May 2015 UK General Election Campaign.

[Razgovory]

Well, I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax, with a certain tax free amount (say, $100,000).

This is possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Everybody with any money will flee the country, leaving the middle classes as the only ones to be fucked over by your scheme will the rich just keep getting richer. But I guess that is basically true with all of these sorts of plans.

The more centrally planned and redistributed an economy is, the worse it performs, but this is something lost on a lot of people.

Yeah, Iraq is doing gang busters.

[Gups]

Labour made the decision in 2010 that it could not afford to be seen as the party soft on the deficit. They thought, probably correctly, that it would be political suicide. So they've ended up with their only really differentiator that they would not cut quite as quickly or as deeply as the Tories (in fact the Tories ended up adopting Labour's policy in any event, but neither of them want to say so). The effect is a policy straightjacket. Every spending policy requires and equal and opposite bit of fund raising.

So, I have some sympathy with Miliband. He has very few choices on tax and spend and has to go negative instead. All of the battles on social issues have been won by the left so there are no options there.

Unfortunately, he's just not brave enough to go for the kind of policies which would put some clear water between Labour and the Tories. Genuine devolution to regions, some sort of policy on multinational's avoiding tax (I know it's difficult but they seem to simply ignore the issue), a commission on drugs policy to explore how cannabis could be legalised and taxed (opening up spending options). There are lots of options but Miliband has decided to hope that the Tories lose the election rather than try to win it. 

[Valmy]

Yeah, Iraq is doing gang busters.

Anarchy doesn't do much better. Some central planning and redistribution is important but 100% is not functional.

[Valmy]

Unfortunately, he's just not brave enough to go for the kind of policies which would put some clear water between Labour and the Tories. Genuine devolution to regions, some sort of policy on multinational's avoiding tax (I know it's difficult but they seem to simply ignore the issue), a commission on drugs policy to explore how cannabis could be legalised and taxed (opening up spending options). There are lots of options but Miliband has decided to hope that the Tories lose the election rather than try to win it. 

Huh. Those are good ideas. He probably could form functional alliances with the nationalists with those sorts of policies. Is there a lot of pushback on those? The cannabis thing might be tough for the older crowd to stomach but the other two just seem like natural positions for Labour to take.

[mongers]

Labour made the decision in 2010 that it could not afford to be seen as the party soft on the deficit. They thought, probably correctly, that it would be political suicide. So they've ended up with their only really differentiator that they would not cut quite as quickly or as deeply as the Tories (in fact the Tories ended up adopting Labour's policy in any event, but neither of them want to say so). The effect is a policy straightjacket. Every spending policy requires and equal and opposite bit of fund raising.

So, I have some sympathy with Miliband. He has very few choices on tax and spend and has to go negative instead. All of the battles on social issues have been won by the left so there are no options there.

Unfortunately, he's just not brave enough to go for the kind of policies which would put some clear water between Labour and the Tories. Genuine devolution to regions, some sort of policy on multinational's avoiding tax (I know it's difficult but they seem to simply ignore the issue), a commission on drugs policy to explore how cannabis could be legalised and taxed (opening up spending options). There are lots of options but Miliband has decided to hope that the Tories lose the election rather than try to win it.

And resulting clear blue water elsewhere as allowed the Scottish dreadnought to steam South at 21 knots; and it'll soon be mooring in the Thames outside parliament.

[Gups]

Unfortunately, he's just not brave enough to go for the kind of policies which would put some clear water between Labour and the Tories. Genuine devolution to regions, some sort of policy on multinational's avoiding tax (I know it's difficult but they seem to simply ignore the issue), a commission on drugs policy to explore how cannabis could be legalised and taxed (opening up spending options). There are lots of options but Miliband has decided to hope that the Tories lose the election rather than try to win it. 

Huh. Those are good ideas. He probably could form functional alliances with the nationalists with those sorts of policies. Is there a lot of pushback on those? The cannabis thing might be tough for the older crowd to stomach but the other two just seem like natural positions for Labour to take.

