Ten New Policies - 2 comments

One of the indulgences of election-watching is to attempt to interpret what the electorate - aggregating across millions of individual decisions - 'really meant' . In defeat, this usually turns out to be a desire for greater movement on the writer's own pet policies; in victory, proof that the electorate's flirtations with the other side meant those half-baked ideas of yours were merely ahead of their time... Ideas do come cheap, and no-one spares a thought for the intelligent people within Government who developed what appeared to be a sound idea into legislation that the mainstream media, and those who lost most from it, insisted was a thoughtless or callous attack, and which now takes the blame for electoral defeat. That's a general point, not a defence of the 10p tax change (has there been one?)

Anyway, leaving all that aside, and for what it's worth, here are ten policy ideas of my own. They reflect my current ideological viewpoint, which might not be compatible with anyone else's vision of the Labour Party, but I imagine them to be both popular and just. Take from them what you will. Note that if I haven't covered a particular area, that could either mean that I think things are just right at present (e.g. foreign policy, and international development), or that I don't have any ideas at present.

In no particular order:

1. Workers' Control. Freedom for all workers, not just trade unionists, in a push for co-operative/mutual ownership that extends across the private and public 'sectors'. This offers the chance of economic autonomy for all, as an alternative to capitalism. It rejects Statism, in favour of co-operation and competition. Everything else is mere tinkering.
2. A Referendum to decide between three revenue-neutral personal tax systems: (a) the status quo, (b) a more 'progressive' one, (c) one that reduces income tax in favour of an extensive inheritance tax.
3. Assessment of the feasibility of replacing certain benefits, and the national minimum wage, with a guaranteed national minimum income.
4. A tougher line on monopolistic behaviour: especially in the broadcast/printed media, but including the actions of public sector trade unions.
5. Investigation of the role of planning controls and private land ownership in artificially inflating/sustaining house prices, slowing redevelopment, and limiting (note) aggregate economic freedom.
6. A 'loosening' of the criminal justice system: giving Police the powers they say they need to enforce the law thoroughly, in return for appropriate scrutiny; and investigate the state of, and capacity of the prison system.
7. Removal of any restrictions upon local councils adopting London-style 'congestion' charges.
8. Removal of immigration 'targets' and other arbitrary restrictions, in return for greater aid for host areas.
9. Do whatever is necessary to address the dysfunctional relationship between central government and teachers: whether it be reconciliation, or an amicable separation.
10. Disestablishment of the Church of England: so that it may adapt to more honestly reflect the views of Christians, rather than public opinion, and to expunge its residual political power.

There you go. I've been very brief, but can expand upon individual points on request.

I hardly feel I've formed the basis of a future, winning Labour Manifesto, let alone fostered 'unity', or provided Gordon Brown with a strategy he can hit the ground running with, but the Sunday papers have been full of them, so he's not missing out.

Today's Idiocy - 4 comments

In no particular order:

Tony Blair emailing over 1.7 million people, then displaying the very same content on a page that those 1.7 million people could have read themselves at their leisure (assuming they're interested in the arguments), and at no extra cost to the taxpayer or people's inboxes.

The BBC attempting to calculate the cost of sending those mails, without even questioning the sanity of the exercise, or warning readers about the consequences of spamming.

Jade Goody axed from Comic Relief. This one writes itself:

Organisers had filmed a Question of Sport spoof in which Goody appeared with comics Jack Dee and Frank Skinner. [...]

A Comic Relief spokesman said the sketch felt "out of date" and they were concerned it could detract attention from the fundraising.

Was it 1993 or 1994 when Jack Dee stopped being funny?

Meacher enters Labour leader race. I'm not going to criticise Michael - he's beyond satire already. The tragedy for the Left - if you think that's where someone who proposes a foreign policy based upon "fundamental British interests" belongs - is that it's the considered opinion of something of the order of 20-30 Labour MPs that Meacher is a sounder bet than John McDonnell, who, at the very least, appears to have a vibrant campaign behind him, and the support of a large number of bloggers.

Nonetheless, one of these days a genuinely internationalist and pro-democracy Left will emerge and wash these white-haired crocks away, offering a vision of an alternative economy and society, rather than taxes and identity politics. Until then, I'm going to continue to back serious politicians, with plausible policies for incremental progress.

John McDonnell and Arbitrary Taxation - 7 comments

An honest, democratic tax system - to me - is one where the tax rules are set out in advance, and Governments do all they can to raise money based upon the strict application of those rules. If revenues are substantially different from what the Government expected, that suggests either a failure of collection - for which Governments must be held accountable - or that the taxation has prompted a change in economic behaviour (this is, itself, interesting, but a topic for another day). The results should be factored into the plans for the next Budget. Trying to meet a shortfall by taxing something after the event - that is to say, taxing something that an individual didn't expect to be taxed, or at a rate they couldn't have foreseen - represents an abuse of Government power, if you want my view, and not something you expect in a democracy, whether the taxes come from people who can't afford it, or who probably can. "The rule of law", I believe, is the term.

This is just what John McDonnell is proposing here, with an arbitrary tax on Christmas bonuses. Yes, clearly in some sectors of the economy they're huge, but that's no justification for what borders on theft by the State. There's no good reason that I can see why Christmas bonuses, per se, ought to be taxed, and at least in the banking sector, they're also unpredictable, making them not a source one can depend upon for funding public spending, or reducing taxes elsewhere. Now, I certainly don't think such a windfall would do much harm; the money even be put to good use, but that doesn't justify the policy, and the proceeds from any windfall should not be wasted, or simply raise expectations that would have to be met out of general taxation when the apparent bounty doesn't materialise (insert - 19/12) in subsequent years.

John invites us to contrast news of these huge bonuses with reports of new efforts to coax the long-term unemployed back into the jobs market. By contrast, he means, of course, to imply a relationship without needing to - or being able to - state what that relationship is. The implication is, presumably, that those bonuses - shared out - would solve the problem of long-term unemployment, saving us all that silly debate about skills, apathy, migration, competition, benefit traps, and marginal tax rates; also that one reason for long-term unemployment is just that the right 5-6 figure salary just didn't come along for those people. Perhaps the issue is one of education (though this doesn't seem to hold many traders back), or application, or interest, or not living near London, or not wanting to work 60-hour weeks, or preferring a stress-reduced life to the salary benefits. There are plenty of reasons why that career might not work out for people, but it's hardly the point: we need to be trying to equip people for some kind of plausible career, because I certainly don't think the kindest or most liberal approach is to allow someone to degenerate, wasting the skills they have. Everyone should care about that, it just so happens that Governments care more, it being other people's taxes.

John's quite right to talk about the need to tackle inequality, but in terms of ideas, he evidently has nothing new to offer, just a pat, simplistic approach that is designed to invigorate his supporters, woo potential supporters, and avoid making any difficult choices. Now, I did hear once that he supported the Citizen's Income, though I haven't find any evidence yet. Is this true? And if it is, why doesn't he talk about that, and help get it on the agenda, rather than all this "fantasy politics" stuff?