debt money

We, the leaders of the Group of Twenty...

Jock — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:13:59 +0000

...a society made up almost entirely of mendacious megalomaniacal psychopaths, do declare that the causes of the current economic crisis are basically nothing to do with us:

3. During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.

4. Major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others, inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies, inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes. These developments, together, contributed to excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption.

God it makes me sick. Lying miserable tossers. Understand this well. Maintaining low interest rates, in order to get more people borrowing more to put into a land price bubble which would enable others to borrow to spend our way out of a mini-recession at the beginning of the century was DELIBERATE PUBLIC POLICY. Deliberate public policy the effects of which were to make the poorest and weakest in society attempt to take on unacceptable levels of debt and risk just to prevent themselves from being ripped off even more in the future.

Not only that, but they knew at the time it would lead to problems later (Eddie George said: "My legacy to the MPC, if you like, has been 'sort that out',"). They simply hoped their successors could get us out of those problems. I think we should take their prescriptions for recovery with all the salt in the world's oceans. read more »

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

Jock — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:53:06 +0000

We've seen much over recent weeks about how awful the City has been. How banks have made rash dodgy loans. Short sellers, overpaid executives and whatever else...

But I'll let you into a little secret: for every loan there is both a lender, perhaps a dodgy spiv with too high a bonus to be sure, but just as importantly there has also to be a borrower.

We have seen a little po-faced political bemoaning of the culture of consumer debt, but this unsecured credit - spending money - does not appear to be the primary debt that has caused this collapse. With few exceptions, when the banks talk about the sub-prime loans lying like a half-dead half-back at the base of a maul, they are talking about mortgages. Are not these borrowers to be condemned in equal proportion? Did the bankers force them to borrow? Are not they just as greedy, in their own way, as the bankers making themselves rich on those borrowers' seeming insatiable demands for more money? Maybe these are the real "sub-prime loons" that are really responsible for bringing our economies near to systemic collapse?

Of course it would be electoral suicide to lay so much blame on the ordinary "Joe Sixpack, the hockey mom". And indeed it would be quite wrong to do so. For most of those mortgage borrowers, perhaps especially what has become known, horribly disparagingly, as the "sub-prime" borrowers, were being completely rational. Rational, that is, in an utterly irrational system. And the results of that rational behaviour are now serving to highlight just how irrational the system is.

Indeed, it is so utterly irrational a system that those borrowers we might want instinctively accuse of being the least rational - those whose chances of paying off the large loans were the smallest - are in fact the most rational. Because in that mad upward spiral of house prices, those still left renting would be the worst hit. The urgency of getting out of renting and fixing your future housing costs at today's rates is all the more pressing.

Because here's the second little secret for tonight: we all rent.

This may seem counter-intuitive in a world where 70% of folk "own" their home and most of the rest want to. If you are, or can recall when you were, on the point of making the transition from renting to buying the first time, this will be easier to understand. One of the factors in your decision to stop renting and to buy instead will have been whether the mortgage payments, as compared with your current rent payments, are reasonable value, over the length of time you expect to be needing to use that property.

Of course there are many other factors as well. Some in favour of ownership, such as being able to improve, redecorate or even trash the property, and having the prospect of capital growth. Some in favour of renting, such as not being responsible for all the maintenance, or not being stuck with a mill stone if you can't sell it when you need to move. And of course the supreme benefits: a. you don't need to charge yourself rent - after all you are paying for it anyway and b. if you get to the end of your payments okay, you get it rent free for as long as you like and still get to sell the rights to it hopefully at a tidy profit.

But as tradable assets, our properties are valued on the basis of the yield it could achieve to an investment buyer now, and their view of how that is going to change over the time they expect to hold the investment. And when we buy a home, what we are actually buying is the right to collect the rent on that property for several years ahead at a "fixed" price today that we think will benefit us. Few owner occupier buyers will probably think about it that clinically. They might instead look at local comparisons to assess what they ought to be willing to pay. But so long as there is a rental market, and since there are some disbenefits to ownership as noted above it is likely that there will always remain a rental market, the money-value to the market is going to be based on its current and future rental potential and the overall yield over the time an investor would expect to hold that property investment.

