You appear to be trying to cleave open a non-existent gap between our rhetoric and our policy proposals while also showing disapproval for your perception of an associated politcal shift (again, which hasn’t happened, or if it did, it happened a decade or more ago).

As far as I’m concerned we would not currently raise the overall level of tax – at the least we intend to hold it steady, but this is secondary to our wider ambitions to make the system fairer, easier to understand and regulate and thereby cheaper to run. This requires wholesale change in the differential burdens for different segments of society and from the principles on which it is currently calculated.

Tax is not just there to give an income to the state for them to spend on our behalf, but a tool by which both the economy and the environment can help be put on a more sustainable footing – which is in everyone’s interest. We need to return to these principles first and foremost.

We are less interested in tinkering at the edges of taxation than thoroughgoing reform of the system, so £20bn here or there is ridiculously small beer compared to what we are actually proposing. Your obsession with a couple of statements completely misses these vital points.

On the specific points we have said that £20bn is an achievable figure, not that it is set in stone, so here again you are failing to grasp the flexibility and responsiveness we are offering.

But (finally) this does not amount to nothing. Our reforms would fundamentally address the weaknesses of the current system, not only to mitigate against the consequences of the flaws which are coming to the surface, but also to reduce the likelihood and seriousness of their happening again.

“the overall policy to seek efficiency savings, reprioritise spending and use any remaining savings to reduce the overall burden from the bottom up was already there when Nick became leader.”

Presumably your phrase “reduce the overall burden” means “make net cuts in the total tax revenue obtained by Government”.

Well, here is what Chris Huhne said, when he introduced what was then a truly revenue-neutral Green Tax switch policy, under Ming in September 2006:

“Green taxes raise the price of pollution, so we do less of it. Because they change our behaviour, rather than raise revenue, every penny can go back in income tax cuts. This is the green tax switch. Taxing pollution not people. Lifting two million people out of income tax altogether. Cutting 2 pence off the basic rate. Fairer and greener taxes, but NOT HIGHER TAXES OVERALL.” (My capitals).

So you’ll see that Chris didn’t try to suggest we might actually be CUTTING taxes. He was concerned only to try to dispel the fear that we would be raising them.

Nick, however, does call for cuts. So the change is down to Nick. Your summary of Ming’s policy, in particular the phrase “reduce the overall burden”, is not accurate.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/home/summation-in-the-tax-debate-by-chris-huhne-mp-72949;show

There is surely a massive difference between “not higher taxes overall” (2006) and “big permanent tax cuts” (2009)!

What I care is that you have said, and I picked you up on, that Nick has made a “shift to the right”. I am in no way a loyalist, but having read the tax policies and discussion on them, they are, by any sane definition of left/right distinctions in fiscal policy, either no change or, as in my opinion, they are a shift to the left.

I actually put this to Nick when I met him at Sheffield, and while he didn’t confirm I was correct, he didn’t dispute my interpretation either.

In addition, I assert that the areas of policy you identify were pre-existing and inherited from Ming and Charles.

Thus Nick’s policy passed under Make it Happen at Bournemouth was revenue neutral, but the overall policy to seek efficiency savings, reprioritise spending and use any remaining savings to reduce the overall burden from the bottom up was already there when Nick became leader.

Thus I believe, as an open liberal socialist, that Nick’s policies are a shift towards me and the redistributionary left, and the pre-existing policies he inherited were OK and very liberal.

I care not about the semantics, but this debate started when you said he, personally, was taking us to the right. How do you justify that statement, as I see no evidence for it whatsoever.

I do, of course, remain a liberal, if the facts change, or my understanding of them changes, then my opinion changes. Nothing you have said disputes my opinion though.

Oranjepan, you are arguing that the home team have won, because “revenue neutral” rules out net tax cuts, in your view.

Would you two like to fight this one out amongst yourselves please?

Frankly, I prefer the views of Laurence Boyce. Laurence wants the Lib Dems to be a right of centre party that will massively cut taxes, and at least he is straightforward and direct in saying so. All you loyalists out there who are ashamed of our drift to meretricious populism, and want to put a bogus gloss on it so that you can feel happier about yourselves, just make me wonder what I ever thought was so inspiring about our plucky little party.

Fine, now please indicate (with quotes where possible) whether this refers to a cut in the tax take or the tax spend. ‘Revenue neutrality’ suggests it definitely won’t be the former.

Calling our plans inconsistent is a serious charge, so I hope you can back up your claim. Otherwise it would be more honest to stop covering any misplaced discontent and state what you find so wrong (be they unjust, unfair, ineffective, insufficient or whatever) about our proposed means to recover the economy by reducing the inefficient burden on the less well-off.

If you need someone to talk you through a balance sheet I’m sure we can arrange something.

To say that a phrase has potentially two slightly different meanings is fairly common to the English language, and not your straw man of “words mean what you want them to mean”.

Your superior tone, rather like your multiple references to Hitler, the holocaust etc, just serve to make you look ridiculous.

Ps it’s only ironic if I agree with Oranjepan that you’ve “made the mistake” and then make it myself.

This isn’t cynicism: it’s tiredness. I’ve been waiting since 1959 to put a stop to this cosy little two-horse stable,to make this country truly democratic and ready at last to change for good – and for the better in every sense.

Politics should be about honesty. But purity? We’re dealing with human beings here. I say, put Brown on the spot: PR, sailing through both houses tomorrow – or no deal.

