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.

 

 

 In 1848 the slim volume entitled “Manifesto of the Communist party” was produced for a revolutionary Europe. It contained the by now familiar distorted view of history that it was a  prolonged class struggle which would end with the triumph of the proletariat. More importantly, it proposed ten major policies or Big Ideas  which have held considerable sway in Europe ever since.

           1. Abolition of all private property and the application of rents for public purposes.  This  helped inspire Development Land Tax, Section 106 agreements, the accumulation of large areas of public property and a range of other Labour measures and taxes to try to capture  wealth from property.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax. Labour got its marginal rate up to 83% for earned income and 98% for unearned income in the 1970s, rates Marx would have approved. They resiled from these 1997-2009, but started to hike rates again at the end.

3. The abolition of all right of inheritance.  This has fathered Inheritance taxes,  the Republicanism of some Labour supporters, the end of hereditary principle for the Lords – though political succession is a feature of some of the great Labour families.  

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Never caught on in the UK, though popular in some autocratic regimes abroad.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, through a monopoly nationalised bank. This is now done through a monopoly Central Bank with extensive regulation of the commercial banks. Labour got furthest with this during the crisis of 2007-8 when they bought shares in banks instead of putting them into controlled administration or some other private sector solution. As a result more than half the UK’s banking system was in public hands or under strong public influence.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Labour reached the point where the UK had a nationalised airline, railway, road freight, postal and telecommunications service.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state (plus planned agriculture).  Labour did assemble substantial nationalised manufacturing interests, (aerospace, car manufacturing, computers etc) and the EU has taken to substantial planning and direction of agriculture.

8.Equal requirement of all to labour and the establishment of industrial armies. Public sector employment has risen substantially, but there has not been enforced direction of labour.

9.A gradual erosion of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population – this has increasingly happened as a result of economic growth anyway.

10. Free education for all children in public schools . Abolition of child labour.(Good ideas) This I am pleased to say has happened.

  One of the main reasons Mr Blair wanted to make such an issue of abolishing Clause IV in the Labour party constitution was to renounce the Marxist influence over Labour’s past. Is this to remain Labour’s position, or are they moving back to the Marxist influences? They seem now to favour more public sector control of energy industries, are against employee and citizen ownership of the Royal Mail, and moving towards more general price controls.

The fact that policies in this little book are still actively promoted today, including damaging ones, means we need to keep a look out in debate for those who are influenced by it.

 

 

          In my youth I grew up hating both the major ideologies that had so disfigured the twentieth century. I loathed both fascism and communism, which seemed to me to have a lot in common with each other. Both thought they were morally right, both used state power to excess, both were brutal with anyone who disagreed in places where they had power. Fascism killed the Jews, the disabled and the opponents of the regime. Soviet communism killed the middle class  farmers, the dissenters, the “mentally ill”, shot anyone trying to leave their zone without permission and presided over cruel famines. Both ideologies encouraged people to hate other people because of their birth and circumstances.

          As a Conservative I agreed with the left when they condemned fascism. Many of them declined to join in when I condemned communism. When I argued with left wing intellectuals they usually played down the Soviet attack on personal liberty, the deaths done in the name of the state and the deaths which came about owing to farming failure and poverty. Alternatively they told me that they believed in a form of communism which worked and created equality for its peoples, a form which unfortunately had never existed in the real world.

            The enthusiasm for Soviet communism was surprising given its dreadful record. Cambridge educated men became Soviet spies. Many left wing academics in reputable universities had good things to say about Marx’s thought. Mr Wilson when Prime Minister in his famous “white hot heat of technology” speech was recommending a sanitised version of  the Soviet state planning model to modernise the UK economy. Many left wing intellectuals egged on Marxist revolutionaries seeking power in far flung countries. They would praise Castro’s Cuba and support Che Guevara.

           All those who have in their past espoused Marxist thought should be asked to explain why. They should be asked if they still agree with it, or which bits they now on reflection think were unwise. They need to be asked why did their egalitarian ideal so miscarry? Why did communism become the embodiment of Animal Farm? Why did the leaders of Soviet communism reserve to themselves a lifestyle the rest of their country could not approach? Why were there privileged schools for the children of the bosses and summer villa second homes  for their relaxation?  Why did they have special rights to travel where most Soviet people did not?

