TOWARDS A LIBERAL UTOPIA, edited by Philip Booth (published by the Institute of Economic Affairs ISBN 0 255 36563 2 £15): 'UTOPIA" is a word made up by Sir Thomas More, the title of his book published in 1516.

It has come to mean a perfect place, somewhere infinitely desirable and usually impossible to attain. In this lively and, with a general election just round the corner, timely volume of essays, utopia is certainly thought to be attainable. It is a world in which there are low taxes combined with good public services and maximum freedom. Put like that, it does sound like a perfect place - so what's the catch?

I honestly don't think there is a catch. Utopia as defined in this book is definitely attainable and the writers tell us how to achieve it. The book also has the virtue of wide appeal as it is addressed "to the liberals of all parties". The various essays are by writers from many political parties and none.

They describe our failing NHS with its million people on waiting lists, a quarter of a million trying to get on them and 100,000 patients coming out of hospitals with infections they didn't have when they went in. That's no utopia. But the solution does not have to be politically partisan for, as the authors point out: "More than half of the men and women in a trade union have private medical insurance - that's 3.5 million people". The problem with the NHS is a gigantic inefficient bureaucracy.

Or take taxes and savings. You are taxed on your wage PAYE. You are taxed when you buy anything. If you save some of your money, you are taxed on it every year. And when you die what you leave behind is taxed as well. That can't be right and fair. The answer is less tax and more savings. Of course taxation will always be with us, but if it were drastically cut, fewer people would avoid or evade it. And if savings were all tax free, more people would save and so reduce the need to tax us so highly. Surely that makes sense to people of all political persuasions?

"Increases in pay and conditions of service have never come about through government intervention but as a result of economic growth arising out of entrepreneurial innovation and private investment by firms and individuals". Well, you might not agree with that altogether but, whether you believe mainly in the private sector or the public sector, freedom of trade makes sense because it benefits everyone. So the writers are not against the EU, but they say firmly that the EU must be a free trade area operating in a free trade world and not an island of spurious taxes, cartels, restrictions and protectionism.

Similar sense is talked here about the environment. What's the point in getting the western nations to sign up to anti-pollution measures if the biggest polluters by far - China and India - will have nothing to do with them? Again, almost every public housing development in Britain since the Second World War has been a disaster. So why persist with them?

The thread of judgement running through this thoughtful and entertainingly written book is that people acting in their own reasonable interests and the interests of their near neighbours do a lot more good in society and the world at large than all the central planning and huge corporations ever could. Well-argued, down-to-earth, wise and worth reading.

Published: 29/03/2005