I think the need to government reform is clear to most people. Our government is ineffective. We've had a succession of bad governments. It's likely that any future government will also be ineffective.

The government hasn't the power to make honest and effective changes, because it is beholden to special interests. It balances its commitments to its allies, with its chances of losing the next election.

So the best policy, the only realistic policy, is to serve the donors and special interests, then do some crowd-pleasing in the election year.

I would argue (though I thing this next bit would be controversial) it is not this government's fault, to work this way. It is the fault of our governance system that compels them to work this way.

Many people have good plans for electoral reform. For example. The ideas are thousands of years old. The structures are well established and proven.

The difficulty is implementing the reform, when the government has no interest in doing so.

So here is a new plan:

1. Establish a sub-reddit which records the policy proposals in the dail and and the voting records of each TD. It will be an accurate record of each TD and party's performance. It must also be easy to read, and in a place where people will read it. It will also be a place for discussion. Accessible information and discussion forums are both required in democracy, and are both lacking. This will also help build support for (2).

2. Convince independent politicians to join a new party. this party will be unique. It should be easy to convince them, because they have little chance alone with the abundance of canditates, and because this new party is a uniquely good opportunity.

It will have specific goals and policy, which are simple and popular. They will address the only important issues (also the issues the current government is underperforming on.

a. Climate change (a real carbon tax)

b. World peace (boycott and ostracize any person, business or territory conducting a massacre)

c. Housing (ban investment funds from owning housing / force developers to build appropriate amenities)

d. Government reform (citizens initiative referendums)

The first three policies are chosen because not only are they the most important things, and also because they are already overwhelmingly popular. Despite this the government has not done them.

The last one which is not well known. But the last one is the whole point. If point (d) is done, every other major change that our society requires can be done quickly and easily. Government will not be able to stop it, no matter what their donors think.

You only need 6 TDs be elected, to propose policy.

3. The new party will be unique, in that the TDs will act as representatives of their electorate. Every dail vote will be passed down to the constituents. In the dail, the TD will vote following the result of this vote. Constituents can also propose new initiatives for the party.

This is a good test case for democracy, to see if there is any major fraud or problems that need ironing out, before this is trialed on a territorial level. It will require some effort to figure out the best way to do this.

When people see that democracy works on the local level, the party can grow in importance and number of TDs, so eventually government can become effective and legitimate.

What's the best way to mark it?

The issue of better regulation for dangerous breeds of dogs is starting to get a bit serious right now in Ireland. This is one where the solution is simple, but might not be easy for governments and councils to see.

Many people cannot control their dogs. But those people still bring their dogs to public places. They don't understand that this is a problem.

They don't have the discipline to train their dogs. Or they don't have the time or interest. And nobody is forcing them to do so.

People propose many solutions, like banning certain dangerous breeds, enforcing muzzling, licensing, etc. These solutions are familiar, but wrong. They punish educated dogs and savage ones alike.

Being a good dog or a bad dog does not depend on breed. It is true that some breeds are harder to train, and some breeds are more dangerous when untrained. But any dog of any breed can be raised to be good or bad, safe or dangerous.

Dogs must be banned from all public spaces, unless muzzled and leashed, or unless they have passed a test. They get a collar of a specific colour and design when they pass.

There could be various levels of exam. The dogs which pass higher levels are allowed more freedoms.

For example:

1. Does not react aggressively to children
2. Does not react aggressively to other dogs
3. Can be pet by strangers
4. Obeys instructions to return to owner, when off lead
5. Can resist eating food left out, when directed to
6. Can resist chasing a small animal like a cat or pigeon, when directed to

No dog is required to do any test, but tests are required to go certain places or do certain things. For example level 5 might be required to enter a picnic area. You could imagine pubs and shops allowing dogs which have level 3. Level 2 might be required to be allowed off the lead in a park. Level 1 to go outside without a muzzle.

Because the collars are visible, the rules are enforceable.

There are a few things that need to be decided. Whether puppies should have collars with adjustable size. Whether the collar should be non-removable by the owner. Whether the collar should be generic, or have identification on it, like owner's name or microchip ID number.

I only heard about this because I know someone who is thinking of availing of it.

Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant

This could be a big part of the reason for the housing shortage, because so many homes are being left empty in order to avail of this grant.

I think most people agree that rugby teams are too heavy. Players are under too much pressure to bulk up, beyond what is healthy. Bigger pack weight does give a big advantage in a match, but it does not make rugby a better game.