So, what rising house prices indicate is that investors believe that there are going to be higher returns in terms of future rent potential. And if you are still a tenant, higher returns to the landlord mean higher costs to you. So if it is economic to freeze the rent payments at or near today's levels for the foreseeable future, you definitely want to do so. This becomes a bubble because the effect of future expectations compounds itself. Throw in relatively cheap loans and people can afford more in the present to secure those expected future gains.

Okay, now having, I hope, got you thinking in terms of "rent" I want to get you thinking about the different components of this "rent".

Take two identical, some might call them identikit, homes. Two same model "Barratt boxes". Only one is in Kensington & Chelsea, the other in Blaenau Gwent. I choose them because they are the highest and the lowest respectively local authorities by "land value" in England and Wales. Three bedroom, 100 sq m and with a rebuild cost of £1500 per sq m. On the face of it, they ought to cost about the same to buy, somewhere around £150,000, but of course they don't, do they.

If you managed to find the same little plot in K&C as in Blaenau on which to place your "Barratt box" you'd probably find that in Blaenau it would cost next to nothing - probably a couple of thousand pound per plot, for the trouble of clearing it! But in K&C it would cost several million and probably wouldn't be worth your while putting that Barratt box on it! In fact, in the recent purchase of Chelsea Barracks by the Candy brothers, which was reported as £959m for 12.8 acres, your average tenth of an acre plot would set you back a cool £7.3 million.

In fact, the Chelsea Barracks site is a good one to look at, since it will not involve criticizing the "poor widow" for not developing her prime land, but the government! What did the government, the Ministry of Defence do to make that barracks land so valuable? It certainly wasn't its former use as a barracks! It's not because it was a barracks that makes it an in demand site. But because of all the economic and social activity that goes on around the site. In fact, once upon a time, as a barracks, no doubt the site would have attracted the usual motley collection of military hangers on - whore-houses, bars and so on - it may even have depressed local land values initially, but certainly for the past few decades holding it out of its more productive use has meant other local prices have been pushed higher than they would be if all that land had been used productively.

In fact, the proportion of the "rent" due to the value of the building, the same sort of building as in Blaenau, is a tiny fraction of the overall rent. The rest is due to the location. The popularity of a location which is made up of dozens of factors, but centres around the fact that there are hundreds, thousands, of people who could beneficially make use of that location to be nearer work, social and other opportunities created by the surrounding community.

Now, here's the easy part to remember. What Land Value Taxers want to see, from David Ricardo, Adam Smith, J S Mill, Henry George to Lloyd-George, Churchill, Asquith and many others to the present day, is that the portion of the rent a property yields due to its location, and not the building on it, should be collected by the community and redistributed amongst the community instead of privatised by the highest bidder (or in some cases still the person with the most brutal land grabbing ancestor!), shored up by cheap bank loans. It is rent due to its monopoly as a good location that many people could make use of rather than any effort of the landowner.

In an LVT based tax system, when you "buy" your home, you'd be buying the right to collect the rent for the building alone. This is something you as an owner can affect, through your diligence or negligence in maintaining it or in building something of higher density on the same site. In the language that a typical home buyer will understand better, we want you to pay the £150,000 for the Barratt box to Barratt or the previous occupier, but you pay the remainder, the rent caused by its location, in annually assessed chunks, to the state instead of paying taxes on the earnings from your economically productive labour.

You can already, I hope, see the advantages. This bubble we have lived through over the past decade, the angst of people priced out of the market stressing about if they ever will get out of renting, the ballooning of borrowing that now threatens the very system that created it, will be things of the past. For as long as you can justify paying the location rent given the benefits that particular location gives you nobody can shift you. If that rent rises it is a sign that more and more people are being excluded from land that they might make more productive use of than you. Why should you be able to exclude them for as long as you like and then also reap a massive profit from having cost so many others much money "avoiding" your plot?

Instead of that home in Kensington & Chelsea costing you £7.35 million up front, it'll cost you £150,000 or so up front, which you can borrow to pay for if you need to, and a hefty annual location rent bill instead of both the remaining £7.2 m mortgage it would have cost you to buy the location up front and your income and other taxes on productive labour. Your disposable income is likely to be maybe 30% higher just for losing those income taxes. You can save in a wider range of productive assets for your future than just the monopolistic endeavour of owning a popular, or up and coming location. You may even choose to save so you can continue to pay the location rent when you stop earning for whatever reason - though most would probably find it just as good to save for an income in retirement and to downsize or move so that someone else can have the benefit of the local school you no longer use, the local rail station you no longer commute from and whatever other factors have made your location a popular one and for the proximity of which you would continue to pay even after you have stopped using them.

