Alex 4 MP

Going privately the cost for puberty blockers is less than £100 per month.

Puberty blockers allow Teens to learn about themselves and the world. To take the time to make a reasoned and rational decision.

Half a century of use suggests that they are safe and entirely reversible.

They are seldom the first option for people questioning their gender, they're something that remarkably few take.

Teens who take puberty blockers have regret rates that are less than almost every surgery. The same statistic holds for most Gender Affirming Care

Typically a teen will be on them for 2-3 years representing a cost of £6000 in total.

A teen without access to them, when they believe they're important, will cost an order of magnitude more than this.

The cost of educating someone costs the UK government £19k

The cost of the environmental impact for one person growing up in the UK is approximately £30k

Every episode of self-harm costs the NHS a minimum of £800

The list of things goes on and on...

And these are just the things that the government has to pay for, it doesn't include the costs shouldered by family and friends.

The Samaritans estimate the cost to the economy of each suicide in the UK is around £1.5M

If giving 250 trans kids medication saves even 1 life that's a genuinely cost-effective measure. There were fewer than 100, but taking the option away has sent many teens for whom this wasn't an option (yet) into a spiral of concern.

Much like with anything, learning more only ever reveals more to learn, I'm in the process of reading guides, understanding processes, thinking up plans and discovering why they won't work.

One of the biggest barriers I'm facing is the sheer amount of things I do not know that I do not know about.

I do know a lot about how the sausages are made so to speak, I've always been engaged to one degree or another and I've always had some form of feedback. But I've unfortunately got some big blind spots that I'm only now learning about.

The more I look at it the more I worry about having insufficient expertise, who I should turn to for help and how I should do that.

One of the easy ways is throwing money at the problem, getting a political science degree, or hiring accountants and lawyers could help, I know there are political experts within parties too, but I personally don't have enough resources to make that a viable option.

I know that many politicians get training on how to talk and act during debates, how to interact with the media, and advice on how to be as polished as they can be. PR teams exist for this but again hiring them is something I don't have the resources for.

Right now the process is digging my teeth in and getting a good look at the ways things should work, but I'm finding time and again that there are things to which I had a simplistic understanding of. And I'm very worried about what that would mean as a legislator. I'd be making decisions from insufficient data about topics which take a lifetime to become fully informed on. And I'd have to do it on dozens of subjects all at the same time.

Unfortunately, I cannot fall back upon my default options for aid because they're all tied in with a party I'm not going to be joining and people who are likely to not want to have anything to do with what I'm planning because of that.

I have it in the back of my mind that the average reading age is lower than you might expect in the UK and across the world for that matter, reports suggest that the UK average literacy level sits around that of 9-11 year-olds.

I do worry about that and I know that a lot of what I write in my blog may be inaccessible to some. There are tools to improve my writing and I am accessing a few of them. But that doesn't make me perfect by any means and utilising the tools too much would take away my voice, making me sound robotic.

I understand that my constituents have their limits I also have to be mindful that really the blog isn't designed to be read by everyone. The blog must be coming up on 20,000 words and it's only going to get longer over the next few years. I shouldn't expect the average person to read it all.

I may have a few followers who are dedicated enough to me to read everything. To you, I am honoured.

I would also expect my competition will read as a way to find things to use against me. To you, if my content informed or enlightened you even if I do not win it has done its job.

And there may be journalists who go through everything to report on things that are of public interest. To you, I hope this made your day interesting and your job easy.

Once again today I realised the amount of effort it takes to care for other people. It's not the first time I've learned this lesson and I doubt it'll be the last refresher I need.

Even being on the edge of someone else's circle while they're having hard times be that the loss of a pet, an unwanted pregnancy, the degradation that comes with old age, the challenges of being the target of culture wars, or anything else can be incredibly hard work.

You have to protect them from your issues that might compound theirs. You have to put in all the effort to maintain the relationship while they deal with what they're going through. And you have to roll with the punches as they lash out.

Life has a way of piling on these challenges and it tends to pile them on all at the same time.

Today I gave a summary of the king's speech in person and it sparked a discussion on rent reform and the housing crisis.

I am not a homeowner, and if it's up to me I never want to actually own where I live so I acknowledge my perspective is entirely one-sided, getting the opportunity to learn about the alternative perspectives was fun.

