Monday, 30 March 2015
I normally have a great respect for the opinions our former leader David Steel but was rather surprised to hear him reported last week as suggesting that in the event of another balanced parliament, if the party is in a position to make a choice we should opt for offering "confidence and supply" to a minority government rather than enter another coalition.
Surely, as the party which believes that the main function of parliament is to represent the varied opinions of the people as broadly as practicable through proportional representation by STV we accept that, when parliament exercises its other function, as an electoral college to select a government, coalitions are almost inevitable.
As we know to our cost, being inside and government and making a contribution is much harder and much less fun than remaining outside the government and just criticising. Surely, and as Nick Clegg and Co wisely decided in 2010, the party exists to implement as many as possible of our policies, not just act as a source of useful suggestions. Think tanks can do that.
We have to our credit a whole string of achievement which would not have happened had we been on the sidelines criticising rather than in government for the last five years. To my mind by far and away the most important of these is the fixed term parliament, though our election strategists don't seem inclined to shout about this. They prefer the raising of the income tax threshold, the triple lock pensions, the pupil premium, equality for mental health patients, the green investment bank etc. (I have a list of another 17 if anyone is interested.)
So I hope that we shall be in a position to form part of the next government, and I believe it is counter-productive to make too many hostages to fortune by saying too much about who we will and won't join with. We must, as Simon Hughes aptly put in 2010, "play the cards the electorate deals."
So it is not wise to rule out joining a government along with, say, the SNP. They, like us, will have to make sacrifices, and if they will, in the short run, settle for Home Rule rather than immediate independence, well, that's been Liberal/Liberal Democrat policy for a century, so why not? And, as I've argued before, they have by far the best economic policy.
Liberal Democrats joining a government that also relies on the support of UKIP doesn't seem very likely. (This is one of the two issues on which I agree with David Cameron: they are best regarded as "fruitcakes.") But if their major demand is for a referendum on Europe it wouldn't be the end of the world. We have, after all (though wrongly in my view) said that we would have one if there were a major treaty change which transferred further powers to Europe, so having one anyway wouldn't be a great betrayal and would help to clear the air. We should, have course, have to do what the Tories did on Electoral Reform; concede the referendum and then campaign for IN rather than out.
Of course to maximise our potential for being in government we have to win as many seats as possible, and then, this time, "play our cards right.". So there is all to play for: we should not settle for second best -sniping from the sidelines. We can leave that to Paxman et al.
Saturday, 28 March 2015
According to the one opinion poll I've seen, Ed Miliband was the loser by 54% to 46%, though my own impression was that Miliband's performance, in both content and presentation, was far superior to that of David Cameron. That is probably because my views are more in sympathy with Miliband's than Cameron's: it is hard to be subjective in these matters.
Nevertheless, I do think Miliband missed two open goals in. The first was in the interview with Jeremy Paxman, whose hectoring and repetitive:" Did the Labour government borrow too much?" was crying out for a firm: "No, we borrowed what was necessary to rescue the financial system from the chaos caused by the deregulation introduced and supported by the Tories." But Miliband was frightened to give it
The second open goal was when Paxman repeatedly demanded of Miliband: "Are you up to being prime-minister?" Here I was longing for the response: "At least I have the guts to put up and try, whereas you, Mr Paxman, a self-declared Tory, turned down the opportunity to run for mayor of London."
Sadly in our system it is easier to win fame and monetary fortune by mocking politicians who are, however mistakenly, actually trying to improve things, than to put your own time and reputation on the line by trying to do something yourself.
The second loser was the truth about the economy. True Paxman pressed David Cameron hard on the growth of food banks under his watch, and received the pathetic answer that they have grown because the Government permits the Social Security services to recommend them to the destitute. And a response as to whether or not Cameron himself could manage on a zero-hours contract, was long in coming - he couldn't, though, would you believe it, "Some people prefer them! " I wonder who?
But the monotonous Conservative mantra that the government has turned the economy round from the mess made by Labour, that as a result of "tough decisions" it is now recovering and we are once again on the road to prosperity, and that it would be economic suicide to interfere with the "long term economic plan" went unchallenged.
The truth is that the government did indeed turn the economy round, from the modest recovery which was under way when Labour left office to stagnation which endured for two years before the famous "plan A" was surreptitiously abandoned, thus now, late in the day, producing a recovery rather dangerously fuelled by private debt encouraged by a housing bubble.
