Back to the 70s

Given this inane story, here's some ideas:

Government companies making locally built computers, TVs, shoes, ships, mobile phones, cars....

Yes the railway workshop builds freight cars, successfully, following competitive tendering. Yes it overhauls locomotives, successfully. Yes once NZ railway workshops built everything for the railway, including rivets, nails, bolts and the like - often at many many times the unit cost of importing the same. Imagine any business building all of its own components, but not selling those components to anyone else - how sustainable is that?

It just shows some idiots haven't learned from the past. New Zealand cannot economically sustain a car ASSEMBLY industry, for thousands of units per annum, let alone sustain building bespoke passenger trains and locomotives. It is worth remembering the Ministry of Commerce report in the late 1990s which stated that the cost of each car assembly job was over $100,000, for people paid a quarter of that.

Last time it assembled passenger carriages it was the 1950s (the old Wellington units about t obe replaced by new imported trains), the last locomotives assembled were a handful of shunters in the early 80s.

Of course it does raise the very real point about how stupid Labour is - given that it happily let the Wellington Regional Council order 48 new electric units being built in South Korea, while it was in power.

Still, the government shouldn't be surprised this sort of silliness is brought up, given it owns the railway and is spending half a billion of your money on the folly of a rail network that will serve the needs of perhaps 2% of all trips in Auckland, and will lose money year after year. Still, a majority of you voted for that.

UK elections: How about transport then?

I am not driven by transport policy in voting in the UK, because it isn’t that important. Good job, given how absolutely devoid of reason all three main parties their transport policies are.

How?

Labour has announced it wants to spend money, that it doesn’t have, on a high speed rail network. A network that will have a HIGHER environmental impact that the existing rail network, that will mostly attract users from existing rail services, and which would only affect domestic flights if built to Scotland for tens of billions of pounds. Note domestic flights are completely unsubsidised. This new cargo cult will mostly benefit business travellers, to an enormous cost to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats and Tories say ME TOO! So unsurprisingly, it is easy to be cynical of politicians seeking totems for themselves. By the way, the Channel Tunnel was built, operated (and went bankrupt) with no taxpayer funding.

Labour also promises to spend more money it doesn’t have on upgrading railways, whilst maintaining a meagre programme for road expansion while it collects four times the revenue from road users as it spends on roads. The only bright side is support for a third runway at Heathrow airport, but a ban on any other airport runways being built.

Liberal Democrats are worse, with a religious opposition to road improvements, and a fetish for reopening rail lines paid for by money that doesn’t exist. The Liberal Democrats oppose airport expansion and want road pricing (which is economically rational, but not to pay for roads!). The Conservatives oppose airport expansion as well, and don’t want road pricing, except for foreign lorries. Disappointing given how the Conservatives once privatised rail (not particularly well), aviation, buses and road freight (yes the government ran a trucking company!).

So basically, don’t bother, nothing to see here. Not the slightest chance of embracing economically rational policies, so that transport users meet the costs of what they use, and for the state owned or managed infrastructure to be run to maximise efficiency. No, just continued socialism rubbing up against capitalism, with a strong taint of environmental theology.

UK elections: A tame manifesto for the UK?

Given none of the parties I can vote for inspire me beyond the slightest, I thought I’d write my own manifesto for the UK. It isn’t THAT radical, but it is to try to reflect where I think the Conservatives SHOULD have gone in the next five years at least. As such, the headings mostly reflect Conservative manifesto portfolio headings. In short, if the Conservatives could do this, or even do half of this, I'd have some enthusiasm for giving that party my vote...

Big Society: No policy. Eliminating laws that restrict the peaceful activities of the voluntary sector should be a priority in the next term, that includes restricting organisations from determining their own membership, and restricting prohibitions on trade.

Business: Reduce company tax immediately to match the lowest in Europe (12.5% in Ireland) with a view to eliminating company tax once the budget deficit is eliminated. Part pay for the cut by immediately ending all subsidies and grants to industry, and closing the bureaucracies responsible. The best assistance to business is to get the hell out of the way, and to make the UK the most tax competitive economy in Europe.

Constitutional: Directly elect the House of Lords via STV, retain its current role or reviewing and delaying legislation. Establish independent Electoral Authority to ensure boundaries reflect equivalent population sizes. Give Scotland and Wales referendums with a choice of independence, full integration into the UK, or full federal type autonomy (with tax raising powers). Give Northern Ireland full autonomy to raise its own taxes and run its own internal affairs.

Energy and climate change: Eliminate all measures that impose restrictions on the introduction of zero-emissions energy that are inconsistent with private property rights and protection from force or fraud. Remove restrictions on construction of new power stations consistent with private property rights and transitional planning laws until emission and water discharges are converted into private property rights. Eliminate climate change levies. Eliminate OfGem’s role over three years.

