An antidote to the Communist Manifesto

In the 1980s I published an antidote to the Marx Manifesto. A similarly slim volume, it was entitled “The Popular Capitalist Manifesto”.

I accepted Marx’s tenth proposal, free education for all children. I stood most of the other Marxist proposals on their head to recommend policies which could promote the freedom and prosperity Marxism repressed.

In place of the abolition of private property I proposed Everyone an owner, everyone a shareholder – wider ownership.

In place of a heavy progressive Income Tax I proposed lower tax rates for all earners.

In place of preventing inheritance I proposed a multigenerational society where property can be passed relatively easily from one generation to the next.

In place of centralising credit in the hands of the state I proposed the ending of exchange controls, the conduct of a prudent monetary policy, competitive private sector banks and the  reduction of state borrowing and debts.

In place of more nationalisation and state control I proposed more competitive private enterprise

In place of enforced movement of labour and state control of production I favoured freer markets, freedom to work and to invest as you chose.

In place of industrial armies I proposed a sensible welfare system allied to freedom to chose your employment

In place of nationalising the commanding heights I favoured more private sector involvement in the economy.

In place of the state forcing town and country together, I proposed roles for the state in maintaining law and order and defending the state from threats.

My slim volume was of interest to the eastern European states emerging from the long winter of communist tyranny. I went to several of the newly freed countries to talk to them about the transition to a freedom loving democracy backed by a free enterprise economy.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

100 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    Indeed most sensible people know what is needed. Though free education is debatable vouchers and free choice would be better allowing the private sector to compete in this area rather better. The real question is how do we get politicians (and the state sector) to ever implement it. This when their personal interest is to grab as much power and money off tax payers as they can and then to use it to buy votes, waste on their friends and relatives and fund propaganda and grand vanity projects.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:51 am | Permalink

      We tried to set up a truly free school with a for profit and very successful Swedish company. Guess what? The DfE took over and insisted on organising it into a not for profit Comprehensive! Eventually they forbade us to continue. Vouchers? Not if the DfE can prevent them!

      • lifelogic
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Exactly, as usually the government and state sector is the problem. Blocking everything that threatens their personal empires, and they control the planning, and all the other many levers in the system that they can use to block or inconvenience it.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      “The real question is how do we get politicians (and the state sector) to ever implement it. ”

      Well, one way is to do to them what they have always done to us. ie Divide and conquer.

      Google the ‘Harrogate Agenda and the Six Demands.’

      When ‘they’ no longer have control of the money supply, we will be able to control them and reduce the size of the State.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      All vouchers will do is force the poor to subsidise the private education of the wealthy. Unless public schools using the voucher system are forced to make 40% of their places available to non-fee paying students this idea will never be viable.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        Vouchers would however, give “the poor” a chance to choose a school to send their children to, rather than having a school allocated to them by the socialist minded LEAs.
        And then long term the popular schools would expand and unpopular schools might either close or improve.
        Your last para used to be achieved by the assisted places scheme which Labour abolished.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

          Parents can already chose the school their children go to so vouchers don’t offer any additional choices.

          You’ve also failed to explain why the popular schools would expand. Especially when they’re able to offer high quality teacher by keeping class sizes small and the number of pupils low.

          My last paragraph is nothing like assisted place scheme, where the public school was able to charge to government part of all of the school fee dependent on exam results, as it requires a certain percentage of pupils to attend this school for free regardless of exam results.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

            Uni
            Parents only have the limited choice they are given by their LEA so your assertion is wrong.
            Few get their first choice of even what is available on their controlled catchment area list.
            Vouchers would make all local schools available, making parents a customer.
            But I realise choice for us peasants is an anathema to you. Statists like you who desperately want to keep the poor under your centralised control.
            We know what is best for you,…do as you are instructed.

            Popular schools at present are not allowed to expand to meet parents demand in areas where total places equals the total numbers of pupils.
            Unlucky pupils who do not get their first or second choices met are posted off like slaves to perpetually poor schools where outcomes are uncertain compared to the best schools.

            Oversubscribed schools would be able to expand to meet parents demands. Tell me what is wrong with that?

            Assisted places was hated by those with your political views because it enabled people from the poorest areas of society to get into top schools and improve themselves for free.
            It was a brilliant method of encouraging the social mobility you often call for and should have been massively expanded instead of being stopped.
            Don’t want the peasants getting above themselves do we Uni.
            No one left to be your client.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    “I accepted Marx’s tenth proposal, free education for all children.” To 18 years old? And then a strong pressure to go on to college of some sort? Are you serious? Basic literacy (not always not given at the moment) and numeracy (ditto) for all up to the age of, say, 14 – yes certainly.

    More than that? How about a little attempt at some religion? Or some basic morality (Jeremy Kyle – watch it for half an hour). And how about some sort of encouragement for children to do some work outside school and get some money and see how the real world works?

    Of course, with the new (Labour Party claiming the credit!) Academies this is improving; it really is transforming our local town, for instance. But, Schools being a nationalised industry, it has a long way to go yet.

    Why don’t you push educational vouchers and extend the provision of free schools who work on a profit? – I am sure that a lot of parents with children at Public School would support that – all natural Conservative voters too.

    Reply I do support more parental and student choice. A voucher system is still free education for all.

    • lifeligic
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      “How about some sort of encouragement for children to do some work outside school and get some money and see how the real world works?”

      Indeed but the government has virtually regulated teenagers out of any working. Having worked part time as a teenager is a hugely positive indicator of success in later life. But too much hassle now with all the rules.

      • Dr. Sok
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

        best education is to work in a pub.

        • Bazman
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

          Wrong side of the bar for any education.

        • Mark
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

          That depends on who the customers are. Some pubs have an interesting cross-section of society and lively debate. Others, less so.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      It is not FREE. It is free at the point of service. Someone somewhere has to pay. Can we stop saying something id just FREE when in truth it is not. It is misleading and wrong.