The changes that I've heard are coming have (for me) some drawbacks. It's not going to be every landlord but I do fear that there will be people who choose not to rent properties out long-term because they have no way to assert their ownership unless the tenant breaks rules. No-fault evictions act as security for some people, they are the house to escape to in the event of an abusive partner, they're the house their kid can move into when they become an adult, they're the house that they can sell if they lose their job.

If a tenant comes along with a sale, or cannot be evicted when the owner needs the use of a property then in some cases renting that house reduces the value of owning it.

I know it's not everyone and I know there's plenty of abuses with no-fault evictions but if it's some people who use properties this way then the safety blanket of owning that second or third property they might choose not to rent and as a result, it might have consequences. More houses will need to be built because more houses are left almost permanently vacant and the cost of renting will go up in the meanwhile.

I worry that the removal of no-fault evictions targets small landlords much more strongly than corporate landlords with dozens or hundreds of homes making the rich richer and acting as another glass ceiling.

I listened to the other views at the table and there were concerns about the treatment of renters and it's clear the world is messy.

I don't know what the long-term impacts are going to be on this policy, I don't understand it enough.

I wouldn't want to do things that will exacerbate any problem, especially one that's as endemic as the housing crisis.

It is clear the only answers to some topics are going to be ones that are complicated and nuanced and I worry that in order to sell this policy a simple solution has been presented and communicated but that's not what we will get from the legislation.

Yesterday, I received my first hate comment and I had one reply but there are other aspects, some I've addressed before, and some I haven't (I will add policing to my list of future posts). For this post though it's more about my philosophy.

While I may or may not align with various aspects of people and parties. I believe that most people are trying their best from their perspective in a complicated world.

Most MPs have to balance out their personal opinions with the things that will get them attacked by the press or their competition on local and national stages, within their party and those candidates who might stand against them. They have to work with and for other people. They have to project confidence that they know what they're doing and have confidence instilled in them that others believe they can do the jobs required of them.

I might not agree with any person about some single policy decision or even a collection of policy decisions but I'm not going to attack them personally for those decisions. Especially when I cannot fully understand why they're making those decisions.

I can be critical about the decisions being made because I have different perspectives or information and I can do that without needing to villainise anyone for the decisions they have made.

If I want to work in parliament, casting all people who I may have to work with as being corrupt and evil is going to make them wary of me and it's going to make me unable to truly work with them. I don't know about you but if I say something untrue often enough I start to believe it and I can't risk falling into that trap.

If I end up working in parliament I'm going to be working on my own in many cases and I'll need to do a lot of different jobs for myself because I'll be doing it without the support of a party structure. I'll have to talk with lots of people and need to work with them.

I'll fight the good fight where I can, as much as I can, for as long as I can. But, I find it's often easier to get people to come over and help you if you aren't attacking them in your request for help.

That may cast me as a bootlicker.

I call it being responsible with my time, energy and other resources.

No one is perfect, no government or leader or representative will make only the decisions that you or I would like in all situations, which leaves an infinite number of opportunities for me to cast each and every member of parliament as a villain, and that would then extend in reverse if I ever got elected.

So I choose to believe most people are trying their best from their perspective in a complicated world.

And when they show me who they are, where their self-interest lies, I believe them

Looking back at the history of the labour party they've often had aspirations of being progressive, and when they've been in opposition they've had genuinely left members helming the ship, making a charge for progressive policies and pushing a progressive agenda. This is how we've had some of our most progressive laws passed under a Tory governments.

But if you look back on the history of the labour party when they've been in power have they ever really been left?

Starmer is firmly in the centre and I term him a small c conservative in that he doesn't want to change things too much, only doing just enough to stabilise the economy and with some luck bring trust back to government. I'm not sure he's done either yet, but he so far hasn't been worse than his immediate predecessors

Blair was center, he did as much privatisation as Thatcher with a fresh coat of paint and a smile many NHS systems were outsourced to private companies, public transport went in a similar direction with many private bus and train companies springing into existence. And they barely moved the needle on some social issues.

Callaghan was centre, he's noted for having fought a rebellion to the left of his party, including members like Corbyn, MPs proudly saying they weren't leftists, John Golding for example was the "hammer of the left" putting an end to the Militant faction.

And as we go back through history things are further conservative by modern standards. The NHS for example was the big socialist experiment at the time and many members of the then labour party had to be convinced where now you'd find few but the most ardent conservatives claiming it as anything apart from a good thing, almost no-one is overtly fighting for it's dismantlement or dissolution.

