Alice Thomson: Some policy ideas that will appeal to Essex and Notting Hill

Alice Thomson, in this morning's Telegraph, is pretty sure that the Tories are making progress:

"The fact that Irvine Welsh says he is now a Cameroon shows how far the Tory leader has come in re-positioning his party. Welsh, you may recall, was the man who wrote Trainspotting - one of the most devastating attacks on Thatcherism.  So, Mr Cameron's touchy-feely politics are working. His party is no longer seen as the enemy of single/working mothers, immigrants and the young. When he talks about Middle England, he makes it sound like a group that he knows and likes rather than something out of Tolkein. He seems sincere - which is why Labour's attempts to brand him first as a chameleon and now as a dodgy estate agent have backfired."

Where Mr Cameron is vulnerable, Ms Thomson thinks, is in a lack of policy - particularly thought-out policy.  She suggests a number of ideas that will appeal to Essex and Notting Hill (as she puts it).  I summarise:

• A simplified tax and benefits system with "Mr Brown's patronising and inefficient tax credits" scrapped;
• "A transferable tax allowance to help one-earner couples with children so that mothers have a greater choice about whether to return to the workplace";
• Secondary school selection by academic, sporting, dramatic and linguistic talent;
• No more mainstreaming of special needs children;
• Accept the need for nuclear power;
• Tougher regulation of the privatised utilities and (gulp) renationalisation of the railways;
• Scrapping of the taxpayers' subsidy for Scotland;
• Sheltered communities for vulnerable adults because 'care in the community' has failed.

"No policies need to be announced yet," writes The Telegraph columnist but this is the kind of manifesto Alice Thomson thinks will please the striving classes and Curtisland.

Comments

[Paul Kennedy]

I rather like her "manifesto", has Alice thought about politics as a career! ;)

[Big John]

All the way!! This will do nicely North of the Trent too.

[Chad]

Why can't George Osborne pledge to even reduce the number of types of taxes to show his simplification aim is real?

Even that would have a positive impact. How can you simplify without reducing the number of taxes?

Obviously it makes sense to scap IHT, but is it too much to ask for less types of tax under a tory government?

[johnC]

I agree with all the above except renationalisation of the railways. Whoever wants to return to pre-1995 British Rail must be suffering total amnesia. Far better the vertical reintegration of train and track.

[MH]

A very commendable set of policies, although there is a worrying absence of firm policies on law and order. Whatever the polls may be saying, I have clearly detected a move away in the last couple of months from enthusiasm for Cameron and his project. The the two key comments are (i) he lacks policies and we are not keen on those he has articulated (hoodies, big business, the A list) and (ii) he comes across a bit too much like Blair.

Admittedly, I live in an uber-safe Tory seat, but the core vote is getting very wary and we have actually lost a couple of hundred members year on year. Alice's suggestions would go a long way to address (i).

[Serf]

As JohnC says, the renationalisation of the railways is a silly idea. It is the regulatory system, combined with the structure of the industry that causes problems.

Other than that, these are good proposals.

[EdR]

If Osborne announced five taxes he'd cut or simplify tomorrow, Brown would announce gimmick cuts in those areas in his next budget, puncturing the Tory argument, while boosting taxes in other areas and squeezing the pips in the small print. It wouldn't advance the Tory cause. The fact is, it's most likely 3 years before Osborne is anywhere near a position where he can campaign for and implement his policies. I think he, and we, can afford a little bit of patience.

That said, I like Thompson's article okay. The railways thing is a bit of crass populism but might work electorally -- literally, a counterpart Clause 4 moment! Not convinced it would be a good idea though.

[James Maskell]

EdR, those fighting elections next year dont have 3 years to wait for policies...

[malcolm]

Very sensible proposals Alice.I sincerely hope you get all your wishes from an incoming Conservative government.One thing though why just references to Notting Hill and Essex?These proposals are sensible for anyone living anywhere in the UK.

[Chad]

Osborne doesn't have to name a tax, just that he will unequivocally reduce the number of taxes, ie show that his simplificaton aim is real.

If Osborne said he could cut 5% (for example) of the types of tax, that would give nothing away and I am sure we would all like to see the parties then get into a "who can cut the most types of tax" fight.

The aim is to really put tax simplification on the agenda. It would provide no ammo for Labour but would really set the agenda

[Nigel C]

I'd vote for "A transferable tax allowance to help one-earner couples with children so that mothers have a greater choice about whether to return to the workplace"

[Esbonio]

The mode and speed of rail privatisation was a complete mess which even I could see from my then relatively low level involvement. And for once I think I can agree with Ms Thomson, track and trains should not have been separated.

[Louise]

I would amend one policy slightly to "No automatic mainstreaming of special needs children" and emphasise that a Conservative Government wouldn't accept a one size fits all policy in any area.

[Chris Hughes]

"simplified taxes"? Fair enough, but how about lower taxes? Anyone?

[jonathan Powell]

simplified tax and benefits system with "Mr Brown's patronising and inefficient tax credits" scrapped;

"A transferable tax allowance to help one-earner couples with children so that mothers have a greater choice about whether to return to the workplace"

The best way to achieve these objectives is, of course, a flat tax.

