Tuesday, 24 March 2015

The Tory Party Wants to Win Again.

Even the awkward squad have been silent. There is no dissent from the back-benches and Cameron's gaffe - that he will not serve a third term - meaning there will be a leadership contest at some point in the next parliament, is being described as "a disaster". And it isn't good news for the Tories: it's certainly and own goal and an unforced error from the Prime Minister. But it has made Cameron, quite a lot more popular than Miliband, the subject of discussion. I am not sure this is a wholly bad thing. Labour are so inept, they considered running with "vote Cameron, get Boris" as if replacing the most popular party leader with the country's most popular politician and current mayor of London would be a disaster for the Conservatives.


one reason the Tories will win

Given the Tories discipline, and they wheeled out some pretty solid performances yesterday from even those named as potential successors, dismissing it as "a politician answering a question" is a successful line to take. And this was repeated by journalists on the news; Even Alastair Campbell struggled. The Tories defence gained traction, and so I think this will be less damaging than it could have been.

This incident though also goes to show what's wrong with our "political class", and it's not the politicians. It's not they unrepresentative. Women are selected in roughly the proportion they put themselves forward, ethnic minorities are only slightly under-represented and may be about the same proportion as in the general population after the next election, and not only sitting for "diverse" seats. MPs are middle class, but is it surprising that the working class, who seem to despise education, aren't producing many men and women of ideas to sit in parliament?

You have people stating as fact parliament is too "male, pale and stale". 'Middle-class' is a term of abuse and the lie that politics is unrepresentative is constantly repeated. The people doing this are the media. To the kind of "young people" that turn up on the media, anyone in a suit is "middle-class" who "doesn't understand" what young people experience. It's nonsense of course, but the media feed it.

What do you want? Parliament filled with semi-educated failures who're representative only of utter grockles? Parliamentarians chosen by gender and race, but utterly compliant to the whim of the executive? This is Labour's way. Because it seems ensuring diversity of appearance ensures a monoculture of political ideas. Worse you get risible Children like Red Princes Will Straw and Euan Blair or Princess Emily Benn who said
"I represent the ward I was born in, which is y'know more important than where you come from..."
...While the cameras were rolling. She's 25, and is being wheeled out to demonstrate their commitment to youth issues. By which labour mean tuition fees. Which they introduced. I am sure having Great Granddad, Granddad and Father all Labour MPs had absolutely no bearing on her selection.
"Judge me,on my ideas"
...I look forward to it. The Tories have always been less ethnically diverse but a broader church of ideas, and so harder to lead.

But they want it bad this time. The hatchet has been buried. The awkward squad are satisfied they will get their deepest desire: the EU referendum, and are working for it. Cameron has unified the ununifiable behind him, for a couple more years at least.

As for the election? The polls are neck and neck to a slight Tory lead. And the campaign proper has not yet begun. Labour are going to be near wiped out in Scotland, and have Ed Miliband "in Charge". When the broad mass of the electorate have a good look at him, they will say "urgh". Labour MPs openly call their leader a "fucking knob". UKIP are slipping, 18% a few months ago, nearer 14% now. Plenty of their supporters won't bother, or will vote Tory to keep Labour out. Thanks to the Scots, the national Labour inbuilt advantage is no more. A ten point move during a campaign is common. And there really is only one way it can go....

There will be a Tory majority.



Wednesday, 18 March 2015

On Osborne's Inheritance Tax Cut

Back in 2007, I wrote

there is a very simple solution to the problem, which prevents middle Britain being hit by a tax that is designed to punish the very rich: first homes should not qualify for IHT (subject to caveats such as time occupied and value to prevent abuse - you couldn't have everyone buying mansions to die in to avoid tax)
...which is more or less what George Osborne appears to be proposing. However I didn't consider it a priority then, and I don't think it a priority now.

There will be lots of guff about how "insane" cutting this tax is. It's not insane. Inheritance tax is deeply unfair, unpleasant and resented. It's falls hardest on those who've not prepared for death. And it has come after big cuts to income taxes, so I'm reasonably content.

