by Thomas, Mark
NB: For those who ask, ‘What happens if your birthday is on a weekend? Can we get a weekday off in lieu?’ I reply, look, let’s just get the policy up and running, don’t take the piss just yet.
19
THERE SHOULD BE
SEPARATE LANES FOR
PEDESTRIANS BASED
ON THE SPEEDS THEY
WALK AT, RANGING
FROM A FAST LANE
FOR PEOPLE WHO
KNOW WHERE THEY
ARE GOING TO A HARD
SHOULDER FOR
WINDOW SHOPPERS
CITY-CENTRE CONGESTION is not limited to petrol-fuelled traffic; most shows featured policy suggestions for dealing with the problems faced by pedestrians. These ranged from banning cars in city centres to the banning of OAPs at certain hours. Another policy was ‘Pavements to be automated, with moving walkways’, and, putting aside the faint whiff of a Blue Peter ‘design a city of the future’ competition, this proposal has one fundamental problem: the amount of people in a city centre would remain the same but now getting even less exercise. The automated pavement would essentially become a conveyor belt for human lard.
The policy that eventually won creates a three-lane pavement, based on the motorway model, the outside lane for the fast walkers and the inside for window shoppers and pushchairs. The middle lane will retain its traditional role of providing a home for the indecisive and those who really should be in the slow lane.
There will also be a pedestrian code taught to visitors, especially in large cities like London, with rules on standing on the right on tube escalators, waiting until people get off before getting on public transport, and teaching advanced emergency stop techniques when getting caught behind groups of Spanish students in Piccadilly Circus. It will also require teen visitors to fit indicator lights on the back of rucksacks, although this will have to be carefully coordinated with the police, who might overreact at the sight of a flashing rucksack in a city centre.
20
THE DAILY MAIL
SHOULD BE FORCED
TO PRINT THE WORDS
‘THE PAPER THAT
SUPPORTED HITLER’
ON ITS MASTHEAD
THE DAILY MAIL currently denounces the British National Party and I am sure that old Lord Rothermere, one of the paper’s original founders, would disapprove of them too, though in his case it would be because they were a bit tame. Old Lord Rothermere had a penchant for leaders who romped around Europe in the 1930s waving their right arm in the air, and wrote in support of them before his death in 1940.
Rothermere was an anti-Semite who visited Hitler on several occasions and excused the Nazi violence as exaggerated.22 The fact that Rothermere wrote an article headlined ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’,23 in praise of the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley, seems small beer by comparison.
The Daily Mail should be forced to print this on its masthead, although not because of a desire to stigmatise the paper, because frankly it has done a bang-up job on that task itself – it is, as Stephen Fry said, ‘a paper that no one of any decency would be seen dead with’. Nor is it to indicate the Mail’s right-wing tendencies. (If you don’t think the Mail is right-wing then you’re probably a reader and there is little anyone can do for you.) Nor is it to serve as a reminder that the paper has a history of supporting orchestrated indignation. The real reason the Mail should print the words ‘The paper that supported Hitler’ on the masthead is just to ensure there is at least one piece of factual accuracy on the front page.
21
TO INTRODUCE A
PROHIBITION OF
DECEPTION ACT
THE QUESTION OF how we keep MPs honest was grappled in earnest by audiences the length and breadth of the country.
At least one policy every show declared that politicians should be hooked up to a lie detector every time they spoke in the House of Commons or were interviewed on the news. Indeed, most proposers went on to add that MPs should also be wired up to an electro-shock device that would be activated by untruths, though no one dared estimate the electricity bill, or considered the knock-on effects to the local economy as the entire borough of Westminster flickered on and off every Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Quite a few policies were aimed at getting MPs to give a straight answer during interviews, and again it was mostly suggested that they be electrocuted if they failed to respond with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ where appropriate.
One more imaginative soul suggested that all political interviews should be conducted under the rules of BBC Radio 4’s Just a Minute, where MPs must answer questions without ‘repetition, hesitation or deviation’. They would be awarded points for answering well and … yes, you guessed it, electrocuted if they didn’t. Presumably by Nicholas Parsons. It is fair to say that quite a few people just want to wire their MP to the mains regardless of their ability or integrity.
Of all the suggestions, the least violent is the Prohibition of Deception Act, a simple two-page private members’ bill that seeks to make lying a criminal offence for MPs. In 2007 Adam Price MP backed the bill and got the support of nine or so other MPs. Or at least they said they supported it. Unfortunately the bill is no longer with us.
It read: ‘It shall be an offence for an elected representative acting in this capacity, or an agent acting on his behalf, to make or publish a statement which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.’
