Tuesday 4 September 2012

Ideas

These are my ideal additions to the agenda, a mixture of big ideas and small-but-important steps that could form planks in our manifesto. Obviously there is going to be opposition to some of these, and you guys can pick and choose what you like. But yeah, this is policy I could really get behind:

Immigration

  • Put immigration policy under the purview of BIS rather than the Home Office (which would still handle enforcement). This would highlight the importance of immigration as an economic concern.
  • Promote massively higher levels of immigration in order to boost long-term growth and help reduce the deficit more painlessly.
    • There's some stuff about the economics of immigration here, here and here.
    • This rather interesting OBR table illustrates my point.

  • So, as far as policy goes, this might mean easier paths to citizenship that don't require you to know absurd things that few British people do.
  • It might also mean - and this is a big step - selling visas, allowing anyone who wants to to live and work in the UK for, say, £3000. This would, at a stroke, massively increase the size of our workforce, increase fiscal sustainability, reduce illegal immigration and put Russian people-smugglers out of business.
  • This would be easier to sell than you might think - we could present it as the choice between sending jobs out and bringing workers in.
  • We should also make it much easier for tourists to come to this country. The next few decades are going to see a flood of middle-class Chinese visiting Europe, and we want them to come to London and buy our kitsch.
Taxes, Benefits and the Budget
  • I broadly agree with AndyC's excellent and detailed post, but there are a few ideas that I'd like to add.
  • One of the groups that gets really screwed over by a universal credit system is single mothers. This would be lessened if, as I have suggested before, we incorporated existing provisions into a major childcare subsidy. This would help encourage more women to enter the workforce, and hopefully also increase fertility, which is important long-term. It fits into the overall theme of supporting work.
  • One much more controversial proposal would be to shift the tax burden from income to consumption. The economic arguments for this are strong - income taxes discourage work, whereas consumption taxes encourage saving, consumption taxes are not regressive because consumption is the point of income in the first place, consumption taxes are much less distortionary and much easier and cheaper to collect. In practice, this would take the form of cutting income tax and raising VAT.  AndyC's demogrant would fit into this as a progressive universal rebate. This would also be a much more realistic way of implementing a de facto wealth tax, like Clegg has been talking up (people who paid high rates of income tax when they earned the wealth they have now would also have to pay high rates of consumption tax when they spend that money). And announcing it would stimulate spending now - in the same way that Labour's proposed VAT cut would, by bringing purchases forward, but without breaking the budget - thus helping to get the economy back on track. I know some of you probably won't like this idea, but it's worth discussing.
  • We need to reverse cuts to public investment, which are the most destructive and short-sighted way to close the deficit. Instead we need to seriously look at potential savings in 
Education
  • We should set aside a significant sum to do some experiments in schools - trying out longer school days, higher teacher salaries, maybe something like a voucher program like what's starting to catch on in America. Who knows - we might learn something.
Science & Innovation
  • We should massively increase R&D and technology spending. We have a chance to make the UK a world leader in science, in research into groundbreaking technology in alternative energy, electronics, biology etc.
    • Maybe we could provide tax incentives to research, to try and generate tech clusters?
  • Intellectual property law is increasingly outdated in the digital age and we need to think about encouraging more innovation through patent reform etc.
Licensing
  • We should make it so that it's easier to get accredited in the industries where that is necessary, remove unnecessary licensing restrictions and make foreign qualifications transferable.
  • More, we should reform the process to give a greater role to intermediate professional qualifications. Doctors spend far too much of their time doing things that they didn't need ten years of medical training to qualify them for. The same thing is true of lawyers. There's a lot we can do to fix this.
Defence
  • Here, there are a few questions to answer:
    • What do we want our military to do? Personally, I think we need to spend only as much as is necessary to defend the Falklands, maintain a nuclear deterrent and do Olympic security / riot control / other emergency stuff.
    • How much is that going to cost? If we go with a pared-down military, we could save a lot of money - money that could get spent on deficit reduction, schools, etc. Defence is the ultimate low-hanging fruit, spending-wise, and we throw a lot of money at it as things stand.
The Other Thing
  • I can't stress how much difference reforming the Bank of England's mandate would help deal with economic problems. The concept of NGDP targeting is gathering momentum, and was recently endorsed at Jackson Hole by Michael Woodford (probably the best and most respected monetary economist alive). Yeah, most people won't understand it, and this isn't a real election. But, seriously, this is a really good idea.
Anyway, I'd like to know what everyone's opinion is of these thoughts.

15 comments:

  1. The Military stuff could be problematic as I'm a rather strong interventionist...

    But I don't think we need a large standing army either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are we going to be intervening?

      Delete
    2. Libya style.

      Direct help to the FSA would be something I'd back

      Delete
    3. No real action on Syria is going to happen without Security Council backing, and we don't need a big defence budget to get that.

      But, yeah, thoughts on the other stuff?

      Delete
  2. Mostly acceptable.

    Though if you wish to bring in large scale immigration is fertility really an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Overall message: people good!

    But yeah, fertility isn't really the main reason why we should be supporting childcare subsidies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to say that I broadly agree with most of this - except it would be more true to say I closely agree with almost all of it :-)

    Defence - more specifically, I'd pare down in a focussed fashion - reduce the army significantly, cut RAF fighter levels and restructure to ISTAR, and slightly augment the Navy. As the Army is something like two to three times the size of the other forces, this should still provide noticeable savings whilst retaining a level of interventionism (we'd say that we are focussed on time-limited interventions and sustained lingering presence is outside of our scope). The RN augmentation would give us the "big stick" to back up defence of the shipping lanes if anything were to threaten them.

