Opinion: a good week for Nick, a good week for the Lib Dems
Written by Stephen Tall on 17th September 2008 – 7:20 pmLib Dem Conference:
On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | LDV Events | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home | Vote-by-vote coverage
There’s a paradox about party leaders’ conference speeches (akin to Prime Minister’s Questions): they are dissected by supporters, opponents and journalists, while in reality the ‘real people’ in the country might perhaps catch a 10-second clip on the news. But speeches remain fundamentally important – not only for the morale of members, but also as probably the only time in the year when serious journalists (not always an oxymoron) will listen for any length of time to a politician expressing their ideas.
Let’s be clear about one thing straight away: Nick’s speech was excellent. Every Lib Dem who heard it will have their favourite section – mine was Nick’s optimistic take on the human condition:
My basic view of human nature is that people are born with goodness in them. Of course, people can be selfish, cruel or violent, but I believe no-one starts that way. Most people, most of the time, will do the right thing; not just for themselves, but for their family, their neighbours, their community. They need to be trusted to make those choices.
There is a terrible pessimism in the way Gordon Brown thinks we should all be organised from above, our every move controlled by the great puppet master in the sky. And there’s pessimism too from David Cameron when he says that if you’re overweight, vulnerable or poor, you’re on your own. It’s condescending. Talking down to us. Talking us down.
This was true liberal stuff. In some ways, in fact, it resembled a more grown-up David Cameron in his early, ‘liberal Conservative’ days, when Dave pleaded to “let sunshine win the day” (perhaps the single most awful line ever delivered by a party leader). Since then, of course, Mr Cameron has reverted to type, echoing the Daily Mail’s miserabilist right-wing ‘Broken Society’ agenda. Nick today was very deliberately appealing to those who don’t believe modern life is rubbish; but recognise it can and should improve.
This optimism was combined with an explicit statement of the liberal case for
Tax cuts for families who are struggling to help them make ends meet, and keep the wheels of the economy turning. The money must go direct to people on low and middle incomes. The very wealthy, the super-rich – should be paying more not less.
I will never support the Tory idea that you cut taxes for millionaires and the benefits somehow trickle down. That’s not what struggling families need. They need their money back.
I rather suspect Tory commentators realise quite what an appealing pledge that is, which probably explains the over-hyped criticism some have indulged in. Indeed, the strongest sections of Nick’s speech were when he spoke, quite deliberately, beyond the hall and beyond the journalists, directly to voters. This is just one of the reasons the Lib Dems are increasingly being recognised by voters as caring about, and being in touch with, the issues facing ordinary people.
Nick has had a terrific week at Bournemouth, visibly more relaxed and at ease as leader. It’s true he slipped up when asked what the value of the state pension was. And, in fairness, if David Cameron had given the wrong answer Lib Dem Voice would have quickly taken him to task.
I’d have been far more worried, though, if Nick had over-estimated how much it was; in fact he under-estimated the weekly pension. To those pensioners who are concerned Nick doesn’t know their state benefit, the question is very simple: do you want a party leader who knows the answer, but won’t cut your taxes; or a leader who’s unsure, but whose party is committed to tax-cuts for poorer and middle-class pensioners?
It’s a mark of Nick’s general increasing confidence, indeed, that he was perfectly at ease sharing the spotlight with his immediate predecessor as leader, promising:
Action to stop unjust repossessions before tens of thousands of families find themselves on the streets, guided by the one man who had the foresight to see these problems coming - with more wisdom and experience than Labour and Conservatives combined - Vince Cable.
I don’t think it’s reading too much into this to see the beginnings of a distinctly American-style joint ticket leadership to spearhead the Lib Dems’ general election campaign, with the perfect combination of youthful passion (Nick) and decisive experience (Vince). It’s a combination that neither of the other parties can currently come close to matching, and those Labour and Tory supporters who are complacently writing the Lib Dems off this week might reflect on that.
The Lib Dem conference has not dominated the headlines this week – though as Charles Kennedy remarked today, “More column inches would have been made available had things gone terribly badly for Nick Clegg” – but this has been a good start by Nick. The right-wing media will, of course, do their best to rubbish him and the party: the more astute of them can see the threat he and the Lib Dems pose to the chances of the Tories winning a majority.
But for ourselves I believe we can take quiet satisfaction from this year’s conference: we have strong, distinctive, upbeat message - of tax-cuts and social justice - which will be presented by a leadership team of Nick and Vince in a way that attracts current and new voters to the party’s cause. Not bad for five days’ work.