The Labour party is left of the conservatives for sure and at times they are left of the liberal democrats, but the party dances to centre each and every time they attain power, and at times they dance centre right especially as the conservatives chase those louder voices to their right.

I've been told that if I get into parliament I need to specialise and really I should pick those specialties right now and just focus on them and let other people worry about other things.

I have some specialties I can bring to the table there are definitely things for which I'm passionate about, I understand well and I can bring that expertise with me.

Social Housing and the Benefits system, I have experience working with my Social Housing provider and I've done Work Experience with the Job Center, I've been though homelessness and I've been though the benefits system and even been on the receiving end of glitches and errors.

Mental Health and the NHS, I've struggled with my health for most of my life, I was the fat kid at school, I've had undiagnosed or untreated conditions, I've dealt with physical disability, been treated and mistreated by the NHS but I see how most people within the NHS are genuinely caring and want to help. I applied for nurse training during the pandemic and want to see the NHS thrive.

Computers and Technology, my first passion as an adult was computers and computing, I studied Computer Science, AI and Mathematics at Aberystwyth University at 18. I know the things to look out for and the questions to ask. I understand the research process and I have experience reading technical papers. I understand the skill it takes to make things seem effortless and the limitations computers have. I want to see technologies that make the world a better place and see people with good ideas get funding for their projects, ideas may fail or reveal themselves to be infeasible but that's a cost of research, but failure is often just as important to science as the successes.

I have a whole range of issues like these that I have intimate and detailed personal knowledge of and I will want to pursue all of them. I will not be an expert on all the issues, I cannot know everything.

I know that saying "I don't know anything about X" is going to be seen or used as a weakness.

I don't think it is, I think that acknowledging there are things I don't know is a strength, it shows that I'm willing to learn and listen, and that I'm not going to jump to conclusions and give answers to things based on limited information.

I believe every right that exists comes with an associated responsibility.

The right to life comes with the responsibility to provide protections and safeguards from violence in the form of policing and courts.

The right to freedom and liberty comes with the responsibility to not prevent others from living their lives the way they would like to.

The right to free speech is a responsibility to use that speech wisely, to be educated and to ensure others can be educated.

The right to property and ownership comes with the responsibility to not hoard more than you need to take more than what is fair and reasonable

First off thank you for my first question!

I have I think touched on the two child cap in other posts, but I this is an interesting exercise

At a glance I can think of a number of costs to having the 2 child cap. Firstly you're punishing people for something out of their control, second pregnancy twins, or multiple births beyond triplets at any stage lead to parents who have additional struggles.

You're in effect strong arming women into abortions for their financial security which is horrific. I'm pro choice but there's the choice aspect of that. I don't think we should be adding pressures to the choice, especially a choice where one side can make a woman feel like they murdered their unborn kid and on the other side is a life of poverty and inability to adequately raise their kid(s) in the happy nurturing environment that all kids deserve.

There will enevitably be more kids that are put up for adoption which is not that much more pleasent than abortions, if it's a multiple birth situation you're forcing parents to pick a child to abandon. Or they are forced to give up all the children from that pregnancy, this adds to the problems of the adoption and foster care systems which are already struggling.

Then if the parent persists and keeps the child and the choice pushes them into actual poverty then the child will face additional challenges growing up. Being in poverty risks a child's physical health if they are effectively starving, I know families who have had to make the choice for a parent to effectively starve in order to buy nappies and baby formula. Parents who only eat what their children do not finish.

Children will experiences additional social stress being the kid who doesn't have the nice things will make them the odd one out at school and will push them to becoming a victim of bullying or an instigator of bullying as a way of protecting themselves.

There may be a need to involve Social Services, Police, Mental Health Sevices and so on within the effected children's lives and all these things have a cost associated with them.

One child over and above the benefit cap will impact 4 lives at the very least, adding stress, anxiety, pain and suffering in many cases.

I do not believe that there are many people are not out there getting deliberately pregnant so that the supplementary benefits will make life easier.

A child costs far more than the child benefits covers and most parents know that, they realise another child won't ultimately help them and they cannot bare the suffering of giving up a pregnancy preterm or after birth even with that knowledge.

I haven't looked into the individual costs because the costs largely depend on a number of factors some of which cannot easily be accounted for. However Child Benefits are a means tested benefit, you do not get them unless they would make a significant difference to your household, as a result I believe the ultimate costs per person would be significantly larger for implementing the cap than for removing it.

