Tax and the Splintering World

Written By: - Date published: 3:38 pm, December 5th, 2024 - 30 comments
Categories: capitalism, Economy, equality, Globalisation, inequality, Keynes, labour, political alternatives, tax - Tags:

Tax policy, like trade policy, attracts clever people, who love its intricacies. One thinks one knows a little about tax, then one attends seminars with the cognoscenti, and one understands the depth of one’s own ignorance. Perhaps it’s the interplay of Economics, Accounting and the Law, and its related quantitative requirements, that produces that bright-eyed enthusiasm. Whatever the reasons, the hoi polloi are usually happy to leave tax discussions to the initiated,

One aspect of the tax discussion is its mangling in political debate. Everybody, almost, agrees in principle that there must be taxes in a modern complex society. The how and the how much then descends into a battle of assertions, half-truths and fear mongering.

In this, two camps may be discerned. On the one hand, taxation is an unfortunate necessity, a universal yet offensive imposition on the individual, to be patrolled unceasingly in garnering and use to protect the individual from the perils of imposition and collectivism.

On the other, taxation is the price we pay to live in a broadly inclusive, high-functioning and stable democracy. This view is quite happy to see care taken in the use of tax revenues; working people having no interest in profligacy. I want to pay taxes that make our world liveable and productive.

Tax wonks will shudder at this simplistic view. Yet, when I look at the Keynesian Accommodation of the 1930s and 1970s, I see the fear and loathing in the first tradition bending into agreement with the second, wherein the benefits of stability in a period of economic and military uncertainty forged a functional and successful accommodation, albeit contingent. Of course, this accommodation was not universal, yet its institutions and practices sought to take the message globally.

This arrangement was assailed from the 1970s in part by the Bretton Woods institutions established to promote it. Why is a long story, but let’s simply accept here that powerful neo-liberal traditions combined with the massively increased post-war power of Finance Capital. in a period of global integration, sweeping aside Keynesian thinking and institutions.

For fifty years or so, orthodox economics and government policy have promoted less onerous tax regimes for individuals and companies, making such outcomes articles of faith and stigmatising contrary views. We’ve seen this in New Zealand, where the Labour Party, at least at leadership level, has for multiple election cycles been chary about major tax change (even in regard to the internationally-common CGT).

Things have moved on in part because of changing intellectual arguments, in part because the survival of a stable, inclusive economy and society, in which people have confidence, is now palpably under threat. Scratch the surface of New Zealand and you find a crisis in health, education, social provision, infrastructure, even defence and policing.

For my sins, over several years, and long before Captain’s Calls were a problem, I’ve been in debates in the Labour Party and with others about NZ’s tax arrangements. Those debates have swirled round Piketty and his understanding of contemporary political economy, other similar interpretations, and my own background in the rise and impact of populisms of Latin America.

For the sake of clarity, the thumbnail of my view is that, after fifty or so years of neo-liberalism, overt or by stealth, the Keynesian Accommodation of the 1930s has succumbed to a concerted attack. Today, we are on or over the cusp of a shift into a period of major instability, in which the institutions and ideologies that have sustained the performance and stability of the OECD-type economies are failing under a two-fold attack from, first, a new buccaneering transnational elite, and, second, its preferred political arrangements, which comprise the erosion of liberal democracy and its replacement by a modern authoritarian populism.

The implication for New Zealand is that either we “go with the flow”, which is the position of the current government, or we repackage New Zealand in a defensive mode, committed to our democracy, thoughtfully responsive to a less open global economy, careful in the international alliances we forge. I’ve been going back to my reading of the 1970s and the ECLA model adopted widely in Latin America and see merits in an up-dated import substitution model. Cue horror in the neo-classical world.

A “protected New Zealand” in a world of declining trade openness will have to rethink economic settings and work to ensure internal political stability. Leaving the former to one side here, the latter is essential if we are to avoid a slump into Seymour-like populism. The foundation of that stability is a reduction in inequality such that the people understand that they will be able to work, house and feed families, and be part of an active civil society. It’s clear to me that a CGT isn’t able to support that foundation. A Wealth Tax and additional measures, which encompass unrealised wealth, are essential.  By the by, such arrangements are probably also essential if we are to manage climate change with a degree of unity and consensus.