Posted in Conference, Op-eds
17th September 2008 at 7:41 pm
The terrific week for Nick Clegg doesn’t seem to be reflected in tomorrow’s opinion poll. But maybe we will see better after a post conference sample?
17th September 2008 at 7:42 pm
Gallup Poll. Lib Dem share drops 5 points. A cracking week for Clegg and the Party. Not even a dead-cat bounce.
17th September 2008 at 7:43 pm
Sorry, but when I wrote my previous remark there was already a post above mine from a Liberal Party member. I hope we are not now censoring fellow Liberals, but still letting through the comments of Tory Trolls!
17th September 2008 at 7:46 pm
It has now reappeared on another thread; Strange.
17th September 2008 at 7:48 pm
The MORI poll is obviously not fun, but I suspect it is an outlier caused by voter confusion/panic regarding the global finance crisis, which will pass when people come to terms with the news.
The LDs have had a reasonable couple of weeks so it is hard to see any real cause for a sudden 5 point drop. We’ve seen outliers like that before, and we will see in the next couple of weeks how things pan out over the conference season.
17th September 2008 at 7:55 pm
It’s IPSOS/Mori - and the fieldwork was done at the weekend so substantially before the conference.
That said there’s never a good reason for polling 12%!
17th September 2008 at 7:56 pm
I agree the 12% is probably an outlier but it still caused me a wry smile when I saw those poll results and then the self-congratulatory title for this thread. You’ll make your own backs sore if you pat them much harder
Now all I have to do is sit and wait for Orangepan to chirp up about what a dire position Cameron is in and how everything is hunky-dory in Lib Dem land and none of the southern seats are under threat because of local effects …
17th September 2008 at 8:08 pm
“My basic view of human nature is that people are born with goodness in them. Of course, people can be selfish, cruel or violent, but I believe no-one starts that way.”
There’s only one problem with this. It’s not true.
17th September 2008 at 8:35 pm
What a shame. I thought Nick was genuinely speaking without notes. In fact he was using a distant auto-cue as was evident on the BBC news. Presumably Huhney was doing the same thing last night. Why pretend?
17th September 2008 at 8:38 pm
PT, always glad to oblige.
My feeling is that any of this sort of poll news will allow the tory conference to lapse into premature triumphalism.
If you do show any arrogance it will backfire spectaularly by recontaminating the tory brand in a very public way.
17th September 2008 at 8:45 pm
I would suggest that this latest poll is just an extreme outlier, and at any rate is too late to take conference and any consequent boosts into account. We should see it return to normal levels, if not higher, soon. Why am i so confident? There just isn’t any reason for such a sudden drop in support. YouGov’s more reliable on these things anyway.
I like the idea of a joint ticket - Osborne hardly complements Cameron and i daresay it’s a waste of time analysing Darling because he’ll no doubt be gone soon, if Gordon isn’t. Still, if Clegg is prepared to make more of Vince on the adverts and in the events, we could be on to a winning formula.
Finally, i think we are all taking Clegg’s successes rather for granted. He’s jolted us out of navel-gazing, made tax and the economy our big issue with which to go into the GE, found a way to appeal to both sides and therefore put pressure on Cameron. All we really need from him now is a strong message with which to combat the perception that a vote for us is a wasted vote. Regarding Labour supporters, it should be that a vote for Labour is even more wasted; don’t know what to say to Tory voters, though, apart from maybe suggesting that voting for tax cuts for ordinary families will send a message to PM Cameron. We should be able to turn the fact that the next election is a foregone conclusion to our advantage.
17th September 2008 at 8:48 pm
I would like to thank Stephen for reminding us about that part of the speech where Nick spoke about his belief in altruistic human nature.
Whether it is scientifically correct or not, it nonetheless leads us in our policy decisions to try and bring out the best in people, and that is something I particularly like about the Liberal spirit. This is in contrast to the law and order brigade that is more interested in blame and vengance.
17th September 2008 at 8:50 pm
carrion:
“don’t know what to say to Tory voters, though, apart from maybe suggesting that voting for tax cuts for ordinary families will send a message to PM Cameron.”
An inspiring thought: “A vote for the Lib Dems will encourage the Tories to cut public spending in order to fund middle class tax cuts”.
All those years of delivering leaflets and knocking on doors, and it’s come to this …
17th September 2008 at 8:54 pm
“don’t know what to say to Tory voters, though, apart from maybe suggesting that voting for tax cuts for ordinary families will send a message to PM Cameron.”
Why just “families”? Are people who don’t have families trash who don’t count?