      • Bazman
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        Ah! the smell of wood fresh coffee and bread making. Marvellous!

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      Given that there’s 2.5 million people who are unemployed is it really a good idea to reduce the number of jobs available by having children work in them.

  3. Martyn G
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    John, might I suggest you send a copy of your book to the President of Venezuela, a country falling apart with widespread famine and discontent because of socialism being managed in a stunningly incompetent way, accompanied it would seem by political corruption across the board. Pity the poor people of that country who are paying for this prime example of how extreme socialism doesn’t work for long. Ever.

  4. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    Private sector investment today is necessary because it interfered in the running of things in the first place and the need is self perpetuating. State employees originally had a higher purpose , the public and the country was placed at the forefront of the ethos. We were there to serve and protect .Now it is the servers who need to be protected for the private sector whose primary aim is to make capital. Capital is needed with a sensible balancing of the books. In the NHS ,our thoughts were how to we improve our service and use our knowledge to guide others ;today its’ I will be better off if I work here or there.’ We service providers have had the bottom and the original purpose swept from under our feet. We also used to be respected , but now it is the higher earners who claim the accumen.

    Progressive tax is OK as long as it is organised in a fashion where there is reward for hard work , improved service or achievement, yet equality in this respect which does not allow for achievement is demotivating.

    Home ownership is good as long as this hard worked for status can be passed on to our children as we as parents work hard to give our children a more settled life, yet there has to be an alternative.
    Liberty can be seen as national liberty , which means that the country works together to sustain itself and its own citizens , where the capitalist dream is going offshore to get bigger and better. My father was a manger in the Prudential and I felt let down when it went offshore. I feel betrayed when our Nation begins to depend on the ethics of the bigger capitalists and not the rather more pure ethics of our nation ( which I agree have been eroded) .. sad so sad that grey suits and the globes influence is taking over our naïve Alice.

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:59 am | Permalink

      Margaret.

      “In the NHS……”

      Perhaps the ethos has changed, but so have the rewards for many, as wages/salaries and Pension benefits are way above what is available in the private sector for similar work.

      Afraid the NHS is simply not efficient.

      A family member had cause to go to our Local hospital last week, Outpatients appointment made for 1.45 during the week.
      Eventually not seen until 6.30 as they had lost the patients notes.
      Follow up appointment suggested for two weeks time after consultation.
      Phone call received from the Hospital the following morning and follow up appointment made for the Saturday morning some 2 days later as no appointment available during the week.
      Arrive on the Saturday morning at 9.10 for a 9.30 appointment only to be told your not on my screen, further suggested investigation finds the file on the desk.
      Patient called in to be seen and is asked, why are you here only 3 days after being first seen (reason given by patient because thats when you requested me in a phone call).

      During the week files can be seen being moved from ward – ward in supermarket type trolly’s.
      Files piled on the floor in reception, even the cleaner has to hoover around them at the end of the day (remember we were there until after 6.30 so viewed this ourselves).
      Parking almost impossible as hospital and surrounding streets have double yellow lines and limited hospital car parking (paid for).
      Waiting rooms full to bursting.

      Saturday like a graveyard,.
      Parking easy.
      Hospital seems almost empty of staff and outpatients
      Waiting room with few people present.
      Patient seen on time.
      Patient and Consultant happy with examination and diagnosis.

      What a contrast !

      Why does the NHS only seem to operate for outpatients 9.00-5.00 Monday – Friday, with all of that epensive equipment standing idle for the majoriity of hours during a week.

      A&E is of course another story, rushed off their feet because other A&E departments are closing, and partients cannot access their own GP’s.

      We now read in the local paper that Hospital is proposing to sell off one of the Hospital car park areas for a School.

      Difficult to make it up if you tried.

      • Dr. Sok
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

        like the Tate gallery. Should be open 24 7.
        idiots.

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        I have worked in the NHS all my life. The truth is few get benefits due to ad hoc shifts and subcontracts. I have worked for 40 years for patients in the NHS and the pension is less than any other I know. It is a case of a few getting full pension rights and the media being told of those few.
        When they sold my ward off I was thrown into the hands of the private morons, however many interviews I went on , they would not let me back , but instead took many overseas nurses to fill mine and other places . This was in 1995 . We could not get back to put things right whatever.
        I must have attended 100 interviews as many of my contemporaries did, but the private agencies wanted their hands on the money and treat us like objects to fill shifts and take money. My pension for having served the NHS will be far less than the state pension.
        Is it a wonder that standards have deteriorated. The public don’t know the half of it. It has been consistently broken down by those taking the money out and deliberately employing inferior staff to run the organisation. Don’t tell me about my life in the NHS.

        • Mad Nurse.
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

          Margaret:

          On This blog you state:

          “I have worked in the NHS all my life.”

          On the Communist Manifesto Thread, you state:

          “Oh and bye the way that cue can be traced back to the time when I was a director of an insurance brokers , and was swallowed up by illegal means and bigger fish and kept down as a worker. Keep your hot headed comments to yourself and do not be so unkind. My life has been ruined by such.”

          Which is the truth?

          I practiced in both private hospitals and NHS hospitals but cannot remember the NHS having an insurance brokerage run by nursing staff; not even nurse practioners. 🙂

          • margaret brandreth-j
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

            Can a person not work as a director of a medical insurance brokers , which chiefly was run by family and be a Nurse. Do you find those two jobs incompatible? Do you think that being in one post precludes another and therefore there is a falsification? Tell that to the MP’s and ministers

        • alan jutson
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

          Margaret.

          You do not know of a lesser pension than the NHS

          Then you simply cannot of worked anywhere else, or have any idea of what other pensions schemes are.