    Immigration - I agree. It'll also be a hugely difficult sell to the general public, however. Maybe some way of steering immigrants such that clumping together doesn't occur? No idea if that would be practical, though.

    Childcare subsidy - agreed. Removing barriers to working is always a good thing and fits with "positive liberties" approach to liberalism. Costing it could be a challenge. Must look into that.

    Also strongly agreed on shifting burden from income tax to VAT. It's a pro-growth option, but the pushback we'll get is "VAT is regressive!!!". Which is arguable, as the IFS point out (measuring this expenditure tax by expenditure deciles (which is logical) shows progressivity; hammering to fit an income decile structure onto the expenditure tax doesn't, but that's because income does not always equal expenditure but shifts over the lifetime (it's equal over a lifetime but not on a smaller scale)). Further, the Mirlees report has a lot more on VAT which could be drawn upon.

    Licensing and Science/Tech. Agreed on all of that, but would consider trying to control the use of the term "Engineer" as happens in places like Germany. The guy that fits your satellite dish is not an Engineer. Raising the social profile of genuine Engineers would possibly be a very cheap way of helping this (like "Architect" and "Doctor" are controlled terms).

    Attached to the immigration issue is planning approvals and house building. If we want population to increase, we need somewhere for them to live. The pernicious effect of high and increasing house prices is something that most Governments are terrified of really acting upon and has to be a high priority.

    On public spending for infrastructure - agreed. We also need to propose what infrastructure we'll concentrate on. We need a substantial chunk of it to be "shovel ready" very quickly (also linked with urgent changes to planning laws).

    Got to get back to work now, but as I said - I can get wholeheartedly behind the entirety of this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely agreed on the housing policy. I was going to mention it, actually. We need more deregulation, more local benefits from new builds to counter NIMBYism and looser green belt restrictions (as much as it hurts).

      Need a brainstorming post RE this.

      Delete
  5. As MoD, I must defend the current military budget; we must be prepared for problems around the world.I'd defiantly support other methods to maintain the budget. You know that we're overstreched as it is, and the entire that we can't support a military establishment as it is is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The overstretching is a problem of excess demand, not deficient supply - we have committed to doing too much, and now we're stuck with expensive military technology and a big deficit. Yes, cutting the military sucks, but would you rather raise taxes, or balance the budget on the backs of the poor? What do you propose would be better spending to cut?

      Delete
    2. Charlie, I can certainly see where you're coming from, but in my experience, the fundamental issue with MoD overstretch is the refusal by politicians to accept that the Armed forces have shrunk - as a result of their decisions. Couple with that the "we can do it" attitude bred into the Armed Forces from day one of training, and we end up with the circumstance where the Armed Forces are operating at "surge" effort levels routinely.

      The most expensive part (in terms of manpower) of intervention is enduring operations. If we were to cut our cloth to our resources, we'd accept that we can't do everything at overstretch but focus on sensible choices. We'd then do more (in terms of achieving what we desire) with less (in terms of expenditure) with less stress (in terms of manpower being asked to do everything). I'd advise that we focus our changes on eschewing enduring operations (arguing that our interventions will be focussed and time-limited; interventions requiring substantial tying up of manpower over years will be done in coalition with allies, where we'd specialise in the shock "get in and get it done" element and others would provide any required enduring operations).

      We'd also review what we would use and not use. For example, I've yet to be told convincingly in what circumstances we'd use a load of tanks, yet we're going ahead and buying more. It seems to me to be a hangover of the idea that the next Big War would be based on a tank battle in Europe. A tank is either unnecessary if you have air superiority (use flexible and fast air resources) or a deathtrap if you don't (target acquired ... scratch one tank).
      Why do we have large numbers of next generation fighters on order? Small numbers for expeditionary use, coupled with SAMS (eschewed by our pilot-dominated RAF at the moment) are all we need.

      Where we could get imaginative are in the fields of novel uses and equipment. Airships for lingering ISTAR or ground attack from very high level under conditions of air superiority, for example (a single airship at 100,000 feet with excellent optics and anti-personnel weapons could lock down a large area of operations). Non-lethal weapons. Cyber. ESM and ECM. Get DSTL becoming innovative and tie in with our science and tech R&D.

      Delete
  6. Andy, I'll have to consult some people I know, but I can tell you right now that's a massively daft idea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Which bit?
    - Avoid enduring Ops?
    - Eschew tank battles?
    - Imaginative uses for Airships?
    - Change tilt of RAF towards ISTAR?
    I've argued most of them with SO2s and SO1s across all three Services. The fourth one isn't my idea; the current CAS argued it at a seminar at the Defence Academy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah - on "Airships for lingering ISTAR", I'd like to cite:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19634160
    "Based in nearby Cranfield, the firm has designed a 400ft (122m) long "lighter-than-air" hybrid vehicle for the US Army, in a contract worth half a billion pounds. Their success could result in hundreds of jobs being created."
    ....
    http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/pdfs/PR_LEMV_First_Flight_Hybrid_Air_Vehicles.pdf

    It is a "Long endurance Multi Intelligence Vehicle"

    ""This platform will establish a new standard for a long-endurance, persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability over the battlefield."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I personally think the Guard Regiments should be amalgamated, forming the Horse Guards Regiment and the Foot Guard Regiment; that should save us a fair bit. Also, scrap the order for the F-35B for the RAF and RN, expand Typhoon production and get Super Hornets for Navy CTOL CVFs.

    ReplyDelete