Hi Anon, Thanks for the question

One of the big problems we will face with getting the number of houses built that this government has targetted is the requirement for parking spaces for those houses. We can no longer build streets of terrace houses because each house is supposed to have room for 2 cars. This is why new build blocks of flats come with carparks and new build houses usually come with front parking spaces or garages.

I'd like to use tech to solve the problem there are underground parking garages that would fit in almost any community but they come with the risk that a breakdown would cause a neighbourhood to be without access to their cars. I've seen examples of this on Tom Scott's YouTube here which can include electric car charging and are much more secure than on-street parking.

Storing cars off the street like this makes them a hassle to access, which means that you need to build the area around that limitation. While discouraging driving you have to provide all the things a community might need. Every 100 or so houses should have a shop or commercial space, every 250 houses should have a park. This makes the area walkable and enjoyable for families.

Every 1000 houses should have some form of community resource which might be a community centre, doctor's office, library, school or faith building. The community resource should be the last thing that's built, there should be space earmarked for it and when residents have started to buy up the finished properties and move in they should get an opportunity to decide what they think they would use most.

These should often be built in conjunction with one another, if there's the opportunity for 5000 houses to be built near one another. We could end up with a village that has 2 primary schools, a doctor's office, a library/community centre, and a church for the community buildings, while in the commercial spaces there could be 5 corner shops, 5 charity shops, a salon, a barber shop, a bank, a local supermarket, 5 pubs or takeaways, 5 other faith buildings, a telecom exchange, 6 electric substations, a retirees centre, several spaces for small local businesses/offices, and to fulfil the green space requirements there'd be 10 small parks/playgrounds and 1 larger park with 10x the space maybe with basket ball/tennis courts, lawn bowls, some football posts on a field and a set of toilets. This would end up being a somewhat balanced community with room for many different sorts of people to move in and become a community through their shared access to these spaces.

Social housing should be an integral part of every community, 1/10 homes being one that should be sold to a social landlord or council, these should be picked at random so it's impossible to tell which streets or which properties in a given street are social landlords vs owned by the person living in them vs private rented. They absolutely should not be the cheapest houses the building company can provide that meets the social housing specification while other houses in the same area are bigger or have more things built into their fabric.

Making a village like this walkable and limiting the parking to the parking structures means you can forgo streets and use many of the road spaces as green spaces with walking paths, trees and so on.

If I were designing this I'd have concentric circular roads connected by spokes on T junctions where the 4th road goes into a parking structure and the spoke roads may be on every 3rd or 4th 'street'. the result should be no one is more than a few minutes walk from one parking structure or another, and each structure could have storage for 50 to 100 cars, which would probably mean people would end up meeting at the structures around rush hours adding more opportunities to build the community.

I understand that this wouldn't be workable in all areas but I think that if 5-10% of the projects looked like this they'd be able to provide a higher density of housing with an improved local environment over the concrete jungle with tarmac driveways and tiny gardens model which has come to dominate in many new build locations.

Even though I think this is a good solution, I understand that it could only be done with planning directed by the government because this shift in the layout and structure of new communities is rather radical. I see that it would face huge amounts of resistance from commercial ventures thinking that it's not viable, installing the technologies is going to take skills and extra money we don't currently have easily available relatively speaking, even if I believe there would ultimately be an appetite for this sort of community and people would easily adapt to living in these sorts of villages because it's so different it might take time to be accepted.

I'm worried about the processes by which the government are going to try to meet their campaign promises, I've already seen a few occasions where the Labour party, Rayner and Starmer have come under fire for falling behind on their affordable housing goal for this parliament, the opposition have pressed it a few times and the media have mentioned it.

1000 new homes per day

At the time of writing, we're 50 days into the government, that's 50,000 additional homes they've promised and I'm betting construction hasn't started on these.

There will be plenty of opportunities for private firms to buy land and secure the ability to build on it, build some homes. But private firms have a vested interest in producing fewer bigger more expensive homes, fewer homes available means less supply and higher demand increasing the prices.

With so many new affordable homes the intent of the government may be to pop the housing market, make houses more affordable by driving down both the price of new houses as well as existing ones.

This, if not done carefully, is going to saddle a lot of people with negative equity on their mortgages which may have economic knock on effects.