As this applies to the MPs’ official capacity, it does mean they can continue to lie in normal everyday life. So from the classic, ‘Honestly, that dress is perfect,’ and ‘I am really looking forward to the school play,’ to the more exotic, ‘I have never had sex with your brother under the family Christmas tree,’ they would be able to lie along with the rest of us. But on important stuff like presenting the case for going to war, MPs could be arrested and put on trial for lying. For lovers of the traditional approach, we could wire them up when they took the oath.
22
POLITICIANS SHOULD
HAVE TO WEAR
TABARDS DISPLAYING
THE NAMES AND LOGOS OF THE
COMPANIES WITH
WHOM THEY HAVE
A FINANCIAL
RELATIONSHIP, LIKE
A RACING DRIVER
WE NEED TO know in whose interest our MPs are working, so we can see who has dibs on them. Therefore they must wear tabards with the names and logos of those they have financial links with whenever they speak, both inside and outside the House.
This doesn’t just apply to companies that employ them but all financial links. MPs can be given gifts, get free tickets for events or travel, even get assistance to run their offices, any of which could represent a conflict of interest. So each and every one of the ‘contributors’ should go on the tabards.
‘Ah,’ some will say, ‘but MPs already have to declare this in the Register of Members’ Interests.’ True. But how many folk can be bothered to look it up? Are people up and down the UK shouting from their living rooms, ‘Ee, love, come quick, and bring the Register of Members’ Interests – t’news is on and Oliver Letwin is talking on t’banking system.’ Wouldn’t it be easier to see Oliver Letwin (Con) standing on TV with Rothschild plastered on his chest next to KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers?24
If MPs wore the tabards they would continually be declaring their interests. So when Lembit Opik (Lib Dem) next stands up to talk about comets and asteroids colliding with Earth, we can see the Daily Sport logo and the Caravan Club of Great Britain emblazoned on his tabard.25
This policy is just the beginning. I believe that if MPs take money from companies they should be forced to sing that company’s jingle whenever they stand to speak in the Chamber. That way David Blunkett (Lab) would have to sing the Sun newspaper’s adverts every time he joined the debate.26
‘Ah,’ some may say, ‘we should not be giving companies that kind of free advertising,’ but the key here is positive advertising. I would argue that
companies have more to lose than gain by displaying their brand on MPs. Frankly, the sight of Ken Clarke covered in British American Tobacco logos is unlikely to influence anyone’s behaviour. I doubt that kids would gather in the playground saying, ‘Blood, d’you see Ken Clarke on that Newsnight?’ ‘Yeah. I’m gonna start smokin’ cos he was sick, man!’27
23
THERE SHOULD
BE A PUBLIC
REFERENDUM BEFORE
GOING TO WAR
THIS POLICY ONLY applies when Britain is going to attack another country, not if someone attacked us, or we would have armed invaders charging up the beaches while we scampered around shouting, ‘Fuck fuck fuck, we’re not quorate …’
A well-planned assault could overrun us before we had even got the ballot boxes out. We don’t need a vote to prepare us to defend ourselves – a couple of ciders and an alcopop should do it.
Nor does this policy allow us to nominate countries we would like to invade. France, for example, has nothing to fear from this policy. The referendum applies to circumstances where a build-up of hostilities has been taking place over a period of time or where the international community28 decide we need to act aggressively together.29
War by its very nature results in people getting killed (indeed any war without death is essentially the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme with alcohol) but those who lead us to war are the last to face the consequences of it. A member of one audience suggested we should develop an MPs’ battalion, so as soon as they vote for war they are the first wave to be sent in – though looking at the state of our politicians this is not so much a military attack as a sacrificial offering. Atheists can regard it as giving the enemy a head start.
The decision to go to war is too important to leave to politicians, so it should be put to a referendum and voted on by the people whose children, relatives and friends will be the ones fighting the war.
In 2000 the Electoral Commission was tasked with conducting referendums and although they have not been run off their feet in that time, they are more than ready to hold a national vote should the prospect of invading a country and waging an illegal war based on false evidence and at the whim of the most detested president in US history ever present itself again.
24
THE PRIME MINISTER
SHALL BE LIMITED TO
TWO TERMS OF OFFICE
FOUR WORDS SUM up the argument for limiting a Prime Minister to two terms of office: Gordon Brown John Major. Had Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair been limited to two terms of office then neither would have resigned mid-way through their third term. Both Brown and Major (initially) had their Prime Ministerial career foisted upon us unelected. They were not the first: Jim Callaghan became PM when Harold Wilson resigned in 1976, giving us three unelected PMs in the course of 31 years. An average of one a decade is pretty undemocratic for the mother of all Parliaments.
Other reasons for limiting the PM to two terms of office:
1. It stops them becoming too powerful and stops us becoming too familiar with them. When they are familiar, we get lazy as an electorate and start voting on personality rather than policy.