Sadly, even Labour is not prepared to defend its record, but shuffles uneasily with half-hearted admissions about having got some things wrong. True, not everything the Labour Governments did in the economic field was perfect, but they should boldly say, repeating it as often as the Tory misrepresentations, that the economic crisis began in Wall Street, not Downing Street, and that Gordon Brown, if he did not exactly "save the world", did, by prompt action, rescue our dodgy financial structure from collapse, and that the present government has not yet done much in terms of effective reform.
The third loser was Britain's (or is it just England's?) reputation for good manners. It is not acceptable to ask someone, even in private, let alone or public television, why he is perceived as a "North London geek." Yes, similar, though less personal, jibes were aimed at Cameron, but that does not make the practice acceptable. Tough questioning is necessary, but personal rudeness should be off limits.
Paxman has developed a reputation as an effective interviewer, and some commentators have declared him the true "winner" in the so-called debates. But, though undoubtedly clever, he is, in my view, a bully, sneering at people when he knows that they can't answer back
Saturday, 21 March 2015
I'm reading with great enjoyment historian Richard Davenport-Hines's recently published book "Universal Man: the Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes." Davenport-Hines's comments on the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty should, I believe, be noted by Mrs Merkel et al as they negotiate with Greece over the next few days.
. . .less than half of the £6.6 billion demanded by the Allies under the Versailles Treaty was reckoned by (Foreign Office) experts to be recoverable. Consequently , throughout the 1920s the Foreign Office's tactics. . . sought to pacify Europeans tensions by allowing reparations and then war debts to be winnowed, during thirteen years of wrangling, to about £1 billion. 'From the earliest years following the war,' explained a Foreign Office memorandum, 'it was our policy to eliminate those parts of the Peace Settlement which, as practical people, we knew to be untenable and indefensible.' . . . . . It was not Keynes's polemic* that taught German voters that the Allies were yielding diplomatists . . . These reductions were not necessitated by Keynesian sophistry , but by the unenforceable provisions of which he had warned.
Here in Britain Osborne and the rest of the political establishment have refused to learn the lessons of the 1920s and 1930s and so imposed unnecessary misery on some 20% or so of our population.. There is scope for the for the leaders of the Eurozone to be more enlightened and avoid even more severe misery for most of the Greeks.
*The Economic Consequences of the Peace
Thursday, 19 March 2015
George Osborne's budget continues to give help to those who don't need it (but might vote Tory) and take it away from those who do need it.
Those of us with savings are to be allowed to earn £1 000 of interest per year free of tax. Well, 2% is a pretty average rate of interest at the moment, so to receive (I won't say "earn") that £1 000 you'd need to have £50 000 stashed away. Indeed, if you were daft enough to put your savings in a Lloyds Bank's "Easy Saver" account you'd need half a million, as Lloyds pays only 0.2% on that account Either way, holders of those amounts of spare money are not the most needy in society.
Maybe this particular "give away" is not so generous as it looks, because the astute and those with financial advisers will already have as much as possible of their savings in ISA accounts, which are already tax free. But the offer makes a good headline for the target audience of those who have "worked hard,. saved and done the right thing." Ugh.
Then there's the offer of a "gift" from the government of £50 for every £200 those saving to buy their first house put into a new "Help-to-Buy" ISA. The maximum amount of savings for this bonus is £12 000, to which the government will therefore " gift" a further £3 000. Indeed, if a couple are saving to buy, or have parents who can supply the money to enable them to pretend that they are doing the saving themselves, that's £6 000 of government handout towards their first house.
As well as the potential "dead-weight loss" of helping those who are probably saving anyway, the idiocy of this policy is that the problem in our housing market is one of supply, not demand. The result will probably be to further inflate the housing bubble.
At the other end of the scale the government is not so free with its generosity. Social security expenditure (I do not use the term "welfare" which has become condescending and mildly pejorative) is to be cut by a further £12bn, the police and legal aid will continue to be starved of funds, and guarantees of no cuts to the health services mean little with a rising and ageing population.
Local government services for parks, libraries, street cleaning and other provisions which make our society civilised will be further pared to the bone in a desperate attempt to preserve care services.