17th September 2008 at 9:00 pm
Orangepan,
Given the current economic climate and background problems with society, I don’t think that any party in with a chance of forming a government over the next few years is likely to be triumphalist. Indeed, I doubt there will be time for much other than planning how to get out of the mess that Brown and co have got us into. It is frankly amazing that the Lib Dem were so cozy with that lot that in the 90’s. Nice to see Clegg putting some clear blue water between the parties now.
17th September 2008 at 9:03 pm
“Whether it is scientifically correct or not, it nonetheless leads us in our policy decisions to try and bring out the best in people.”
The other place it can lead, Geoffrey, is in money being spent unwisely so that various well intentioned people can be made to feel good about themselves. Just something to beware of . . .
17th September 2008 at 9:36 pm
Well, he made the supporters feel better.
Decent effort, good narrative and some fair points.
Not going to win many seats of the oppositions though is it?
17th September 2008 at 9:42 pm
I thought it was a grand speech, but the strangest thing to Nick’s comment about people being born good is that - apart from its welcome optimism - it’s not clear how this affects policy. If you’re planning how to rehabilitate criminals, are the methods different if you’re trying to waken dormant goodness at everyone’s centre, or if you’re trying to overturn the adverse influence of their circumstances? And what are the cost consequences?
I’m not sure there was time for all this, even in such a long speech! But I hope it’s a comment with some policy backbone - with all those people currently being listed as the Telegraph’s Top 50 LibDems, I wonder if they’ve been wrapping they’re big brains around this sort of thing?
17th September 2008 at 10:09 pm
If a 12% share in that MORI poll is a “good week”, then what would a catastrophe be like? Those in the party who stabbed Charlie Kennedy in the back - the one leader we’ve had, save for Paddy, who could reach out to, and win, the floating voters without coming across like a slick double-glazing salesman AND stay true to the roots of liberalism without losing the public and/or looking like an eccentric, or worse, a bore - will be regretting their actions for a long, long time to come, I’m afraid. On these figures, it’s time to go back to our constituencies, take some long, hard looks at ourselves, and prepare for a few long dark nights of the soul.
17th September 2008 at 10:27 pm
If you really believe this then you need help.
The delivery must have been fantastic - because the content was awful.
As the more sober in your party will work out.
Some of the speech was lifted directly from phrases used by Gordon Brown, and the stuff on the Tories was ill informed, untrue and just plain spiteful.
He clearly has no idea of how any tax reduction agenda would work in practice and his figures in the speech didn’t even add up.
PS If Whitehall spends money unwisely - why not Brussels who can’t even get their accounts signed off. Typical Lib Dem hypocrisy in leaving that out.
17th September 2008 at 10:40 pm
I agree that it has been a good week overall.
The level of confidence amongst the activists probably doesn’t come across in the media coverage, but there is a real sense that we have a big opportunity to start winning against Labour in their traditional territory and (at least the start of) a strong message to help us do it.
This was refelected by the large numbers attending training and the various campaign presentations and the evident enthusiasm at them.
Nick’s speech, along with the PPB, is starting to simplify our message and I think it will be easier from now on for us all to promote it.
17th September 2008 at 11:15 pm
“the stuff on the Tories was ill informed, untrue and just plain spiteful” and of course you’d never dream of saying anything was ill informed, untrue and just plain spiteful about the Liberal Democrats would you. You Tories, you dish it out, and when you get some back you cry foul.
17th September 2008 at 11:27 pm
Unseen photo of some of the leading players at the LibDem conference…
Clegg, Cable, and A.N.Other, as you’ve never seen them before
17th September 2008 at 11:36 pm
Martin Land,
Yes, I posted something at the very end of ‘Conference - Make it Happen’, and then noticed this thread, so put a shorter version here, since the thread was more recent and my comment was the first on it and so more likely, as I thought, to be read.
You are right. It has been censored. Here it is again, roughly:
Tax cuts for the middle class are not exactly a sensible priority when the government deficit is going to get completely out of control as the slowdown in the economy bites.
It is sad to see the LibDems drifting off to the right, trying to be mini-Tories. I shall expect to hear of the resurrection of the influence of the Gladstone Club soon.
Is the £20 billion a one-off saving or an annual saving ever after? Are the income tax cuts a one-off affair or an annual affair ever after? Do the two match up as time goes by?
It would be good if there were blogs which only allowed identifiable people to post on them. Anonymous posters can say anything they like, but they need not expect a reply from me.
Some Liberals are clearly disheartened by the move to the right.
If any of you are also EU-sceptic, please come and join the EU-sceptic continuation Liberal Party (www.liberal.org.uk) and help us grow for the EU Elections next year.