          The NHS Pension is one of the best in the Country.
          How do I know, we have a family member and friends who work and have worked in the NHS.
          Compared to what is available privately it is a gold plated one.

          The NHS (taxpayer) as an employer pays in the equivelent of 14% of your salary as their contribution alone.

          The NHS Pension is inflation index linked, and spouse gets 50% as standard for the rest of their life upon first death.
          In addition if you are a in a clinacal position, under the old scheme (Just modified) you gained double the years of entitlement after 20 years service.
          Thus do 30 years your pension is based on 40 years contributions.
          Plus the usual 25% tax free lump sum.

          What other employee pensions pay this sort of benefit.

          Self employed contributions is all your own money, no one else contributes, present annuity ratyes about 5% if you are lucky.

          Please get real !!!

          • margaret brandreth-j
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

            If you read the comment properly , you would see that my comment was correlated to the way the staff are allowed to work. You need to read the comments properly and not assume that the figures given, work in reality. As previously stated if staff are moved in and out of a pension scheme , or not allowed to pay into it or moved down grades for a few hours a week , yet serve the NHS patients, then that pension is not going to be as lucrative as a any other which is consistent.
            If you would like to challenge this through a formal route , then I suggest you get in touch with NHS pensions and see how many are on F/T pension rights after serving NHS patients for 40 years. Your response was from a position of ignorance of the reality of the manoeuvre of the jobs markets over the last 20 years. Be assured my life is a living reality.

      • uanime5
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps the ethos has changed, but so have the rewards for many, as wages/salaries and Pension benefits are way above what is available in the private sector for similar work.

        If that was true the private sector would the one struggling to find enough nurses and doctors. There’s a reason why there’s so few NHS dentists and so many private ones.

        Why does the NHS only seem to operate for outpatients 9.00-5.00 Monday – Friday, with all of that epensive equipment standing idle for the majoriity of hours during a week.

        It would cost extra to operate it 24/7, as they would need more doctors.

        • alan jutson
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

          Uni5

          NHS Dentists Practice lists are growing in Wokingham !

          Yes that will probably surprise you, but new ones have come in as patients/customers are getting fed up with the high level of Private practice charges.
          Its called competition !
          Those owners of NHS Practices (who also do private work) still seem to make plenty of money.

          Hospitals
          Yes of course it would cost more money to operate additional hours, but that extra cost is minimal, because it only costs the variable overhead amount to do so.

          The cost of maintaining the building is the same, as is heating, cost of equipment, etc etc.
          The hospital does run 24 hours a day already, its just outpatients that does not.
          The gains in customer service would be dramatic, waiting lists would be shorter, people would not have to take time off of work to attend, staff would have the opportunity of overtime or additional people could be employed (reducing unemployment)

          Thought you would be in favour of all of the above.

          • uanime5
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

            Care to explain why competition would result in more NHS dentists, rather than private dentists who don’t charge as much as other private dentists.

            Approximately how many more doctors will be needed to extend the outpatient hours, along with more pharmacists to dispense any drugs for the patient? Remember that doctors from one department (ENT, oncology, etc) usually aren’t able to determine whether patients from another department can be released.

          • alan jutson
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

            Uni5

            The bigger the choice the more competition for customers , thus private practices will lower prices, offer services that are not available on the NHS, or go out of business.

            I agree you will need more doctors and front line staff to man out of 9-5 working in Hospital out patient clinics.
            But ever heard of split shifts, work sharing, overtime, even temporary staff until more FRONT LINE staff are trained and employed.

            What is unforgivable is to cut front line staff so that people are not cared for properly.

  5. Richard1
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    The replacement of Marxism / socialism by democratic capitalism in Eastern Europe is the most comprehensive manifestation of the total failure of socialism as an intellectual idea. It is incredible that so many people remained Marxists / far left socialists for so long after the failures of this creed were apparent. Your summary of the Communist Manifesto showed how much inspiration Labour governments in the past took from Marxism. That the skewed electoral system is likely to mean we will have a PM who claims inspiration from Marxism is of great concern.

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

      Cameron will lose even without the bias in the elector systems (that he has totally failed to address). He could not even beat Brown, even before we know what a useless pro EU and IHT ratter, fake green, tax borrow and waster he was.

      We now see him again trying to avoid a referendum at all costs. What will he do when, in the EU elections in May, we have perhaps UKIP 36% Labour 34% and Tories 20% I wonder? Will he just keep on running to the cliff?

      • Richard1
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        I think he lost to Brown for a simple reason – giving Clegg a platform in the debates, which moved the LibDems from 15% to 23%. The campaign was also very poor. I think the renegotiation route may have legs. Remember the EU has renoegitated all sorts of things it has said it never would – bailouts, debt levels etc. They may well prefer a face-saving formula whereby the UK gets a Switzerland type deal whilst remaining nominally a member than the trauma of an exit, which could open the sluice gates. I do not understand Adam Afirie’s game. An EU vote in 2014 would probably result in staying in and remove any possibility of future negotiation.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      The only people glorying in Marxism were those not subject to it. They were and are political dilettantes. Those subject to its’ dictates ie. Eastern Europe, fought hard to escape it, all too often paying with their lives. Marxism gave force to the very worst traits in human nature. All those tainted with it in our current political life should be treated with the utmost suspicion.
      Off piste, it would seem that Cameron has led his party into a terrible dilemma . His promises are not believed in the country so the whole conservative philosophy suffers. His MPs are only offered “Over the top to face the machine guns of reality”. Out here in the real world that does not look like leadership and in fact could result in a dose of home grown Marxism.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Richard1
      The worrying thing is that the Socialist and Marxists just way their hand dismissivly away when you tell them this and say, “Ah, but that was not Socialism/Marxism.”

