I’d love to see some solid details on a Basic Income – i.e. how much it could reasonably be at current levels of taxation..

The real rate of government borrowing varies according to the level of artificial inflation it can add into the economy from that source – in other words by how much political capital it can afford to spend on invisible redistribution of value from income onto assets and therefore by how much it can sustainably depress efficiency and profitability.

The real rate increases exponentially until it approaches the actual rate as overall borrowing reaches levels of unaffordability, although this is moderated by growth in the tax take as inflation hits different sectors successively.

The decision to break Browns golden rule suggest that Labour has already failed to plan borrowing sufficiently and has either grown more confident in their ability to manage debt level (justifiably or not), or they are beginning to become overstretched. Which means we are in uncharted waters and are right to be concerned about our prospects under Labour.

Fobbing us off with rhetoric about changed circumstances and global conditions is an admission of weakness in the Labour model of decision-making, so really the virtual manifesto is an argument to vote against Labour – I mean, who can support a party of government with a partially formed platform of future proposals and a malformed platform of current ones?

Is it a job requirement for all Labour MPs to be self-loathing defeatists?

Surprisingly agreeable.

I think that Tom Harris has found a respectable way for a Miniater to say that Labour badly needs some time in opposition; and Chris Dillow has begun to illustrate how they should use it.

I’ve got a degree in economics from the UK’s top-rated institution for teaching economics, and Thomas’s comment makes literally no sense to me. Is this a sign of dumbing-down?

[5] Phew! I thought it was just me…

Sorry John, that was my attempt to simplify Browns original justification for those particular rules which have now been rewritten, at least as far as I understood the rubbish he spouted.

If you can explain to me how he arrived at the level of sustainable borrowing rule as 40% of GDP over the economic cycle when the surplusses and deficits are measured as a proportion of GDP growth without making predictions about inflation which have since been thrown out of the window, then I’d be most obliged – I never understood the 40% figure to be completely arbitrary, at least not officially.

You could make an argument that New Labour has been in opposition for the last 10 years, seeing how terrified they are of the Tory press. They have continued the regressive tax policy’s of cutting income tax, 23% down to 20% while increasing indirect taxation, or as the Tory party now like to call them, ‘stealth taxes.’ I have yet to see a scrap of evidence to show that higher paid workers were not working as hard in 1987, when they were taxed at 60% as they were in 1989 when their taxes were cut to 40%.

Thomas, I think you are conflating two different targets. The 40% figure is for total outstanding Government debt as a % of GDP. It is an arbitrary target – many countries have a higher figure.
Then there is the target of balancing the budget over the length of the economic cycle. This is where your point about inflation might be relevant although I don’t know enough to say for sure. There is also the point that no one really knows for sure when the economic cycle starts and ends (and some people dispute whether there is such a thing at all) so it is quite easy to move the goalposts to ensure you meet the target, which Brown has done.

The problem with pretending to be in opposition and then dreaming up a new set of policies is that Labour would have no mandate for them – in order to acquire such a mandate they would need to have an election and then they’d be in opposition for real.

Also, the policies you suggest are not just different, they are the polar opposite of what Labour has been doing for the last 10 years. Indeed, take out Tax Credits, Targets and PFI and it is hard to see what Gordon would be able to claim as big policy achievements. (Even granting independence to the BoE is looking a lot less smart right now)

That isn’t to say that they are bad policies at all.

It seems to me that a good corollary to abandoning tax credits would be to raise the income tax threshold to the level of the minimum wage.

I am not sure about the income tax point. Personally I dislike any tax that is a disincentive to create wealth – income tax is just such a tax. It is quite true that the rich have got richer in recent years and done so principally by rent-seeking rather than wealth creation. My solution would be a long term drive to transfer the burden of taxation as far as possible onto economic rents rather than income. This would have the effect of differentiating between the wealth accruing to people who simply own commodities, land or title to the above and those who generate new ways of making the world better. (The deserving and the undeserving rich if you will…)

At the same time as abandoning targets, there should be a massive increase in local control of services. This should be accompanied by a frank admission that this was going to mean a variation in services across the country and that, if they don’t like the way services are being run locally, voters will have to actually vote in local elections. The whips’ office would take severe action against any MP using the absurd term “postcode lottery”.