Community relations: No policy beyond making it clear that British values include respect for individual rights and individual choices in a free liberal democratic capitalist society. All new immigrants will be required to sign up to respect of the individual rights of others, including a commitment to leave or be removed if those rights are not respected demonstrated by criminal conviction.

Countryside and farming: Remove restrictions on the peaceful use of private property. Commence negotiations to change the terms of UK EU membership including abolition of agricultural subsidies.

Crime: Undertake a fundamental review of all criminal offences to ensure offences only remain for the initiation of force or fraud. Commence reform of drug laws to progressively remove adult use and trade in narcotics from the criminal law.

Culture, media and sport: Cap spending on the Olympics, privatising the Olympics so that it does not have an increasing draw on taxation. Eliminate cross media and foreign ownership rules on all media outlets. Eliminate restrictions on commercial broadcasting, sell Channel 4, prepare BBC to sell non-core channels and replace licence fee with voluntary options for payment once analogue television is closed. Eliminate OfCom and transfer its non-coercive functions to the private sector, with radio frequency rights transferred to private property rights. Eliminate competition law requirements upon media providers.

Defence and National Security: Replace Trident, support continued deployment in Afghanistan. Continue to

Economy: Encourage economic growth by starting to cut and eliminate taxes. Repeal increase in national insurance. Cut company tax to 12.5%. Repeal 50% tax rate. Eliminate stamp duty and inheritance taxes. Eliminate budget deficit over three years by widespread cuts in the state sector, including introduce public sector pay freeze until budget deficit is eliminated, end contributions to public sector pensions, eliminate winter fuel subsidies for pensioners, eliminate income tax credits in exchange for introducing £10,000 tax free tax allowance. At least a freeze in nominal terms of all state sector budgets except defence and law and order. Once budget is in surplus, simultaneously cut 40% tax rate and increase tax free allowances. Cut VAT to 15%. Eliminate laws inconsistent with protection against the initiation of force and fraud. Privatise all government owned businesses at a time at for offers commensurate with getting the best price to repay public debt.

End the creation of fiat money by the Bank of England, allow issuance of free money by banks.

Environment: Eliminate landfill tax, abolish OfWat to let water companies to charge money. Demand reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to introduce private property rights. Undertake a wholesale reform of planning law to base all on private property rights including rights to airspace, waterways and sight lines.

Europe: Negotiate new terms of membership of the EU, including cessation of funds for subsidy programmes, the right to offer more open borders for trade in goods and services than the EU offers, opt-out of all directives that initiate force or fraud on businesses and individuals. Retain freedom of movement within the EU but eliminate reciprocal arrangements for welfare, health and education for EU citizens in the UK and vice versa.

Family: Cap funding on Sure Start, start transferring Sure Start centres to the private sector as registered charities, phasing out state funding over five years. Eliminate legal requirements for employers to provide parental leave.

Foreign Affairs: Commit to NATO and to the dissemination of secular, pluralist values globally. Support multilateral sanctions against Iran. Maintain clear support for the UK sovereignty over the Falklands and Gibraltar. Promote a new WTO trade round.

Health: Shift the NHS and national insurance to an individual insurance model. Initially compulsory, the new NHS insurance model will have a voluntary opt out for those wishing to buy their own health insurance or health care. The NHS insurance system will raise national insurance rates to remain solvent, and will be empowered to charge differential national insurance to reflect risk, and offer options for part payment by payers. As a transitional arrangement, all citizens will remain covered by NHS insurance unless they opt out.

Housing: Eliminate stamp duty. Reinforce private property rights to allow land and homeowners to do as they wish as long as they respect property rights of others. Eliminate local authority powers to regulate land use, or to use council tax to pay for public housing. Grant ownership of all public housing to tenants of five or more years, transfer all other public housing to private housing charities.

Immigration: Require all new immigrants to permanently relinquish any claim on state health, education, welfare or pensions, have sufficient funds to be housed for at least three months and funds for a return airfare, and be committed to the broad values of a tolerant, secular society respecting the individual rights of others (including no criminal record for genuine crimes). Focus border control on people trafficking, and the entry of criminals and terrorists.

International development: Freeze aid in nominal terms, focus on phasing out development aid, but supporting governance reform in developing countries to promote the rule of law, private property rights, free trade and individual freedom.

Jobs and welfare: Cap all welfare benefits in nominal terms. Tighten eligibility for benefits. Eliminate minimum wage.