I am thinking of standing as a withdrawalist Liberal Party candidate for the South East Region, and could do with some help.
We are a small party, but so was the Liberal Party when I first joined it in 1964, and we very nearly won in Newbury in 1974.
Now, by being FOR fairness and FOR independence from the EU, we are differentiated from New Labour ( on the EU), Conservative (on fairness), LibDems (on EU - and more and more on fairness - what about the redistribution of the inheritance of wealth in each new generation?), UKIP (on fairness - they want to abolish Inheritance Tax altogether) and Greens (on the EU).
I think you may find the reason for poll results less good than you hoped or expected may be because you are so firmly identified in peoples’ minds with EU, Lisbon and Euro (currency) enthusiasm, to say the least.
Do we really have to go on taxing ordinary people so that the EU’s CAP can pay £300,000 every year to Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster (!) and £500,000 every year to Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales (!) for the privilege of owning land they have inherited tax-free?
Isn’t there a possibility of a bit of genuine redistribution of income - as well as of wealth with British Universal Inheritance - there?
Dane Clouston
17th September 2008 at 11:51 pm
Hey jailhouselawyer, thanks for that photo – it’s hilarious! But as luck would have it, you’re just the guy to help us out with a little disagreement we’re having. You murdered a defenceless old lady, so what do you reckon? Is Nick Clegg right about the inherent goodness of human nature?
18th September 2008 at 12:04 am
Dane Clouston should be pointed to the text of Clegg’s answers to Steve Richards in particular before posting his ill-informed tosh.
The £20bn is not identified (though some bits are - ID cards for one) and the tax cuts are part of a redistributive package focusing on those who really need it.
Oh and Dane - it was good to see Michael Meadowcroft back on a mainstream platform with a very good speech this morning
18th September 2008 at 12:15 am
Crazy idea to do automated cold-call telephone canvassing.
Everyone I know here in the US HATES those things
We’re not going to earn ourselves any favours, methinks
18th September 2008 at 12:24 am
Laurence Boyce: Yes the photo is good, I thought it was hilarious also.
I have an issue with the published libel. It’s better to research a subject rather than hit the keyboard without thinking about what one is saying. It’s a matter of public record that I was convicted of manslaughter. I am giving you fair notice to retract the libel and correct the comment. Try to play the ball and not foul the player.
I don’t think Nick Clegg faired to well with Jeremy Paxman the other night on Newsnight. And, I think he was illiberal in his view on convicted prisoners and the franchise. In first past the post, there are no prizes for coming in third. He sits on the fence leaning left and then right, and changes his policies as often as he changes his underpants and reads the opinion polls. He is as probably right as David Cameron is right now.
18th September 2008 at 12:25 am
Well, I’ve now listened to the speech in full on video. To declare an interest, I’ve been a party member and activist for 14 years, a candidate, even a coalition negotiator in Scotland in 2003, and much more besides. My impression is that the speech was well written, but Clegg still can’t deliver for toffee. He’s wooden and forced, and has to SHOUT when trying to sound passionate. It doesn’t connect.
The upshot is, a lot of what he’s saying is sensible enough, but I just don’t think he sounds convincing to people who weren’t already supporters. The party has much ability and passion, but Clegg is not conveying that. Since we’re a third party, most people think the Leader IS the the party, so they think we all lack ability and passion … hence the 12% in the MORI poll. It may indeed be an outlier as suggested above, but I’m not wholly convinced, and the trend has been clear in a number of polls - somewhere between 14% and 18%, most of them, and none of them near the 23% of 2005 (which, let’s remember, was regarded as disappointing at the time).
Clegg has now stated a well-publicised target of doubling our number of MPs in two elections. For me, he absolutely cannot win in the perception stakes: if we make any progress at parliamentary level, it will be despite him; if we fall back, it will be mostly his fault.
18th September 2008 at 12:31 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention. The news orgs are all reporting that the main theme of the speech is we’re heading for government. Coupled with the tax-cutting agenda, everyone is writing this up as sucking up to David Cameron. Well, I remember the Tories in Government, and it was hideous. The interests of the public were suborned to the private profits of Government ministers and their pals; the railways were broken up and sold off for a third of their real value; and a deregulation obsession led to BSE and no-one buying beef for eighteen months. The Tories exist simply to lay waste to the State and the public good, however shiny and pastel-coloured they have now become. If Clegg thinks he can drag the party into coalition with that shower of crooks and evildoers to hoover up the blame for their mistakes, he’s got another thing coming.
18th September 2008 at 12:34 am
neverapriest:
“The £20bn is not identified (though some bits are - ID cards for one) and the tax cuts are part of a redistributive package focusing on those who really need it.”