      I have come to believe that Marxism is more like a religion than a political ideology. For it to succeed one must truly believe. And only the truest of believers can ever understand what it all means.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

        John Redwood posted an excellent summary of the Communist manifesto a day or two ago. Anyone can test a political system against the ten points in that summary to see how Marxist / socialist it is /was. The Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin, China under Mao and North Korea today are very close to 100% attainment of Marxism / socialism. The UK in the 1970s was on its way there. It is claimed by one person blogging on this site from the left that countries such as Sweden and Germany today are socialist (and therefore an argument for socialism). A cursory glance through the main points defining socialist policy shows this to be largely the opposite of reality.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

          Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden are far more socialist than the UK; with their more generous benefits and better pay for employees. Both also have parties in their respective parliaments called the Social Democratic Party, and the Left Party.

          Next time try doing real research, rather than basing your arguments on wishful thinking.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

            Do the nations you ridiculously consider to be socialist pass the Clause 4 test Uni?
            No they don’t.

          • uanime5
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2

            Since you didn’t explain what the “Clause 4 test” is it’s impossible to determine if these countries pass or fail it.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

            Gosh I’m surprised a good socialist like yourself doesn’t know it off by heart Uni

            Look it up yourself.

          • Richard1
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

            Your comments are absurd you clearly have no knowledge at all on this subject. Higher pay for employees comes in wealthier countries – look at the US. If Switzerland is socialist, with c. 30% state / GDP, a balanced budget and low taxes then I’m a socialist. Look at JR’s summary of the communist manifesto. That’s what defines how socialist a country is. Readers will note that you are incapable of citing any examples of countries from any point in history where socialism has brought prosperity, or even a civilized society.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

            I’m amazed I should need to do this for you Uni but as part of your education about socialism, here is a simple paragraph explaining the very famous Clause 4:-
            “Clause IV of the Labour party’s constitution pledged its members, ‘to secure to the workers by hand and brain, the full fruits of their labour, through the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”
            In short the State owns and controls everything.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

      Again you’ve ignored that socialism is doing very well in Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

        See my comment above.

  6. Alte Fritz
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    As you implied a couple of posts back, Marxists have a lot to answer for. Their standard retort was always that ‘the Soviet Union is not socialism’. True in the sense that it was not utopian socialism, but somehow, that is how utopias tend to turn out. The Soviet regimes have never had to answer for their past in the way Germany has and continues to answer, no matter how much Germany has changed or whatever it does to make amends.

    I would like to see the process begin before the perpetrators are all dead or senile and then the ‘useful idiots’ in the west be put to the question. It is astounding that a man like Eric Hobsbawn continues in death to be respected even after his monosyllabic confession.

    I remember putting the question “”Why does East Germany have a closed border?” to an old Stalinist. The answer, without a trace of irony, was that it was to stop West Germans flooding in to the East.

  7. Bob
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    The left seem to be drawn to the theory of evolution over creation, and yet their ideology seems to take no account of Darwin’s theory.

    They seem to have their own new evolutionary theory where inefficiency is supported and efficiency is discouraged?

    As for free education, fine, but is the state the best provider?

    We all wear clothes, but do you think the government would do better than our current textile providers? I’m guessing uanime5 will say yes to that.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

      They seem to have their own new evolutionary theory where inefficiency is supported and efficiency is discouraged?

      Also happens in capitalism; especially when people are promoted due to their friendship with their boss, rather that due to hard work.

      You also failed to explain how making the unemployed work for free in jobs where they won’t develop any skills is more efficient than letting them search for jobs that they want to work in.

  8. Andyvan
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    “freedom loving democracy backed by a free enterprise economy.”
    Shame we haven’t got a free enterprise economy. Ours is more than 50% state run which in my book is a socialist command economy.
    “It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” – Krishnamurti

  9. Bob
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Ever so slightly off topic, my daughter has been told not to wear her CCF uniform in public for safety reasons. She has been told to take it to school in a holdall and then change into once inside the school.

    Can can you think of any reason why it would be unsafe for her to walk to school in the uniform?

  10. brian
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Socialism is the opium of the people.

  11. lojolondon
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    John, it sounds excellent – why not re-release it on Amazon?

    Reply I will see if I can find a way of re releasing it.

  12. con
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    It seems to me we are walking blindfold into the Marxist arms of Ed Miliband and his cohorts / Ralph Miliband’s legacy.
    Cunningly, he is using a ‘benefit’ of state intervention by offering a freeze of energy prices, which is ironic given that he was the prime architect of ever increasing energy prices through his wretched Climate Change Act.
    What depresses me is why the Tories don’t expose these kind of hypocricies.
    The Tories are beginning to make Red Ed look smart. Remember, Socialism / Marxism works by stealth. It never gives up. Its belief is unshakable, regardless of actual results. Its hatred of capitalism is all consuming.
    Look at the badge of the Fabian Society – a wolf in sheep’s clothing, no really, for those that don’t know this, or find it unbelievable, Google it and see.
    The Daily Mail piece on Ralph Miliband missed a great opportunity to expose Red Ed as (influenced by Marxism? ed) and they blew it by emotional personal attacks, the cold facts would have been enough to horrify most people. Pity.

  13. Terry
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    The most obvious comparison between Marxist policies and Capitalism is North and South Korea. Just who is better off in terms of wealth and in terms of standards of living for the citizens? As far as I can see, there aren’t too many persons ‘escaping’ to the North, are there? It’s quite clear that the communist North is not the place to live if you have a choice and that fact should dispel all thoughts of turning GB, red.

    However, the die-hard socialists in this country still resolutely believe that their way is the only way as the leader of the opposition confirmed last month. How any ‘educated’ person can believe that the State always knows best, beggars belief and despite there being no examples of its proven validity, they press on with the same demented idealism. I conclude that they are only in it for themselves to gain power, absolute power and we all know what that does. I shudder to think what more damage to Britain and the British people the socialist will do if they ever return to Downing Street. I just hope that the masses will not be conned again by the blatant buying of Labour votes with tax payers own money for it will be the end of us as a Sovereign Nation.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      North Korea is no more Marxist than it’s a democracy or a republic. It’s closest to an old form of Korean feudalism.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        What a very very strange world you inhabit Uni.

