My initial thought reading this (sensible) list is that there are two problems.

1) Labour just seem to want existing laws better policed. Not paying the NMW is illegal. Do we need new laws or just the existing ones properly policed. Rogue landlords overcrowding properties are already illegal. Get the council to implement the existing law. You want OFgem scrapped but replaced with a “better” Ofgem. Why not just get Ofgem to use existing powers to force down prices ?

2) Take too long to deal with current problems. Mansion TAx is a great idea but we won’t be getting any MT revenues for years. Similarly setting up a British Inv Bank which is actually lending significant sums would also take years. And there is a reason why banks aren’t currently lending (because of increased regulation forcing them to lend less and repair balance sheets).

Land Calue Tax please.

Value. Sorry.

Sorry Ed. Just more of the same old tinkering with the problem.There is nothing here to inspire me to rejoin or vote for the Labour Party.
Try these instead.
Housing: Local Councils in conjunction with Hosing associations, to commence building of social housing for rent.
Banking: Retain existing publicly owned Banks within public and water ownership and re nationalise Bank of England. New State controlled bank(s) to provide low cost (interest) loans to small business employing less than 500 employees.
Energy: To take back into public ownership the providers of Gas and electricity and water.
Transport: To return to public ownership the former elements of British Rail and to establish an integrated transport system.
(and just for good measure)
Employment:repeal anti trades union legislation of previous governments.

and that is just for starters.

Bank of England – was nationalised in 1946.

Land Value Tax – a great idea and one that has theoretical support across parties. Again, trouble is that it would be even more expensive and time consuming to implement than the Mansion Tax. You’d need to value the country’s ebtire housing stock (and deal with the tens of thousands of peopel disputing their valuation). At least with a MT you only need to value Band G & H properties.

Why not just introduce a Band I and J and K to deal with the multi-million pound properties ?

@5 Shinsei1967

“Why not just introduce a Band I and J and K to deal with the multi-million pound properties ?”

Because its about land banks and large estates too.

Reply to:5. Shinsei1967

Bank of England – was nationalised in 1946.
In 1997 one of the first actions completed by the New Labour government of Blair and Brown was the virtual privatisation of the BOE where the bank would be granted operational independence over monetary policy.
That is essentially privatisation.

John Yates

Sorry, but the CofExch giving interest rate policy setting to the BoE isn’t privatization.

For one thing the Chancellor sets the MPC remit (whether to target inflation or growth or employment), he gets to choose who is on the MPC and he can scrap all this tomorrow.

Actual privatisation of the BoE would be a very different kettle of fish altogether. You’d be giving away the “profits” from QE or the recapitalisation of the banks (all those guarantees the BoE gave earn interest) to private shareholders rather than to the government.

And that’s before you get onto the profits from seigniorage.

And giving control of the nation’s banking system and currency to private shareholders.

This is clearly not the situation we are in today.

“Introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, a paid job for every adult who is out of work for more than two years. People would have to take up those jobs or lose benefits. ”

I guess Poundland will like all those arts graduates they get.

How does the British Investment Bank link in with the proposals for regional banks outlined in the small business review?

Some of the recommendations are toothless and appear merely as a sop to Voters. The proposed consumer bill doesn’t address the fundamental flaw that Neo-liberalism within energy and transport has done nothing more than take money from potential consumers that might have been spent elsewhere in the wider economy. Why not nationalise these industries? We’re wages ever waste? Analysis has proven that the Govt now gives more in financial support to train companies than before they were privatised. It appears on the face of it that any political leader must tow the Neo-liberalist line or face death by the markets,but as an ex-Labour voter the only thing that would entice me back is real opposition for the sake of society and people,instead of policies capitulating to big business interest.

Well done, Ed! An excellent idea to put out a list of clear proposals. We all know there would be problems with them – the law of unknown consequences which features high in Westminster – but it’s good to see him punching straight. Although he well knows the principle of TPWP, the proposals look helpful to us all. TPWP? The Plebs Will Pay.

Seeing as how General government expenditure as a percenatge of national GDP in Britain in 2007 was lower than in a string of EU peer-group countries, like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and France and only marginally higher than in Germany, much of the present mess were are in is due to the the collapse of tax revenues because of the financial crisis, which, in Britain, was largely due to regional banks in Scotland – like RBS and HBOS – and in the north of England – like Northern Rock.