So Private companies are either going to be less inclined to take on this challenge as it bumps their risk while reducing their return on investment. Meaning the government are going to have to turn the screws to make this happen through other methods.

So we turn our attention to local authority housing and social housing providers to do this.

There are still some local authorities with housing stock that may be able to incorporate this into their systems, but if the housing stock was previously sold off developing a whole system to go along with the modern responsibilities of a social landlord is not something they can attempt

Leaving Social Housing providers as those in the best position to shoulder the responsibility of delivering this promise. Social Landlords are very similar in some ways to charities, they're not-for-profit organisations on which a lot of people depend. Having them take a huge risk of building more and faster than ever before could cause them to collapse, fail to provide services to residents and need to be bailed out or brought out in some form or another.

Bailouts will cost Billions, the housing sector is huge, even a moderate provider with 2000 properties may be worth more than a hundred million pounds in just brick and mortar.

While Buyouts won't necessarily be feasible for other social landlords, if the sector is being pushed to the brink of collapse in order to provide the homes promised by the government unless there's a huge hidden rainy day fund they're holding back every provider will be in a similar situation. And so I'd be worried about the private sector buying up homes with considerable rent control in order to evict vulnerable residents to attempt to get higher rents.

The NHS is currently under massive mismanagement, too much money that is in the NHS budget is earmarked for private firms to provide care on behalf of the NHS. These private services are often not fit for purpose and whether they're used or not cost more than the NHS employing the staff to provide the actual required services in-house.

I only consider things that the NHS has control over to be within the NHS's budget. If the money must be paid to a company dictated by law or the Department for Health, rather than managed by people who work for the NHS and are paid from the NHS budget then the money isn't really NHS money and never was. By this metric, I think that the NHS has had severe funding cuts for at least 15 years, even beyond the fact that the NHS funding hasn't increased in line with inflation.

I think true free universal healthcare is an economic boon, people being unworried about their health and the costs associated with it improves their ability to handle other life stresses. It makes them more likely to be working and paying into the system.

I think there are a number of treatments that should be able to bypass GPs for adults, where Addiction and Public Health concerns are not an issue it should be possible to simply talk to a pharmacist to get access to certain medications. Self-diagnosis is entirely valid for many things and if those treatments were free and easy to access for anyone it could do an immense amount of good.

A list of drugs would include HRT, painkillers, side effect management, mood stabilisers, and SSRIs. At least at the lowest dosages and for some perhaps for a limited number of dispenses between physician visits. But other treatments might include mobility aids, physical therapy, counselling and so on. Making them accessible without GP time frees them to take more time with patients who need more help or don't know the right path to take.

Recreational drugs should also be available through pharmacies cheaply, making recreational drugs safer, directing people to less addictive alternatives, restricting dispenses to a single-day dosage and offering regular health monitoring improves the lives of users keeping them safer and reducing costs associated with overdosing or poisons. Removing the drug industry from criminal enterprises could make a significant dent in the associated crime, no longer would users be required to steal to pay for the most addictive drugs and long-term users are less likely to be pushed into taking the most dangerous recreational chemicals, and recreational drugs can be taxed too.

Destigmatising drug use is also a benefit, in many cases drug use is no worse than alcohol, and in some situations is safer for both the individual and society as a whole, but by letting people take the drugs they want to or need to without stigma allows them to hold down jobs more easily.

If it's health-related it should be possible to get it freely, easily and with minimal barriers. This is true for sickness, mental health services, optometry, and dentistry. I might even suggest rolling in alternative medicines where the practitioners understand that the service they're providing is in effect hypnosis or a very effective placebo and is not a replacement for actual medicines but can supplement other treatments.

For gatekept services like antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics, more intensive treatments and treatments that require ongoing monitoring this is the ideal realm of GPs, they're there to make sure the right drugs are being used, the right dosages are being suggested, that the usage doesn't create drug-resistant strains of common illnesses and that the overall health of patients is considered including the managing of side effects or signposting of other services when someone is seeking a treatment path that could benefit from specialists.

The only reason to deny a patient treatment should be public health or patient-related, the financial impact of prescriptions, services and recommendations must not be made to be the concern of the people deciding on what the best treatments are.

