Today I am in Cornwall recharging my batteries

but, unlike the PM, I do not have a country to run. I will return to the word factory next week.

No wonder politics is despised

Government in thrall to capital
Policy decided by electoral considerations over national interest
Arms exports determining foreign policy*
Peerages for party funders
Personality over values
Success measured by GDP rather than people's well-being
Wealth on a pedestal while weak are demonised
Super-rich allowed huge income rises while social security is destroyed
Police policing the police
[*Let us not forget that it is our ally and customer Israel which commits atrocities in Palestine; and another, Saudi Arabia, which funds the awful ISIL. What sort of foreign policy is this?]
These are just some of the reasons. All of them can be addressed but only by a Labour government.

Alternatives to Government borrowing and regressive taxation

Chancellors are wont to use marginal tax rates both to fund public services and national debt repayments and to appeal to voters according to their political priorities. Their changes are then reversed by their successor. This rather fruitless game leaves the poorest majority in society as the pawns in a game, always far more affected by changes than those whose wealth insulates them from the impact of such moves.

As Labour seeks to come to power to refocus policy on people rather than just GDP, it will be constrained both by a commitment to debt reduction and the accusation of being a “tax and spend” party, but it will need to fund its priority programmes. Higher VAT is surely inconceivable, because it hits the pockets of the poorest most. This leaves Income Tax and NIC rises as options, perpetuating the visible ping-pong but changing nothing structurally.

There is surely a case for reconsideration of what should be taxed. Currently, taxes are principally levied on work [Income Tax; NIC] and expenditure [VAT], the two activities essential both for the economy of the country and for that of individuals. This seems counter-intuitive.

Could it make more sense to treat taxation as a form of payment for use of the principal asset of the country, its land? This is finite. It has come to be “owned” but is in reality an immutable, physical entity and part of the heritage of the whole population. “Ownership” is really temporary, exclusive tenure of land by those fortunate enough, but who have done nothing to create it and often nothing to increase its value, though its use enables economic activities. Depending on the profitability of these activities, the apparent value of the land grows but without those carrying out the activity necessarily contributing anything for the privilege of its use. On occasion, value rises despite lack of use.

Taxing land value [Land Value Tax] could become an effective and fair source of revenue. Local Authorities or a national land-bank could readily determine permitted use for any parcel, ascribe a value to that use and tax accordingly. This enables those who would profit from using the land – through letting in fracking, for example - to recompense the State or community for allowing them sole rights to do their activities on it. The higher the demand and the more valuable the activity, the more can local services be funded and the fairer the overall tax system can become. Unused land with a defined value could more readily be purchased compulsorily for the good of the community rather than being blocked for asset inflation; whilst primary residences could be exempted.

Taxing land value annually [in effect a Ground Rent to society for tenure] would enable a concomitant reduction in the regressive taxes on individuals’ efforts, enabling more people to keep or spend more of their earnings, satisfying agendas of both left and right whilst recognising differences in local economic needs. Wholesale adoption of such a scheme would seem a high risk without testing its efficacy and de-bugging it on a local scale. Maintaining universal democratic engagement of tax-payers would be essential but Labour’s new focus on rebuilding local governance may offer the perfect opportunity for theories and new tax models such as Land Value Tax to be piloted, perhaps especially in rural areas with needs for infrastructure investments . of the kind accessible to urban environments.

Tom Serpell

Gaza: Actions not impotence

Politicians of all parties throughout the West seem like rabbits in the headlights when Israel is mentioned. It seems that they are fearful of accusations of anti-Semitism or holocaust denial if they dare to criticise the Israeli State. Yet what is happening in Gaza surely goes beyond what can be brushed under the carpet for the sake of historical guilt. Israel behaves with impunity not even afforded to Hitler's Germany, despite increasingly acting as racist human rights deniers. When will politicians or the UN show some leadership and humanity if they are afraid even to use the language for what is happening which properly describes it?

Actions are needed. Here are just some from which they could choose a beginning:

• Apply arms embargo on Israel, ie stop selling our arms to them
• Propose UN sanctions
• ProposeUN safety zone along Gaza's borders
• Hold an International conference to problem-solve the creation of a sea-port for Gaza
• Unilaterally delist Israeli and illegal West Bank goods from import

Note the use of "propose", - even this goes too far for the vote- and finance-conscious Government we suffer from in UK currently. Therefore it must be up to Labour to show the leadership so lacking elsewhere. Come on Ed - lets help the poor people of Gaza instead of wring hands and tutting.