Sorry, but that’s simply not the case.
Clegg has said that the tax cuts would benefit 80-90% of the population. He has also described them as “the most radical package of tax-cutting measures for people on middle incomes”.
Cable has indicated that the tax cuts would probably be a combination of a reduction in the basic rate of income tax and an increase in personal allowances. Obviously the bulk of the tax cuts will go to the middle class, not to “those who really need it”.
18th September 2008 at 12:43 am
And as for the 12% poll rating, probably it is an outlier. But then again, the 11% poll ratings that helped to seal Ming Campbell’s fate a year ago were probably outliers too.
The fact remains that the poll shows the Tories have a national lead over the Liberal Democrats of 40 points, compared to about 10 points at the last election. That is a national swing of 15%, and if it were repeated in every constituency we would lose all but a handful of the seats we currently hold.
Maybe this is a freak result, and maybe the sampling was done too early to be affected by the conference. On the other hand, I think it’s equally likely that “taking an axe” to the public sector is going to lose us more support than it gains us, certainly in traditional Labour areas, and probably in traditional Tory areas too.
18th September 2008 at 12:49 am
John, I am perfectly happy to retract what I said and apologise, and not just because I don’t want to get sued. The article clearly states that: “[T]he prosecution at Reading Crown Court accepted Hirst’s plea of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and he got 15 years.” What I wrote was sloppy and I apologise. Maybe the moderators will delete it.
18th September 2008 at 1:00 am
LB wrote: “The article clearly states that:”
Er… What the article says is irrelevant. It’s what actually happened that counts.
Some years ago, a Lib Dem candidate claimed in a leaflet that a Tory MP who was still a councillor had failed to attend X number of council meetings. Well, at least that’s what the register said. Trouble is, the Tory MP/councillor didn’t bother to sign the register. So the Lib Dem candidate (a perfectly admirable man) had to get on his knees and grovel.
18th September 2008 at 1:02 am
That’s true, but the article was my sole source and on that basis what I wrote was sloppy.
18th September 2008 at 1:05 am
@CCF
“Cable has indicated that the tax cuts would probably be a combination of a reduction in the basic rate of income tax and an increase in personal allowances. Obviously the bulk of the tax cuts will go to the middle class, not to “those who really need it”.”
How do you justify this? The PA, we’ve agreed, covers people on the lowest incomes of all (£0-£6k), so raising it will take more people out of tax. The basic rate currently stretches right the way from earners of £6k to £40k.
Now, you may well assert that the basic rate band is sloppily wide, and I’d agree with you. But in a banded tax system, artificial lines have to be drawn somewhere and we’re rather stuck with them (in theory, of course, it would be far better to just give the whole tax etchasketch a good shake and start again from scratch, but I suspect there would be credibility issues there).
But, the width of the basic rate band notwithstanding, the people in it would all benefit from a drop in the basic rate *by the same proportion*.
So on what are you basing your assertion that the tax cuts would benefit the middle classes (whoever they are - perhaps you could define this term by salary, however ballpark) and *not* the lower earners?
18th September 2008 at 1:21 am
I’ve only seen the fragments on the TV news, and they look refreshingly good. Except for Nick’s faux pas over the state pension. Even I knew the answer.
How does one attack Cameron, when the media support him and pump out his propaganda 24 hours a day? We’re not the Obama campaign, who can blitz TV channels with attack ads. We don’t need to go for Brown, of course, because he’s on the floor already. It is Cameron we have to puncture. But how?
I somehow suspect we won’t be able to rise in the polls until the GE comes along and the media are forced to give us fair coverage.
Nick Clegg is doing a decent, workmanlike job. He’s not as good as Chris Huhne would have been, but he outshines CK with a better grasp of language (the “in terms of” count) and by staying sober.
But I have to say, for the humpteenth time, that Nick is not going to convince the sceptical that the Lib Dems are truly the party of civil liberties until he deals with Julia Goldsworthy - and makes it clear that behaviour of that kind will not be tolerated.
BTW, did any of our leaders, at Conference, allow the name “Gary McKinnnon” to pass their lips?
18th September 2008 at 2:22 am
Laurence: I accept your apology. It wasn’t a fair article. I prefer this one The Devilish Advocate. You would not think they were both writing about the same person. I did not think your first comment was a good example “about the inherent goodness of human nature”, but your second comment tells a different story.
