Author Archives: Stephen Tall

Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall. He writes a fortnightly column for ConservativeHome and 'The Underdog' column for Total Politics magazine. He edited the 2013 publication, The Coalition and Beyond: Liberal Reforms for the Decade Ahead, and is a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum. He was awarded the inaugural Lib Dem ‘Blogger of the Year’ prize in 2006, was a councillor for eight years in Oxford, including a year as Deputy Lord Mayor, and appears frequently in the media in person, in print and online. Stephen combines his political interests with his professional life as Development Director for the Education Endowment Foundation, though writes here in a personal capacity.

LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League: how it stands after Week 24

Posted in Fantasy Football | Tagged | Leave a comment

LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League: how it stands after Week 19

Congratulations to erstwhile LDV day editor Mark Valladares, whose modestly titled Creeting Gentry FC (1,128 points) start 2016 in pole position in the LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League after Week 19. It’s a fiercely contested position, though — just 37 points separate the top 10.

But let’s also hear it for three players outside the top 10, who were the highest scoring managers in December: Michael Brown’s Mike’s Dream Team v5 (372), Benjamin Andrew’s Pleased to Beat-chu (363) and Steven Garrett Thirteen striders (362).

ldv ffl 19

There are 219 players in total and …

Posted in Fantasy Football | Tagged | Leave a comment

LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League: how it stands after Week 16

Posted in Fantasy Football | Tagged | Leave a comment

LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League: how it stands after Week 14

Posted in Fantasy Football | Tagged | 2 Comments

Stephen Tall’s diary: liberal jottings on the week’s big events

Honest doubt

I wrote on Syria last week that I was “mystified by those who’ve already made their minds up with cast-iron certainty on either side”. That’s still the case despite, and probably because of, the eruption of passions leading up to and beyond Wednesday’s vote. The UK is, after all, already involved in military action against Isis in Iraq. Sure, extending those airstrikes to Syria represents an intensification and, like any bombing campaign, requires serious consideration. But that is a question not of basic morality (if it were there should have been an equally strenuous efforts to cease attacks in Iraq) but of likely effectiveness.

And that, of course, is the known unknown of this week’s debate. None of us truthfully knows what will be the consequences of extending the campaign to Syria; just as we don’t know what might have happened if MPs had voted against action. There is no possibility of a controlled experiment which allows us to pose the counterfactual. All we are left with is our own opinion: which of the options facing us is most likely to result in fewest deaths? Ultimately, it’s as utilitarian a decision as that.

Which is why I get fed up with simplistic shroud-wavers shouting “blood on your hands” at those who support intervention. Innocent people are dying every day in this conflict, and further deaths are plotted daily by Isis, so delaying further this supposed “rush to war” will also directly lead to fresh casualties. See, we can all indulge this moral blackmail arms-race — but it gets us nowhere. Decisions like these are shades-of-grey. I respect opinions on both sides of the divide on Syria, but most especially those honest enough to recognise they may be wrong.

The worm’s turned

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 11 Comments

LibDemVoice Fantasy Football League: how it stands after Week 13

Posted in Fantasy Football | Tagged | 3 Comments

Stephen Tall’s Diary: liberal jottings on the week’s big events

Spending Revue Reviewed

‘You make your own luck,’ goes the saying. In which case, and only in this respect, George Osborne truly has started a “march of the makers” because he’s one hell of a lucky Chancellor. Had the independent Office for Budget Responsibility not lavished on him a £27 billion fiscal (and notional) windfall, this week’s Autumn Statement would have been far more wintry. As it was, he was able to play out the role of Santa, albeit a very Tory version: snatching away fewer of the kids’ presents in order to re-gift them to their grandparents. For this was a spending review which confirmed this Government stands shoulder-to-shoulder with pensioners (who vote, in droves) while shrugging its shoulders at the plight of the younger, working poor (who often don’t vote, and if they do probably vote Labour anyway).

Yes, the tax credit cuts were jettisoned for now — take a bow all those who’ve campaigned against them because it took concerted action to persuade the House of Lords and a few Tory MPs with a social conscience to stand up to this government — but, really, they’ve just been deferred. Once universal credit has been implemented (assuming that Godot-like day ever arises) the Resolution Foundation calculates eligible working families with children will be £1,300 a year worse off (even taking into account the so-called ‘national living wage’ and planned increases in the tax-threshold). Which might sound bad, but that average actually conceals far worse news for some. For instance, a single mum working part-time on the minimum wage will receive £2,800 a year less by 2020 under the Tories’ plans, while a working couple on the minimum wage with three kids will lose out to the tune of £3,060. Meanwhile the pensions ‘triple lock’ (of which Lib Dems have often boasted) will guarantee that pensioner benefits grow to more than half of all welfare spending.

Gone are the days when the Lib Dems could require a distributional analysis to ensure the pain of cuts was shared around to ensure that, as far as possible, Britain was all in it together. It’s George’s Show now. It’s just a shame some of his luck won’t rub off on those “hard-working families” he’s soon going to clobber.

Rational actors

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 12 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarCaracatus 25th May - 7:46pm
    @ Tobie Abel Do you take illegal drugs ? Do you know any addicts or are you just writing from an intellectual ivory tower ?...
  • User AvatarBarry Snelson 25th May - 7:34pm
    Dear Paul, Hang on 'arf a mo. You goaded me into displaying my viewing approach to the BBC. But you miss the point again. You...
  • User AvatarMike Falchikov 25th May - 7:11pm
    Psi. Well, OK I agree that "rudeness" is subjective, but the sort of things that people write about other people on the internet would not...
  • User AvatarMichael 25th May - 7:11pm
    @Neal Palmquist I did think that driverless cars were a very long time off. I now think that they are very much sooner than that...
  • User AvatarTobie Abel 25th May - 6:57pm
    @Matt (Bristol) - The only way to those better paying jobs every party seeks is through disruptive technology, not sure why driverless technology would be...
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 25th May - 6:56pm
    Jayne "@ in response to your penultimate comment to me. Clearly in some of my responses,I am going to have to display a little icon...