2. The job of Prime Minister is simply too difficult to do well for more than two terms. It requires total concentration for every single waking minute. For proof, look at the state of them when they leave. Thatcher quoted Francis of Assisi going into Number 10 and dribbled on the way out. Blair entered looking youthful and full of hope and left looking like he was part of a hostage release programme having spent five years chained to a radiator.
3. They all go a bit mad after two terms. What did Tony Blair do for relaxation when he retired? He tried to restart the Middle East peace process.
4. If rotation is good enough for vegetables, it is good enough for politicians.
25
THERE SHOULD BE
AN AGE OF CONSENT
FOR RELIGION
ALL RELIGIONS ARE essentially cults with varying degrees of historical peer approval – the Church of England has Henry VIII, Catholics have St Augustine and the Scientologists have Tom Cruise. You can dress religious brainwashing up as spirituality or culture but it is still brainwashing. OK, it can teach you how to look alert when terminally bored and how to be thinking one thing and chanting another, both invaluable skills for a career in market research. But ultimately brainwashing by a cult is unacceptable as it can lead to a Channel 4 documentary.
If adults want to believe that the world was made in a celestial microwave powered by a divine space acorn, they have the right to do so. If they want to worship the acorn, pray to it and wear a golden acorn around their necks, that too is fine. But telling a child that unless they follow the Acorn Rules they will spend eternity being buried and dug up by demon squirrels is not.
This policy aims to balance the rights of religious freedom and the rights of the child by setting an age limit on religion. We cannot prevent parents from teaching their children about religion at home, so we should treat religion in a similar fashion to the old laws relating to pubs: children are not allowed into church, but parents can – perhaps with a meal or on a social occasion – allow some religion in moderation.
This policy will prevent children entering mosques, temples, synagogues and churches until they are 14 and will be enforced with a height bar, just like those at funfairs and adventure parks, with a little sign outside the church saying ‘You have to be at least this high to go on this attraction’.
26
THOSE IN FAVOUR
OF ID CARDS SHOULD
BE BANNED FROM
HAVING CURTAINS
THOSE WITH NOTHING to hide have nothing to fear.
27
ANYONE FOUND GUILTY
OF A HOMOPHOBIC
HATE CRIME SHALL
SERVE THEIR ENTIRE
SENTENCE IN DRAG
THIS POLICY IS guaranteed to make homophobic criminals go straight … or not, as the case may be.
28
WHENEVER THERE IS
A BARNEY IN THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
THEY SHOULD PLAY
THE BENNY HILL
THEME TUNE
THIS SHOULD ALSO be applied to council and regional assemblies. The Greater London Authority could play Chas and Dave’s classic ‘Rabbit’, the Scottish Parliament gets ‘Hoots mon there’s a moose loose aboot this hoose’, the Welsh Assembly Abba’s ‘Fernando’ and the Northern Ireland Assembly could go for Black Lace’s ‘We’re having a gang bang, we’re having a ball’.
29
PRIVATE HEALTH
COMPANIES THAT USE NHS-
TRAINED STAFF, DOCTORS,
NURSES, CLINICIANS, ETC.,
SHOULD PAY A LEVY
WORTH 25 PER CENT OF
THE STAFF PAY TO THE NHS
TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR
THE TRAINING COSTS AND
HELP WITH TRAINING IN
THE FUTURE
PRIVATE MEDICINE IS fundamentally un-British, as the only reason to use it is to jump the NHS queue – and the one thing we pride ourselves on as a nation is our ability to queue. It is what distinguishes us from the French. Therefore there is no greater social gaucherie or display of ill breeding than ‘going private’, as it is based upon an ability to push to the front shouting, ‘Let me through, I have money.’
To compound this faux pas further, private health companies use NHS-trained doctors and nurses. Until private hospitals train their own staff, in their own medical schools, and corporate students push corporate beds around the West End to raise money for corporate rag week, the use of NHS-trained staff will always amount to a subsidy from the taxpayer to the private companies. It costs the state approximately £42,000 to train a nurse and approximately £240,000 to train a doctor, costs that the private companies do not appear to shoulder. So we should charge a levy on the private health companies to cover the cost of state training.
Everyone is a winner with a levy like this. The NHS gets funding f
or future training but the private health companies benefit too. By their very nature these companies are entities in the free market, which is at odds with a reliance on state aid. Sponging off the state in this hypocritical fashion must weigh heavily on their souls30 and discarding it would have enormous therapeutic benefits for them, for which we won’t charge them extra.
NB: Modern politicians really should take a glance at 1945, when Britain had the highest rates of national debt and yet, instead of cutting public services, created the National Health Service. Bloody marvellous.
30
TO INTRODUCE
A TOBIN TAX
ON CURRENCY