I recall the judge saying “Had this not been manslaughter, it would have been a very brutal murder”. I thought it was unfair. It was a brutal act, out of character for me, I don’t attempt to justify or excuse what I did only explain the events as I saw them. Nobody appeared to be able to understand why it happened. The prison doctor (no psychiatric or psychology qualifications) opined that I was akin to the Wild Man of Borneo who has to take a head back to the tribe to prove manhood. There was no decapitation, I used the blunt end of the axe. All were agreed I was suffering from such abnormality of the mind at the time that it diminished responsibility. The sentence did not reflect this. I felt I was being punished for being mentally ill. That struck me as being somewhat barbaric. It wasn’t a fair hearing because a trial within a trial took place within the judge’s chamber. The Detective Chief Inspector submitted a report which only the judge and prosecution were allowed to read. My counsel was not allowed to challenge its contents. The gist of the report was that the DCI thought I was a serial killer. There were three medical reports. Two recommended that I never be released, the other that I only be released with the utmost caution.
I had two prison records. One kept at the jail where I served the sentence and went with me around the system. The other, with the secret report, kept in the Home Office. In this sense I was a political prisoner. Although the act was criminal to the extent of responsibility which remained less the reduction for being off mental balance, how I was treated by the authorities was political in nature. The punishment and treatment stages were no different. This I feel was an injustice. The sense of injustice led me to challenge the rules. Some claim that as a result the system made me pay the price of an extra 10 years. Even though manslaughter is a lesser offence than murder, I served longer than most murderers. The authorities state it was because I was deemed a psychopath (the prison doctor again) and believed to be dangerous. After 23 years they decided to test me for psychopathy, and found out that I wasn’t one after all. It was said that I was semi-illiterate, and below average intelligence. In fact I have Aspergers Syndrome. I am almost totally innumerate and quite literate. I have an IQ of 155. Albeit a flawed genius.
I recall my first oral Parole Board hearing. The psychologist had written that I was institutionalised and therefore needed to spend longer in an institutional setting to deinstitutionalise me. Circular reasoning. The psychiatrist on the panel who’s task it was to assess whether I was an acceptable risk to the public to be released, fell asleep after having a liquid lunch. When the judge saw me point this out to my character witnesses, he half-turned his back on the psychiatrist when the nudge in his ribs failed to wake him. Talk about justice being blind. The Parole Board did not direct my release, even though only the psychologist’s report was the only one not recommending release. It carries the most weight. The psychiatrist was later removed from the Parole Board list of members. Private Eye reported on the case.
It is doubtful I would have sued you as I can see a judge only awarding nominal damages. It is bad enough as it is without someone adding the necessary intent for murder which the law has stated did not exist. It is not much to salvage from two wrecked lives.
I went to the funeral of my personal officer, Trevor Drewery, who was very supportive towards me in Hull Prison Special Unit. I thought I had forgotten how to cry. If there is such a thing as the inherent goodness of human nature Trevor had this in his soul. The other side of the coin was the welfare officer who wrote me a stinking report. When I pulled him over it, he said: “I have to make you look worse than you are, then when I write the next report I can write better things to show that there has been an improvement in your behaviour”. I was transferred before he was able to rectify the inaccurate report. I could quite happily urinate on his grave if he kicked the bucket before me. Some might say that is the inherent badness of human nature. I will let the jury decide on that issue.
18th September 2008 at 3:58 am
Thanks John. I don’t believe in the inherent goodness or badness of human nature. Rather I believe that we all possess certain attributes in varying quantities due to a combination of nature and nurture, though I lean more towards nature than most people. I wrote about this recently and, following Clegg’s remarks, I was thinking about another writing another article. But talking to you has made me realise the futility of theorising about these things when confronted with the lives of real people. Thank you for writing at such length, and once again I apologise for my crassness. I guess it’s in my genes!
18th September 2008 at 8:24 am
Laurence, you’re sort of right about human nature, although it has to be said that your formula is vague enough to be true for any number of different scenarios. Cultural/societal factors do have a huge impact and the historical record does show periods of history in which there have been dramatic declines in violence (the murder rate in England underwent a sustained decline over the medieval period and into the modern, for example) and we can’t attribute that to the notion that people simply became nicer by nature. The culture simply became more cooperative as the benefits to being a good person increased.
I think that what matters here may be more than fighting ‘anti-social’ behaviour; we need arrangements that promote ‘pro-social’ behaviour such as trust, cooperation and mutually advantageous trades. A less atomised society where people interact more would promote better behaviour overall and lead to a more pleasant environment for everyone.