        To you, Germany and Switzerland are now socialist, but North Korea is not socialist.
        Apply the Clause 4 test to these nations and see who comes out as socialist.

        I’ve yet to meet a socialist who will ever accept nations like USSR, Albania, Cuba, or N Korea are socialist states.

        It must be their sense of shame.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

          Germany and Switzerland are socialist because they promote socialist policy, such as having companies managed by their employees (in Germany 50% of the board of directors has to be employees representatives) and using public referendums to allow the electorate to govern themselves (Switzerland).

          I’ve never heard of your Clause 4 test. Perhaps you should post it along with your explanation of how you rank how socialist a country is.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

            You are wrong as usual Uni.
            Germany, perhaps the most capitalist country in Europe, has worker reps on subsidiary board level only and they have no real management power as you claim.

            Are you actually saying referendums make a nation socialist…hilarious.
            That means we will be socialist when Scotland have theirs and when we get one on the EU.

            I am staggered you have not heard of Clause 4
            Tony Blair…Labour Party…The Unions…Political History of the Labour Movement…Original Labour Consititution.
            Come on Uni where have you been all these years.

          • Richard1
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink

            Employee representatives in Germany (and elsewhere such as in Sweden) do not ‘manage’ their companies. Have you ever worked in business in either of these countries?

            Referenda are an excellent idea and work well in Switzerland. But they are hardly socialist, and they do not bring about socialist policies.

  14. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    “In place of preventing inheritance I proposed a multigenerational society where property can be passed relatively easily from one generation to the next.”

    That’s if there’s any property in the family to be passed from one generation to the next; the less attractive part that Major missed out from his rosy vision of “wealth cascading down the generations” was the poverty which would also inevitably cascade down the generations.

    Quoted from his 1991 conference speech:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society#Quotations

    “We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.”

    On the contrary I would like to see “each generation starting out anew” to a large extent; it would be a strange philosophy of individualism which said that one individual should start out with wealth gained not through his own efforts but through those of his parents and grandparents, while another individual should be condemned to comparative poverty not because of his own failings but because his parents and grandparents were poor.

    That is why I believe that excellent education and healthcare should be available to every individual child irrespective of his parents’ wealth, so there is something closer to equality of opportunity for the children of the poor and the children of the wealthy, and also why I believe that there should be some kind of tax on legacies to help pay for that.

    I certainly don’t want to fly in the face of the natural human desire of most parents to do as much as they can to help their own children get a good start in life, and nor do I want to deter people from saving for their old age, which will be of uncertain duration and will bring unpredictable costs, and therefore I am certainly not advocating the communist line that nobody should be allowed to inherit any property at all; nevertheless I do believe that there should be some system for levying a moderate tax on legacies.

    • con
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      We have such a system. It’s called inheritance tax and it’s an eye watering 40%.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

        1. No, we don’t have a system of taxing legacies, we have a system of taxing estates. It might as well still be called “estate duty”. In contrast a system of taxing legacies would entail looking at the total legacies received by an individual over the years and applying a tax on the cumulative excess over some threshold, which could for example be a lifetime allowance upgraded each year in line with inflation and with the possibility of some special extra allowances on grounds such as disability. Therefore it could be that when an estate was divided between several children none would pay any tax on their legacies, whereas under the present system the estate would be taxed.

        2. I don’t regard 40% as a “moderate” tax.

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    “In place of more nationalisation and state control I proposed more competitive private enterprise.”

    The Telegraph is reporting that investors in Royal Mail are predicted to enjoy an instant profit of up to 40%:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/10359459/Last-minute-dash-for-Royal-Mail-shares-as-City-speculators-set-to-make-millions.html

    “Alan Johnson, a former business secretary, told The Daily Telegraph: “There is a vast difference between pricing Royal Mail shares conservatively and undervaluing them by £1 billion. This is ripping off the taxpayer on an epic scale.””

    “Part of Labour’s concern is that the Government’s City advisers have failed to take into account the £1  billion-plus property value of some of the Royal Mail’s sites, particularly the Mount Pleasant and Nine Elms delivery offices in London.

    If Royal Mail decided to sell off the sites, any profits would be shared by the company’s shareholders, rather than wholly with the taxpayer.”

    Any thoughts on how you are going to explain this to the electorate and prevent Labour extending its present 6% lead in the polls?

    Reply MY advice is to those issuing the shares to try to price it sensibly so there is a modest profit. Let’s wait and see how they get on with the pricing and the market reaction.

  16. John Harrison
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    I am very keen on education, though less keen on schools – especially at secondary level where I am at one with Jeff Marsden who wrote this: “Education in this country will never function effectively until pupils, at least at secondary levels, can choose their area of study and do not spend every day wastefully being forced to learn much of what they do not want to know.” (Letter to Times Educational Supplement). Schools have their place in education, but they are not the only place where education takes place. It has become convenient for the educationalists and politicians to treat the words “school” and “education” as synonymous. That way they can better control what happens to our children and young people in a way that suits the providers much more conveniently than it does the receivers. They can do this because they pay the pipers – with our money of course.

    I quote the late E.G. West from his book ‘Education and the State’ (Institute of Economic Affairs 1965): “…[school] fees were seen by Adam Smith, for instance, as a necessary instrument of dispersed control; to transfer a child, and therefore the fees, from one school to another was an effective means of communicating parental disapproval of a negligent school government or an unimaginative or torpid headmaster. Once this mechanism was removed, as it was after 1891, the older economists and indeed W. E. Forster, the architect of the 1870 [Education] Act, would have feared the growth of central authority and parental apathy or helplessness. The voice of the organised professional teacher and educationist would predominate, and that of the parent would be critically weakened. For the parent, having been accustomed to a powerful method of voting in the market would be relegated to the much less articulate method of voting through the political process at periodic elections.”