The main problem with the UK economy is for people to see property as an investment, not as consumption. This encourages people to see their homes as their main asset, and care deeply about how much it's worth. People oppose dilution of their assets. This is why any and all development - new houses - are opposed so viciously by "the community". The problem isn't inheritance tax, it's the tendency of old people to hang around in the big family homes long after their family has flown the nest. And their family, when they come to produce grandchildren cannot have a family home because they're all owned by the baby-boomers. Children are being brought up in flats while granny lives in the big house. And Granny's in rude health. By the time the house gets passed on, it will be to people well on the way to being grandparents themselves.

Rather than cut inheritance tax on homes, it would make more sense to abolish stamp duty, and make the housing market more liquid. Encourage granny to downsize as soon as little Jonny and Camilla have left for university, with increases to property taxes like council tax offsetting cuts to other income taxes. Granny should take the equity in the house, and invest it in productive assets for her retirement, or use it to help Jonny or Camilla  buy a house for their families.

Above all, we need more houses. And cutting inheritance tax on houses doesn't help more of them get built. I never oppose a tax cut. And I dislike inheritance tax because it is unfair. From 2007 again 
It is essentially a voluntary tax and is often described as a tax on the unlucky and the unwise. Businesses are exempt as are farms. Potentially exempt transfers can usually see to the rest, and the threshold at £285,000 [now £325,000 - transferrable] is generous. The problem is that it hits unexpected deaths harder than quiet passings in old age. Consider this: A family loses both parents in a car crash and the tax-man - as a direct result - also takes the family home. That's not on.
I'd want to see stamp duty go, or see more income tax cuts before I cut inheritance tax. After all, Inhertiance tax is, for most people, entirely voluntary, so long as they trust their children, and don't die unexpectedly. I see why the chancellor is doing this - UKIP have pledged to abolish inheritance tax completely and inheritance tax is wildly unpopular, even amongst people who are unlikely to pay it. This is a policy aimed squarely at the Daily Mail reader and there's an election very shortly.



Thursday, 12 March 2015

On Discrimination Laws

So, Nigel Farage wants to scrap discrimination laws.

And I sort of see where he's probably coming from. The left and right have very different views of what's in the driving seat of society. The left, with echos of Marxist-Leninist 'vanguard of the proletariat' thinks the habits of the people can and should be changed by law, and law can and should be driven by the elite, leading the way for the people. Most classical Liberals on the other hand think laws against behaviours tend to happen when a majority broadly support them, and not before. It's the argument in society leading up to the change in the law which changes behaviour, not the law itself. I doubt greatly whether anti-discrimination laws have affected the level of discrimination much, if at all. I suspect they probably reflect a point where there was a change in society's opinion, which started long before 1965 race relations act, and continued through the 1980s.

Pre 1965 it was common, apparently, (I was born in '77) to see "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" signs. Nowadays, anyone displaying that sign, wouldn't get my business either. I am inclined to let people discriminate, but only if they do so openly, and see what it does for their businesses. Society's distaste is more powerful at curbing behaviour than the law. But I am really not fussed about race discrimination laws, and certainly wouldn't make repealing them a priority, partly because I don't want to be misunderstood and thought to be racist, and partly because I might be wrong about society, and I cannot see what harm having these laws on the statute books does. If it ain't broken, and I don't think the architecture of Britain's race relations are broken, don't fix it.

But 'KIPpers will not see this, because st. Nigel (PBUH) has spoken and their thick, ignorant activists will go around claiming now that race discrimination legislation allows for discrimination against whites and British, which of course they do not. If there is little racism in society as Farage claims, then race discrimination laws have little effect. And if there IS racism in society, then there is an argument that race discrimination laws are still necessary which is powerful.

This demonstrates UKIP's amateurishness. If you're a right-populist party, running on an anti-immigration ticket, constantly beset by accusations of racism, and with several high-profile activists being caught saying really ignorant, stupid things about race, then I cannot see why these laws should be a priority, unless you are openly gunning for the racist, ex-BNP vote in Labour's northern fiefdoms.

Are you touting for racists' votes, or are you, Nigel, a thicko with a tin-ear, who's out of his depth?



