This is an excellent read from the Economist. It reports that the three main parties are proposing very different policies. Yet it argues that they have a common thread: a more intrusive role for government
Election manifestos: In Britain, the state is back | The Economist
This is by far the best comparison of alternative policies that I have read so far.
What alarms me though is the overwhelming absence of strategy, detailed costings and risk analysis. May still looks set to win the election but the consequences of her policies will be felt for generations.
As a passionate believer in individualism with effective social nets, I believe that the Conservative Party Manifesto 2017 has lost its way, without an overarching strategy, just different flavours of jam for UKIP and Labour supporters. It’s a sham.
Is Theresa May just a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
The answer to Dr Alf’s question about Mrs May is ‘yes’; she is probably a ‘wolf’ in sheep’s clothing’, as her positions change when it suits her, and she is light on actual delivery.
Someone who was a lukewarm ‘Remainer’ is now supposedly for Brexit and someone who did nothing to reduce immigration is now going to get the numbers down to the tens of thousands without addressing worker productivity and lack of directorial performance, fat cat pay and lack of exports.
The State needs to be there to provide safety nets and to create a climate in which business can flourish. Thus we need to use the State to edit choices and to nudge.
Exports need to grow in tandem with worker productivity, so it is logical to use the tax system to incentivise companies to export and discourage those who just want to remain here in their own “sleepy hollow” as if they were Rumplestiltskin ready to sleep for 5000 years prior to awakening.
Directors who do nothing but keep paying themselves eye watering amounts for not delivering optimised shareholder value and not exporting need to have their overall pay capped at say no more than 100 times the average wage; the present system leads to an unstable society and will eventually lead to social unrest and insurrection just as it did in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
The State should do something about strikes in essential public services, the size of the Monarchy, the House of Lords, foreign aid, corporation taxes, the NHS, variable taxes on foods and a number of areas where the market and societal attitudes need a very powerful shove. Sadly, the State is being used to curtail freedoms, make life more difficult for contractors,small business-people and for those who have worked and saved all their lives, and easier for people who have smoked, drunk and frittered their money away.
Brexit can be made to work but Mrs May and her three stooges are not up to the job and her pedestrian negotiating style needs to be replaced with something more closely akin to a Blitzkrieg and a series of what the Israelis call “facts on the ground”. These would include things like four times the number of export salespersons fully equipped to sell and kitted out with the new pea sized instant translator devices from America, increased writing down allowances, new inward investment incentives, an ALMO nearshoring solution to passporting rights based on the military fort system we created before World War II in international waters, and a programme of upgrading websites to enable more export sales to be made through them in relevant languages.
The State is indeed back but in the wrong areas, with the wrong emphasis and in the long run with the wrong people in charge. I agree with Dr Alf, Mrs. May does not have a cohesive strategy nor does she have the leadership qualities to deliver radical change.