 You may not agree with this view but you probably will accept that the world is in its worst shape since the Second World War, and that “business as usual” in NZ politics cannot survive.  I don’t think the picture painted here is exaggerated. We are at an historical “moment”, an inflection point, call it what you will, where choices about political and economic settings press.

I can’t see a practicable alternative to a descent into a modern, authoritarian populism other than the new protectionism with a revamped accommodation.  And the preferred alternative has to be grasped wholeheartedly, as the alternative is sweeping all before it.  The rot is already in place in New Zealand, given a boost by the COVID crisis, ACT’s populism and National’s ponderous neo-liberalism.

The NZ Labour Party Conference has passed the taxation parcel to the LP’s Policy Council. Here’s one person who hopes that the Policy Council lifts its head from the narrow disciplines of the next election, and takes on board the scale of the challenge facing New Zealand and the world.

30 comments on “Tax and the Splintering World ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dennis Frank 1
    5 December 2024 at 5:03 pm

    The upside for Labour is that either alternative will be genuinely progressive – a wealth tax would be more so, but either depends on conditions applied to implement it.

    That puts pressure on the designers. A consensus of economists motivated to progress beyond neoliberalism would be optimal for the design team, one would think.

    That would be a sound basis upon which for Labour to proceed, but the rubber hits the road with marketing the product. That's when framing becomes crucial. Electoral success depends on a blend of such expertise with the competitive capacity of the govt – currently seeming feeble but liable to be boosted by an eventual economic recovery.

    The downside is that we still have no basis for assuming Labour comprehends sustainability and resilience. If they had realised the viability of whichever option they go for is contingent on an electorate increasingly geared to both principles, their conference public relations would have mentioned them, right?

    • mikesh 1.1
      8 December 2024 at 4:25 pm

      The upside for Labour is that either alternative will be genuinely progressive – a wealth tax would be more so,

      Yes. The problem with CGTs is that many recipients may not be particularly wealthy. It seems rediculous that the not-so-wealthy would be taxed on their capital gains while the wealthy who hang onto their assets, get off scot free. Of course those wealthy who do sell assets would pay tax on the capital gain anyway, if a wealth tax were in place, since the gain would form part of their wealth.

  2. Bearded Git 2
    5 December 2024 at 6:28 pm

    Great post-go the Wealth Tax.

    Labour will be attacked with all guns blazing by the wealthiest 5% whether it supports the introduction of a WT or a CGT. So it may as well go for the one that actually works in terms of the redistribution of wealth.

    • mikesh 2.1
      9 December 2024 at 8:57 am

      Since CG is a component of wealth CGT's are wealth taxes in disguise. However with a regular wealth tax there would usually be a threshhold below which the tax would not apply. This does not seem to be the case with CGT's.

  3. Ad 3
    5 December 2024 at 7:57 pm

    Why would a wealth tax raise incomes of our lowest 80% of people?

    How has Hipkins or indeed Labour regained tax policy credibility?

    If a left government gained bucketloads of tax funding, would anyone trust the money wouldn't be squandered?

    I don't believe Labour on tax.

    It's really easy to believe National on tax.

    And the most successful thing Labour has done with personal money in 30 years is encourage us to save it.

    • Incognito 3.1
      5 December 2024 at 8:19 pm

      It’s really easy to believe National on tax.

      No, it really isn’t.

      • Ad 3.1.1
        6 December 2024 at 8:23 am

        They delivered what they said they would on tax and Labour didn't.

        • Incognito 3.1.1.1
          6 December 2024 at 8:48 am

          Honestly, I cannot believe that you believe National on tax, so I take it that your short one-line comments are for argument’s sake.

          In a crude simplistic and superficial way, it’s indeed easy to be persuaded by National’s promises on tax cuts and many voters appear to have fallen for it.

          When I have time in the weekend I’ll elaborate and prove that National cannot and should not be believed and trusted on tax at all, never ever, unless you’re part of a small elite group of privileged and entitled people.

          • Ad 3.1.1.1.1
            6 December 2024 at 8:58 am

            Now that would be the tax policy column we should have. Go for it.

            You can mark me as the skeptical case that Labour+Greens will have to persuade to get back in power using tax policy.

        • mikesh 3.1.1.2
          8 December 2024 at 10:23 pm

          They delivered what they said they would on tax and Labour didn't.

          What was it that Labour promised but failed to deliver?