Britain has long had regional banks – and much good has it done us. London has unexpectedly survived the financial crisis better than the north. This is not because the financial services industry is largely centred in London but because of the disparity in education standards between north and south:

“London schools have improved so rapidly over the past 10 years that even children in the city’s poorest neighbourhoods can expect to do better than the average pupil living outside the capital.”
[Financial Times: 13 January 2013]

Labour desperately needs to raise schooling standards in the north.

this list looks like it will play well, although I know sfa about political tactics.

Although how will they avoid the job guarantee (compulsory on loss of benefits) being compared to a workhouse?

and, my bug bear, why not actually get tough with the banks?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/39c38b74-715d-11e2-9b5c-00144feab49a.html#axzz2RqJdQwLr

abolish risk weighting and impose equity cushions of 20% plus. that policy is far more radical than most left wingers appreciate.

“People would have to take up those jobs or lose benefits.”

When the Tories propose this, it’s “slavery”. But when Labour proposes it, it’s fine. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds, Sunny?

@ 5. Shinsei1967
“1) Labour just seem to want existing laws better policed. Not paying the NMW is illegal. Do we need new laws or just the existing ones properly policed. Rogue landlords overcrowding properties are already illegal. Get the council to implement the existing law. You want OFgem scrapped but replaced with a “better” Ofgem. Why not just get Ofgem to use existing powers to force down prices ?”

What is required to enforce existing laws are boots on the ground.

Any government that was serious about this would mobilise ordinary people to see this happened.
The is would put the fear of God into tax avoiders, etc.

“2) Take too long to deal with current problems.”

The future lasts a long time. Accepting a problem just because it will take time to implement a solution only makes sense if you think the problem will go away.

The collapse in tax revenues i.e. there isn’t one.
https://twitter.com/NobleFrancis/status/323133435499663360/photo/1

TONE @ 15

The idea is not to have a ‘workfare’ scheme but a ‘Jobs Guarantee’ instead. Paying people the going rate for the job, thus actually being a job which will look like a job on a CV and allow people to have a wage.

Anyone concerned that these are more social bills than economic ones? Not bad social bills. All seem entirely sensible and well intended. But not economic bills as such.

The Finance Bill seems to be redistributive – as does the consumer bill (moving money from suppliers to users)

The housing bill and immigration bill seem to be more about creating the means of enforcing existing good rules.

The banking bill may be of economic benefit to small companies, depending on what it actually results in. And the Jobs bill seems like another re-shuffle in how unemployment benefit is minimized.

Is there, meanwhile, no mention of infrastructure, export strategies or technology investment? Those would feel more like economic policies.

“Introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, a paid job for every adult who is out of work for more than two years. People would have to take up those jobs or lose benefits.”

I love the indecision in this proposal. The authors cannot determine whether to impose compulsory jobs on ‘skivers’ or to provide a jobs guarantee to ‘strivers’. Doing nothing is better than this suggestion.

The idea is not to have a ‘workfare’ scheme but a ‘Jobs Guarantee’ instead. Paying people the going rate for the job, thus actually being a job which will look like a job on a CV and allow people to have a wage.

You missed out the Compulsary bit.

This is how Sunny sells it:

Introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, a paid job for every adult who is out of work for more than two years. People would have to take up those jobs or lose benefits.

That’s not a job offer, that’s coercion: more graduate serfs for Poundland.

Millipede is every bit as authoritarian as his ghastly predecessors.

Charlieman: “I love the indecision in this proposal. The authors cannot determine whether to impose compulsory jobs on ‘skivers’ or to provide a jobs guarantee to ‘strivers’. Doing nothing is better than this suggestion.”

I suspect this is being driven by returns from polling and from focus groups. Unsurprisingly, the results aren’t necessarily compatible. “The public” don’t like skivers living off welfare benefits and think “strivers” must be guaranteed a job – any job? – with the threat of losing welfare benefits if they don’t take up the offer. Doubtless Poundland managers will be pleased to hear that.

I really dispair that general economic literacy has improved so little since the depression years of the 1930s. There are still many who seriously think that the unemployment rate depends on bike riding and one local Conservative stalwart quoted Dicken’s Micawber as her summary of what economic policy ought to be:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

For all intents and purposes, the Keynesian revolution in economics might never have happened.

