Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Xann]

...the day the greens get the majority of their policies anywhere near government we are all doomed

Is this the same 'we' that isn't all in this together?

I'd like to give the green doom a go, the current doom is obscene.

[tonyh29]

anyone that uses anything over than a bicycle and their feet is the short answer

banning arms exports pretty much wipes out BAE and urging Palestinians "not to perpetuate the cycle of violence" is like asking Alex McLeish to not be shit at football management ..

Apparently Milosevic should have been left alone

tbh the wiki link only skims the surface of how barking they are

Edited January 13, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

anyone that uses anything over than a bicycle and their feet is the short answer

Transport

Promoting safety and sustainability

The emphasis in transport policy should be upon improving access to local facilities and everyday transport.We would prioritise transport modes according to the following hierarchy:

1. Walking and cycling
   
   
2. Public transport (trains, trams and buses) and rail freight
   
   
3. Cars
   
   
4. Heavy goods vehicles
   
   
5. Flying
   

To encourage walking and cycling for shorter journeys and improve road safety we would:

• Reduce speed limits (e.g. to 20mph in built-up areas, including villages).
  
• Make streets safe; make them public spaces again. Plan for mixed-use developments where shops, housing and businesses are closely located and connected by pavements and cycleways.
  
• Introduce a maximum speed limit of 55mph on motorways and trunk roads, and 40mph on rural roads, to make them safer for all road users.
  
• Introduce schemes such as Home Zones, Safe Routes to School and pedestrianisation.
  
• Ensure that at least 10% of transport spending is on securing a shift to more active travel like walking and cycling. Reallocate the £30 billion the Government has earmarked for road-building over the next 10 years. Spend the money on a programme of investment in public transport over the Parliament.
  
• Provide affordable, cheaper local transport that is accessible to those with disabilities by investing in buses and subsidising some routes. Make public transport public.
  
• Reregulate bus services nationally.
  
• Assist businesses with green workplace travel plans.
  
• Give higher priority to railways and plan for a growing railway network.
  
• Open additional stations on existing routes.
  
• Invest in new Light Rapid Transit systems (using appropriate technologies).
  
• Simplify fares for all public transport, with discounted fares for off-peak journeys and for those with low incomes.
  
• Support free local transport for pensioners.
  
• Return the railways, tube system and other light railway systems, including both track and operations, to public ownership.
  
• Support in principle a new north–south high-speed line, which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK.
  

We would make the cost of private cars more effectively mirror their environmental cost to wider society:

• Abolish car tax and replace it with a purchase tax on new cars that reflects their emissions. That way we would affect the types of car chosen at the time that matters, when they are bought new.
  
• Prioritise public transport, then if necessary work towards the introduction of road pricing schemes like the London congestion charge.
  

We would reduce heavy freight and shift it from the roads to the railways:

• Reduce the demand for freight transport by localising the economy.
  
• Expand the rail freight network and make greater use of waterways, where suitable.
  
• Safeguard land adjacent to railways for use in freight distribution projects.
  
• Introduce road user tolls for heavy lorries.
  

We would reduce air travel:

• Introduce taxation on aviation that reflects its full environmental costs. Failure to tax aviation fuel, and choosing not to levy VAT on tickets and aircraft, amounts to a subsidy worth around £10bn every year in the UK alone.
  
• Stop airport expansion and shift shorter air journeys to the railways (45% of all air trips in the EU are under 500Km) .
  
• Ban night flying.
  

Investing in public transport

Expansion of public transport (and walking and cycling) is critically important to decarbonising our transport infrastructure, which is the only sector in which climate-altering carbon emissions are currently growing.

We would divert money currently being wasted on huge road projects and put more of the UK’s transport budget into public transport, and especially into local schemes for walking, cycling and bus travel.

We would spend £1.5 billion subsidising existing public transport to make fares up to 10% cheaper, and £30 billion over the Parliament on investing in a better system. This will have the effect of strengthening communities, promoting a greater appreciation of place, reducing crime, improving the health of the population and reducing traffic fatalities.

It would also create 160,000 jobs.

The new investment in public transport should itself be in low-carbon technologies as far as possible.

[peterms]

banning arms exports pretty much wipes out BAE

You must have misread.

What it actually says is

• Act to reduce arms sales worldwide by ending Government support for and subsidies of arms exports, including through UK Trade & Investment’s Defence & Security Organisation and the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  
• Press for successful negotiations over a robust and comprehensive global Arms Trade Treaty.
  