    • lprent 3.2
      5 December 2024 at 10:15 pm

      Stupid short-sighted comment. One that ignores basic demographics – that were obvious to me back in 1977 when I looked at the inevitable consequences from both the Muldoon’s National Superannuation, and the falling birthrates.

      It’s really easy to believe National on tax.

      Only if you are short-sighted, myopic, and interested in torturing the old and ill. Never picked you for a simple sadist.

      Taxation, regardless if direct to the government or mandated by laws is there for a purpose.

      One of those primary purposes is deal with public health. Another is deal with the opportunities that education gives to an economy. Another is to ensure that the elderly aren’t thrown out on the street or cause reductions in economic productivity by forcing productive family to support them.

      And the most successful thing Labour has done with personal money in 30 years is encourage us to save it.

      And giving the tax incentives to do it. In exactly the same way that a lack of a capital gains or wealth tax has done for the cost of housing – the incentives have worked extremely well.

      Labour also taking tax revenue and pushing it forward into the future investing in the Cullen fund. That was to start getting over the demographic hump that really starts kicking in this decade.

      National is known for with tax is that they give trivial income and business tax cuts that are wiped out before the end of the year with the inflation.

      National also usually raise rapidly taxes in other areas, actually regularly and massively.

      For instance the two increases in GST. In 1989 to 12.5% and in 2010 to 15%. In both cases that massively boosted the overall tax takes after the immediate recession passed. It wouldn’t surprise me if National boost GST up again to close to the OECD 19% average withing a few years.

      This current crowd are the dumbest in how actual economies work that I have seen since watching Muldoon trying to ignore the economic impact on us from Britian entering the EEC.

      National are usually useless at managing an economy because they try to treat it like running a small shop or a business working on short-term dividend cycle. They never treat it like the generational process that it actually is – one where the planning hoizions are longer than 3 years.

      From Muldoon onwards, their policies routinely push NZ into a recessions (ie 1975-1987), or make a recession that much deeper and prolonged – 1991-1998, 2009-2012 (fortunately Clark signed the Chinese FTA in April 2008 which blunted that), and 2024-(probably until 2027/8).

      That is because they usually come in vowing to reduce the overall tax burden, and do it by cutting productive uses of taxation – thereby cutting off future opportunities. Like having well educated citizens entering the productive economy 10 or 20 years down the line, or being able to productively work for longer with a lower burden on public health.

      Or supporting startup enterprises that export, before they become ‘winners’ selling intellectual property to the world.

      Instead they always subsidise the increasingly unprofitable for the country businesses that export raw logs with low profit margins, sell nearly raw agricultural products with increasingly negative real profit margins (ie they don’t pay ETS and expect the actual tax payers to eventually pay it for them), and scalping tourists (always a risky and variable business long-term).

      Why would a wealth tax raise incomes of our lowest 80% of people?

      It probably won’t directly. However what it will do is to make it harder for the 2% wealthiest people in the country to pay their fair share of tax rather than effective tax rates that are less than the lowest 10% of income earners.

      As importantly it will encourage investment into other, likely more productive, areas that are currently starved of capital – basically all of the productive and profitable part of our national economy. ie not just property pyramid schemes, or the rort of paying dividends out from power companies by revaluing 70 year old assets upwards – rather that adding power generation plants.

      If we lose a few parasite wealthy on the way through, then I’d count that as a plus. I have met a lot of those trust bunny parasites over the years. The difference with the wealthy who actually work their capital into startups is stark.

      • Ad 3.2.1
        6 December 2024 at 8:22 am

        Kiwisaver shows everyone how the state can structure tax for the good of all – and the long term good for New Zealand is that it addresses our woeful lack of savings. That was good Labour policy and it wasn't a Wealth Tax.

        We may not like that National are believable on tax and Labour aren't, but they ran on a tax increment change and they delivered. I don't think you get how woeful in delivery and wasteful in tax the last Labour government were. Delivery matters because then we trust them.

        GST was introduced by Labour in 1986 at 10%, so please don't complain to me about National introducing regressive taxes. It is a disgusting dead weight on the poor and the states' books are now addicted to it.

        If Labour wants to do something innovative with taxes on startups or exporters I'm all for it, but that's a long, long way from Parker+Greens' Wealth Tax. You could always try proposing a sensible R&D+Exporters policy framework. That would be a useful way to gain Labour credibility back with the business community.

        Labour had six years and more 'Overton Window' opportunity than any government since the War to do something big about tax, and consistently ran away.