Double standards in hand-wringing

A new Foreign Secretary but how much difference? Talk tough about Russian-backed troubles in Ukraine but do nothing to upset the arms and finance sectors - could have been Hague or Hammond. Say nothing about Gaza except to express continuing support for the racist regime in Israel - could be any Foreign Secretary for decades: not even tough talk.

When almost 300 die at the hands of a Russian-backed militia, the Government talks tough [but will do nothing]. When over 300 die at the hands of a US-backed, UK arms customer there is barely a word of sympathy for the bereft or wounded and certainly no help to the underdog.  The Tory determination to base diplomacy on export potential, largely unfulfilled, has left this country looking like beggars in the international community, with little to offer except an order book for more guns and a cringing fear of retaliation against any real toughness, for fear that our beloved financial services sector will suffer and top mates' bonuses be reduced. Failure to build alliances has left UK isolated such that even the tough words are undeliverable and we are left with hand-wringing; and not even that for poor Gaza.

Israel has flouted UN resolutions galore with impunity. Its treatment of the indigenous population of the lands it has stolen would constitute reason for international action were these by any country other than the untouchable Israel. Is it not time, with historical perspective on UK's own role in causing the hopeless divisions in Palestine, to become the Palestinians' friend? A sea-port with internationally guarantees safe passage, perhaps protected by our otherwise pointless Navy, would seem a good start.

The Future is more individual members

I am reminded by the campaign of Crispin Flintoff for the NEC how important every Labour member can be. Those of us living in non-target constituencies, often in tiny minorities among myriad Tories, may be forgiven for feeling that our membership and our vote count for nothing, democratically. Crispin's stance for a mass membership emphasises that every subscription counts, especially when Union support is reducing. Each new member brings cash to the Party which it could take considerable efforts to raise in other ways. This is value.
We also need to feel that our opinions matter, though. How this can work is problematic. Reading Al Gore's book "The Future" offers a clue:
"Our first priority should be to restore our ability to communicate clearly and candidly with one another in a broadly accessible forum about the difficult choices we have to make. That means building vibrant and open "public squares" on the Internet for the discussion of the best solutions to emerging challenges and the best strategies for seizing opportunities... and protecting the public forum from dominance by elites and special interests with agendas that are inconsistent with public interest."
This is exemplified by our support for Labour Coast and Country, the embryonic forum for rural and isolated non-urban Labour people. The future lies in people with similar agendas being able, through the Internet, to share their ideas, shape policy recommendations and inform the Party with their expertise.
Tom Serpell

Why radical is best

There really is almost no point in Labour sticking to a me-too list of policies, hoping to win on grounds of managerial credibility or not being Tories. Even in the unlikely scenario of a victory in such circumstances, what would this do for the people of this country? More austerity, less public services, growing inequality leading to stress and misery for millions. Unless Labour is prepared to offer  real change, not just of masthead but of substance, it may as well save its campaign budget for a further 5 years.
This country is getting richer again, according to the Government. No. Some few people and corporations are getting richer as they cream off dividends and asset inflation into tax-minimising investments. The vast majority of voters and non-voters are left to pick over the slim pickings of lower wages or lower social security as they attempt to make a living, never mind a comfortable life for themselves and others. This is not about old-style class warfare but a need for the earnings of this country being shared more fairly among those who contribute to their generation in return for electoral support.
Without social change and a refocusing of politics onto the holistic needs of all citizens, UK will cease to be a democracy in more than name, as its governance increasingly ends in the hands of huge corporations unaccountable to the public. This trend can either be maintained under a Tory self-interest agenda; or reversed by a Labour-led evolution in favour of mutuality and concern for the well-being of all and accountable through retention or restoration of public services and social influence over infrastructure.
Labour has been drip-feeding encouraging policy ideas, no doubt to test public reaction. This will no doubt be assessed by huge representative committees. Such methodology can only regress to the mean. The Leader of the party has to take this agenda by the scruff of the neck, shake out the managerialists and tell the country where he will take us and how, as far away from the greed and power accretion of the current oligarchy as possible. Then Labour will be true to its values and present a true alternative which can hope to make the country a better place.