Rather than you pay political capital to change the policy to any degree the amount of capital you pay is how much you change it by. You lower or increase it by 1% so you pay 1 political capital and so on and thus cancelling it entirely will cost 100 political capital. Naturally it will have to be much easier to get to compensate but this would be far more realistic.
Not really - a more realistic one would have to consider:
-Overall policies - a flat tax in a socialist paradise will likely cost more PC to implement.
-Amount you’re changing it by.
-Public support (esp. amongst people who voted for us last time).
-Replacement policies (if cancelling / severely reducing a policy).
For example, let’s suppose I want to replace the NHS with healthcare vouchers, the maths should really look like this:
- The UK has a fairly big welfare state = more PC required.
- We’re scrapping the NHS = maximum PC cost here.
- Moderate support for my Tory party, but severe lack of support for my Labour party - mid to high PC cost depending.
- High-value healthcare vouchers = much less PC required (“we’re not scrapping the NHS, we’re reforming it! Honest!”).
On the other hand, let’s suppose we’re talking about adjusting the income tax rate - one would expect a big initial cost (let’s say 10 PC) simply because you’re changing the policy, but growing if it’s a really radical change ("-20% on marginal rate? Ahmahgad!"). On the other hand, small changes wouldn’t cost extra PC, because that’d be included in the initial cost.
That sounds better.