        Labour have no credibility on tax and Hipkins in particular.

        • SPC 3.2.1.1
          6 December 2024 at 12:10 pm

          GST was introduced by Labour in 1986 at 10%, so please don't complain to me about National introducing regressive taxes. It is a disgusting dead weight on the poor and the states' books are now addicted to it.

          Where did he complain about regressive taxes? You are the one doing so and then saying there is no alternative.

          As for doing something on tax, that requires actually running on tax policy and then winning (the notable exception being 1984).

        • Ed1 3.2.1.2
          7 December 2024 at 5:29 pm

          I've posted this as a reply to Ad at 3.2.1, but it may cover some other issues.

          Regarding Kiwisaver, this basis for retirement savings started out (from memory) as providing for those such as self-employed people who did not have access to a work based superannuation scheme. Those schemes have largely disappeared, but the basis for contributions was typically 5% from each of the the employee and employer, or higher amounts, particularly from the employer. Money could not be withdrawn prior to retirement, (other than on leaving employment, which often gave miserable benefits), and pensions from 'defined benefit' schemes were treated as taxable income in retirement. Most employers now merely match employee contributions up to a low percentage of income, investment roll up is taxed, and withdrawals are tax free. We are growing an increasing number of people for whom Kiwisaver will not give enough income to supplement NZ Superannuation in retirement. Employer contributions are lower than was normal prior to Kiwisaver, and are lower than required in Australia. Increasingly Kiwisaver is seen as enabling lower paid people to afford a deposit on a house, but that only works for those on higher incomes, and favourable tax treatment of houses has taken deposits from between say 50% to 100% of annual income to much higher levels. Our young people are finding it harder to find somewhere to live, and then it further reduces retirement income. So no Kiwisaver is not a good structure, and lags behind other countries in enabling people to afford to retire.

          GST replaced a complicated bunch of other taxes, and at 10% was broadly similar in total income raised. The increases have been largely from National as they see it as enabling income tax to be lowered for the wealthy . . . National are just favouring the wealthy – that does not make them believable on tax.

          Wealth tax is horrendously complicated. We should have a higher tax rate for high incomes – say 67% for more than 5 times average earnings (actual numbers may be different, I'm just saying that a very high tax rated worked well in the past – there is no magic in asking those on very high incomes to pay more.

          New Zealand is reputedly poor at catching hidden international income, though trusts and other vehicles. We should give the IRD the right to understand all assets owned worldwide, even is some is not taxable in New Zealand, so that we can better cope with the hidden trust industry . . . Again National is not credible in denying the existence of such arrangements, Labour has been too slow to address the problem, even when it knows that research will not result in a better tax system for some years.

          Labour had no more opportunity to 'fix' taxation than the Key/English National governments, and given Covid, arguably less.

          We do have tax on capital gains – it is part of normal income tax, but it also has an obscene exemption for rental properties.

          [Please stick to one e-mail address here, thanks – Incognito]

        • mikesh 3.2.1.3
          8 December 2024 at 10:34 pm

          Kiwisaver shows everyone how the state can structure tax for the good of all – and the long term good for New Zealand is that it addresses our woeful lack of savings. That was good Labour policy and it wasn't a Wealth Tax.

          It wasn't any sort of tax.

        • mikesh 3.2.1.4
          8 December 2024 at 10:53 pm

          Interest is not subject to GST, which means that lending money is not considered a service. But if it's not a service why should interest be deductible. Labour made it non deductible in the case of landlords (they didn't go far enough of course: they should have made all interest non deductble). Now National wants to reverse that measure; so why should National be considered believable on matters of taxation.

      • Obtrectator 3.2.2
        6 December 2024 at 12:56 pm

        Wasn't Labour still in power for that first GST increase in 1989?

      • alwyn 3.2.3
        6 December 2024 at 1:46 pm

        "From Muldoon onwards, their policies routinely push NZ into a recessions (ie 1975-1987)",

        Are you seriously telling us that problems in 1975 and in 1987 were caused by the National Party? Have you forgotten that in both 1975 and 1987 there was a Labour Government in its third year in power. National left office in 1972 and in 1984. By the years you are talking about it was all on the Labour parties head if there were problems.

        You can get away with blaming the previous Government for a maximum of two years. After that the valid question is "Why didn't you fix the problem?"

