Steve Richards argues in the Guardian this morning that Ed Miliband may be right, and that ideas could be the factor that determines the outcome of the next general election.
This does not always happen, of course. The cult of personality is powerful. There are, however, moments when ideas can be pivotal. 1945 was one. 1979 was another.
Now I am not going to be so bold as to suggest that Labour is going to offer anything so radical a shift in the political mood as happened then. That would be very far from the truth. It is too mainstream in its economic thinking at present to offer anything like such a paradigm shift, and I see little prospect of that changing over the next few months. But that does not mean ideas will not matter for two reasons.
The first is there is no big personality in the forthcoming election. That, I think, is a fact. If Cameron was he would have won in 2010, and did not. Miliband says he is not. Clegg is history and Farage is already, I suspect, a spent and slightly comedic character (words, I hope, I do not live to regret).
And then there is the fact that it is all too obvious that the current government has no new ideas. It demanded a five year term in office and can think of nothing to do with it. This year's legislative programme is threadbare. The 'big ideas' it has claimed to deliver including dismantling the NHS, threatening the effective supply of education and ruining the lives of millions into misery whilst imposing cuts that have not created prosperity are unpopular.
In that case it is up to opposition parties - and Labour has to take the lead - to deliver big ideas. Tax is one such big idea.
I have already suggested this year that the shadow economy is much bigger than HMRC suggest it is.
Tax debt is not under control.
Progress is being made on tax avoidance, but by no means enough.
Tax reliefs for big business are running out of control.
Even on business tax the bias in favour of big business and its owners against honest small businesses is becoming uncomfortably apparent.
The merit that a strong and enforced tax system has to offer is then a big idea whose time has come.
Invest in HMRC. Stop the tax cheats. Collect the debt. Close the loopholes. Make the system progressive. Be proactive in stopping international tax abuse. All make sense.
And all make money. Not one costs a net penny.
If balancing the books is the aim (rightly or wrongly) then making tax work for the benefit of ordinary people is one of the biggest possible ideas for the next general election. But, will anyone be brave enough to say so?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Ed Balls was quoted as saying that he would maintain Osborne’s low corporation tax. I doubt if that augurs well a radical shift.
Actually, that’s not quite what he said
He said he’d keep the lowest rate in the G7 – he could increase by 5% and still do that
But the message was confusing at least
The the shift needs to be that taxation is accepted as a good thing. Good for all, a fair civilized approach, to good Government .
Collection will always be a problem unless A PAYE scheme is applicable to all. Where that is impractical, deals, money passing on business, in business deals etc.:Part of the amount should be held back by tax inspectorate, similar to emergency
coding
That would be fair putting the onus on the deal maker to claim back and prove honest intent. Benefit of doubt not being available to applicants
Usually if you ask people what they want, they find that the Green Party suits their ideology. However, they will not vote for them because they believe it’s a wasted vote.
Such a shame.
If only we’d had electoral reform
Not so sure about 1945. Attlee and others had been in government during the War and had proved effective and able ministers. Moreover this was the age before TV where mass meetings could matter. I saw Attlee in action in a mass meeting and he was exceptionally good, very effective and in command. Also, the other Labour men were very effective public orators. They would not be good in modern TV and archive film does not show their personal impact. Churchill was Churchill but matching the personalities and public effect of the Labour leaders against the other Conservatives I have no doubt that the Labour leaders would have had much more impact on the voters. Certainly, Labour had an ideas package that suited the times but in personality terms they had the men to deliver it.
Interesting…..
Demetrius, your comment reminded me of a quote from an Australian Labor politician, Kim Beazley Senior (from around 1970-ish – a famous quote, often repeated):
“When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class. And what I want to know is when you middle class perverts are going to stop using the Labor Party as a spiritual spittoon”
So well said. We are either governed by the Atistocracy or Academics with very little thought for the hourly paid The hourly paid trampled by the Ambitions of those who attend Parliament
We working class must remember ” lamentable is the pupil that does not outshine the Master. D’vinci to Angelo
I agree with the assessment of the 1945 -50 government. Although politically he was rather extreme even by standards of the time, Bevan (widely considered one of the five best parliamentary orators of the universal suffrage era), and others (Bevin, Manny Shinwell and Cripps amongst others)were certainly better than anything the Conservatives has to offer. Many of the most effective coalition ministers from the Conservative side had been Lords so in a Commons campaign their influence, even had they been willing to offer it, would have been limited.
Nevertheless, the circumstances of 45 were quite different. Although the social reform agenda was powerful, it was very much a product of its time. Another issue contributing to the magnitude of their defeat was that The Tories carried the can for the pre-war Foreign policy failures which brought the war about, as well as the Great Depression of the 1930s. This was understandably so as they had been in almost continuous power since the end of World War One. Noone could creditably claim that the Tories held anything approaching power during the last decade and a half (1997 to 2013) and I’m not sure any agenda approaching that of the Labour manifesto of 1945 has been offered anywhere. and, lest we forget, 5 years later, the Labour government suffered major losses in 1950 (more than 100 seats) and a year later were turfed out by the ‘failed’ Conservatives and Churchill for more than decade, rendering the transformational impact of the 1945-51 government rather more limited than is sometimes seen to be the case by some of the more enthusiastic commentators on here…
Although the biggest economic failures were under the brief Lab-Lib governments and Lansbury demanded Disarmament, delaying Chamberlain’s – admittedly weak – rearmament programme until it was nearly too late
Indeed: Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Cripps – these were people with passion (and personal weaknesses as well!). We’ve had 40 years of snake oil salesmen and ‘wide boys’ (persons!) who have no thought for the public purpose.
Tax aside, I think modern day politicians are viewed to be out of touch with the electorate. Forgetting the Eton boys we currently have in power, there is a general opinion that both Miliband and Balls have never had regular jobs and therefore are unable to connect to the electorate.
Brings me back to your blog a long time ago regarding salaries for MP’s and how we need to attract different people to politics.
Very interesting.
Blair had personality appeal in spades.
Cameron has none.
Miliband E has very little.
Miliband D would have been the best personality choice.
It’s all down to the backroom people for the next election then, since the cult of personality is not going to rule this time.
Basically, boring people talking unconvincingly about things they know little about (poverty, ill-health and old age).
In fact, we are racing towards an election with the three “main” parties headed by persons of similar personality (none),similar policies (few), and UKIP headed by a personality with no policies (except goodbye EU).
Blair had great appeal. A much vilified man. Yet a great Prime Minster. He is missed.
Labour have made such a mess without him and the team around him. They have been so disloyal and handed government back to the Tories. I will not vote labour until they recognize this
‘Yet a great Prime Minister’. He is vilified by so many for all the right reasons. Two wars in the Middle East and now a cushy job as a Middle East Peace Envoy. As Gaza burns, where is he? At his wife’s garden party in England. You couldn’t make this up. I agree that Tony Blair was a refreshing change from the Thatcher government of the 80’s and 90’s but a champagne socialist none the less, which is being rather kind to him. We need to get back to good and great politicians who have the people’s interest at heart and not using politics a stepping stone to lining their own pockets, at the misery of millions. Sorry Richard, rant over!
That rant is just fine
This government no big ideas?
(Noting that by including 1979 you don’t mean ideas that we like)
– it seems you haven’t noticed Letwin’s Deregulation Bill
Fair comment
Deregulating what he is allowed to.
Which excludes law originating from the EU.
There are quite a few who consider that deregulating health and safety is a step backwards (to pre 20th century).