PFI should certainly be scrapped and the frankest possible account be taken of what it has cost.

I am intrigued that you say nothing about the restoration of civil liberties revoked in recent years. Is it assumed that those on this blog will take that as read? Could there be a Minister for Liberty too?

To this I would add my own personal hobby horse – the comprehensive reform of the planning system (the last reform and the current ones being utter catastrophes) in such a way as to put quality at the centre of the process. Quality in this sense would be interpreted locally by the new, directly elected, post of City/Borough/District Architect.

“The problem with pretending to be in opposition and then dreaming up a new set of policies is that Labour would have no mandate for them – in order to acquire such a mandate they would need to have an election and then they’d be in opposition for real.”

Kind of missing the point really, aren’t you? The idea is that by acting like you’re in opposition leading up to an election you can boost your credibility. There was a saying all the while around the time I was in students’ union, act every day like you’re coming up for election, that’s all this is. It’s an acceptance in sorts that Labour has been on it’s arse resting peacefully and coasting along for the last few years and that it’s about time it woke up and took this whole governance thing seriously. If they can do that, through getting the policies right, perhaps that could sway enough people to get themselves a hung parliament.

All good points Chris… though in fact why just suggest policies that the govt should ditch? What else should the govt be adopting?

This is bold, but not bold enough I reckon.

Forget temporary measures, I want Labour to address what they’ve done to the education system. The credit crunch might hit homeowners but what about the new graduates who have student loans? How long until they could even contemplate a mortgage? What about the series of exams that have pitted children against each other so aggressively? That was their first huge mistake and they’re beginning to reap the benefits of the culture they created.

My post wasn’t intended to be a complete wishlist for a new government – if it were, George V, the repeal of illiberal laws would be high on it. But my wishlist would require the party to change almost beyond recognition.
I was merely suggesting what the party could just about feasibly ditch were it to think as an opposition.
And Andrew (1), I hope to do some rough calculations soon. But the Citizens Income Trust has some interesting stuff here:
http://www.citizensincome.org/

Also, civil liberties isn’t among the top concerns of the country at election time – indeed I wonder if it is ever among the top concerns. The economy, on the other hand, is perhaps the most important issue, and therefore it will be among the issues a sensible political party will concentrate most of their resources on.

@8 is Labour are scared of the Tory press they should simply reduce the press’s power by putting 17.5% VAT on them. I have to pay VAT on information I receive through the internet, so why shouldn’t information in printed form be VAT-able too?

If you want a party to change beyond all recognition then they ain’t the party for you and you should try finding a party with which you have at least something in common with.

I find it shocking that Labour is still the repository for the hopes of those who are almost entirely neglected by them.

So I’d prefer to advocate an improvement in political literacy before a citizen’s income, partly because the suggested methods of funding CI are incoherent and the possibility of government control over the level of CI controverts the aim of reducing state dependency.

Andrew Adams@9

You’re correct that I didn’t giver the correct wording of the macroeconomic ’sustainable investment’ rule, but Gordon Brown has consistently argued that the level of 40% is ‘prudent’ and ‘not arbitrary’. Therefore UK structures must make our national conditions special – why is that?

I recognise there is a direct link between the political capital of popular support and the sustainability of policies, but Brown apparently has a formula for measuring it – perhaps he understands trust in politicians is at a lower level than in our continental neighbours.

Why do we need to imagine it? The reality will be with us soon enough.

Lee Griffin @11

If I miss the point then I’m sorry.

But doesn’t this depend what you mean by “pretend you’re in opposition.” If you mean “try extra hard to win people over and maybe shift the spin a bit” then sure, by all means have a go but it won’t make anything actually better.

If on the other hand, you mean “pretend you have the freedom of a party in opposition to come up with radically new policies” then that is a rather more worthwhile.

My point was that the policies Chris advocates (with which I largely agree) would be a complete reversal of everything that Labour has been doing whilst in in power. In that sense the adoption of these policies would be an admission of abject failure rather than a great renweal.

And I rather agree with Thomas that a party that has failed so utterly in Government should not be supported simply on the basis that is not the Tory party.

Labour ought to be in opposition – to Nu Labor.

You forgot ID cards, the horrendous waste of money that they are and the downright nasty attack on the common person that they represent.