        • lprent 3.2.3.1
          9 December 2024 at 3:12 pm

          Nope. What I am saying is that National have a habit of taking a recession that exists and prolong massively it through their usual policies of using really silly policies.

          In 1975 the first oil shock effects were largely over. National's policies were to trash the economic policies Labour had put into place to try to diversify our exports – things like the DFC finance targeting SME exports, expanding the tertiary education accessibility, and the superannuation scheme which provided a means to generate local capital.

          National from 1976, started to try to maintain farmers incomes in a falling market, which eventually caused the debacle of the SMPs. It also tried to create a heavy industrial base producing bulk industrial commodity after 1978 (Italy style), but in a country that had a minuscule population and was so far from potential markets that spinoff industries were unlikely. We still don't have virtually any 40+ years later. Both drained capital from other enterprises, mostly by vast government borrowing, and caused vast distortions in the economy. The policies also deepened an existing recession.

          Note that this isn't just economic theory. I worked on farms from 1975-1981, and saw the effects of SMPs (it is why I didn't become a farmer). I worked in local industries supplying Think Big projects from 1981-1984 (it is a reason why I did a MBA because I needed to understand real accounting and economics). The whole National government from 1976-1984 was completely insane and seemed to designed to cause massive government debt and a prolonged painful recession.

          At the end of 1990, National took power after a 2 term Labour government that had massively restructured the economy as a direct response to the insane debts that Muldoon and National accumulated.

          Have a look at the graph in "Was life really harder in 1990, last time inflation peaked?"

          In end of 1990 the inflation rate had dropped to about 7% from its peak of 19% in 1987. Unemployment had risen to about 7%, and the misery index was two thirds of its level in 1987. But basically the economy was starting to stabilise from the economic shock of Muldoon's stupidity.

          So National response was to do a hardcore deflation via austerity without any regard to balancing the economy. They actively broke businesses by starving them of available capital for investment or even working capital. Caused a massive spike in unemployment that even the official numbers peaked at about 11% and then they kept a recession with sustained unemployment running from 1991 through to 1999.

          It wasn't that the austerity was particularly effective in its purpose. Government debt remained high compared to a diminishing or non-growing GDP. Look at the IMF graph. It wasn't until Bolger booted the policy to a less doctrinaire economic policy after the 1993 election that the slowly recovering economy with improved employment started being able to start reducing government debt.

          But from 1991 misery index switched from inflation which largely afflicted property owners to afflicting people by throwing them into unproductive long-term unemployment and the retarded the development of a more productive economy.

          I saw that as well. To get any export tech industry off the ground in the 1990s required that you had to mortgage someones house to get funds to do development or marketing. Which is why there were so few new export based companies created in the 1990s. The people who were coming out of education in the 1990s, if they didn't have 'contacts', typically spent years in unemployment and completely dead end jobs. Many are still traumatised by that today.

          Needless to say, most of the effect of that unemployment fell largely on elderly workers and those entering the job market. The effect on the latter still acts brake on our economy today. The economic consequences

          You can get away with blaming the previous Government for a maximum of two years. After that the valid question is "Why didn't you fix the problem?"

          And that is just complete bullshit. Economies don't shift on such small time scales. This isn't exactly hard to see in NZ. The Chinese FTA put in place (along with the ground work for number of other FTAs in early 2000s and signed in early 2007 only really started to take a strong effect around 2012. See graph.

          If you ever look at the percent of exports against our total exports in standard dollars, you can see the effect on our total export values which is even more marked, mostly because we were losing markets in countries that still had austerity austerity .

          Economic effects outside of sugar rush effects (like National's handouts to landlords) typically take about 4 years to fruition at a minimum.

          This is particularly the case in NZ because our internal economy is simply too small to generate effective internal growth. Put simply the prosperity of real estate and hairdressers and the like are a symptom of relative prosperity driven from long-term export profits.

          You will note that I didn't say export revenue? That is the problem that this government is trying not to face. We have had falling export profit as well as falling export revenue from our commodity trading. This is obvious when you look at the tax revenues by sector (taxes coming from actual profits).

          So this is when the dumbarses from National decide to embark on an austerity regime that shackles the profitable export sectors by effectively reducing investment, even minor changes in things like R&D taxes and R&D investment grants cause rapid shifts. At the same time they revert to subsidising unprofitable sectors of the economy like animal farming by removing price signals like the ETS or restricting the investment in ETS based forestry. They are also massively under funding R&D to attempt to make agricultural methane reductions.