In the lingo, this is called creating "free land". Returning it to common ownership and paying as you go to occupy the bit that most suits you at any particular time of your life.

Even apart from the source of government revenue this would provide (though some of us would prefer to see the rent collected and simply doled out to all citizens in that community as a community dividend, a basic universal non-withdrawable income in place of most cash benefits) it fundamentally shifts the burden away from working and producing and onto inefficient use of scarce resources.

It is essential in an environmentally responsible regime, because it makes the choice of whether to live close and not pollute by commuting or to live far and spend a fortune in travel costs, more available to more people.

And it is essential in a liberal regime, as it gives people a choice in the "taxes" they pay - the tax savvy will soon work out that if they can spot an up and coming area that still meets their needs early they will pay less tax and watch the services there get better as others catch on, until it reaches some kind of equilibrium again. And it stop people making monopoly profits out of excluding others from what we all need access to - a location to base ourselves at.

This would be so much more than just a "tax switch" though - it would so fundamentally change the fairness, equit, economic justice for millions of people who, knowingly or not, are trapped in a system that takes money from them to line the pockets of landowners, the ranks of whom are getting ever more distant for many people all the time. read more »

Isn't this just a little bit scary?

Jock — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:23:13 +0000

...but strangely intensely exciting at the same time?

I'm just watching the news on Channel 4 and they've got all this coverage of the squirming going on in Washington and Wall Street.

Is it just me or am I right in the impression that Privilege and Power is absolutely terrified at the moment? That "they" really believe things are on the edge of a precipice which threatens systemic melt-down or revolution?

And also that there is a real massive popular movement going on to get the message across to "the Hill" that "they" will not be forgiven for allowing "our" money to pay Goldman Sachs bonuses. read more »

2% of pound coins are fake? Big whoopie do!

Jock — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:17:53 +0000

...it's more like 2% of our money that is actually real, tangible stuff.

You're lucky if you happen to have some of the real stuff in your hands in fact. Why shouldn't the good old coin counterfeiter have a go. The Masters of the Universe who are at this very moment plunging us all into financial depression are the ones who are really the counterfeiters. And on an unimaginable scale. So unimaginable that we would rather believe it's not been happening.

The fact is that what we think of as pounds and pence are really only represented in the real world by, at the last calculation, about £45bn worth of notes and coins. Yes, that's the sum total of what the state has ever issued in our name.

But add up what we all have in our bank accounts and the humungous numbers represented by our outstanding mortgage balances and so on, there are more like £1,800bn or one point eight trillion.

Is it any wonder that this house of cards is teetering? And the fraudulent pound coins and notes that sometimes inconvenience us when a shop assistant tells us we can't use the money we thought we had are only the visible manifestation of a fraud so much grander we'd prefer not to think it exists. read more »

debt money, fiat money, monetary reform

Three hundred years of lies, confidence tricks and outright fraud...

Jock — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:27:54 +0000

...and we still don't seem to know what to do about bankers!

The Bank of Scotland, whatever is now left of it, is 312 years old. That of England just two years older. Ever since the banking system has been built on state protectionism, corporate welfare, monopoly privilege and, at its heart, a gigantic fraud.

The fraud was that a goldsmith could give both you and I receipts for my gold stored in his vaults and make money on both - from me a fee for keeping my gold, from you interest on the receipt you had borrowed from him. Indeed they found they could duplicate this so frequently, fraud upon fraud if you like, that though gold is perhaps regrettably no longer the basis of our money, the "hardest money", real "hard cash", amounts now to just three per cent of our total money supply in terms of everything we all have collectively borrowed and deposited.

To be fair, most goldsmiths at least issued notes of their own. Customers - both depositors and borrowers - chose which goldsmith to bank with on their reputation. If they became overstretched, issued what was felt to be too many receipts for the same gold, their notes would be less desirable in trade, there may even be a "run" when all the receipt holders tried to get their "real" money, the gold, out of the bank, which of course had much less gold than he had issued such receipts for. Nowadays, however, what they create and destroy in their lending business is denominated in the national currency, a currency issued nominally at least, by the state and guaranteed by the state.