Labour is kind of split on devolution. Some want an economy that's centrally planned other's believe in more local democracy and accountability. Blair's first government tried to push through a series of regional assemblies but (except for London) they were not popular with the electorate.

ON multinationals and tax policy, I don't know why Labour don't have a policy. A good one would be hugely popular with the electorate. Perhaps it's just not possible to develop a policy that works within the EU and existing trade treaties...

I don't know why nobody is really pushing a sensible drugs policy. Polls suggest a small but significant majority in favour of decriminalisation/legalisation of cannabis. Fear of the Daily Mail, perhaps.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The problem with the multinationals and the tax they pay is that change will have to come at an international level. The EU is investigating the role of Luxembourg and others and their poaching of larger countries' corporation tax revenues, you also need to keep the G20 and WTO sweet, unilateral action is not really an option........so the truth is not very popular, maybe best keep quiet 

[Tamas]

The problem with the multinationals and the tax they pay is that change will have to come at an international level. The EU is investigating the role of Luxembourg and others and their poaching of larger countries' corporation tax revenues, you also need to keep the G20 and WTO sweet, unilateral action is not really an option........so the truth is not very popular, maybe best keep quiet 

Yeah. On the other hand, if eg. Amazon's "tax evasion" (IDK if doing something perfectly legal in the EU is tax evasion) results in them being able to offer the cheapest and fastest service to customers, then maybe it isnt that Luxembourg's taxes are low, but rather, the others are high?

[Agelastus]

Labour is kind of split on devolution. Some want an economy that's centrally planned other's believe in more local democracy and accountability. Blair's first government tried to push through a series of regional assemblies but (except for London) they were not popular with the electorate.

And how surprising was that? If you're going to convince voters that another layer of government is a good idea you've got to tie it to something people have emotional ties to. Most people's ties run from County straight to country. "North East Region? Huh?" 

[Gups]

LOL. Amazon don't base themselves in Luxemburg in order to improve customer service. They do it to avoid paying taxes.

Luxemburg has a significantly higher corporation tax rate than the UK (29% v 21%) but offer exemptions to multi-nationals in order to tax poach.

[Valmy]

And how surprising was that? If you're going to convince voters that another layer of government is a good idea you've got to tie it to something people have emotional ties to. Most people's ties run from County straight to country. "North East Region? Huh?" 

So...these would be your regional assembly areas?

[Gups]

And how surprising was that? If you're going to convince voters that another layer of government is a good idea you've got to tie it to something people have emotional ties to. Most people's ties run from County straight to country. "North East Region? Huh?"

I agree. It wasn't a great idea at all. But that doesn't mean that you can't have devolution to cities and counties (or areas who band together) that want it without creating a new tier of govt.  The Greater Manchester authorities are leading the way on this and Osborne is pushing it.

[Agelastus]

And how surprising was that? If you're going to convince voters that another layer of government is a good idea you've got to tie it to something people have emotional ties to. Most people's ties run from County straight to country. "North East Region? Huh?" 

So...these would be your regional assembly areas?

No, partly for the obvious reason that many of them are too small, partly because County Council is already a government level, and partly because despite the roll-back of some of the 1970s reforms that saw Rutland reappear, some of them are still artificial to the people living in them.

Yorkshire (North, South, East and West Riding) is probably the only "Region sized" area that could be successfully devolved on the model Labour tried in the late Nineties. Possibly East Anglia has a strong enough identity as well, although that's "iffy". I can't think of anywhere else.

[Agelastus]

And how surprising was that? If you're going to convince voters that another layer of government is a good idea you've got to tie it to something people have emotional ties to. Most people's ties run from County straight to country. "North East Region? Huh?"

I agree. It wasn't a great idea at all. But that doesn't mean that you can't have devolution to cities and counties (or areas who band together) that want it without creating a new tier of govt.  The Greater Manchester authorities are leading the way on this and Osborne is pushing it.

While laudable I'm not that convinced it would work as well at the Shire County levels if cross-county efforts at police rationalisation are anything to go by. Greater Manchester, the Birmingham area and Greater London are probably the limits for this policy.

[Valmy]

How about this?