Pondering on these proposals a bit further, many just seem daft to me.

Incidentally, LC has not misquoted a Labour Party press release. It all seems to be here:
http://www.labour.org.uk/one-nation-new-ideas,2013-04-29

“Put in place a Code of Conduct for bankers so that those who break the rules are struck off.”

Banks are already licensed and can be shut down for fraudulent acts. Directors are subject to existing banking and company laws. If it is proposed to sanction bank employees who break a Code of Conduct, it will be necessary to license bank workers. Otherwise this policy will rightly get shot down in the courts.

“Toughen the criminal sanctions against those involved in financial crime.”

In all likelihood, this policy has not been discussed with criminologists. Deterrence is more about getting caught and social disapproval.

“Double the fines for breaching the National Minimum Wage and give local councils the power to take enforcement action over the NMW.”

Wrong in so many ways. Local councils should not be acting as detectives, investigating local businesses, to enforce national government wage policy. Councils do not have the expertise to analyse company finances etc and they should not need it.

“Extend the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to other sectors where abuse is taking place.”

Hmm, the policy statement observes that a specialised agency is best able to employee abuse, unlike for National Minimum Wage.

“Reintroduce a 10p rate of income tax, paid for by taxing mansions worth over £2m.”

This policy was invented solely to differentiate Labour from the LibDem policy of increasing tax thresholds, whilst nabbing the (not completely considered) LibDem mansion tax policy. Taking people out of tax is getting a bit complicated already (ie how do we get that bit of tax back from the rich) and this makes things worse.

“Abolish Ofgem and create a tough new energy watchdog with the power to force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls.”

Why is it always necessary to abolish a failed body rather than to rewrite terms of reference?

Between May and September, UK domestic energy consumers paying monthly accumulate capital with their suppliers, such that they have enough cash to moderate the cost of the winter bill. They’ve bought gas or electricity in advance, so pay interest on the capital or treat it as an investment in futures. My idea is probably crap but more imaginative than Labour’s.

“Force energy companies to put all over-75s on their cheapest tariff helping those benefiting to save up to £200 per year.”

What is the age limit about? Is it fair to defraud under-75s?

“Introduce a new legal right for passengers to the cheapest ticket for their journey.”

In other words, abolish discounts for advance ticket sales. Logically, discounts for season tickets should also be abolished.

On the party political battlegound, try this from The Economist a couple of issues back:

Of the 158 seats [on Parliament] that make up the three northern English regions, only 43 are Conservative: 86% of the party’s seats are elsewhere in the country. Of the 197 seats in the three southern regions outside London, Labour now holds a mere ten. In the 2010 election Conservatives won 31% of the vote in the north and 47% in the south; Labour won 17% of the vote in the south but 38% in the north.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576418-diverging-politics-labour-north-and-conservative-south-make-england-look-ever-more

But the Conservatives control almost all the county councils up for re-election on Thursday and the county councils are local educational authorities where schooling standards are lagging compared with London.

As Stephanie Flaunders, the BBC economics editor recently put it:

“A first-rate city with a second-rate country attached.” That is how one rather brutal friend of mine describes London.

An Immigration Bill to put an end to workers having their wages undercut

Ahh, that takes me back to the good old days of “Workers of the World Unite for a White South Africa”.

It is amazing how the Labour party can adopt the language and policies of the BNP without anyone complaining. So I take it this is LC’s way of conceding that in fact all those immigrants did come here, take all our jobs, and get all the council houses?

@25. So Much for Subtlety

The facts are though, that some unscrupulous employers are undercutting the minimum wage (a lot of politicans also break the minimum wage law too, by taking on unpaid interns). If you read the further details that Ed has put, he talks about enforcing the minimum wage, and tackling gangmasters, both are good things.

Moreover, like it or not, and I don’t, the right wing press has made immigrant an issue, and Labour has to address that issue. People are, wrongly, fearful of immigrantion, and they fear that immigrants are leading to a housing shortage or a lack of jobs. It is the wrong analysis, but that is what they think. The hosuing crisis is, at least, partly the fault of New “Labour” for failing to build new social housing.

Most of these six bills are good stuff, if a little unambitious. I don’t like the compulsion in the jobs bill, though, as it is based on the reactionary assumption that the jobless are lazy (as though when unemployment rises, it’s because laziness has risen rather than because the economy is in bad shape) – and what if a job just isn’t suitable for someone – does the applicant have no say in that?