This means it is no longer a private affair between a bank and its customers as to whether their business practices jeopardise their customers' savings; it is a problem for us all. We have ceded control of the supply of money issued in our name to private businesses whose main aim is to make profit for themselves and who, in the course of that otherwise noble pursuit, play fast and loose with the very air the entire economic system requires to function. And states protect them, bail them out as seems about to be the case in the US to the tune of almost countless billions, because they have to guarantee the currency they have so little control over.

Regular readers will know I am very fond of a quotation from Josiah Stamp, Liberal politican, Chairman of the Midland Bank in the 1920s and reputedly second wealthiest man in Britain in his lifetime:

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

"However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

It rather seems to me that with the events of the past few days, we may be "taking the earth away from them" (or, more accurately and nauseatingly, buying it back from them) which they have stolen from us with their inflationary approach to money, but leaving them the power to create those deposits all over again with which, in the next bubble, they will buy it all back again.

Everyone seems to think that money has somehow been pretty constant. The way it works I mean, not whether we call it shillings and guineas or pounds and pence. But the current confidence trick really began with the depression of the 1930s and the work of two extremely wealthy, powerful men in the US who persuaded the government of their day to set up the system that enabled them to create "our" money according to their corporate priorities. The results of John D Rockerfeller and John P Morgan Jnrs' work was the Federal Reserve and the rapid ramping up of fractional reserve banking, and the eventual demise of real solid backing for that currency.

If the current crisis really does turn out to be the "big crunch" at the end of the cycle begun by that 1930s "big bang" we should be ready with policy to replace that fraudulent, anti-competitive, oligarchical system, designed by the very wealthy to keep them that way for little actual productive work with something different. Entirely different. I do not detect any mainstream politicians with the cojones to say so. Our governments and politicians are but eunuchs to the bankers, and the longer that continues, the more the vast majority of us will suffer. read more »

Fannie, Freddie, Africa and Europe in context

Jock — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:26 +0000

It has been estimated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between them underwrite debt of some $5,000,000,000,000 and that US losses from the current credit crunch could amount to $1,600,000,000,000.

The entire external debt obligations of the world's 40 odd Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) is some $300,000,000,000 - that's about 6% of Fannie and Freddie's problems. So any bailout of the US mortgage system is going to amount almost certainly to more money than would write off all that, mainly African, debt (were that the best way to proceed, which I believe it is, with conditions).

By contrast the EU has today decided to support the idea of giving the surplus it has made on the Common Agricultural Policy as a result of rising food crop prices (so it has been subsidising less) to "African farmers". That's about €1,000,000,000 - or one three-thousandth of Fannie and Freddie's problems and two hundredths of Africa's problems.

But where did they get that money from, how did it arise? Robbing those very African farmers by denying them access to our markets and subsidising dumping on theirs. Tariffs are pure evil, aren't they?

So, whenever anyone says to you that it's difficult to find the finance for debt relief in the poorest countries, you'll now know that is total bollocks. Just think of the scale of the US mortgage debt and what such sums could do for the 600 million or so poorest on the planet. read more »

debt money

Tax policy: one I made earlier

Jock — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:21:33 +0000

I spotted someone seemingly scouring my blog for articles relating to "citizens' Income" and came across this now seemingly very prescient post I did nine months ago about our tax policies hitting the mark or not. read more »

debt money, monetary reform

Fannie and Freddie expose fragile financial fabric

Jock — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:32:48 +0000

They've been rumbled. The very shaky foundations of the entire house of cards have been exposed. The vast fraud against lower and middle income households that is the financial system, and, ultimately, government has been laid bare. Surely everyone can now see that? No? That doesn't surprise me. Just as there was very little outcry in this country when former Governor of the Bank of England Eddie George revealed that their commission on independence in 1997 was not just to maintain an inflation target but also to see to it that house prices continued to rise by keeping money as cheap as possible for as long as possible.