Justice: Eliminate victimless crimes and agencies to vet working with children on the basis of suspicion not conviction. Scrap ID cards. Reform DNA database so that it retains data only of convicted criminals, and others who consent. Remove convictions for victimless crimes from personal records. Introduce preventive detention for serious violent and sexual offenders. Replace ASBOs with trials for real offences and a points based three strikes law. Introduce test for conviction and sentencing of children based on understanding nature and consequences of their acts, and to convict parents using children as agents.

Local government: Permanently freeze council tax. Abolish regional assemblies and development agencies. Abolish power of general competence of local authorities, restricting them to delivery of “public” goods and devolved delivery of policing, and residual state services.

Pensions and Older People: End requirement to buy annuity at 75. Cap state pension. Establish pension accounts for all citizens of five years or longer corresponding to age. Hypothecate portion of income tax to pension accounts, allow account holders to transfer to private sector and contribute as much extra as they wish. Eliminate winter fuel payments once tax free threshold increased. Leave free transport passes to transport providers.

Schools, universities and skills: Remove all restrictions on establishing schools, and allow funding to follow students to any institutions, or for parents to receive a tax credit to use for education. Freeze university funding, giving them free reign to increase fees as they see fit.

Technology: Eliminate state involvement in the roll out of broadband.

Transport: Privatise the Highways Agency network by granting ownership to all registered owners of motor vehicles, with full powers to set tolls. Issue no new rail franchises that are subsidised. Remove state role in vetting airport and port development. Eliminate air passenger duty. Require local authorities to put local roads into companies with shares held by property owners. Permanently cap fuel tax and allow motorists to opt out of fuel tax by paying tolls directly to road owners. Let high speed rail development be a purely private enterprise endeavour.

Women and equality: No policy.

UK election: Newspapers make their point

One of the best aspects of UK politics is how the papers are overtly political and unashamed about taking a thoughtful position based on an overarching philosophy. Whether you agree or disagree, at least it is refreshing to see journalism that involves some thinking.

So what are they saying?

The serious papers are comprised of the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian and the FT.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday and Sunday Telegraph today are supporting the Conservatives. Hardly surprising, but it is worth looking at the editorials which make some similar points:

"If you examine the Government's record, there is no doubt that the top-down, target-driven, statist approach has reached a dead end." Quite, although I don't trust the Conservatives to do anything other than stop the growth of it. The Telegraph always supports the Conservatives, so no surprises here.

The Times and the Sunday Times have been more fluid. In 2005 both supporting Labour, although with some reluctance. Now it is clear:

"A Chancellor who had proclaimed an end to boom and bust embarked on a spending spree of remarkable improvidence. Public sector staff now earn £2,000 a year more on average than their private sector counterparts. Spending rose, over the Labour years, by an extraordinary 54 per cent. Productivity lagged behind. Gordon Brown savaged the private pensions industry and sold off the bulk of Britain’s gold reserves much too cheaply. In short, Labour squandered the boom."

It continues: "Mr Brown’s pitch at this election is that voters should not risk the recovery by backing the Conservatives. He does not seem to realise that the greatest threat is more of the same. Yes, the economy is in peril. Mr Brown is the danger.”

The Sunday Times echoes this "As the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, Britain had the biggest rise in public spending among 28 OECD countries in 1997-2010, moving from 22nd highest-spending nation to sixth. When most western countries saw their tax burdens fall, Britain’s went up substantially; only those of South Korea, Hungary and Portugal rose more steeply."

So both support the Conservatives given "Amid the sound and fury, a fundamental philosophical difference has emerged: the Conservatives want to reduce excessive public expenditure, the Labour Party wants to keep on ratcheting up benefits, tax credits and other forms of state spending."

The Guardian is traditionally a supporter of Labour, but this time is more measured. It even complements David Cameron for reforming the Conservatives but concludes "A Cameron government might not be as destructive to Britain as the worst Tory regimes of the past. But it is not the right course for Britain." So funnily enough, the Guardian supports the Liberal Democrats? Why? Because the LibDems are more socially liberal, and more fundamentally leftwing than Labour "The Liberal Democrats were green before the other parties and remain so. Their commitment to education is bred in the bone. So is their comfort with a European project which, for all its flaws, remains central to this country's destiny. They are willing to contemplate a British defence policy without Trident renewal. They were right about Iraq".

Demonstrating how the Liberal Democrats are the new inheritors of the left in the UK.

The Observer naturally agrees.

The Independent on Sunday agrees saying "the best outcome of this election would be a Lib-Lab coalition." so is calling for a vote for the Liberal Democrats where that party could win, but Labour when it could not, as it supports electoral reform.

The Mail on Sunday, which rails against immigrants and criminals, and says the war in Iraq was a mistake, supports the Conservatives, cautiously, although Christian columnist, Peter Hitchens, says no - because he fears the Conservatives are TOO liberal.