I like John Yates’ suggestions: build more housing, renationalise rail, gas, electric and water.

On the subject of renationalisation. Now whether this would provide cheaper & better services the one issue no one seems to have broached is that it would come with a huge upfront cost.

You’d need to buy out the existing shareholders and take on the massive debts that these companies hold.

Now, seeing as Ed Milliband is reluctant to admit that even a short term VAT cut will have an actual cost then I suspect he will find it hard to argue that, say, £100bn of extra borrowing to renationalise gas, water, electricty & rail is a good idea.

26. Geraint

The facts are though, that some unscrupulous employers are undercutting the minimum wage (a lot of politicans also break the minimum wage law too, by taking on unpaid interns).

What politicians do or do not do with interns is irrelevant. The point is if Millie Minor thought that undercutting the minimum wage was a problem, he would deal with it by making it even more illegal than it is. He did not say that. He wants to cut immigration – whether or not employers are using them to undercut wages.

If you read the further details that Ed has put, he talks about enforcing the minimum wage, and tackling gangmasters, both are good things.

So we are to turn a blind eye to his BNP-style pandering because he also has some *other* good policies?

The hosuing crisis is, at least, partly the fault of New “Labour” for failing to build new social housing.

Because when you add 10 million new immigrants that has no effect on housing? Since when has pandering to what you think are baseless fears – and making poor people from the Third World pay the price for those baseless fears – been good policy?

@Shinsei1967,

If it was affordable circa 1945, is it really unaffordable now? If these are profit-making companies then the government could eventually make money out of the purchase (though that would not be the goal).

As far as rail is concerned, perhaps it is simply a matter of waiting for the franchises to come to an end and then awarding them to a public body. Rail is subsidised anyway, so it can’t make sense for it to be run by private companies for the purposes of profit.

Royal Mail is going to be privatised next.

Labour had better take a stand and start reversing all this (even if it needs to be done gradually) otherwise where will we end up? Will police and ambulances be privatised too? And when they are, will we say that we have no choice but to leave them that way for fear of the costs of buying them back?

Shatterface @ 21

There is an element of compulsion in the system as it stands now and has always been. To be fair the biggest issue with the Tory workfare is not that people are ‘forced’ into work, but that they are used for cheap labour to undercut those in employment.

@30

Labour promised to renationalise the railways in their 1997 manifesto, IIRC.

The rest is, er, history. (Can you imagine the headlines now? “COMMUNIST ED WANTS TO RUN YOUR RAILWAY” etc)

Shinsei says: ” Mansion Tax is a great idea but we won’t be getting any MT revenues for years.”

That’s the funny thing – they just introduced a Mansion Tax Lite which initially only applies to homes worth more than £2 million and only applies to such homes owned by offshore companies, trusts etc, but it’s not chicken feed – it’s £15,000 a year for homes worth £2 million or more and £140,000 a year for homes worth £20 million or more.

” trouble is that it would be even more expensive and time consuming to implement than the Mansion Tax. You’d need to value the country’s ebtire housing stock (and deal with the tens of thousands of people disputing their valuation).”

Not true. The original council valuations were done quickly and cheaply, Wales and N Ireland did full revaluations a few years ago and even Fatty Pickles admitted that a full revaluation of every home would cost less than £10 per home. HMLR have sufficient sales records on their database nowadays.

And if everybody appeals, so what? Just knock everybody’s valuation down by a fifth and increase the tax rate by a quarter, job done.

So if the site premium rental value of a home is £10,000 a year and the tax is supposed to be £3,000, then you could say that’s 30% of the rental value. If the owner appeals and contends that the site premium rental value is only £8,000, well that just gets nodded through and the tax rate is increased to 37.5%. Sorted.

@32

Well they made a half hearted start in pulling the rug from under Railtrack and establishing Network Rail. Which hasn’t reduced the costs of running the railways at all. If they were fully re-nationalised the costs would be completely socialised and the already well established micro managing by the DfT would only get worse. Britain’s railways have suffered from government meddling ever since the First World War and it has never gone well, please don’t encourage Labour to have another go.
Those ideas for fare price control are just silly, what does a right to the cheapest fare mean ? Everyone should be able to pay the same price for walk on as for advanced booking ? Bonkers.