I think Labour’s approach has been counter-productive because it isolates and stigmatises, thus making it harder for individuals to live as cooperative members of society. The whole ASB agenda is predicated on the basis that there are some people who are essentially toxic to the rest of us and they must be isolated and restricted, beginning at a very early age. I’m not ready to give up on people like that, and history does, I believe, show that it is possible over time to build better societies and reduce violence at the same time as increasing prosperity and liberty. I think Nick’s view is basically compatible with mine, so I’m happy for him to have said it.
18th September 2008 at 9:16 am
I’m with Rob here. Laurence, saying that mostly people start out good is clearly not a “blank slate” argument.
18th September 2008 at 10:08 am
Alix:
“So on what are you basing your assertion that the tax cuts would benefit the middle classes (whoever they are - perhaps you could define this term by salary, however ballpark) and *not* the lower earners?”
Look at what I said:
“Obviously the bulk of the tax cuts will go to the middle class, not to “those who really need it”.”
I didn’t say it would _not_ benefit lower earners. I said that the bulk of it would go to the middle class.
This is literally about the fifth or sixth time you have misrepresented precisely the same point. It has been explained to you time and time again, and still you keep doing it.
Why are you doing this?
18th September 2008 at 10:27 am
It would be interesting if someone would answer my question:
” Is the £20 billion a one off saving or an annual saving ever after? Are the income tax cuts a one off affair or an annual affair ever after? Do the two match up as time goes by?”
Dane Clouston
18th September 2008 at 10:29 am
Dane
It is all meant to be annual. £20bn annual savings, some undisclosed percentage of that annual tax cuts.
18th September 2008 at 10:59 am
Funny isn’t it that it’s always other people misrepresenting things, not understanding them etc
18th September 2008 at 11:46 am
Rob, I’m pretty much with you there. I don’t want to give up on anyone either, and I also believe in slow steady progress. But the problem I have is really with the stuff that George Hosking was saying at the social mobility session at Conference on Sunday. I don’t know if anyone can actually remember it! At one point, he said this in relation to education:
“Children don’t have the capacity to learn if their brains are not structured in the right way through their early life experience. If they have suffered abuse or neglect, or been brought up in households with alcoholism or domestic violence, it has actually been shown [that] the structure of their brain is different. Their ability to learn is severely impaired. So if we don’t first address the creation of healthy brains in the children, there’s no point in favouring them afterwards.”
No point? I find this quite chilling. It’s a sort of genetic determinism, but shifted forwards by three years. Because that’s the theory: that we must invest in the first three years via “early prevention schemes” or all is lost. Admittedly Hosking doesn’t make Lib Dem policy, but these ideas have fed into our policy which includes a £500 million investment in early years education. Of course if it works I’m all in favour of it, but I remain sceptical.
18th September 2008 at 11:56 am
“Funny isn’t it that it’s always other people misrepresenting things, not understanding them etc”
No, it’s not funny. It makes a mockery of any attempt at serious discussion.
You can see for yourself that I did not say what Alix claimed I had said. So why are you pretending it’s somehow my fault?
18th September 2008 at 12:06 pm
I’m not pretending anything, I’m just pointing out that a lot of the debates you get involved in end up with you alleging that the other person (whoever it may be) is failing to understand or misrepresenting.
18th September 2008 at 12:14 pm
“I’m not pretending anything, I’m just pointing out that a lot of the debates you get involved in end up with you alleging that the other person (whoever it may be) is failing to understand or misrepresenting.”
Well, there’s nothing at all strange about that - it’s because in a lot of these debates the other person has failed to understand, or has misrepresented what I have said.
If you think that’s noteworthy, you can’t have read many Internet discussions. Misrepresentation of an opposing argument is one of the oldest and commonest tricks in the book.
18th September 2008 at 2:52 pm
CCF, you don’t leave much room for reconciliation and redemption if you assume the other participant in your conversation has acted out of deliberate bad faith. That comes very close to jumping to a conclusion.
If you automatically rule out any responsibility for creating or controlling the situation in which you percieve (rightly or wrongly) your opponents mistakes, then you refuse to consider any possibility of mistakes on your own behalf.
But we can all make mistakes even when we act in good faith. The road to hell is paved etc…
So when building a critique of Clegg’s speech it is necessary to define the disputable terms (middle class, aren’t we all middle class now?) before raising questions arising from your judgement of any unfair disproportionality.
I agree that your interpretation of this tax proposal is possible, but it is clear some clarification is necessary before we can say so with certainty.
At this point it would be helpful to resort to some sums to work through different examples of what different people understand. We may then finally reach agreement on how best this new approach would best balance the concerns we wish to address, then we can argue over whether we think this is what Clegg actually meant.