The Israelites in Egypt are said to have revolted when they were forced to make bricks without straw. Presumably Osborne thinks our ire will be mollified by the penny off a pint of beer - surely the most clichéd bribe in the pre-election budget lexicon.
Sadly , Osborne's risible boasts about the "success" of his policies (our economy "walking tall" when a more apt description would be "struggling uncertainly back to its feet having been unnecessarily clobbered for five years") is supported by the overwhelming majority of the media, described as mediamacro by Oxford Professor Wren-Lewis,and one in three of those likely to vote are deluded into supporting more of the same..
Monday, 16 March 2015
Naturally, as a died-in-the wool Liberal for over half a century I believe firmly in the devolution of decision making to the lowest possible level. "Horses for courses," as one of my friends and fellow devotees put it: whatever is appropriate for whatever level, be it the UN, EU, UK, Nation, Region, Local Authority, or Parish. So I'm predisposed to welcome the UK government's decision, announced a few weeks ago, to devolve all sorts of powers, including the organisation of the NHS in the area, to Greater Manchester.
However, last week local government minister Eric Pickles stooped to yet more Westminster micro-management by imposing additional rules for local authorities to follow on, (would you believe it?), parking fines. (They must allow a 10 minute leeway for motorists overstaying their welcome.) Hence this letter:
How can the government justify devolving control of the NHS and umpteen other things to Manchester and yet not be prepared to trust them on eduction or even parking fines?
Apart from the massive illogicality of these two decisions the UK government's behaviour in the devolution package to Manchester raises three other important questions:
1. Why is the devolution of powers conditional on their having a directly elected mayor? As recently as 2012 our central government forced 11 cities to hold referendums on whether or not to have a directly elected mayor. Only one, Bristol, voted "Yes. " (and Doncaster, which already had one, voted to retain it.) The rest, including Manchester, voted "No."
Frankly, I'm not in favour of referendums in our representative system of democracy, but if they are imposed, then a democratic government should accept the decision rather than try to overturn it with a bribe. This course has an autocratic flavour of : "We shall keep on bullying you until you do not what you want but what we want.."
2. Is the city region the most appropriate area to exercise devolved powers? I think such a system gives too much prominence to the needs of the central city and not enough of the rest of the area, and should prefer such powers to be devolved to the economic regions as presently defined. Others might prefer the historic counties, or combinations of them. This is something to be discussed.
3. Why is this devolution to Greater Manchester granted now, when the whole future of devolved government in the UK is in the melting pot (the so-called West Lothian question) and must be sorted out after the election?
The panic stricken leaders of the three major parties rushed into a promise to grant further powers to the Scottish parliament in an ill-considered and unnecessary attempt to ward off a "Yes" vote for Scottish independence. It is right that they should stick to this mistaken promise so as not to further besmirch the reputation of our political system, but beyond this there should be no further "of the cuff" meddling until after the election.
Then a properly constituted People's Convention or Royal Commission should be set up to attempt to rationalise the whole system. An outline of how I think this should be done is set out in this earlier post.
Once agreed the rights of each level of government should be guaranteed in a written constitution.
Saturday, 14 March 2015
Here's the second "unpublished" letter (see below for the first): this one in response to some misuse of the language - you'd think Guardian writers would know better.
Please remind John Grace (An exciting conference? Quite:7 March) that pictures and juries are hung, people are hanged. And furthermore, advise Nicholas Watt (A royal retreat: 7th March) that, in a multi-party world, it is more respectful of the electorate's decision to describe parliaments with no over-all majority for a single party as "balanced."
The point here is that in persistently referring to a parliament with no over-all majority by the negative- sounding "hung" the media are giving what amounts to a coded (dog whistle?) hint to the electorate that we ought to make up our minds and not dither. This may have relevance in the context in which the metaphor was originally used, (in the US, about juries unable to reach a decision) but is inappropriate in the context of electing a body which is representative of a people with legitimately diverse views.
"Balanced" is the appropriate description: positive, friendly and accurate - and would be even more so if we had proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
I had a busy time last week writing letters to the Guardian which , alas, they didn't find worthy of publication. Here's the firsst.
