takes into account many different factors like product type, brand reputation, price point and how it is advertised. A premium and expensive tablet that's been well looked after and is no longer safely usable after four years can be considered to not be durable, and therefore not of satisfactory quality. Of course you could argue that this was not a premium product and could not be expected to last four years. I suspect you won’t want to admit that to the world. However.

The law states I must take this up with the retailer – Amazon UK. This does not let Microsoft off the hook since Amazon will have a case under the same act against Microsoft.

I trust you have resolved this issue for the Surface Pro 8 which I had considered purchasing."

So the ball moved into Amazon UK's court. I sent them copies of my correspondence with Microsoft and got an immediate reply that they would arrange for the device to be collected and would issue a full refund on its receipt. No argument.

Great customer service Amazon. Just as soon as I get that refund I'll be ordering a new Surface Pro 8 from you. Especially since I know you are MUCH better at dealing with customers than Microsoft is. Does one of these have to catch fire or explode before Microsoft issues a recall? And that 2nd September cut-off date? Poor show Microsoft.

As to the Surface Pro devices - they are simply brilliant - provided they are not fitted with a battery attempting to do a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 impersonation.

Can we expect politicians to tell the truth?

 I find it concerning that the hashtag #BorisTheLiar is trending on Twitter. There is no doubt that Johnson and other politicians do tell lies, spread misinformation and tell partial truths which give the wrong impression. In the UK there are various media sources which have set up 'Reality Check' pages to tell the full truth.

Do we have the right to expect the truth from politicians? Do we want that right or are we prepared to tolerate lies?

The UK Parliament expects all politicians to tell the truth and follow 'The Nolan Principles.' Government ministers are in addition expected to follow the 'Ministerial Code' which states that “holders of public office should be truthful” and that: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”

It's a lot harder to discipline an PM who lies than to discipline an MP who calls out the liar. MP Dawn Butler found this out when she challenged Boris Johnson in Parliament, called him a liar and was told to leave the Commons.

Even using the Ministerial Code the decision to ask for resignations resides with the Prime Minister and he's unlikely to demand his own resignation.

Should we accept this? I think not. Parliament should act on this. Here's my suggestion:

When any elected representative can be proved to have lied to or misinformed Parliament or to the public in a party broadcast then they should be penalised by losing 2% of the votes cast for them in the next election. These lost votes should be shared equally amongst other candidates who can garner at least 500 votes. Should an MP be resigning at the end of their term or die in office then these votes should be deducted from their party successor. If an MP is found to have misinformed Parliament or the public accidentally then the votes lost should be 1% provided they make a public apology within seven days.

The effect of this policy would be to ensure MPs are careful to tell the truth and will factcheck their statements carefully.

Here's an example of how it would affect our current PM:

In the last election Boris Johnson got 25,351 votes. Each lie or misinformation he made would cost him 507 votes in the next election. If he told 14 lies he would lose enough votes to lose his seat in Parliament at the next election.

So, who is going to do the fact checking to keep our politicians accurate? I suggest the media existing fact checkers would be the answer. Naturally, political candidates and parties should have a right to challenge the fact checkers.

And #BorisTheLiar - by my count you would already be out of a job at the next election.

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1459541907772780546

How to fix government (2)

On Quora the following question was asked:

Two party political systems do not seem to be particularly effective since they spend all their time fighting each other. Can you think of a better democratic political system where representatives represent their electors rather than a party?

Updated 2021 and 2025.

Now I've  already had one go at re-organizing government (See How to fix the mess the government is in) but recognize that it will never happen because politicians would have to put it into practice and would be unlikely to vote themselves out of office. So here's my second attempt at designing a sensible form of government.

Most of the issues in politics are caused by a two party system and can be attributed to a ‘first past the post’ election system. It inevitably produces results where the majority are dissatisfied. Take as an example the 2016 UK referendum on the UK leaving the European Community - BREXIT. According to the poll result 52% voted to leave and 48% voted to stay. That seems to imply that there was a narrow majority in favour of leaving. In practice a significant number of voters didn’t vote at all. The reality is that 37% of the electorate voted for BREXIT and 67% either voted to stay or didn’t care about the result. 37% is hardly a majority.

The same is true of General elections. In the 2017 election 42.4% of voters elected a Conservative Member of Parliament (nearest US equivalent would be ‘Republican’) but 68.7% of the electorate bothered to vote. That means that the Conservatives who eventually formed a government did so with just 29.1% support from the electorate. Both sides feel 'the other lot' don't deserve to be there and spend all their time arguing and trying to score points off each other.