• Use skills and resources at present tied up in military industry in the UK to create new jobs and produce socially useful products, especially in the renewable energy sector.
  

Do you see the difference? You seem to have confused not chartering jets to Saudi to pimp arms to despots, with banning exports. That's quite a leap of the imagination. Perhaps there's an Olympic sport we can enter you for?

[tonyh29]

You must have misread.

Do you see the difference? You seem to have confused not chartering jets to Saudi to pimp arms to despots, with banning exports. That's quite a leap of the imagination. Perhaps there's an Olympic sport we can enter you for?

my imagination tends to involve the Olsen twins and a tub of ice cream , not conversations on a web forum ....

if you go to the wiki link ( that you provided) it states quite clearly under international issues

It would ban arms exports,

do you see the difference ?

you've been around long enough to know that I'll only read the short version of anything , you must be confusing me with Levi if you think otherwise :-)

the BAE thing was meant to be tongue in cheek btw but it's a lot more than chartering jets as I'm sure you already know , it was only Saudi deals that stopped BAE going bankrupt all those years ago

looks like we are both competing in Rio 2016 ......

[Xann]

Apparently Milosevic should have been left alone

Fair point, but you'd have to argue that the Greens would have steered clear of Dubya's folly.

[tonyh29]

Fair point, but you'd have to argue that the Greens would have steered clear of Dubya's folly.

to answer your question , it would appear the Greens are against any kind of military intervention , so yep they would have steered well clear

but personally it's a tough one for me ... I.e I know we went in on a lie ( the WMD's that never were) but had we gone in when he gassed the Kurds (and his other atrocities) I don't think as many people would have objected

it's almost a case of right outcome , wrong execution

[snowychap]

I see Ed admitted today he would be unlikely to reverse the child support cut from middle income families

Where did you see that?

Or are you mistaking the above with not setting out budget details two years in advance?

Evidence would suggest that Osborne doesn't even set out some of his proposals the day before.

are there actually any of the government cuts he hasn't agreed with yet, other than for soundbite purposes on news at 10 ?

I think we should put this particular bit of misrepresentation down to making a point solely for soundbite purposes on VT.

[Xann]

it's almost a case of right outcome

Not sure how many people that live in the region would agree. Too many died and continue to die.

[tonyh29]

Where did you see that?

Was on the radio so I guess technically I didn't see it ... They stated Ed had said he wouldn't reverse the decision, though reading another story about it now they appear to have been a little mischievous as it does indeed seem that they have taken his non shadow budget to mean acceptance ... Last time I trust the radio

I think we should put this particular bit of misrepresentation down to making a point solely for soundbite purposes on VT.

Meh, I don't see you pull up the others when they make up sound bites

But tbf he has gone on record before as saying he wouldn't reverse most of the cuts .... He even repeated this yesterday on the "Marr" show

[tonyh29]

Not sure how many people that live in the region would agree. Too many died and continue to die.

I think you'd be hard pushed to find many longing for the return of Saddam tbh

[peterms]

looks like we are both competing in Rio 2016 ......

Ha. Touche.

The Wiki line doesn't accurately reflect the manifesto position, or perhaps implies a sudden ban on all arms sales instead of ending sales to repressive regimes, ending active promotion, support and hidden subsidy, and shifting the industry towards other things which use the skills and resources in a more productive way.

[snowychap]

Was on the radio so I guess technically I didn't see it

Stop listening to 'Tory FM', then.

But tbf he has gone on record before as saying he wouldn't reverse most of the cuts .... He even repeated this yesterday on the "Marr" show

'Tbf', that's a slightly disingenuous argument in terms of the discussion we're having.

They (the Labour party) appear to repeat that, if back in power in 2015, they will have to make fiscal decisions based upon the reality in 2015 (and not 2013) when x amount of cuts will already have been made. That seems perfectly sensible as it is the reality.

So it would also seem sensible that any party would not commit to unravelling all of the policy decisions of the previous government and would make their decisions with the situation as is as their starting point especially as that party had also committed themselves to cuts (albeit not quite the same) within the same period.

To fit with this, they keep the line on most if not all specific policies that they won't commit to reversing them in the future whilst also saying that, if they were in government tomorrow, they would.

[Awol]

I think you'd be hard pushed to find many longing for the return of Saddam tbh

Given the option of a time machine I suspect very many Iraqi's would jump at the chance to have avoided 'liberation' and all of it's consequences, even if that meant they had to carry on jogging under Saddam (much as many Syrians will probably look back longingly at the 'old days' under Assad in a few years time).