    That, of course, is just what has happened.

    Some parents do retain a powerful method of voting in the market either by paying expensive private school fees or, more usually, by moving to the catchment area of a state school of their choice. ‘Free’ schools are hated by the left for the loss of control they represent to the educational establishment. The most frequent argument against them is the fact that they ‘take resources’ away from the (presumably ‘more legitimate’) existing state schools: never mind how wastefully those state schools are making use of such resources.

    The late Jonathan Langdale and my contribution to another way out of this dilemma is to be found in our book ‘Wot, No School?’ (Best Global Publishing).

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      ‘Free’ schools are hated by the left for the loss of control they represent to the educational establishment.

      Free schools are hated because they’re in areas that already have enough good schools, which is why parents don’t want to send their children to free schools.

      The most frequent argument against them is the fact that they ‘take resources’ away from the (presumably ‘more legitimate’) existing state schools: never mind how wastefully those state schools are making use of such resources.

      It’s usually the parents who make this complaint. After all they don’t want the good schools to suffer for the sake of a politician’s pet project.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        Care to explain Uni, why all the new free schools and acadamies are over subscribed ?

        • uanime5
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          Free schools aren’t oversubscribed, you just made this up because you lack a real argument. If you had bothered to do real research you’d know that most free schools have between half and a third of their places unfilled.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19909369

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

            I don’t lack a real argument at all.
            Free schools and acadamies are popular and over subscribed all over the country with very few exceptions.
            Don’t go believing what the BBC tell you Uni.

            Whats wrong with more choice for poorer parents?
            Why are you so automatically against this idea?

          • Edward2
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

            Uni
            I’ve now read this BBC report you provided a link to and can see what they have done to get the figures and their headline.

            Take a new academy near to me which has a capacity of over 900 pupils.
            In year one it allowed in approx 150 pupils, in year two it added another 200 and in year three it added another 200.
            It has done this deliberately to carefully build up to maximum numbers over the first 5 years.
            So to ask them in that opening period if they are full and then conclude these new establishments are somehow unpopular and not required is poor way of reporting the true situation.
            In the first few years the academy I am talking about had three times the number of applications to available places.
            But don’t let real facts get in the way of the story you want to put out.

  17. stred
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    The only serious problem with your manifesto arises from the change to everyone being an owner. If the change involved the transfer of shares through privatisation and companies part owned by government, then the shares could be sold, as with most of the first privatisations. It would not be long until the previous recipients of state subsidies had sold and spent the money on booze, fags and skunk, then squealing for more welfare. And the shares would end up largely in the hands of foreign oligopolies exploiting incompetent regulators and hiking prices.

  18. The Prangwizard
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Inheritance tax, a tax on capital, prevents the accumulation of wealth, of course, many think it normal and just. We think of it in terms of those landed families of say a century or so ago, and listen to those who say ‘it’s not fair on the poor, the rich must surrender their wealth’.
    But go back a few more centuries to when life was very hard. It was vital then to accumulate wealth, and land acquisition was one of few ways, to protect against life’s real hardships and threats. Imagine if there had been no means of accumulating wealth, how would society have progressed? It wouldn’t. We would still be subsistence farmers and labourers. I am opposed to all capital taxes. Marxists confiscate wealth to keep people poor and eliminate any alternative view to theirs.
    I would like to have been richer than I am now. How about you Unanime5?

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      It’s clear you haven’t bothered to study any history. Most people had to acquire land centuries ago because they needed to grow their own food, not accumulate wealth. People accumulated wealthy by possessing large amounts of gold, silver, art works, and other luxury items.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        Its clear it is you that understands little of early English history Uni..
        Owning land was the currency wealth developed from.
        Owning land was power and a route to great prosperity.
        Hunting rights, rents from tenant farmers, animal grazing and sale of animal products, general food production and the sale of food all brought in good income for those that owned land..
        The goods and chattels you describe all came to individuals as a result of them owning freehold land not instead of it.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

          It’s clear that you are the one who hasn’t studied history.

          Owning land wasn’t a currency and many people developed wealth without it (usually by bringing goods from other countries to the UK).

          Owning land wasn’t a route of great prosperity. Due to the inflexible system it was almost impossible for the wealthy to lose their land or for the poor to gain it.

          Those who owned the land (landlords) sublet it to various people who would farm this land for their lord in exchange for an area where they could grow their own food. So while the lord may have benefited from feudalism no one else was able to acquire wealth because of it. Most serf were lucky if they had enough to eat.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

            Your Ladybird book of history is out again Uni
            Completely wrong in all respects.

  19. cosmic
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    AJP Taylor’s introduction to The Communist Manifest is a comprehensive demolition.

  20. forthurst
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    By the expropriation of the propertied and the direction of the ‘workers’, the clear effect of the Communist Manifesto if not the intention was to reduce all to the level of serf; that certainly was the intention of the Bolsheviks which they achieved through deception of the gullible to get elected and then terror for the Slavs after their coup d’etat.

    On the other hand trying to divide all functions into either a human right to be organised by Marxists in Whitehall, or a money making racket for spivs is also inappropriate. There are activities which are best provided locally by mutual benefit societies or charities such as private housing finance, health and education; for some activities, the profit motive as the carrot and financial failure as the stick is inappropriate.

  21. oldtimer
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Your antidote is more necessary than ever now that New Labour, under Ed Miliband is, going by his early Shadow cabinet reshuffle, reverting to type as Old Labour. According to the Spectator, the Blairites Byrne and Murphy were on Mr McClusky`s hit list for removal. Twigg has also gone.