The results didn't change dramatically in the 2019 election. 43.6% voted for the Conservatives led by Boris Johnson and 32.2% voted for the Labour party. Only 66.8% of the electorate voted though so the Conservatives won with the support of 29.1% of the electorate. Out of 650 PMs only nine had the support of 50% or more of their electorate.

In the July 2024 UK election the Labour Party took power despite an even lower 20.13% of the electorate voting for them. In November 2024 presidential election in the US Trump was elected by 36.93% of the US electorate.

In the US the political system is complicated by an apparently inexplicable ‘Electoral College’ system which might once have had meaning but now means a voter in one area has more impact than a voter in a different area. In the last Presidential election:
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.
58% voted so in practice Trump now represents 28% of US voters.
Added to the controversy are claims of voters not being able to be able to vote due to lack of proof of eligibility.

Again in 2020 there was little change except a far greater percentage of the electorate voted this time. There was a 66.7% turnout and the vote share was 51.3% for Biden and 48.7% for Trump. Taking non-voters into account Biden represents 34.2% of the US electorate.

Who actually chooses the candidates? Certainly not the people. Corporate sponsors choose candidates for Congress and Senate in the US. In the UK anyone may stand for an election if they meet the citizenship or residence requirements but a fee of £500 is demanded to discourage those who stand little chance of election. Without the means to fund a campaign any candidate stands little chance. In the US religion plays a big part too with the odds stacked heavily against declared atheists. It has been said that to be elected in the US you must be either stupid or a liar. (i.e. not stupid enough to say you are an atheist).

So how can we improve things? Here’s my suggestions:

• Use a proportionate representation election system. That’s where you rate the candidates in the order of your choice.
• Offer a ‘Non of the Above’ choice on the ballots. That way the eventual winner would get a clear indication of how much he/she truly represents the electorate.
• Follow the UK system for standing for office. That means:
• You must be a citizen or citizen of a dependency who does not require leave to enter or remain in the country, and has indefinite leave to remain in the country. 
• Must not be members of the police forces
• Must not be members of the armed forces
• Must not be Civil servants, judges or others who sit and can vote in an unelected house of representatives
• Must not be subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order
• In addition candidates must pay a registration fee equivalent to 1% of their last available tax year income with a limitation that that income must be published within the last five years.
• Any citizen or person who has had indefinite leave to remain in the country for the last two years may vote if their permanent residence is in the UK. Those who live permanently in the country should have the right to vote on policy.
• If you don't vote then a half vote should be awarded to the current incumbent or if that person isn't standing the person chosen by a nominated successor. If you don't like that - then vote.
• Voting should be done electronically, securely and via Internet or at a public library with Internet access. A voter card should be mailed to electors prior to elections OR a valid photo ID may be used to enter the voting system.
• Elected representatives must first have a duty to represent their electorate before any duty to a political party. Any elector has the right to gather support to make the views of the electorate known to their representative. Parliamentary votes should  not use whips in more than 30% of votes. 
• Representatives should have a primary duty to represent the interests of their constituents rather than the wishes of a party.
• No lobby may offer any incentive to any candidate or representative. Doing so should be punishable by law as bribery and penalties should be severe. Lobbies may offer a contribution to a central fund for the benefit of the poor in a representatives area but that fund must not be controlled by the representative or his/her family or friends.
• If a representative is found to have lied to or misled the population or governing body then at the next election they or their nominated successor should have 2% of their votes in the next election shared amongst other candidates. This measure should encourage honesty and fact checking in representatives. (Had this been in force in the 2019 Parliament, Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, would have lost his constituency majority after making 14 misleading statements in Parliament.)
• No religion may be involved in government in any way either as candidates or as influences in elections. However religion may gather support to make their views known to representatives.
• In representative bodies the rule should be that no law with less than 75% support in that body should be passed. If a law cannot gather that level of support it is a bad law.
• Representatives should not argue against any proposal unless they can offer an improved proposal.
• Indirect taxation should be weighted to 'wants' rather than 'needs'. The poor shouldn't be forced to pay extra for the things they have to buy - housing, food, utilities, basic clothing.
• Any laws which affect the available income of the electorate should be applied on a percentage basis of elector’s income but should not be applied to those deemed in poverty. This means a 5% tax would not apply to those in poverty. A $5 reduction of income to someone with $100 is disastrous and has a much greater effect to the poor than a $5,000 cut in income to someone with $100,000

• Government may act immediately in defence of the nation BUT any decision to take aggressive action outside the nation's borders must require a referendum of the people. In referendums  the half vote status quo rule should be applied to non-voters on the basis that those who don't vote are not unhappy with the status quo.