[tonyh29]

well if we are talking time machines we can just go back a bit further and leave it under British / Hashemite control

[blandy]

by and large they are barking .... the day the greens get the majority of their policies anywhere near government we are all doomedbanning arms exports pretty much wipes out BAE....

You must have misread.What it actually says is

• Act to reduce arms sales worldwide by...
  
• Use skills and resources at present tied up in military industry in the UK to create new jobs and produce socially useful products, especially in the renewable energy sector.
  

They have a few bonkers policies and contradictions, same as all parties. They probably have less daft ones than most, though.Where I agree they are bonkers is with "unconditional, non-means-tested, weekly payment made to every citizen whether they are working or not" being bonkers. Ditto their views on defence - I'm fine with reducing exports and so on, it's the bit in bold above that's daft, their view on the consequences of their policy. It's utterly ridiculous, but does enough to tickle the button of anyone who doesn't know anything about what's actually involved

When I did one of those internet "who to vote for" thingies, it had me down as pretty close to all 3 of Green Labour and Lib Dem.The chances of me voting Lib Dem are "somewhat reduced" ever again. SO it's between Labour or Greens. NEither will get in where I live, being as it's a raving tory stronghold, so there's a fair chance for my utterly meaningless vote to go to the Greens. I've done it plenty times previously.

[Jon]

When I did one of those internet "who to vote for" thingies, it had me down as pretty close to all 3 of Green Labour and Lib Dem.

The chances of me voting Lib Dem are "somewhat reduced" ever again. SO it's between Labour or Greens. NEither will get in where I live, being as it's a raving tory stronghold, so there's a fair chance for my utterly meaningless vote to go to the Greens. I've done it plenty times previously.

Ditto.

I guess the Greens policies don't all have be grounded in reality, because the vast majority of them are never going to come into law/fruition (sadly).

But if you agree in principle with what they stand for, and what they are trying to do, then when you're in the position myself and Pete are in, by all means vote for them. The dirty Blues are going to be elected in my constituency come what may, so I may as well vote on principle for who fits my ideals and values, even if I don't agree with all of the specific policies.

[snowychap]

Where I agree they are bonkers is with "unconditional, non-means-tested, weekly payment made to every citizen whether they are working or not" being bonkers.

I don't see why the idea of a CBI is bonkers.

[blandy]

Because if it's enough to live on (what, say 14K per person), and everyone gets it, then you're I don't see how it's remotely affordable, or realistic, Snowy.

Why give people in well paid jobs 14 grand a year? What would have to be cut to fund that?

What would be the effect on people in low paid work - maybe they'd say, hold on I get 10k a year working, I can pack in getting up at daft o'clock on a winters morning, and stay at home and be 4 grand a year better off.

Of course they could carry on working and get a total of 24k, but some wouldn't ...

What would be the effect on wages for low paid jobs? would they fall because "you're already getting 14k off the Gov't?" or would they rise because people wouln't want to do the crappy jobs? - I don't know.

I suspect bad employers would cut wages and employment protection for their employees even further, and the good ones might be faced with having to increase wages to levels that they can't afford.

That's after just a few seconds thinking about it.

[snowychap]

That's after just a few seconds thinking about it.

In keeping with the spirit and dismissive tone of this line, Peter, perhaps you ought to have spent more than a few seconds on it.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily practical or that it would be an easy thing to implement but I don't think it's a bonkers idea and I think it is an idea worth looking at.

As an example, here's a post from Dillow on the subject from a number of years ago:

I said yesterday that I’d explain why I thought the Greens' policy of a citizen’s basic income – an unconditional grant paid to all adults, as promoted by these guys - would be a fantastic idea. Here goes.

First, a CBI is genuinely egalitarian and anti-managerialist. One reason why the traditional welfare state has not achieved as much redistribution as the left would like is that it hasn’t tried to. Instead, its function has also been to manage, corrall and stigmatize recipients. William Beveridge said in 1942 that the aim of his scheme of welfare benefits was to “make and keep men fit for service.” The same motive underpins Gordon Brown’s tax credits.

A CBI attacks all this.

It recognizes that the purpose of the welfare state is redistribution, not job creation for managerialists. Because it would be so much simpler to administer than tax credits, it would dismantle the hierarchical bureaucracy that has captured the welfare state for its own ends. And in giving everyone the same entitlement, there would be no role for those who wish to stigmatize and harass recipients.