  22. Iain Gill
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    in gerneral its choice in the individual consumers hands, and their ability to swap provider for small optimisations, that forces providers to innovate and continue to improve. in contrast top down state control can never produce the efficiency and customer satisfaction. this whole cyclic virtous improvement cycle is essential for good service. even where the state decides to provide something for free or heavily subsidised it will always be more efficient if the choices are with end consumers rather than the state. thats the basic problem with school provision, GP provision, hospital services, and so on.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

      Your assumptions are only correct when the customer has a choice. If there’s only one viable provider or all providers offer an equally poor service then the private sector isn’t better than the public sector.

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

        uni5

        I agree with you.

        Thus if that is your argument what is wrong with citizens choosing to go private instead of using public services if the cost to the government /taxpayer is the same or even less..

        • uanime5
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

          One of the problems would be the way in which the cost is the same or less. If the private company lowers the amount they spend on care or their employees’ salaries so they can pay their directors more or make larger profits then there’s less moral reason to use the private sector.

          However if the salaries, working conditions, and total cost in both the public and private sectors are comparable then there’s no problem using either.

  23. Max Dunbar
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    The British have never been subjected to full-blown communism and so many on the Left feel cheated and still push for it.
    My father witnessed a poster of Stalin being pasted up in Central Station, Glasgow in 1945. Uncle Joe was kissed by the poster-upper beforehand.
    There is a statue which was erected in memory of the socialists who fought against Franco which is located next to the River Clyde near the city centre. This statue is topped by a figure with outstretched arms which is dedicated to the communist orator La Passionara. She was a Stalinist communist. The vast majority of the Republican volunteers were communists. The statue was organised by the ‘Labour Movement’ here.

    As eastern Europe moves away from its grim past under Soviet Communism, we in Britain seem to move ever further back to that system, albeit our own Neo-Marxist multi-cultural version of it.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

      Re “our own Neo-Marxist multi-cultural version of it” you mean “our own Neo-Marxist open doors immigration version of it”. the elite of the left have taken on open doors immigration with vigour despite it being opposed by their grass roots, and have openly “rubbed the rights noses in it”. personally i dont see immigration as a left/right issue but rather of common sense, common sense is something the political class seem to be very short of.

  24. Bazman
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Interesting comment on the Tories and very topical to this site by Andrew Rawnsley.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/06/tories-sound-like-marxists
    I would say Miliband has got the Tories and their press lackeys on the run. He needs to do a bit more street fighting in that case telling the population who the Tories really represent and it ain’t the man in the street thats for sure.

  25. Bazman
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    You can have look at this one to on good employers looking after their workforces. Read something ‘sensible’ for a change instead of you right wing nonsense. Pravda? Don’t make me laugh. My wife says that the Tory party are in fact identical in appearance to the communist party of her childhood. LOL!

    • Edward2
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      Baz Your words:- “the Tory party are in fact identical in appearance to the Communist party of her childhood. LOL!”

      For years on this site, you have been claiming the Tories are conspiring to attack the living standards of the working class and now you are claiming they are the new Communists
      Well you certainly got the “laugh out loud” bit right!

      • Bazman
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        Beware the forces of conservatism The more useless they get, the more extreme they get. Said Tony Blair in his famous onslaught against the Conservative party. Then he became one… Conservative and Communist same old same old.

        • Edward2
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

          Absloute twaddle Baz.

          As you cannot successfully smear the Conservative party for being too right wing you now are trying to say that they are an extreme left wing party.
          Hilarious

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

      Bazman ,

      Whilst smart employers do look after their workforce I don’t believe that employers should take responsibilities for pensions .

      We’ve got a massive state sector of politicians and civil servant which should be relieving employers of this administration and function but they don’t .

      On one hand we’ve got Conservatives with a pathological hatred of the state trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater and on the other we have Labour which endeavors to create a dependency culture which will keep it in power forever .

      The Conservatives completely destroyed any credibility they had by “help to buy” and making the tax system recognise marriage ; a gimmick at best , social engineering at worst and either way completely at odds with stated intentions of simplifying the tax system .

      There is no party out there worth voting for .

      I don’t see any hope for the poor or the vulnerable in John’s manifesto .

      Margaret Thatcher thought a similar manifesto would lead to wider ownership and prosperity for all . She was apparently taken aback when her more worldly advisor’s told her that lassaiz faire policies would not lead to competition but to monopoly .

      John is more worldly than this and can surely see that it would just continue the current trend of concentration of wealth and condemn the masses to serfdom .

      Reply My Manifesto was strong on benefit support for those in need, and creating an enterprise society which was capable of generating many more well paid jobs. Compare lifestyles in USSR and USA around 1980 and see which system delivered mroe for the poor.

      • A different Simon
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        Why cite the extreme example of USSR ?

        What I object to is the financialisation since the early 1970’s which has made Americans and Britons poorer in 2013 than they were in 1980 .

        This is mirrored in the dramatic growth in size of companies in the finance sector over the same period .

        In terms of assets the 43 largest listed companies in the world are in the finance sector . The largest non financial company is G.E. in position 44 .

        This isn’t because they are wizards at efficiently allocating capital but because they have captured politicians on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere and got them to bias the rules in their favour .

        The finance sector is taking such a big piece off the pie that there is not enough left for everyone else John – and it want’s more than what is left .

        I’m all for creating an enterprising society but what you prescribe will lead to a rentier society which farms serfs .

        How are you going to reduce income tax and maintain high and increasing accommodation prices which will require ever greater housing benefit ?

        Shifting the burden of taxation from industry and employment to monopolies like land has been such a success in Singapore .

        Your refusal to do the same here will eventually end up condemning the country to consecutive terms of Nulabor with the inherent overreaction against enterprising companies which declare a profit – but never banks .