Tuesday, 10 March 2015

The Politics of "Ditch Decisions"

The role of the young army officer, like politicians, is to make expensive decisions, under pressure with inadequate information. Imagine you are walking down the road and you come under effective enemy fire. It doesn't matter which ditch you jump into, but it's generally better if you're all on the same side of the road and know where the bullets are coming from. And that, in a nutshell is what command and control is. You do not stand in the road, getting shot at, arguing about which ditch is best, because the status quo, being shot at, is completely unacceptable, and almost anything is better.

There are many 'ditch decisions' in politics.

We need more runways in the south-east of England. Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and Heathrow ring London, and have their champions, and to whom any decision that isn't their chosen solution is "crazy". Someone is going to have to make a decision, and any decision will piss most people off. Boris Island isn't crazy. An extra runway at Heathrow isn't crazy, nor is one at Gatwick, Luton or Stansted. Capacity needs to be built somewhere. Does anyone imagine in 50 years, that we would regret building Boris Island, having done so? No, there would be breathless documentaries about how "controversial" it was at the time, but praising the visionary architects and engineers that made it possible.

We have long needed new baseline power generation. Gas, Coal, Biomass and Nuclear all have their adherents, for whom any decision which isn't invested in their chosen solution, is "crazy". If no decision is made, then the lights go out. One of Labour's criminal acts was to play chicken with the prospect of widespread power cuts, unwilling for reasons of electoral triangulation to make a decision about where and what to build.

We need more rail capacity in the UK. High Speed 2 may not be everyone's favoured solution. I've long thought the money could be spent upgrading existing stock and lengthening platforms. But then I get told there's a firm limit to train length set in stone and brick by some curved Victorian tunnels on the network, so lengthening platforms can only deliver so much extra capacity. I am no expert on Rail. The person who told me this was, and I was convinced, though I cannot remember the details. There is no real alternative to new lines. Again. A decision needs to be made, and whichever is chosen, a majority of people will be annoyed. UKIP, especially, have no need of tiresome "facts" and "information". They just decided there's votes in opposing HS2, and they would mouth the anger.

Mundane questions of waste disposal, recycling, power generation, landfill, road-building and maintenance all concentrated harms and distributed benefits and situating the infrastructure is never popular.

What matters is that a decision is made in a timely manner, having considered all the information, as much as possible. Somebody, somewhere is going to get kicked in the bollocks, as a rail line or motorway cuts through the view he paid a fortune for (another argument for a land-value-tax, but that's a post for another day). One of the things poisoning politics, is an expectation that in a democracy, the Government, can please you in all things, all the time. It can't because it's weighing the need of Businessmen to get to New York against the rights of residents of West London - people whose interests in the matter of a new runway at Heathrow are fundamentally opposed. The tendency of people to see 'each-way' decisions as binary morality is a result, and a reinforcement of an unwillingness to give the decision-makers the benefit of the doubt, allied to a fundamental mistrust of their motives. The needs of the Businessman to get to New York might mean a concentrated benefit, and the costs distributed across the many. But the benefits of a stronger economy, and greater logistic and transport links are likewise distributed. If you can get to New York (or anywhere else you might like to go) cheaper, you're richer. But anger is stoked by grievance mongers like the SNP and UKIP, who're mostly not called upon to make these decisions.

People are ignorant as to how decisions are made. We fear that which we don't understand. Worse than ignorance is motivated reasoning, which sees the government blamed for all the bad things, yet receiving no credit for positive outcomes and the general well being of the country. There is a robust decision-making process in the UK, one that is mostly uncorrupted, and seeks to weigh competing interests fairly. We are well-governed. We have a diverse and resilient economy. I think we're governed bit too hyper-actively, but that is arguable, and we libertarians must accept most people do not yet agree with our vision of what the state is for. Politicians could do with speaking human, and accepting that zero-sum decisions need to be made, and someone is going to be worse off. The electorate for their part must have the maturity to realise there are no solutions, only trade-offs, and not vote for half-arsed nutcases like UKIP and the Greens, in a fit of ranty angst. The Government deserves the benefit of the doubt, most of the time, when they do finally decide which ditch to jump into.



There was an error in this gadget