Randomly Selected Article or Link

Rush Limbaugh really ought to stay away from stories about other peoples' legitimate drug consumption.

I have to admit that I viscerally loathe defectors. So don't expect any nice words of regret at losing Sajjad Karim to the Tories, for whatever reason he thinks justifies his actions.

But back within the party he has just run away from, I wonder whether it has any importance. One of the things that Nick Clegg got plenty of plaudits for recently was the idea of an "earned amnesty" for existing illegal immigrants, a measure that I have not seen Cameron, even last week in Prague, beat. But given that this is one area where we have clear blue water between us and the Tories on if Sajjad thinks we've made a mistake, does this translate into a bit of a blow for Nick's policy?

Me, of course, I'm an open borders advocate. You cannot expect to have free movement of goods and services without free movement of people. The challenge is not how to stop people coming here for whatever reason, but to help build a world in which people do not feel the need to migrate simply to better themselves in a minimum wage job.

Such a task is not one for the petty isolationists in the Tory party, and will need a truly co-operative internationalist party to understand. Which is, in the UK, only the Lib Dems, at least of the major parties.

Here's some century old words of wisdom and humour for Sajj:

I often think it's comical -- Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive -- Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la! —
(Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan, 1882)

"Liberal Conservative" or "Conservative Liberal" are ideological oxymorons. Sayonara, Sajj, I hope you really do know what you are joining.

UPDATE:  It just goes to show what people will read and what they won't that this post makes it into the "Golden Dozen" and some of my more thoughtful posts don't!  Maybe I should try to be salacious more of the time! 

Over at The 1909 Group, a critique of the Olympic Games financing.

"I feel frustrated. I feel the whole mode of modern British Government, Whitehall and Westminster, is in a profound way counterproductive."

So says Andrew Phillips, as he would want to be known, and we should listen. Personally, I would add anti-democratic, dysfunctional, depressing and, more than anything else, increasingly unnecessary. He goes on to say:

"We have politicians and civil servants who have done nothing outside parliament. All they are fit for is passing new sky blue laws."

In a century we have swapped one ruling class for another, plutocracy for psephocracy if you will, where careerist spinmeisters will do anything to attract a vote at the expense of ideological debate. But more ominously this puts personality ahead of principle. The winners in this battle delude themselves that they have a mandate for almost anything that pops into their little heads as if they and only they are capable of governing.

Modern British government (perhaps western government as a whole) is like a mediaeval papacy (complete with a corrupt curia and all that papal bull crap!) and we need to rekindle the political equivalent of the reformation's "priesthood of all believers" or the enlightenment's rejection of a higher power altogether for whose favours we need some intercessor to mediate. We need to foster a belief in all citizens' right to self-governance before anything else, the sovereignty of the individual over the state.

The beast that is the state is increasingly only able to sustain itself against its own people by ever more coercion. Globalization threatens to empower the individual to the detriment of the state. Individuals and voluntary associations are more than ever before able to form communities not restricted by geography, to operate in markets once only accessible through intermediaries, to choose where to live, work, play, shop and pay taxes or not, none of which need be in the same jurisdiction.

We need to deconstruct the state, slay that beast. To reconstitute government as something to which we voluntarily cede only those functions that we cannot arrange for ourselves or in our communities, geographical or otherwise. To communicate, learn from and learn respect for those other basically decent individuals and associations of individuals oppressed by a world of states that seek to aggregate power to a ruling few. An age of co-operative individualism. Individuals seem, largely, to be able to make more friends than enemies, states more enemies than friends. We no longer need those states to network on our behalf when we can do it for ourselves.

My one regret about Andrew Phillips is that, having recognized some of the problems, he finds himself too tired to stay and try to change them. But we all run out of puff some time. Those who agree with him need to carry on that fight with ever more urgency.

ConservativeHome on Sunday included this little piece of hubris. Now, it is true that, somewhat inexplicably to me, Gideon's announcement about raising the Inheritance Tax threshold, something that everyone seems to acknowledge affects just 6% of estates (about 30,000 families each year) currently, seems to have done them a lot of favours, positioning them in the public perception at least as a tax cutting party.

But it would be quite wrong on a number of levels to say that they are lowering taxes:

• First, they are simply shifting the burden. Sure, it is shifting from a few relatively wealthy households (with average house prices once again below £200k having a housing asset over £350k is still in the top quintile nationwide) who can and generally do vote to a very tiny number of households who generally can't and don't vote. But shifting, rather than cutting, it undeniably is.
• Second, even if it were not the "revenue neutral" shift (after all they have also promised to stick to Labour's spending plans so need the money from somewhere) it would amount to a tax cut of just 0.88% of the government tax take (that's central government by the way - i.e. excluding local taxes). If a party that has regularly claimed to be managerially superior and capable of saving government wastage cannot "lose" less than a measly one per cent of its revenue in efficiency savings, they're clearly not the competent financial managers they would have us believe!