               Facing many clever people who told me that communism was a noble ideal, I used to ask them why it was that  so many people wanted to leave the Eastern bloc, and why the guards shot them if they sought to cross into the west? How could you think that was a good system of government? And why had the communist bloc fallen so far behind the west in living standards and output?  I never received any satisfactory answers.

             Tomorrow I will look at the Communist party Manifesto, to remind us what they were trying to do and to see how far they got in the UK.

 

        I took up the issue of train safety again when I met train company representatives at Manchester. I am still shocked by what I saw at Ufton Nervet when a train crashed into a small car on the level crossing. The derailed coaches led to deaths and injuries, as people were flung around inside the carriages or flung out of broken windows.

         Industry representatives  sought to reassure me by saying that modern trains have much stronger windows, so they should not break when someone or some object  is thrust against them by the force of a crash or sharp deceleration. That still leaves plenty of opportunities for serious injury.

        My shopping list of better safety features is based on the items that are mandatory in cars, and have been for some years.

          First, I want proper luggage restraints. Placing heavy and large objects in racks above the seats  allows these items to become flying missiles in the event of a crash. Cars and coaches have boots or luggage compartments where all larger and heavier items are stored for the duration of the journey. Planes have doors on the luggage racks which are secured for flight. At the very least trains could fit retaining nets or doors to their luggage racks, so no-one need be injured in future by flying luggage.

         Second, on fast trains between major cities I want seat belts. If a fast train is derailed or forced to decelerate rapidly people can be flung out of their seats in ways likely to lead to their injury. It is most strange that cars and coaches are limited to 70 mph on motorways with mandatory seat belts, yet trains are allowed to run at speeds in excess of 100 mph without seatbelts.

           Third, I want to see the hard edges and dangerous corners designed out of the coach interior on a train as it has been on cars. There are all too many hard edged tables and  hard edges to the seats, and seat fixings. These cause dangers to passengers if they are flung around the inside of the carriage in a crash. Modern cars have soft and padded surfaces throughout the interior, and many have additional airbags which deploy in the event of sharp deceleration.

         The train company executives I have spoken to about this are far from sympathetic. They think they have nothing to learn from the far superior standards of vehicle safety in cars and long distance coaches to train carriages. They rely on the big safety advantage of the trains that no other type of user is allowed on the tracks, reducing the possibility of conflicts which occur on multi use highways.  This does not seem to me to be good enough, as the big improvements to car safety have cut the injury and death rate in collisions, and applies to cars travelling on motorways where similar exclusions to railways apply.

          The main reason the train companies advance against restraining luggage or supplying a seat belt is cost. The legislators have rightly overruled such considerations when it comes to car and long distance coach manufacture. Indeed, car makers now often regard the additional safety features they offer as a selling point that helps market their vehicles. The cost of simple train  luggage restraints would be small compared to the price of a new or refurbished carriage. Adding a seat belt as part of the original equipment would not be too expensive, but would greatly add to train safety. I always try and sit with my back to the direction of travel as it gives you a bit more of a chance in a crash, but you could still be on the wrong end of flying luggage and displaced people if the carriage overturns or somersaults.

 

                 I have kept my Dad out of politics. I  never talked about him and his views in major speeches and  certainly avoided all mention of family members when I was contesting the Conservative leadership in 1995.

                I kept him out because I did not want him to experience the personal attacks, abuse and misrepresentations that go with the job of being a senior political figure in a lively democracy where voters and press like to have a go at those in or near power. I did not refer to him because as a loving Dad he did not seek to influence or interfere with my political views. I was solely responsible for what I thought and wrote, and did not turn to him to help write the speeches.

               I do not wish to take sides in the row between Mr Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail. I understand why Ed has rushed to his father’s defence, and understand the main point he is making about his father’s commitment to the UK and its tolerant democracy. He should do so, as his late father cannot defend himself, and has been subjected to this posthumous examination by his son’s words and job. I can also see why Mr Miliband senior’s views on politics which he made  public  are of interest.

                Anyone who  challenges to be Prime Minister can expect an altogether more intense and energetic media scrutiny than the rest of us in UK politics. I remember journalists in 1995  suddenly  contacting my  former school teachers, university friends, business colleagues and  members of the family on the other side of the world to check out if their memories of me squared with the statements I was making about myself and my  past life. The UK public dislikes a phoney or dishonest person. Many want to stop any given individual and party achieving the highest political office, so they will dig to find unhelpful things.

