Nuclear or natural?

It is clear to all that the oil and coal reserves of this planet will not last forever and both of them, even with the latest technology, are a major contributory factor towards global warming.

Something needs to replace them for our energy needs.

Some will argue that nuclear is the way forward, that it is clean and efficient and would solve our energy needs for centuries to come and they often make a strong case, but the disposal of nuclear waste is still and has always been an issue and so, given recent events in Japan, is the question of how safe the actual process itself is.

It is apparent that, no matter how good the safeguards are, we cannot safeguard against the forces of nature. Mother nature is still capable of destroying mans greatest achievements in a matter of seconds and this is where I believe that using natural forces to generate energy has it's main advantage.

It is not hard to imagine wind, wave or solar energy plant being destroyed by natural forces such as the earthquake and tsunami that has hit Japan, but it is easy to see that it does not have the same potential for devastation that the destruction of nuclear facilities could have.

Harvesting the, by comparison more sedentary, forces of nature is by far the cleanest and safest way to move away from our need for fossil fuels.

Let's not go from the frying pan of a dependence on fossil fuels into the fire of oblivion that could come from a dependence on nuclear energy.

What would be the benefit to Gosport of allowing smoking back in pubs?

It is no accident that today, when the Anti-Smoking Plans are announced by the government, is the day that this question comes to my mind.

I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of people in Gosport would like the government to do all it can to ensure that young people either never smoke or give up smoking early enough for it to make a real difference to their health. Even hardened smokers advise their own children not to start smoking, not just for the health benefits it brings but for the financial benefits it brings not to be forced, through addiction to nicotine, to spend nearly £7 for every packet of cigarettes that you buy.

The health benefits to the individual of never smoking are well documented and proven beyond all doubt and and as an ex-smoker who gave up about 10 years ago in my forties, I can personally vouch for the well documented fact that, although it may seem like it, it is never too late to give up smoking.

The ban on smoking in public places has also encouraged more and more people who do smoke not only to go outside when they are in public places, but also to go outside when they are at home. A lot of smokers have made the decision that they do not want to subject their children, their partners and their visitors to the dangers of passive smoking.

So why is it then that Caroline Dinenage, who in her election manifesto promised to be Gosport's champion, voted back in October for a relaxation of the smoking ban to allow smoking in pubs and private members clubs where no food is being served? A move which was thankfully defeated.

I have been puzzling over this one for some time. Does she think that the people of Gosport want this?

If so, she has not done her research, because if Gosport is like anywhere else in the UK with regard to this issue, and there is no evidence to suggest it is not, then the majority of people in Gosport believe that the smoking ban is a good thing.

Is she doing this in an effort to save the many public houses that are closing down?

If so, once again she has not done her research, because there is no evidence that the smoking ban has caused any more pubs to close than would have done through other, mostly economic, factors.

How could anyone who represents the best interests of Gosport want to take a backward step in legislation that has a proven benefit to health?

Why did she, as a loyal Conservative who very rarely votes against party policy, choose this issue to rebel on?

If she is reading this, or anyone who knows her is, I'd be truly interested to know what she thinks the benefit to the people of Gosport would be if the smoking ban was relaxed.

Do the pensions reforms really go far enough?

Whilst I applaud the flat rate pension of more than £140 a week that Sir Iain Duncan-Smith has been working on with Steve Webb, his Lib-Dem minister for pensions, I also have to ask does it really go far enough?

Pensioners will receive a flat rate of pension, set above the pension credit rate, regardless of how long they worked or earned, this will ensure a basic level of income for all of our pensioners without the need for means testing. It will also encourage people to save because those who have saved will be better off.

But does it go far enough?

Now that there is no longer a link between how long you work and earn and the amount of pension you get, do we really need National Insurance?

Isn't N.I. now, many may argue it has been for a while, just another form of Income Tax?

And if so, surely it would be more efficient and cheaper to administrate, not to mention more honest, if we collected it like that?

We could save millions in administration costs by doing so, which could be used to relieve some of the pressure of cuts on the less well off.

Is it now time to scrap N.I. all together in favour of a single Income Tax?

I think so.