It astonishes me that a measure that would be felt my fewer than 30,000 families per year can be spun as some major step forward in tax shifting, let alone tax cutting. Compared to the Lib Dem proposals - abolishing the Council Tax (the tax most respondents found unfair in recent polling by the Tax Payers' Alliance) would be immediately felt by virtually all households; reducing national Income Tax by four pence in the pound would be felt by every individual earning anything more than the personal allowance, the Tory changes to IHT and Stamp Duty on homes, are small fry - mere plankton in fact.

But both parties of course propose changes that are "revenue neutral". Nobody seems to be advocating real tax cuts. And maybe when the population wakes up to this fact they will see through the spin and reject those attempting to hood-wink them into believing they will somehow be much better off. On balance of course, the Lib Dem proposals would leave far more people better off, if they tread lightly on the resources of the planet, for most of our tax cuts are to be funded by increases in taxation for environmentally damaging behaviour and life-styles.

Vince Cable - the best prospective Chancellor by far?

So why is it not us that have made eleven percentage point gains in the polls? For I have to say, compared with either Gideon, Gordon, Balls or Darling I find Vince Cable the most palpably honest and certainly best briefed potential Chancellor of the Exchequer in mainstream politics right now. Might I suggest that it is a lack of clarity, especially about who gains and who loses under our proposals. This was most obviously apparent when Charles Kennedy famously fluffed his interview on Local Income Tax during the 2005 General Election campaign.

Our Green Taxes and local tax reform ideas have been criticized by others:

• as affecting the annual family holiday (wrong - they do however aim to penalize those very lucky tiny few who have the time, lack of domestic commitments and financial wherewithal to take weekend breaks abroad every month or two - where their flight costs pale into insignificance compared with hotel and entertainment costs)
• to hit the poorest households' motorists (wrong again - the 33% poorest households by and large still do not even have access to a private car and would in fact be likely to benefit from the resultant investment and better efficiency in public transport)
• or to greatly increase the income tax of those two young nurses of CK's fluffed interview (still wrong - the four pence in the pound reduction in national income tax is intended to more than cover the Local Income Tax and they won't be paying Council Tax on top).

So why can't we get that across to people? It's a far more compelling package than the Tories and their tax cuts for the rich - which is jam tomorrow for even those who might benefit and jam never for most of us.

Now, you would not expect me to comment on tax policy without mentioning my pet pair of elephants - Land Value Tax and Citizens' Income . I maintain that by adopting the "Single Tax" of Henry George - that is taxing the unimproved value of all land as a replacement for (most*) Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Corporation Tax, and, if Europe were to agree, Value Added Taxes and returning most of even that Land Value Tax to the people to spend in the form of "an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship" (the description used by the Citizens' Income Trust) would so transform our economy and environment that government expenditure could be reduced to just a fraction of the proportion of the national income it is today.

Couple this with monetary reform that would see a national credit authority, free of government and politicians' interference, creating just the right amount of new currency needed by the economy to account for each year's growth in the economy instead of privatised debt creation doing the same job with a lot less stability as recent weeks in the financial markets have shown, we would have virtually no need for taxation at all (except perhaps as a behaviour modifying mechanism)

Pie in the sky? Well, it may be. But surely that sort of promise is worth investigating at the highest level. We assume the way we currently operate - coercive taxation and state capitalism - is the only one possible. It is true that, as the joke goes, in order to get to that fiscal nirvana one would not start from where we are, but the potential attractions are so enormous that we ignore them at our peril. Land Value Tax has some heavy-weight supporters historically - Adam Smith, J S Mill, Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Milton Friedman and others cannot all have been wrong, surely?

I stumbled across this group of bloggers the other day called the "Low Tax Coalition" .  I considered applying to join their number, but so far as I can see not one of them even dares to imagine the sort of low/no tax economy I set out above.

*I say "most" Income Taxes (and possibly CGT too) because I am becoming more convinced that some of these taxes on (some of) the highest earners may be necessary in the short to medium term to recoup the "embodied advantage" they have gained under the current less fair system. For an example of what I mean, look at the current Sainsbury take-over where the shareholders are about to crystalize property values worth up to around £10bn effectively valuing the grocery business at nothing despite its obvious earnings history and potential.