            The politician himself can make this more likely if he indicates that a given family member or other person in his life is or has been an important influence. It gives the media more reason and more excuse to prod and probe.  I usually answer “Queen Elizabeth 1” to the question who in British politics do you most admire or who has influenced you. I do so because it is a true answer, but also because there is not much journalists can do to the past Queen that has not already been done to her. I have pointed out that I have always been uneasy about her decision to execute Mary Queen of Scots!

             If  a politician selects some contemporary influence then it invites guilt by association. If the person is contentious it can damage the politician, as the journalists will often then ascribe to you the worst view or thing that person influencing you has said or done. If a senior politician has a father who has been active in UK politics and has published political views, someone will ask if this influenced him. They will ask all the more if that person regularly refers to his father in his major speeches.

 

           I do know the price of a pint of milk, as I do the shopping. I did not remember  the price of a value white loaf until I read about the controversy.   I buy four crusty rolls in  a pack  in my local Co-op  or a brown small loaf from a local supermarket  when I want some bread. The lack of knowledge of items in the shopping basket by some MPs is more a commentary on who does the shopping in their households than anything else.

           The truth is all MPs are in the higher income bracket just by virtue of drawing the MP’s salary. No MP has to eat a value loaf if they would rather have a dearer bread product. It does not mean ,however, that a good MP cannot grasp what it is like to have to live on a  smaller income.  To be a good MP you have to spend much of your time thinking yourself into other people’s situations, to decide whether and how government can help them. All sensible MPs want their constituents to be better off, and understand that if you have more income you have more choices.

 

 

          The BBC and Channel 4 present the partial shutdown of the US government as evidence of a malfunctioning democracy. They seem to mainly blame the Republicans for daring to oppose the President. Clearly Mr Obama’s spin carries a long way. They spread scare stories that the US will renege on some of its debts by failing to pay interest on money it has borrowed.

          I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I occasionally comment on US  politics, but am not a partisan, as it is not my country. I do expect UK public service broadcasters to give a fair and balanced view, to explain both sides properly.

           The Republicans would say that the temporary partial shutdown is the result of an administration that cannot live within its means and needs to cut more to control its debts and deficit. The Democrats raise the spectre of debt interest going unpaid, bringing the US credit rating crashing down. They suggest the poor will go without their Federal pay cheques. The Republicans point out that n either of these bad events need happen.

          Over the weeks ahead tax revenue will pour into the Treasury in large enough quantities to pay the interest on the debt and make the necessary and most deserving payments. If there is no deal to raise the debt ceiling, then the Administration would have to cut back on less essential spending to live within its means. The President can also negotiate with the Republicans controlling the Congress to find a way forward so he can borrow some more, as that is clearly his wish.

            It takes two sides to achieve a breakdown. It is shows how vigorous and dramatic politics can be in the US, where the executive and legislature are different bodies and the Congress is controlled by a  different party with a different view on safe levels of borrowing to the President.

            The US has had partial government  shutdowns before. Doubtless there will be a deal in due course. The Republicans are highlighting the huge debts and deficits the US has built up and are forcing change to tackle them. UK observers could at least seek to understand the reasons on both sides. This is not commonsense and decency against a group of extremists,. This is a gripping battle for the soul of America between its two major parties. The Republicans want the deficit down more quickly and are using Congress to try to achieve that. They see Obama’s health care proposals as the extra spending  the US cannot afford.

 

On Monday at the Selsdon Group meeting I set out the case for lower taxes for all.   Fewer people facing benefit withdrawal as their income rises should be paying any Income Tax. To make it more worthwhile to work we need a smoother progression at lower income levels. The policy of inceasing TaxThresholds to take more people out of Income Tax altogether has boosted family incomes, and is likely to be extended in future budgets. The Benefits cap also helps to limit high marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal at higher income levesl but needs to be allied to tax cuts to assist with living standards.

Making work more worthwhile means less tax  allied to  realistic levels of benefit support and sensible rates of withdrawal of support as income rises. A combination of tax cuts and benefit reform is desirable to cut the numbers of people who have to pay for their own benefit top up by Income tax, a wasteful money go round employing officials to take the money off people in tax and give it back to them in benefit.