In response to a proposal by Simon Jenkins that parliament moves to Manchester it may not wish to move back:
I'm sure Simon Jenkins is correct in his observation that “the Palace of Westminster may not be fit for purpose , but it is a holy of democratic holies” (Westminster may be crumbling but this is our chance to reclaim democracy, 5 March) but I believe that his solution of trundling the whole caboodle to Manchester is inadequate.
My ideal solution would be to have two parliaments. The one in Westminster, suitably repaired and basking in its historical prestige, could house representatives of the entire United Kingdom and debate and legislate for the sexy subjects of foreign policy, defence, relations with the EU and UN, management the currency , some taxation to facilitate equalisation grants between the nations, and oversight of the BBC and weather forecast.
A second parliament, for England only and based not in Manchester but York, historically England’s second city, should deal with such remaining matters as have not been devolved to the English Regions – the law, legal and justice systems, frameworks for education and the health and care services, national transport systems, etc, and taxation to finance its responsibilities.
This scheme would facilitate a welcome dispersal of powers and functions, whilst allowing Westminster politicians to continue to strut around feeling important.
Monday, 9 March 2015
Deciding what is the most damaging legacy of the Thatcher years makes an interesting area for debate. Is it:
- the lingering divisive effects of the miners v the police;
- deregulation, particularly of financial markets;
- the "right to buy" council houses;
- the Falklands War;
- the emasculation of local government?
So how incredible that, while experts in the housing field are calling for an end to the right to buy, or at least its suspension, Ian Duncan Smith, Work and Pensions Secretary, is leading the push to extend the right to buy (at a substantial discount) to tenants of Housing Associations. Even dafter (though it is so incredible it may be a hoax) the Daily Mirror reports that Smith wants to gift (sic) their house to any council tenant who has been on benefit but gets a job and remains in it for a year.
This gives a whole new meaning to election bribery.
Equally illogical is David Cameron's determination to create more so called "free" schools on the spurious grounds that where they exist they improve the quality of surrounding schools. The evidence is that the existing "free" schools are no better than any other (for what it's worth, of the 73 free schools inspected by OFSTED 18 were rated as outstanding, 22 were inadequate or required improvement and three have been closed down or taken over.)
In practice these schools create havoc with local authority attempts to plan intelligently for by providing school places where they're not needed, largely to satisfy the aspirations of pushy parents who want schools in their own image,religious organisations which want to push their beliefs at the state's expense, or commercial organisations wanting to get their foot in the door ready for when running schools for profit becomes permissible.
An afterthought: if local authorities are not deemed fit to be trusted with running schools how come powers are to be devolved to Manchester to run almost everything else, including the the NHS?
Saturday, 7 March 2015
- investing in green and hi-tech manufacturing
- solving the housing crisis
- discounting bus-fares for 16 to 21s by 30%
- retaining our "triple lock" on pensions (hurray!)
- cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
- “Balancing the cyclically-adjusted current budget by 2017/18, on time and fairly, protecting the economic recovery and bringing down Britain’s debt as a share of national income."
The "official" policy is that 60% of this balancing should be achieved by further cuts in expenditure and 40% by tax increases. The Social Liberal Forum, the allegedly "left wing" in proposing and amendment that the ratio of cuts to tax increases should be 50/50.
No Liberal, least of all SLF members, should be supporting this at all, even if the 50/50 amendment is accepted. To compare it to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is too weak an analogy: arguing about the rules for marbles as the ship sinks would be closer.
The deficit is not an immediate problem. Accepting that it is is cravenly swallowing, alas along with Labour and most of the media, the very successful Tory PR spin. Frankly, it never was our most urgent problem, even in 2010. The comparison with Greece is and was ludicrous: their debt was mostly short-term and held abroad - ours is mostly long term and mostly held within our own economy, and our DEBT/GDP ratio was and is relatively modest. The deficit is certainly not our most urgent problem now.
It is increasingly recognised that the Tories used and are still using the deficit as an excuse for their real aim of rolling back the state. As William Keegan write in the Observer (22/02 15) :
The truth is that the only long-term plan they have had is to seize the excuse of the putative need for “austerity” to shrink the state, in the process imparting serious social damage to the poor.
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon also recognises in her splendid address on the economy to UCL that the obsession with the deficit could be nothing to do with reducing it, but "an ideological war to shrink the state." With the exception of her advocacy of complete independence rather than home rule (and, in my view, her misguided enthusiasm of HS2) she is saying exactly what I believe Liberal Democrats should be saying. Liberal Democrats who have not heard the speech will recognise that a genuinely Liberal Democrat economic policy is feasible if they listen to her on
I heartily wish every Liberal Democrat conference attendee would give this a hearing..