18th September 2008 at 3:18 pm
“CCF, you don’t leave much room for reconciliation and redemption if you assume the other participant in your conversation has acted out of deliberate bad faith. That comes very close to jumping to a conclusion.”
I’m not _assuming_ anything. Alix has repeatedly misrepresented what I and others have said. That must be beyond dispute among people who can read and understand English.
I don’t know why she keeps doing that. I would like to think it is not deliberate but at the moment I cannot understand how that could be. I have asked her a couple of times why she keep doing it. If she responds things may become clearer.
As for my “critique” of Clegg’s speech and “unfair disproportionality”, I think you are reading more into my posts than is there.
Obviously I don’t agree with what is being proposed, but I recognise that people have different political opinions and that there is no “right” answer (no pun intended). If the majority of the party wishes to support this scheme, that is the right of the majority.
But what I strongly object to is the dishonesty of selling these tax cuts primarily as a means of helping the poor. If the proposal is to combine a reduction in the basic rate of income tax with an increase in personal allowances, as Cable has indicated is likely, then the majority of the money would inevitable go to the middle class, not the poor. That is a matter of simple arithmetic.
[Memo to Alix, before she does it again. That last bit doesn't mean that none of the money will go to the poor!]
18th September 2008 at 4:35 pm
Well CCF, considering that the ‘middle class’ is a much bigger sector of society in terms of population I think it is inaccurate to argue against any sums which put a greater proportion of the money collected from reallocations in the tax burden as unfair.
Of course the bulk of any savings will go in that direction, but that still doesn’t mean the poorest in society won’t see a greater relative benefit to their finances. Nor does it mean that anyone has misrepresented your claims - perhaps you are misrepresenting yourself in that you may think we should be doing more to help those in greater need without actually disagreeing that the claims made by Clegg are still a good thing.
Like you say, it is simple arithmatic. In which case these proposals ARE a good thing, but they are only a start and we could still do more.
Under ‘more’ we are proposing additional help to the poor by equalising access to social justice across all classes by tightening up the tax loopholes available to those with the means to exploit them. Such loopholes are a greater barrier to social mobility than any lack of positive discrimination it is possible to effect through changes in the tax system.
18th September 2008 at 4:52 pm
“Nor does it mean that anyone has misrepresented your claims …”
Do you never read any of the stuff you hold forth on?
Alix has claimed (repeatedly) that I and others are saying that the poor will get no benefit from the tax cuts.
That is the misrepresentation.
And as for “inaccurate enough to argue against” and so on and so forth, kindly just read the fifth and sixth paragraphs of my post again.
18th September 2008 at 5:02 pm
I would like to ask again, why are the Liberal Democrats in favour of taxing ordinary people so that Gerald Grosvenor and Charles Windsor can be paid by the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy around £300,000 and £500,000 respectively - every single year - for the privilege of owning land that they have inherited free of tax?
If the Liberal Democrats are truly keen to redistribute income, they could always help us to leave the EU and the CAP.
At least they talk of redistributing income. I don’t seem to hear much about redistributing wealth, though, except when wealth gets muddled up with income.
Why do Liberal Democrats never talk of the need to redistribute the inheritance of wealth and the receipt of capital gifts in each new generation?
How come Liberal Democrats still go on as if vast differences of inheritance - from zero to billions - make no difference to social mobility and equality of opportunity?
Presumably it must have something to do with the make up of the party, with people not wishing to see the obvious for some reason.
Dane Clouston
18th September 2008 at 5:09 pm
Dane, if you wish to exclude others you can hardly be surprised when you find yourself excluded.
18th September 2008 at 5:27 pm
CCF, yes I do read the comments, and I find the disagreement unsatisfactory.
All disagreement stems from confusion and all confusion stems from ignorance.
The ignorance stems in this discussion not from any lack of understanding, but from the implicit understanding of the comments on wither side. If we had each been more explicit in describing our specific criticisms in the first place then I think we would see that we are all arguing at crossed purposes.
I find it easy to sympathise with the views on each side because they each address different parts of the policies proposed by the party, whereas I think if we looked at the totality of what is being proposed in the round then we find we offer a balanced approach which satisfies all.
Which is why I return to the dual approach of these ‘tax-cuts’ together with better enforcement of the regulations to prevent distortions prejudiced most against the least wealthy.
Reducing what was previously described as tax evasion and fraud (though these are now largely grey areas with the volume of new and conflicting regulations which can be applied) is the major means by which the Treasury can boost its income without raising taxes.
So, simply put, it is possible to balance the books and make society fairer by cutting taxes without necessarily also having to cut spending.
It is possible to make all of the people happy all of the time, but only if you can corerctly answer all of the correct questions.