We need to raise more money from taxing the rich to pay for all the public services and bring the deficit down. The way to do this is to impose tax rates the rich will pay, and set internationally competitive rates which means they will come here and stay. The rate of Capital Gains likely to maximise the tax revenue from the tax is under 20%, as studies of past changes to CGT in the UK and US show. The rate of Income Tax should be brought back to Mr Brown’s 40% maximum. As a socialist who liked taxing the rich, you can rest assured Mr Brown would have set the rate higher when Chancellor if he thought it would have raised more revenue.

In discussion people drew attention to the high rates of tax created by the withdrawl of the Personal Allowance for the higher paid, and to the low starting point for the 40% tax rate. These are also issues which need addressing. We want tax cuts for all. That will yield more revenue to pay the state’s bill’s, unleash more jobs and enterprise, and make it more worthwhile to work and set up businesses.

 

Today I am inviting you to send it good ideas of how the government could help get the cost of living down and the standard of living up. It was welcome yesterday to learn that the Chancellor can freeze fuel duty for the rest fo this Parliament. Every little helps, as they say.

I have recently blogged on ways to cut the costs of energy. More gas fuelled electricity generation, shale gas extraction, more competition in the main energy markets, lower government fuel taxes, calling a halt to highly subsidised and expensive ways of generating power would all help.

The costs of housing also need attention. Stamp Duty should change to a system where the higher rates only apply over the thresholds which trigger them. The Energy certificate, the residual from Labour’s HIP, should no longer be compulsory. Money laundering regulations should be enforced by strong scrutiny of cash and money from poorly regulated jurisdictions, removing the need for the passport and utility bill procedures for cleared funds from regulated UK/EU bank accounts. Local authority search charges and planning permission fees  should be reviewed to make sure they are not exploiting their monopoly position, but just recouping reasonable costs.

A wide range of government fees and charges should be frozen for a couple of years whilst real wages catch up.

What would you like to see done to cut the cost of living?

It goes without saying that people keeping more of what they earn would also help boost living standards. We want more people in work, and less tax on work – it should be a combination which is mutually reinforcing.

 

               Conservatives want more people to be homeowners. We are the homeowning party. We have a proud record of extending ownership to many more. We have done this in the past by Council house sales, by creating conditions for affordable mortgages, and by tax breaks.

               Some write into this site to say we need to get house prices down, so more homes are affordable. Labour tried this – inadvertently no doubt – with a big house price fall at the end of the last decade. It did not price more people into home ownership, because there was too little mortgage money available to buy the cheaper homes. The number of new homes built slumped to new lows.

               The sharp downward adjustment may help in the future, but whilst it is happening it puts people off wanting to buy, plunges people into negative equity and undermines the banks who have lent against homes at higher prices. Why would people want to buy a home if they thought it could be 10% cheaper in a year or two? At some point the authorities have to say enough, and stabilise the position. That is happening now.

               The overall fall in real and in many cases cash house prices has also changed relative prices a lot. The most desirable districts of central London, Sandbanks, parts of Oxford and Cambridge and a few other hotspots have risen whilst elsewhere there have been falls. In the northern towns most damaged by the Big Recession of 2007-9 there are more empty homes and larger price falls were experienced.  The  big movements in relative prices might help in due course rebalance the economy. When more people see that homes are better value  out of London, and see there can be lifestyle improvements for them by moving, the market may start to assist the areas with more and cheaper homes.

             It is far too early to call an end to this housing “boom” which a few commentators already claim is happening. They should get out of Belgravia and Chelsea more. There is no boom in much of the country. We need to see more housing transactions. They generate income for those involved, and usually lead on to work for builders, decorators, home improvers, furniture suppliers and the like.

                        Some  who want lower house prices bemoan how much money and activity the UK expends on housing. I think it is good we do, and want to see more spent in the years ahead. A person’s home is a vital part of their lifestyle and their comforts, an important determinant of whether they can enjoy their lives or not. Modern technology can transform a home. Many more will want to reach for the better heating installations, better insulation, improved labour saving devices, more stylish bathrooms and kitchens that money can now buy.  There is plenty of room for more home improvement, to cut running costs, to make life easier and cheer people up. This also creates plenty of work for the many trades and professions involved in  housing activity.

                  We have to live with the fact that expensive flats and houses in the centre of London are now largely the preserve of the international rich set. It would be stupid to try to stop them coming to London, spending their money with us and setting up businesses and investments here. As they drive the price of prime central London to ever giddier heights, the rest of us can see the charms and attractions of cheaper locations which need our money and our support.