I heartily wish every Liberal Democrat conference attendee would give this a hearing..
Not only should Liberal Democrats move on from deficit obsession, we should also stop trying to claim credit for alleged economic “success” of which the Tories boast. On their own terms (retaining the AAA rating, eliminating the deficit in one parliament) their policy has failed, and such “green shoots” as can be discerned do not bear serious scrutiny (increasing employment largely dependent of low skilled work and zero-hour contracts; still unbalanced growth fuelled by consumer debt encouraged by yet another housing boom .)
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging” is a useful maxim at this stage.
As Liberal Democrats, heirs to the party of Keynes and Beveridge, we should recognise that Britain’s urgent and present problems are unemployment, in particular youth unemployment, under-employment, zero-hours contracts, low paid casual and part-time work when full time work at decent salaries and conditions are what is needed, plus an end to the cruel removal of social security payments which causes unnecessary misery and makes food banks a common feature of our wealthy society.
Unfortunately we cannot deny our complicity on the economic policies the coalition has pursued. We could however make it clear that the so-called Plan A was effectively abandoned, and the recovery, actually in process when the George Osborne took office, resumed only after two years of “flat lining” through modest Keynesian expansion introduced, possibly largely at the instigation of Vince Cable, in 20012/13.
To be true to our principles the “Balancing the Budget” clause should not be subjected to minor tinkering but replaced by one which promises no further cuts, calls for modest Keynesian expansion (easily affordable whilst interest rates are at rock bottom: indeed we are culpable if we miss the opportunity), and relies on the consequent increases in government revenue and fall in social security payments to balance the budget in the long run. As Keynes argued, “look after the unemployment, and the budget will look after itself.” There is no need for a date.
This approach may be embarrassing for some of our leaders, who have appeared at times almost to welcome the misguided Tory policies rather than argue that they have over 300 MPs and we have only 57, and that were the figures reversed we should be doing things differently.
But better embarrassment and some tricky explanations to interviewers hoodwinked into believing that austerity is the only answer than continued dishonesty.
We have plenty achievements of which we can be proud in our period of coalition: the fixed term parliament (we should shout much more loudly about this), shared parental leave, the pupil premium, the green investment bank, etc (I have a list of 23). We should be campaigning on these rather than trying to defend, let alone continue, an economic policy which betrays our heritage and principles.
Nick Clegg promised more honest politics: let’s give it to them, and give the voters in England and Wales a genuine alternative economic policy, as is offered to the voters in Scotland.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
There's a nice moment in the "Beyond the Fringe" sketch about the war where one of that "fab four" says: "Every day Alvar Lidell brought us news of fresh disasters" and this is immediately followed by a mock BBC voice-over: "This is Alvar Lidell bringing you news of fresh disasters."
Accurate that is or not, there is no doubt that nowadays, if not every day at least every week, we get news of fresh actual or possible financial scandals, so much so that most of us have lost count. In the last week or so we have heard that:
- the Bank of England, surely the epitome of financial probity, is to be investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for possibly having manipulated the money auctions which were implemented to bail out the financial system through so-called Quantitative Easing in 2007/8
- the Chief Executive of HBOS claims he knew nothing about the illegal acts of his Swiss subsidiary in aiding and abetting tax evaders, and instead of being sacked for negligence is likely to receive a bonus of £7.5m;
- RBS, a bank "bailed out" with public money, made losses of £3.5bn in 2014 so its bosses are to receive a total of £421m in bonuses
- Lloyds, another bailed out bank, is to pay its boss a combination of pay and share options of £11.5m just for one year of his services. Maybe they can afford it because they pay me just 0.2% interest on my "Easy Saver" nest-egg, but if they lend it to someone as a credit card overdraft they charge them up to 23.7%. (An incredible 52.1% on one deal: it should be illegal)
And this week I've received a circular from financial advisers Hargreaves Lansdown telling me that if I put £8 000 into my "pension pot" this year the government will add another £2 000 to make a total of £10 000. Very nice for those with £8 000 a year (about £160 a week) to spare. Were I a "top rate" taxpayer I'd be able to pay in £152 000, (just short of £3 000 a week) to which the government would add £38 000 and I'd be able to "claim back" (I've no idea why) £ 47 500 so the total cost to me of a £190 000 addition to my pension pot would be a mere £104 500.