We’d have nothing to lose from this because (1) We’re being straight (2) Such a system would be infinitely fairer and give electors more feeling of their vote being valuable; and (3) Brown would run a mile from it – thus being shown up again for the scheming, devious, dissembling snake he is.

Iknow this is a chestnut, but once again the question comes back to bite us: what do we want – holy opposition or effective power to change things?

JW

Oranjepan. Yes, of course, revenue and spending are different categories. Clegg mentioned both in the speech I quoted, so, you’ve jumped in with both feet and assumed that I might have muddled them up. Not so. The Clegg speech clearly demonstrates his intention to make net cuts in tax. That is not “revenue neutral”, not the way the words are properly used. (Unless, of course, you think that words can be used to mean anything you want them to mean, like Hitler calling himself a socialist, etc.)

DCF: ironically, you’ve given a brilliant demonstration of how to make Oranjepan’s category error. “Revenue neutrality means that the amount of revenue spent on one new thing is balanced by a saving somewhere else.” In other words “revenue neutrality is all about spending decisions.” Oh no it isn’t! It is all about revenue decisions. It means that you will raise the same amount of revenue, by different means, as you used to do before you introduced a linked set of tax changes.

Here is the definition from Hansard:

“Mr. Pickles: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department’s technical definition of a revenue-neutral tax change is. [204873]

Jane Kennedy: A tax policy change is revenue-neutral if the net total of the change does not result in a change in forecast Exchequer receipts over the forecast period.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080514/text/80514w0012.htm

Revenue neutrality means that the amount of revenue spent on one new thing is balanced by a saving somewhere else. It can also mean revenue income is maintained.

Revenue neutrality could be maintained by redirecting certain Government project funding and closing tax loopholes and taxing other activities. That is how the policy currently stands.

Make it happen outlines a desire, if possible, to make further targeted tax cuts if addional “waste” spending can be identified – again, this could be done in a revenue neutral way or not.

Switching revenue streams as a means of rebalancing incomes does not preclude against switching spending priorities to rebalance outgoings, neither does a switch in one preclude against a reduction in the other if this is to the benefit of the overall balance.

“The responsible way to return even more tax pounds to the poorest is to scale back unnecessary and unjustified government spending. That means trimming total public expenditure.
…
Liberal Democrats will cancel £20bn of failing government programmes and allocate the money to our spending priorities as well as tax cuts.”

So we no longer have a revenue neutral policy.

I think you are being selective in not distinguishing between our individual proposals and the overall picture of taxation.

While you’re into denialism, why not deny climate change and the Holocaust while you’re about it?

Long term commitment to cut waste and reallocate, scrapping ID cards in favour of more police, for example.

So yes, I do maintain that the policies passed under Nick’s leadership are revenue neutral, as they clearly are. Especially given that they were written by Vince and FPC, and Vince has stated clearly that they are in many many media interviews.

Nick’s just better at getting the basic point across than those that went before, and the (right wing) newspapers are concentrating on the bits they want to hear about because they know they sell papers in areas that the Tories haven’t a chance in (like Sheffield, for example).

The only conceivable way in which vince (or anyone else) could follow such an offer up would be in return for delivery of electoral reform; the same is true of any post-balanced parliament cooperation. But, knowing Labour of old, I’d counsel that we see the ER put into place before helping them out!(
Oddly, my own view is that the Tories are more likely to deliver ER than Lab).

An absolute no brainer.

“The responsible way to return even more tax pounds to the poorest is to scale back unnecessary and unjustified government spending. That means trimming total public expenditure.

…

Liberal Democrats will cancel £20bn of failing government programmes and allocate the money to our spending priorities as well as tax cuts.”

Do you really still maintain that this policy is “revenue neutral”?

I am taking him at his word. And they’re not “poorly specified”, they’re nicely costed, I’ve read the summaries and people I trust have read the full details.

September:

the evidence shows that tax cuts for people who really need help stimulates demand at a time of looming recession in a way Tory-style tax cuts for the wealthy do not.

Funding those tax cuts responsibly is challenging, but do-able if you take tough decisions. Liberal Democrats are planning to close loopholes abused by the wealthiest and increase tax on pollution

October:

Liberal Democrats are committed to lowering taxes for those who need help while raising them for the rich by closing the loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

November:

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg will this evening call for the unfair tax system to be fundamentally rebalanced by giving big tax cuts to people on low and middle incomes and asking the rich to pay their fair share.

November:

Liberal Democrats propose a 4p cut in the basic rate of income tax, which amounts to a £1,000 income tax cut for someone on £30,000. This can be funded by closing tax loopholes exploited by the very wealthy.

Yes, medium term, he wants to reduce the centralised bureacracy and return power to localities, he wants to free up schools to act in the interests of local pupils instead of national targets, and if further svaings can be made, he’d like to reduce tax.

Given that savings can be made at a central level is self evident (the Number10 website cost £10K to set up, it’s using the same software as Lib Dem Voice which is run on a shoe string), but the longer term tax cutting objective is only if savings can be made.

It’s all there in his speeches and in his policy documents.

I’m taking him at his word, but then, I’ve read what he’s actually said, rather than believed media distortions. What about you?

(NB, I would link to each speech directly, but that triggers the spam filter, they are the current top four results though)

Now perhaps you would like to offer Clegg the alibi of dishonesty? Perhaps you think the words “big cuts” are just said to fool the public?

If that’s what you think, fine. I don’t. I take Clegg at his word. Big cuts, and a big shrinking of the state, is what he is about. The details of the state shrinking will eventually follow, when the time is riper.