In my opinion, whatever the consequences in the short term, it would be better if Fannie and Freddie were allowed to die gracefully even as their lives have been a disgraceful deceit. What have they done that is so bad that a normally forgiving person like me would be calling for the corporate equivalent of the death penalty? The seemingly innocent practice of underwriting mortgages is in fact a key factor in the creation of the property price bubble and in the transfer of wealth from poorer to richer. Yes that's right, redistribution the wrong way! Without that underwriting the front line lenders would have been more cautious in their lending stabilising prices and not stretching households to the financial limits just to have a home over their heads.

Josiah Stamp, Liberal politican, Chairman of the Midland Bank in the
1920s and reputedly second wealthiest man in Britain in his lifetime:

However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

Oh, what a clever idea, you still say perhaps - after all, it surely helps more people buy a home. And that's what Fannie and Freddie were supposed to do, by offering an implicit government guarantee people who would previously not have been considered for a mortgage got to join in the jamboree. And that's the problem - a government guarantee. They, the state, have pledged an eye-wateringly close to unlimited amount of money, that's *our* money of course, to make us have to pay more for our homes to the banks who effectively create the credit in the first place and line the pockets of landowners. And this in a nation that is still so relatively empty as to have marginal land in abundance so other land values should still be relatively stable other things being equal.

But those other things are not equal, the cycle of lending inflates the broad money supply so over time reducing the value of the asset that very system conspired to make you pay so much for in the first place. And all this is only possible because of the enclosure of land, the privatisation of the entitlement to and collection of the value that the whole of the community creates at any particular unique location.

At best, Fannie and Freddie are shining witnesses to the power of unintended consequences - I am sure the New Dealers whose brainchild they were earnestly believed they were helping: at worst, they can be seen as part of a conspiracy between government and those who own the financial system and its institutions to transfer vast amounts of wealth from Average Joe to the richest few. Add the evidence of Eddie George that in the UK the past ten years' property price boom was deliberate though unannounced political policy and it's harder to rule out conspiracy over cockup.

Either way, Fannie and Freddie should go, and go quickly, and, as they say, be buried in a closed casket to boot. It will unleash financial turmoil of unprecedented ferocity I am sure. But it will be the herald of death to a fundamentally flawed, corrupt and downright fraudulent system that continues to benefit a tiny few at the expense of the vast majority. I was introduced to a new, to me, term at the weekend, the Kondratiev wave. Looking at the vast amounts of money involved in the current potential crisis, the fact that the asset bubble is bursting as production is also slowing and there's ever decreasing amounts of money available to maintain existing economic activity, and I'm beginning to wonder if Kondratiev wasn't on to something.

This is a huge opportunity. An opportunity to reinvent a stable monetary system more suited to a globalised world of trade and increasing aspiration amongst a whole new world of consumers, a world in which, of necessity, economic activity is shifting relatively away from the west, from the existing reserve currency and its close followers and towards the east and the global mass of population.

And that, dear reader, is why I am likely to die waiting. An opportunity those who wield power would prefer us to miss. read more »

debt money, fiat money, monetary reform

Conceived in iniquity, born in sin

Jock — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:08:55 +0000

Since the Vatican last week tried to redefine the "Seven Deadly Sins" and the events of the last few days in the financial markets I thought I would share a nice quote by a chap called Josiah Stamp, a liberal economist, tax policy expert, director of he Bank of England for a while, chairman of the LMS Railway company, and at the time reputed to be the second wealthiest man in Britain:

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."

ALTERnative strategies

Jock — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:23:28 +0000

A number of others have kindly blogged about the interesting discussion at the ALTER conference fringe event last Saturday night. From the point of view of being on the platform for the first time it was all the more interesting for me. I wanted to pick up on some of the issues that were raised, not so much by the audience, though many were very insightful questions and observations, but the issues raised by both Tony Vickers in his introduction and especially by Vince Cable in his speech.

First, Tony Vickers introduced the whole event by saying that ALTER wanted to spend some time focussing on the second half of our acronym, Economic Reform more generally, rather than Land Tax which we have fixated on thus far. I'm afraid I rather brushed that aside with my little speech about our book, which will now focus more on land than anything else.