Secondary school selection by academic, sporting, dramatic and linguistic talent

• No more mainstreaming of special needs children

These goals could be achieved with a voucher system. Send everyone to a private school, subsidized by the taxpayer. The schools could select students however they wished (i.e. by academic, sporting ability or whatever) and parents would be free to choose. Their could be full-scholarships available to help gifted children attend the best schools.

Tougher regulation of the privatised utilities and (gulp) renationalisation of the railways

This is a terrible idea. There should be less regulation in these industries--government is the problem (as a wise man once said).

[David Platt]

If Alice Thomson is going to make pejorative remarks about JRR Tolkien's representation of the English middle class, she would attract greater credibility if she managed to spell his name correctly....

[Chad]

"This is a terrible idea. There should be less regulation in these industries--government is the problem (as a wise man once said)."

I totally agree that no small government supporter could endorse renationalisation, but in the absence of any real form (only during the bidding process) of competition, regulation is the only way to ensure the customers are not ripped off.

I don't believe we should ever privatise an industry that won't be operating in a true competitive sector to bring efficiency and facilitate loose regulation but now it has been done, we need to protect the consumer.

[Denis Cooper]

I would vote for additional and transferable tax allowances for long-term partners, in marriages or in more widely defined civil partnerships, whether either or both were in paid employment, and whether or not they had children. And the longer the partnership survived, the greater those allowances would be. This would be to recognise that when two individuals are looking after each other it's less likely that the state, ie the taxpayer, will have to look after either, and that the stability of their partnership contributes to the overall stability of society.

[Serf]

As Dennis says, the transferable allowance, which is a priority, should apply to other types of relationship as well.

[David Belchamber]

A very interesting article and, with the possible exception of the renationalisation of the railways idea, very much along the lines of traditional tory thinking. I particularly applaud what she has to say on education and hope that we can expand on this here at some stage.
To be fair to George Osborne, he did make a major speech to the Policy Exchange think tank on Monday and promised to dismantle Gordon Brown's empire, making clear, among other things, that the tories would not be bound by Nulab's agreement to maintain inflation proofed pensions for public sector workers.
One thing Alice Thompson did not condemn was Cherie Blair's action in leaving the G8 summit to offer legal assistance to Russian human rights campaigners. The question is; was her trip not paid for by the taxpayer? If so, why was she out there offering help from Matrix chambers?
One final point; I have not yet seen any indication that the tories are aware of the huge social problem already affecting first time home buyers. Tuesday's Telegraph carries a frightening story of the predicted rise in house costs; surely this is something that now deserves urgent consideration by a policy group?

[michael]

It's not policies which win elections, it's narrative - a positive, coherent vision which chimes with voter aspirations.

Speech by speech, the Cameron vision is gradually emerging and I'm pleased that it's coherent and seems to be pretty much in tune with society as it is.

[Henry Mayhew]

I too am a great believer in the value of motherhood and think that the Tories should commit to supporting it to the maximum extent. Perhaps Jamie Oliver could be brought on board to develop a policy to deliver organic apple pie to the vulnerable. Has Alice considered that?

[Selsdon Man]

Alice Miles advocates renationalising Network Rail. In fact, Stephen Byers renationalised it. That is why the Railtrack shareholders went to court to get compensation.

Doh! What a dork!!

[Alan T]

Why renationalise the railways alice? The current Tory thinking on this seems much more sensible. Reunite track and trains!

There is no English subsidy of Scotland. Scottish Oil, the Crossrail project, the London Olypmics etc make this a preporterous suggesttion. Scotland subsidizes the rest of the UK!

[Jonathan Powell]

I totally agree that no small government supporter could endorse renationalisation, but in the absence of any real form (only during the bidding process) of competition, regulation is the only way to ensure the customers are not ripped off.

I don't believe we should ever privatise an industry that won't be operating in a true competitive sector to bring efficiency and facilitate loose regulation but now it has been done, we need to protect the consumer.

If the government removed the artificial barriers to entry, unnecessary regulations and subsidies there would be competition. As Alan Greenspan has argued,

"The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry -- the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.

The ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return. The potential investor of capital does not merely consider the actual rate of return earned by companies within a specific industry. His decision concerning where to invest depends on what he himself could earn in that particular line. The existing profit rates within an industry are calculated in terms of existing costs. He has to consider the fact that a new entrant might not be able to achieve at once as low a cost structure as that of experienced producers.

Therefore, the existence of a free capital market does not guarantee that a monopolist who enjoys high profits will necessarily and immediately find himself confronted by competition. What it does guarantee is that a monopolist whose high profits are caused by high prices, rather than low costs, will soon meet competition originated by the capital market."

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

[CRM]

quite right Alan T. None of the figures generally given for "England subsidising Scotland" take any account of the oil money on the basis that there is a dispute as to the exact proportion Scotland would get, as this % varies according to levels of production. However, it would undoubtedly cause a loss to the UK Exchequer. Also defence expenditure is disproportionately concentrated in England. Furthermore, lots of expenditure cannot be clearly attributed to one area of the UK or another.