Even with £300 a day for signing in at the House of Lord it would be difficult to stretch to that.
Hargreaves Lansdown tell me that the Treasury spends £35bn a year in supporting pensions in this way. We are urged to move quickly, because if Labour or the Liberal Democrats are in the next government this largesse, most of which accrues to the already very well heeled, may be reduced. Fingers crossed that it is - down to the level which supports a pension pot sufficient to provide a pension equivalent to the median wage. that's all anyone needs. Indeed it would be a pretty generous pension.
What is regrettable is that the last Labour government, with whopping majorities for 13 years, appears to have done little to put a stop to these bonanzas.
At the other end of the scale David Cameron has announced that if the Tories form the next government they will stop giving child benefit for the fourth and any subsequent offspring. That's on top of the benefits cap, the bedroom tax and vigorous purges of self-seekers and those on the disabled register.
All this together we are not. I am astonished that our outrage is not more explicit. We seem to have become inured to "news of fresh exploitation."
Sadly at least a third of those likely to vote in the next election seem perfectly happy to support the party which will perpetuate this unjust, divisive and dysfunctional regime.
Sunday, 1 March 2015
The one thing we Liberal Democrats would prefer not to have mentioned on the doorstep, or anywhere else for that matter, is "tuition fees." That is probably why Ed Miliband has introduced his own policy, to reduce the maximum payable. from £9 000 to £6 000.
So far Miliband's policy, announced last Friday, has been a great success. Every news bulletin that I've heard or seen since then has, in reporting Labour's new policy, mentioned that the Liberal Democrats promised - no, pledged - in the 2010 election to vote against any rise, and then didn't. Only one bulletin I heard mentioned that Labour themselves had said in their manifesto for 1997 that they had "no plans" to introduce tuition fees, the in 1998 introduced them, at a means-tested rate of £1 000 a year, payable up front. Then their Education Secretary David Blunket promised in 2001 that there would be no "top up" fees, but then topped them up to £3 000 a year in 2004. Nor did any bulletin refer to the Tories' 2010 promise of no "top down " reorganisation of the NHS, but, to be fair, that's not on the topic.
So, it may not be fair, but we Liberal Democrats are the ones stuck with the stigma of the broken promise. The reputation that Liberal Democrat councillors had painstakingly built up over thirty or more years, that "Vote Liberal/Liberal Democrat" and you really will get what it says on the tin, was blown in one stupid decision. The damage affects not just our party, but all of British politics. The reported comment of Caroline Lucas in Guardian Weekend expresses the wider damage very accurately:
As for Nick Clegg, she says his reversal on tuition fees is responsible for much of the cynicism about British politics today, "What I can't forgive is that it was always difficult as an MP to say 'Trust me', but you can't say that now (28/02/2015)
Milband's ploy presumably has the additional function of acting as a bribe to the "yoof" vote* to counteract the Tories' blatant courtship of we pensioners with our costly and unnecessary 4% guaranteed savings bonds (available only to the over 65s), and promises of continued winter fuel allowances and free TV licences (over 75s only).
Be that as it may, if implemented, and it is difficult to see how Labour would dare do otherwise if they are the majority party in the next government, the benefit of the fee reduction will, according to the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, go largely to those graduates who go into highly paid areas (banking, perhaps, PR, the law?). Those in the more humble occupations (teachers, nurses etc) are unlikely to earn enough to pay back much over the amount of "debt" accumulated at £6 000 a year, whatever the maximum is.
The irony is that the present system, even with a maximum of £9 000, is not all that bad, It does not seem to have impacted adversely on university applications, involves no "up front" payment, applies to part-time as well as full-time students, repayments do not "kick in" until a reasonable level of salary is reached, does not affect graduates' credit rating, and is time limited. Had we called it a "graduate tax" (an idea I picked up from a Professor Sandford of Bath University way back in the 1960s and have advocated ever since) we should have ended up with much the same result and saved ourselves a lot of opprobrium.
* Professor Simon Wren Lewis discusses some interesting aspects of this possibility on his blog: