Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The state of British politics

I find it easier to comment on British politics from a safe distance away. What struck me as interesting today were the Liberal Democrats' spring conference in Liverpool and kind of budget he would introduce if he were the real chancellor instead of Alistair Darling.

The LibDem leader, Nick Clegg, is critical of the winner-takes-all electoral system which sustains Britain's two-party system and squeezes out alternative views. It is not going to change, for the same reason that turkeys do not vote for Christmas. That is the way that Britain will always be unless something drastic were to happen that would force reform, but in that case it is unlikely that would be for the better. It is probably a more productive use of energy to stand back and really try to understand what is going on and attempt to influence opinion from the sidelines rather than get sucked in to a bad system.

As for the shadow chancellor - the depressing thing there is the lack of any sign of fresh thinking. The tax system leaks like a rusty old bucket. Perhaps a better description would be that it is an attempt to collect puffs of smoke in a string bag. Any would-be chancellor with a scrap of imagination would see that the system is indefensible, in a state of near collapse and ripe for reform. And the fact that tax systems are little better elsewhere ought, one might have thought, have given added incentive. Whilst Osborne delivers some well-aimed criticism at Alistair Darling's stupid proposals for change, he offers nothing beyond a little bit of tinkering.

The sad thing is that the old Liberal party actually had radical views on taxation, but dropped them when the party amalgamated with the Social Democrats. And so all the parties are offering the same policies, with same ingredients only in different proportions. It seems there is nobody in power who recognises that the whole concoction has gone off and needs to be slung out.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...