        I really am in favour of an enterprising society . For instance the single factor which made shale a success on the U.S. and in fact made the U.S. the only place where the shale revolution could happen was cultural . More important than importing the technology from the U.S. is importing the best aspects of that culture .

        • Edward2
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          It is the second industrial revolution and the resulting rise of the “second world” that has reduced the standard of living of all of us in Europe and the USA.
          We as developed nations have failed and it is not just the fault of our leaders.
          China, India, Brazil, Russia Singapore, Malaysia and some African nations have all come alive and have out competed us.
          They have got much wealthier whereas we have failed to rise to the challenge.
          Its not about “a race to the bottom” in terms of wages here in the UK but we need to get clever and earn a different kind of living.
          Using our brains not our hands.

  26. Acorn
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Did you miss me, I have been playing with the big boys in the middle east. Thirty eight degrees and ninety percent humidity. Whomever the ****, thinks you can play World Cup footy in that wants his head read.

    The open minded of Redwood’s Rednecks may have read, at least the simplified version of, http://www.voxeu.org/article/forward-guidance-uk. Even the techies at the BoE have clued up on the Osborne austerity disaster. It even got to the opinion page of the IHT in the desert. http://www.voxeu.org/article/forward-guidance-uk .

    Take a good look at Figure 1. Those who can, will see yet another example, of what I have been telling you for the last couple of years. When the private sector stops spending, due to fear of unemployment and high debts, the public sector has to step up spending to maintain a level of output that stops unemployment rising. The unemployed don’t spend money to increase the demand side of the economy. It appears that the spare capacity in the economy has disappeared, which is keeping inflation high.

    On fig 1, you can see the effect Osborne had on the economy. He said all the wrong things at the wrong moment and flatlined the economy from his day one. The coalition now says 7% unemployment is the target and will be useful to keep wages in check in the “recovery”.

    Anyway, the in thing is to merge your UK company with a foreign country company that has a low tax regime. You then quietly move your taxation base to that foreign company. Naturally, you didn’t do this for tax saving purposes, oh no. It was to increase your production capacity, economies of scale and all that stuff. Well, that’s what you will tell the Public Accounts Committee, won’t you?

    • Edward2
      Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      All good Keynesian stuff Acorn.
      The only problem was that Mr Osborn inherited a Treasury position where as Mr Byrne famously said the money had all been spent.
      I’m sure Mr Osborn would have loved to make himself very popular by carrying on spending like Labour had done for many previous years.
      But the party had to slow down somewhat and the Banks needed to repair their balance sheets.
      We still have had greatly increased public spending under this coalition and we are still borrowing over £120 billion a year adding to an accumulated debt of over a trillion.
      I wonder just how much more State borrowing, taxation and spending you would say is sufficient and more crucially who is going to lend most of it to us?

  27. JoeSoap
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    “My slim volume was of interest to the eastern European states emerging from the long winter of communist tyranny. I went to several of the newly freed countries to talk to them about the transition to a freedom loving democracy backed by a free enterprise economy.”
    The problem is they seem to be hooked on tyanny becase they want to be run by the EU.

  28. Anonymous
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    I’m afraid the antidotes to Marxism are when it is resisted with great vigilance or when it is experimented with to destruction.

    Unfortunately your book wasn’t heeded in this country and we are experiencing the latter.

  29. uanime5
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    In place of a heavy progressive Income Tax I proposed lower tax rates for all earners.

    This will mainly benefit the wealthy because they pay most taxes. It will harm low earners because the benefits they claim and the services they use are usually cut in order to pay for this tax cut.

    In place of preventing inheritance I proposed a multigenerational society where property can be passed relatively easily from one generation to the next.

    Which will result in the rich remaining rich due to the efforts or their parents and grandparents, rather than their own labours. I doubt allowing wealthy families to accumulate huge fortunes will benefit the UK in the long run.

    In place of more nationalisation and state control I proposed more competitive private enterprise

    The problem is that in industries such as water, electricity, and rail there’s very little regional competition. This often results in privatisation delivering a worse level of service than a nationalised one.

    In place of industrial armies I proposed a sensible welfare system allied to freedom to chose your employment

    Sadly Osborne wants the opposite, which is why he’s demanding that unemployed work for their benefits even though the evidence shows that this makes it harder for people to get a job (working for 30 hours per week means you don’t have much time to look for a job, employers can’t contact you, and you have almost no time to attend interviews).

    It also results in the people who used to do these jobs becoming unemployed because employers have no incentive to pay people to do a job when they have a large supply of free labour.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 10, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      Uanime5

      Twaddle as normal.

      My understanding of Osbourne’s proposal is that long term ( 3 years plus) unemployed will have to assist on community projects or go into learning schemes. There is NO suggestion that they will be used as free labour by private firms.

      By the way on your silliness about job searching I’m afraid you’re wrong.

      It is quite easy to find a job whilst working full time millions of people do it every year when they change jobs.

      Not contactable? Exactly what planet in what historical era do you live on?

      Have you never heard of email ? Do you not know that 90% of the UK population has a mobile phone? Have you not heard of Text SMS.

      Why do you persist in making things up just to justify your silly outdated political philosophy?

  30. Mike Wilson
    Posted October 8, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    In place of the abolition of private property I proposed Everyone an owner, everyone a shareholder – wider ownership.

    And then stood back and allowed the banks to fuel a housing boom to make sure that fewer people could afford houses! Which ended in a house price boom and bust (starting, precisely, on August 1st 1988) causing many people to lose their homes.

    What is the easiest way to make an economy uncompetitive?
    Allow banks to lend infinite amounts of made up money secured against a housing stock limited by planning law causing house prices to rise way above wage inflation. This ensures high wages are needed to pay for the basic human need of a roof over the head.

    What is the easiest way to make sure ‘Everyone’ cannot be a property owner?
    I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page