The party website has a blue mast-head, a youthful leader and a call to cut taxes for low- and middle-income earners: yes, the Lib Dems’ leader Nick Clegg has today launched the party’s new ‘Make it Happen’ policy and consultation document, and made an unequivocal pitch to voters wanting to kick Labour out of office and mistrustful of the Tories’ ability to marry economic competence and social justice.
Nick showcased the proposals on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme:
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has outlined his pledge to cut taxes for low and middle-income people, as part of his proposals to make “Britain fairer”. He said “struggling families” should be paying “much less” tax while “wasteful” government spending should be cut. Among proposals in a policy document is that the NHS should pay for patients not treated “on time” to go private.
Labour and the Tories are committed to the same spending levels but Mr Clegg says they are not “set in stone”. Mr Clegg said his party was looking to make £20bn savings in government spending in order to cut taxes for lower and average earners and bring down the overall level of tax.
And here’s the conclusion of today’s Independent leader column:
Today, Mr Clegg will make a bold attempt to give his party a clear identity once more, with his document Make It Happen. He will introduce a new policy of cutting income tax to 16 pence in the pound, by increasing green taxes and wealth taxes. Adroitly moving into a space that David Cameron has left empty, Mr Clegg will also be announcing that it is his party’s aim to cut taxes overall, something that Mr Cameron will not do in his anxiety to decontaminate the Tory brand.
This is shrewd political calculation by Mr Clegg. It seeks to recast the Liberal Democrats as the party of the small state, liberal in social policy and in economics. It will cause trouble among some Liberal Democrats, who instinctively prefer to tax and spend generously, but we have not heard any better ideas for getting the party out of Mr Cameron’s shadow and making it visible again.
Mr Clegg has a mandate from his party and he deserves an upturn in his party’s fortunes, which has eluded him all these months. Perhaps today will see the start of it.
For what it’s worth, PoliticsHome.com’s ‘politically balanced ph100 panel’ reckons this is canny tactics:
It’s a smart political strategy for the Liberal Democrats to promise tax cuts for people on low and modest incomes. That’s the verdict of the PHI100 on Nick Clegg’s recent speech saying that is how he intends to fight the next election.
A solid majority of the politically balanced panel (sixty two per cent) think that promises like this will give distinction to the Lib Dems and boost their support. Just over a third of the panel (thirty five per cent) disagree. The minority view is that it sounds unconvincing as a policy and will cost them votes.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, liberal panellists gave their unanimous support to Mr Clegg’s move. Less predictably, majorities of left-leaning and right-leaning panellists also think he is on the correct track, and they think this in similar proportions.
So three questions to throw open to LDV readers:
1. what do you make of Make it Happen?
2. what do you think of the party’s move to shed its tax ‘n’ spend image in favour of being the only party committed to low taxation?
3. is this smart politics that will inspire you to campaign for the Lib Dems where you live?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Brilliant response to Liberal Democrats Everywhere appeal
Amazing, Fantastic, Incredible: A Marvelous Memoir, by Stan Lee, Peter David and Colleen Doran
What are we actually dealing with here?
Has Donald Trump made a serious mistake?
Prescot and its 'Flat Iron' building
A reminder - tomorrow - Lee Welsh Memorial Match #notinvainforlee
How the Tories are abandoning the environmental gains made by Lib Dems in government
Graham Evans
Innocent Bystander
Tom McLean
David Becket
Richard Underhill
frankie
89 Comments
It’s pretty much exactly what I wanted to see happen and it fits very nicely with my perception of what the Liberal Democrat party should really be about; conference will no doubt be a chance to flesh out the meat on the bones. As for whether it will be a success politically, it will really depend on how well the idea is publicised; we’ve had a lot of good policy that we don’t get coverage or credit for. I think provided the public hear about it then they’ll go for it. To the polls!
From a purely party-political perspective, this is an excellent move.
In the GE a vast proportion of our MPs are going to be fighting resurgent Tories in the south and west country. A pledge to cut taxes could save some vital constituencies, whilst the emphasis on cutting taxes at the bottom end should also prove popular in less salubrious urban seats.
It’s vital we go into the GE with clear, distinctive and aggressive policies and this is an extremely good start.
Its great to see a commitment to smaller government going hand in hand with tax cuts that show what a progressive move it can be.
The only part with which I disagree is the cut in MP numbers, which appears to be a bit of populism given recent expenses scandals, and doesn’t really go hand in hand with being a party of pluralism, PR and local representation, but its still an excellent announcment.