    • SPC 3.3
      5 December 2024 at 10:36 pm

      The purpose of joining the rest of the OECD in taxing CG and wealth is to properly fund governance – and done well, it can be done in ways to increase investment in a productive economy.

      Properly funded government adds to the "commons", this being of more benefit to those who cannot afford their own niche spending choices on top of the necessities of life.

      This increases well-being, that provides security, and that promotes hope and from that aspiration.

      It is also builds the society that some overseas would return to be part of.

      • Ad 3.3.1
        6 December 2024 at 8:24 am

        Go ahead and steps out how that would work. Purpose is the Primrose Path to policy hell.

        • SPC 3.3.1.1
          6 December 2024 at 12:04 pm

          The world is full of working examples of nation states that better fund government by having more taxation on CG and wealth (usually in the form of estate/inheritance tax and gift and stamp duties).

          • Shanreagh 3.3.1.1.1
            6 December 2024 at 8:29 pm

            I favour a bouquet of different tax types. I liked Labour's CGT that it was so coy about last year. I think these from SPC are good

            (usually in the form of estate/inheritance tax and gift and stamp duties).

            I'd like a bold better look at personal income levels including brackets automatically adjusted for CPI, a tax on Agreements for SP, not sure if Stamp duty would be 'enough'. Basically we are a small poorish country well away from markets.

            ‘Kiwisaver shows everyone how the state can structure tax for the good of all – and the long term good for New Zealand is that it addresses our woeful lack of savings. That was good Labour policy and it wasn’t a Wealth Tax.’ I agree with this Ad. It was innovative and we need this type of thinking

            The way to get new money circulating (to combat the poorish type of country we have) is to get money from exports….and there is still plenty to do on that front…..basically we are as commodity driven as we were 50 years ago, mountain loads of cheese and butter, logs. Barely touched to add value here.

            Sometimes I think we should look again at protectionism (wrong word) ……so we're all pure and subsidy free round here while many parts of the world quickly worked out this kind of arrangement actually didn't work for their people.

          • Ad 3.3.1.1.2
            8 December 2024 at 7:33 pm

            Go for it set out one that's useful to us.

    • mikesh 3.4
      8 December 2024 at 4:30 pm

      Why would a wealth tax raise incomes of our lowest 80% of people?

      I don't suppose it would, but then that's not its purpose.

  4. weka 4
    6 December 2024 at 2:11 pm

    Bravo Nigel. As someone writing from the edge, it's a huge relief to see someone from the establishment telling it like it is. I've been in despair around climate and the approaching rise of fascism globally, and your post is one of the most hopeful things I have seen in a while. In order for people to choose differently, we desperately need stories of how NZ society can be done differently, so thank-you

    What I would add is that most people still don't take the realities of the climate crisis into account. All the plans we are making currently are based on thinking society is going to be largely the same going forward. It's just not, and we can change now or have some chance of getting through ok, or we can ignore the incoming crisis and fail when everything collapses. NZ is well placed to be a world leader on transition, but in terms of political pragmatics, we need Labour to make the jump first.

    • Nigel Haworth 4.1
      7 December 2024 at 7:34 am

      I do not think that Capital in its modem global form will respond in time or appropriately to the climate crisis. I mention this but must put more emphasis thereon.

  5. weka 5
    6 December 2024 at 2:16 pm

    Ad throws all these spanners out, not because he believes what he says absolutely, but because it's useful to have the challenges laid down and worked through.

    I will say though that the big difference between the Green's wealth tax and most everyone else, is that the Greens start with wellbeing no economics. It's a fundamental shift in values and principles. If we believe that the economy is there to serve the wellbeing of people and the environment, then starting with wellbeing and designing the economy around that makes sense. If we start with the economy in the centre, wellbeing becomes and add on, which is why we have had years of Labour policy and government that basically says we will try and stop more people falling through the cracks but the rest of you just have to suck it up.

    The GP policy isn't without its flaws. But their job is to put the bold ideas out there and shift the public perception of what is ok, what is good, what is possible. Labour as the senior governing partner have a different job, of making progressive policy functional. There are people in Labour who want progressive change, so now is the time to step up. Nigel's points about the dangers of populism should be heeded, because once we are down that track far enough, it's very difficult to turn back (looks hard at the US).