The Sunday Express also supports the Conservatives, it cites a long record of failure of Gordon Brown such as "remember how in May 1999 the then relatively new Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to sell more than half of our national gold reserves; a total of 395 tonnes. At a time when the price of gold had slumped, our precious metal sold at an average price of $275 per ounce. This weekend gold was being traded at $1,162.20, more than four times as much. It’s quite a record and it speaks for itself. " It supports the Tories to reform immigration and welfare, but I suspect it expects too much.

The Sun, usually fascinated with tits, is supporting the Conservatives, having supported Labour last time "the real story of the Labour years is one of under-achievement, rank failure and a vast expansion of wasteful government interference in everyone's lives… At the 2005 election, we and our readers believed Labour had many failings but gave them one last chance over a lacklustre Tory party. They have had that chance and failed. That is a fact Gordon Brown cannot escape, for all his rhetoric yesterday - his rewriting of history, his absurd caricature of the "heartless" Tories, his tired promises to solve problems he has had 12 years to solve."

The Mirror by contrast is lock, stock and barrel Marxist. "On one side we have a man of enormous experience hailed throughout the world as the leader of the fightback against a recession which could have plunged into depression. On the other there is David Cameron and his vacuous sidekick George Osborne. Could there be a more terrifying thought than that these two may be entrusted with the nation's finances? “

Now vacuous sidekick is very true indeed, but Brown is now leader of the “fightback”, a “fightback” that means needing to address a massive deficit. Overspending didn’t save Greece, and it isn’t saving Japan, but the Mirror isn’t exactly the repositary of the highly educated. The Mirror is still engaging in class war, thinking the Conservatives “They always think of the demands of City fatcats and business leaders first rather than the needs of ordinary workers”.

So it remains the ONLY major national paper still supporting Labour.

So overall, it looks bleak for Labour. The Mirror is all that is left, the other leftwing papers are supporting the Liberal Democrats, and the rest are all with the Conservatives, along with the Economist.

As for me? Certainly a Labour or a Liberal Democrat influenced government would be a leap backwards, but the Conservatives? I think it would be a case of slowing down the rot, and not much more. I don't want to vote for tax increases. What do I want?

UK election: Economist backs Conservatives

The Economist has declared it is supporting the Conservatives winning the UK election. Why?

Well according to Conservative Home (which has a preview of tomorrow's editorial) on Labour:

"it praises Brown for keeping Britain out of the euro, yet on the economy states that "a prime minister should not get too much credit for climbing out of a hole he himself dug as chancellor", describing the budget deficit as a time-bomb which Brown is "ill equipped to defuse"."

Quite.

On the Liberal Democrats: "Whilst stating that it has been "looking for a credible liberal party in Britain for nigh on a century", it is swift to dismiss the Lib Dems with their enthusiasm for the euro, flirtation with scrapping our nuclear deterrent, desire to abolish tuition fees, opposition to nuclear power and policies on business which are "arguably to the left of Labour's": "Mr Clegg has been a delightful holiday romance for many Britons; but this newspaper does not fancy moving in with him for the next five years".

I suspect the TV debate tonight will see Clegg exposed on the LibDem past support for the Euro. The Liberal Party it is not.

So Conservatives? Hardly a ringing endorsement but it:

"praises David Cameron for modernising the party and stamping out social illiberalism. It also congratulates George Osborne for not giving in to the demands of the Right for tax cuts and for committing the party to an austerity programme

Stamping out isn't true, since there is little sign of tolerance on issues like drugs and censorship. Moreover, the Tories are supporting tax increases, on a more limited scale than Labour. The liberalism of the Economist isn't really holding true in ignoring this.

"More than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state. They would reform the NHS by bringing in more outside providers; their plans to give parents and teachers the right to set up schools are the most radical idea in this election. Centralisers under Margaret Thatcher, they now want to devolve power to locally elected officials, including mayors and police chiefs. Some of this is clouded in waffe about a Big Society. Other bits do not go far enough: it is foolish to rule out letting for-profit companies run schools and wrong to exempt the NHS from cuts. But Mr Cameron is much closer to answering the main question facing Britain than either of his rivals is. In this complicated, perhaps inevitably imperfect election, he would get our vote."

OK, the education policy IS worth a tick. That is about it. The insouciance about the failures of the entire NHS model is disappointing, and I don't trust locally elected officials more than centrally elected ones.

However, the endorsement is understandable. A clear Conservative victory is preferable to a hung Parliament or a Labour victory. A hung Parliament will inevitably mean electoral reform that will mostly favour statist parties like the Liberal Democrats, Greens and the BNP. Labour victory will simply be unjust.