While I do believe it's in the best interest of everyone that the NHS be entirely free at the point of use, I'm not against some access to the NHS being costed either, where treatments are costly, risky or unnecessary like recreational drugs or elective surgeries then charges may be applicable to fast track through waiting lists or to get access. And rather than duplicating services with private healthcare for people wishing to bypass public waiting lists if you have the money and are willing to pay for your own treatment and costs associated with bumping others down the list you can jump to the head of the queue.

The nationalisation of private medical firms and bringing their staff under the NHS umbrella would start to address the staffing issues present within UK healthcare. The market value for NHS staff payments as well as working conditions should be enough to attract people to work here from other countries. And by hiring or training world-class practitioners we can ethically accept paying patients who travel to the UK for treatments too.

I realised that we kind of need an ethics code for all industries law. So I outlined this in a discussion with a friend

Any industry or job title where any individual receives pay in excess of twice the median income is required to have a public ethics code to which all people with that job title or role are contractually bound.

Those ethics standards must include at least the following items

To not commit crimes as part of your job

To report up the chain, to the OfEWP and relevant law enforcement when crimes are committed

Looking out for the well-being of subordinates

Ensuring the actions taken are in the long-term interest of the organisation

etc etc (I am sure there are hundreds of suggestions that could be made please comment your own)

And may include additional items depending on the job role, responsibilities and public perception.

We are creating the Office for Ethical Working Practices OfEWP, who will be responsible for providing the guidance and moderation for the various codes of ethics proposed by industries and taking public feedback on both the practicality and reasonable expectations of the various Ethical Codes that may be produced by industry bodies, unions or other organisations empowered to produce an ethical framework.

Where some job title or job role exists that doesn't have a professional body to help with the production of an ethical framework the OfEWP will be able to maintain and provide on request the currently agreed ethical standards.

Example roles at the time of publication include:

CEO

COO

CFO

Director

Executive

Senior Manager

Board Member

This is not an extensive list

Where creative naming of job titles is used to avoid a particular ethical framework the OfEWP is empowered to determine all the appropriate Ethical Frameworks based on a list of job responsibilities, where more than one is necessary to cover all responsibilities the person would be bound by law to all those frameworks.

Where Ethics codes are violated we give the courts power to enforce earnings restrictions and job role restrictions for those who use unethical practices, violations of these restrictions will incur fines starting at the total earned above the restrictions and jail time.

Where the OfEWP and an industry body cannot agree on an ethical framework the OfEWP can require the withholding/garnishment of 10% of salary for each person with that job role, this money is to be retained by the government/OfEWP until the ethical framework is agreed, sanctioned money will be returned after no more than 12 months without any accrued interest and only after the resolution of the ethical framework dispute.

However I feel I'd need to dress it up in legalese and address some of the gaping omissions in how it's written above

This idea is roughly in line with Wylie's suggestion about industry ethics law in the Cambridge Analytica book I read not too long ago

Twice the median income seems like a reasonable cut-off at ~£70k currently in the UK. I'd imagine most industries with anyone over £50k would come together, establish an industry body and agree an ethical framework aspirationally

I think that having an 'independent' body responsible for the maintenance of ethical standards is necessary or you face easy corruption through parliament. The development of ethical frameworks is kind of beyond the scope of parliament anyway.

I think the sanctions need to be real not simply a vanishingly small fine.

If someone was limited to "a median salary equivalent annual income" by the courts and they lie and get paid millions then they should be fined all the money they should never have been able to earn.

If someone is limited from certain job roles or jobs that require certain ethical requirements for 5-10 years that would also be reasonable as a way of discouraging unethical behaviour individually.

There might need to be costs for companies that have unethical employees too.

The withholding of pay forces in some ways the industry to come together and actually produce a reasonable ethics code and/or provide reasonable assurances as to why a particular ethical practice should be excluded from their code.

Anyone subject to these sanctions would have a year of sanctions returned on resolution (if it dragged out)

After a set up period, the interest on withheld funds might pay for the OfEWP's work without additional cost to the treasury, long term that might not hold true because industries would want to create and abide by the ethical standards.

Any expired sanctioned funds should get added to the treasury to make a dent in the national debt, as it cannot be a reliable income stream by definition I think this is the best use of those funds rather than earmarking them for other parts of the budget.

Lastly, if an industry wants to be unethical it technically could by effectively increasing the tax rate of people with that job by a flat 10% (no matter their tax bracket) and they get shamed as an industry that can't produce or agree to an ethical framework. That would be an option within law if an industry wanted to do that.