There should be a maximum team weight. Maybe 1500kg for 15 players. Teams can still use very heavy players, but they must keep the total team weight under a limit. So being very heavy is a slight disadvantage for a player. The existing incentive will be reversed, to keep below a limit, to a healthier weight.

Very heavy players will still be selected, only if they are skillful enough to be worth keeping, despite the difficulty they create in keeping the team under the limit.

This does reduce the advantage very heavy peoples like the Europeans have over lighter peoples like the Asians. So it might be unpopular among supporters. I think it would instead make things more interesting. It would mean more teams can seriously compete in international events.

The RTE needs money from the public each year to run. But

• Direct funding by the government gives the government too much influence over content.
• Funding from the licence fee is not secure because many people don't want to pay, since they discovered all the money-laundering and theft going on in RTE.
• Advertising does not make the RTE enough money.

The funding model should also give the RTE an incentive to behave better in the future. It must be a source that can shrink in proportion to RTE's continuing misbehaviour.

The best way is to add a an extra charge to everyone's annual income tax bill. It could be 50€ per taxpayer, to replace the existing 160€ per household. People who don't pay tax don't pay the charge. So this is more progressive than the TV licence fee was.

On the tax declaration form, there is a multiple choice. The taxpayer can choose whether his fee should go to the RTE or somewhere else more deserving. If he ticks several boxes, the fee will be split between several beneficiaries. The choices could be, for example

1. RTE
2. Medicins sans frontieres
3. Vincent de Paul
4. A subsidy for theatre companies
5. Funding for artists and musicians
6. A fund for free open-source software developers

For the last two, figuring out a way to fairly distribute the money could be tricky, but still worthwhile.

There will also be an option to increase the payment to the chosen cause, to 100€ or 200€.

After reading what Varadkar said about genocide yesterday (“Varadkar rules out joining South African genocide case”), there are many things you could say. I’m going to gloss over whether a man who contradicts himself in mid argument is fit to be in government, and focus on a bigger issue.

Genocide is where somebody selectively kills part of a population because of their race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.

It is not necessary to kill every member of of the target group, to commit a genocide.

Genocide is a two part process. The target population is first isolated in a certain place, then massacred. If non-target people are first given the opportunity to leave, before the massacre starts, then that is further evidence of genocide.

Common definitions of genocide (and there are several) focus on intent. Intent is difficult to prove. Definitions of crimes only make sense when they focus on the actual act, not on speculation about actor’s intent.

A bombing is not a genocide, nor is a massacre. Isolating a certain population inside a walled off region, and then bombing it, is a genocide. Isolating a people in a certain region, then withdrawing the supply of water, or blocking the importation of medicine, is also genocide. Driving into a town and shooting everyone, is not genocide.

After reading what Varadkar said about genocide yesterday ("Varadkar rules out joining South African genocide case"), there are many things you could say. I'm going to gloss over whether a man who contradicts himself in mid argument is fit to be in government, and focus on a bigger issue.

Genocide is where somebody selectively kills part of a population of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.

It is not necessary to kill every member of of the target group, to commit a genocide.

Genocide is a two part process. The target population is first isolated in a certain place, then massacred. If non-target people are first given the opportunity to leave, before the massacre starts, then that is further evidence of genocide.

Common definitions of genocide (and there are several) focus on intent. Intent is difficult to prove. Definitions of crimes only make sense when they focus on the actual act, not on speculation about actor's intent.

A bombing is not a genocide, nor is a massacre. Isolating a certain population inside a walled off region, and then bombing it, is a genocide. Isolating a people in a certain region, then withdrawing the supply of water, or blocking the importation of medicine, is also genocide. Driving into a town and shooting everyone, is not genocide.

It looks like the current government will not take action on the urgent issues of our time. The most urgent is climate change but it's not the only one.

Any maybe no future government will take action either. It's the nature of our political system that governments ignore long-term problems.

There is only one way to force them into action.

We must find a single issue with overwhelmingly popular support. Then we organise a national strike over it.

It must be a specific actionable realistic issue. For example

• A fair sales tax on all products which produce carbon dioxide or methane, in proportion to their global warming effect per kilo. This would include concrete, beef, fertilizer, fossil fuels, steel. The money shall be used to fund a cut in the general VAT rate. So these products rise in price and everything else, every less polluting product, drops in price.
• A boycott on Israel until it grants non-Jews in territories it controls equal civil rights.
• A ban on vulture funds owning housing.

First we need a public figure, or anyone influential or persuasive, to spearhead this action.

Who can do it?