In a similar vein, a CBI is flexible. It recognizes – as the Beveridge welfare state and tax credits do not – that family circumstances differ and change. It gives people the same income whatever their circumstances. It therefore avoids the problems of having to identify deserving and undeserving claimants, and minimizes dangers of fraud.

For this reason, A CBI acknowledges the importance of individual responsibility. It says that being old or a parent of a large family are no reasons for you to get extra income, because these are circumstances that are foreseeable and chosen.

If the CBI is sufficiently generous – a point I’ll come to – any hardship that remains is due either to free choice or to (insurable) bad luck. It’s therefore no business of the state.

What’s more, given the CBI, you can do what you want; part-time work, study, setting up a small business. In this sense, a CBI ends the dependency culture and promotes self-reliance. The CBI says: let’s give up trying to second-guess how people are going to lead their lives and crafting responses to the problems they might encounter. Instead, give them the money and let them get on with it.

In this sense, a basic income would increase freedom. The liberty that matters is not merely the ability to choose between bundles of goods, but the ability to choose among the various lives we may wish to lead. A basic income would promotes this freedom by allowing people to choose between leisure, child-rearing, education and work.

This is not the only way in which a CBI would increase freedom. A CBI would permit the scrapping of masses of regulations upon companies, such as minimum wages or working time directives.

This is because a CBI answers the question: to what are the worst-off entitled? It therefore removes the need for regulations aimed at protecting the worst off. Workers wouldn’t need governments to step in to protect them from bad employers - because if they were not content with the contract offered by bosses, they could stay at home on the basic income. Similarly, there would be no need for heavy state subsidies to industry, agriculture or the arts, because all the necessary subsidies would be provided to individuals by a basic income.

Finally, a CBI, if accompanied by taxes on inheritance and the ownership of natural resources, provides compensation for past unjust appropriations of land and mineral rights. We can see it as part of Robert Nozick’s “rectification state”, aimed to redress historic injustices. A CBI is the compensation we should get from past generations of unjust appropriaters. Because we cannot identify precise losers from these unjust appropriations, the principle of insufficient reason suggests an equality of payment to everyone.

So much for the theoretical case for a CBI. But is it affordable?

In static terms, yes. Table A3.1 of the 2005 Budget lists four pages of tax reliefs. By abolishing VAT exemptions and zero-ratings and income and inheritance tax reliefs, we could save over £90bn. And this doesn’t touch tax reliefs in savings or capital gains.

Table C11 shows that we’d save another £121.4bn by abolishing social security benefits, £15.2bn by scrapping tax credits, and £3.2bn from the Common Agricultural Policy; all these handouts would of course be replaced by the CBI. And table C13 shows that we’d save another £6.8bn from scrapping the DTI and Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

This gives us almost £240 billion. With an adult population of 45.5 million, this would give a CBI of just over £5200. That’s £100 a week, which is £18 a week more than the basic state pension.

And this is without cutting the bureaucracy which administers tax credits and social security, without changing income tax rates and, leaving inheritance tax rates at an absurdly lenient 40 per cent.

Now, I’m not laying down any blueprint here. I’m merely showing that, in static terms, a CBI is affordable.

But of course, there’s an obvious objection here. An income of £100 a week might encourage lots of people to drop out of the workforce. If they do, tax revenue would fall so much that we couldn’t afford a decent basic income. And even if we don’t get this extreme drop-out rate, the resentment workers feel towards shirkers could undermine the spirit of community which some believe a basic income should help promote.

I’m not sure how big a problem this is. An income of £100 a week is not a king’s ransom. The only people likely to take it instead of working are those whose marginal product is so low that they would contribute little in taxes anyway.

Indeed, there are three arguments which suggest a CBI might increase employment and hence tax revenues.

First, it would reduce the huge benefit withdrawal rates that people receiving tax credits now face; the IFS estimates (pdf) that 4.6 million working parents face a marginal tax rate of over 50 per cent. People’s incentives to work longer hours or find better jobs would therefore increase.

Second, as a CBI should be accompanied by abolishing the minimum wage, wage rates might fall to price people into work.

Thirdly, under a CBI everyone would be significantly financially better off in work than out. This is not the case now. Incapacity benefit, for example, is a big disincentive to get work.

So, a CBI is probably feasible and desirable. There are of course objections to it. But I suspect the real reason no major party supports the idea has less to do with these objections, and more to do with unthinking illiberal managerialism.

Another possible resource.

Edited January 14, 2013 by snowychap