I have always taken the view personally that there is indeed more to the essential economic reforms we need to see in an equitable economic system that will benefit the greatest number of ordinary people than just land. I look to the great individualist anarchists and mutualists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the fore-runners of the libertarian movement, who all held that there were four great monopolistic systems we needed to eradicate to level the playing field for all - land, banking, intellectual property and the state itself, or most especially the tariffs they use in pursuit of protectionist policy. Indeed my journey to understanding the land problem began with reading books about the debt-money system.

Colleagues involved in the editorial team for the book, whose economics education is far superior to mine, however, are more convinced that the land monopoly underpins all of these others, and whilst I am yet to understand their arguments fully I do I think see roughly where they are coming from. Essentially their argument is that by creating "free land" the power of the worker is increased by enough to offset the coercive power of debt money, that the ability of governments to manipulate a tax system based on market set values of land to effect protectionist policies is reduced and intellectual property becomes much more a negotiable part of an inventor's portfolio rather than something easily "enclosed" by big business as a result of the relative increase of the power of labour versus capital. At least I think that's how it goes.

But anyway, the upshot of all this is that the book will be more about land than about any of the other areas I have been interested in and which Tony suggested we would be looking at in the future. Though no doubt the chapters on each area of policy will show how "free land" feeds through into greater empowerment of the individual and worker.

Second, (we weren't ganging up on Tony, I promise!) Vince again turned the discussion around onto land tax. He said, I think, that we had largely won the theoretical argument on land taxes - that the party acknowledged its potential importance. But that there was much work to be done he said to produce "SMART" (my corporate bingo word, not Vince's) policies that can actually be sold to people (ie voters) and implemented. And on that theme I want to post a few separate thoughts of my own in separate posts in the near future.

James Graham rejoined that actually we need to make the "moral case" for LVT, what I would call, and agree with, the TINA (there is no alternative) argument - though my powers of persuasion in the housing debate on that position were clearly not very good! I could put it a slightly different way - "can we afford not to". And that, I think, is also shaping up to be the real message of the "Liberal Alternative" book.

I will end this introduction to a series of posts on "can we afford not to" with a thought on what seems to be a trait in Liberal Democrat policy making. Do we need to have such detailed plans for exactly how we would proceed from day one of a Lib Dem administration, or should we focus more on getting the "big messages" across. It seems to me that the last time we had a big ideological shift in British government, in 1979, that the Tories had a clear "direction of travel" but were not obsessed with landing in Number 10 with a full set of detailed measures to implement that. They may have had behind the scenes, ready to wheel out when the time was right, but the message to the public in the election was of the broad direction of travel.

This is not something we are alone in. Nowadays every party seems to have to have these details all thrashed out in order to give them credibility amongst the electorate that they would be competent to run the country. But I'm not entirely sure that that is what the voter actually wants - perhaps they want the big ideas rather than the detailed minutiae. I suspect this minute detail is a symptom of our modern managerial one-upmanship and the absence of ideological politics. But surely as a party we actually want to return to ideological politics that we think voters will engage with and be excited by.

I don't think I would be accused of disloyalty if I said that we are not going to be the party of government after the next election! So we spend a lot of time selling detailed policies that we will not get to implement before circumstances, most likely, change again. We have had most success with our "big themes" - we are known for PR, for opposition to war in Iraq, and for the idea, expressed through our previous tax pledges (though I hate to admit it in oh so many ways - not least that it will give succour to the likes of Evan Harris!) that we want "fair" taxation. We can sell LVT as "fair taxation" without minute details as to how it would be implemented, perhaps at most a broad timescale for a tax shift, as the Tories did with reducing income taxes in 1979 - something that actually took them three terms to really implement as far as the average voter would feel in their pocket.

Our detailed policy making produces a couple of not always welcome effects - that we are hostages to fortune - what we promise in one election might one day come back to haunt us several elections later when we make it to Downing Street, and it saves other parties a deal of work thinking for themselves when we create policies that they like to nick. We can of course take some pride in others wanting to use our policies, but people soon forget where they originated, and we risk being forever a glorified "think tank" rather than a party with the big ideas that will win us power. LVT is such an idea. We should not be afraid to tout it without trying to explain to people exactly how it would be implemented except in broad outline until we are closer to being in a position to do so. That will not stop the likes of us in ALTER, however, trying to show the party internally how it might work, but in the end, the detail is what the Treasury is for when we have control of the Great Court! read more »