The move to restructure the party was the first thing that has started to give me any confidence in Clegg. It was long overdue, as the party has been limited in its potential within the previous structures.
These new moves are also good. We need to stand out as distinctive and different. Socially and economically liberal are good. If people want to tax high and spend high… well the Labour party would be glad to have them I’m sure. Those aren’t liberal values. Yes, we have to ensure social mobility and that none are left behind, but there are limits.
Yes, its definately smart politics.
“Liberal Democrats as the party of the small state, liberal in social policy and in economics”.
These are the words I’ve been longing to hear since joining. We can now genuinely, honestly and convincingly position ourselves in distinction to the other parties as being equally opposed to
1) Tax and Spend statism in both its socialist and its Conservative forms
2) Both puritanical social conservatism and Labour’s nanny state.
But this isn’t about the party. It’s about the economy and the trouble faced by hard-working people. Cutting taxes will make it easier for people to afford a rising cost of living; cutting spending will generate growth in the economy (including new jobs) without fuelling inflation.
Good news all round.
“cutting spending will generate growth in the economy (including new jobs) without fuelling inflation.”
How come the last 15 years have seen increased government spending, rising employment without a rise in inflation?
Great, great and yes
I will read it a bit later, but just one observation – who on earth allowed it to go out with black text straddling a dark green and white background on a couple of the pages?
If it were even good design one would perhaps not mind, but it’s not even that and it plays havoc with my eyes switching a third of the way along a line from black on dark green to black on white and back again!
!
Hywel – of course it’s fuelled inflation, just on items we conveniently do not include in the maoinstream inflation indices. What do you think the house price bubble has been all these years?
Land values absorb all surplus money, that’s their role as the third factor of production! Our broad money supply has been inflating at 10-15% per year for a decade. And it was a cynical, politically motivated but ultimately evil deliberate policy which has shifted vast sums of money from the poorest to the wealthiest.
We are entering an economic slow down and quite possibly a recession. Tax revenues will be falling, we are already have a massive public sector deficit and demand for state benefits will be rising. I can’t see how this will survive an Election campaign. 10 years of building cultural maturity in the party about not just anything any old thing is being flushed down the toilet. Also was it realy necesery for clegg to say on Radio 4 that the package wasn’t fully costed yet but that it would be by the next election? the one he says on this site may only be months away? Is it any wonder the flagship BBC news programme, the World at One, didn’t devote a single second to it ?
I fear that this will be a marry in Haste, repent at Leisure policy gimmick.
1. Bit wordy and jumps about a bit but hardly ground breaking for the Lib Dems.
Lets oppose ID cards for practical reasons (they don’t work)
2.Great – Lets have a name for this, how about “trickle up economics”.
1p on income tax was never about being in favour of high tax, it was about investing in education.
3. Yes – The danger is conference will want to add to this, in all probablitiy it needs further editing down and the emergence of 3-5 key themes e.g. Tax, Crime, and incentives
with the overarching message of politics fit for the 21st century.
Just have to wonder why none of this was mentioned at Henley or Crewe.
Jock – but don’t increased taxes create less surplus money? The house price bubble (which hasn’t been present for all that period) is more to do as much to do with the banks more liberal lending policies.
While I am at it whats with the Blue background on the party Website? Will it be British tax cuts for British taxpayers next ? Or perhaps Lady T on the steps of Cowley Street.
On a more serious note its not exactly subtle is it? Post Henley Panic.
“While I am at it whats with the Blue background on the party Website?”
Hmm, it’s not really blue and it’s not really the party website.
It’s a temporary announcement / advertisement, and the text and formatting is more black (with some dark shades of blue and green).
More importantly these announcements are very much in the liberal direction and thus not a move towards sentiments such bias towards “British” people, but a move away from them.
“We’re the only party confident enough to put the pro-European case to the British people”. [p.10]
Look forward to seeing this in action in the run up to European elections next June!
This is exactly the right thing at the right time and is a great springboard to build on up to the next General Election.
I’m particularly taken by ‘The government’s introduced more than 3000 crimes.’
This is a fact we need to publicise more as law and order is high on the agenda and people are suggesting society is broken, when in reality it is the government criminalising everything.
I was being flipant. My serious point was that the blue was a less than subtle wink at tory voters as was gordons onfrnce spech mentioning BJFBW made against a blue background.
If in 22 months time, during an election campaign we are (a) in recession (b) have falling tax revenues (c) have an even bigger public sector deficit (d) have incresing welfare roles then this package will be shreaded by the media.
Even if you were going to try and tax slash your way out of recession (Keynes must be on a spin cycle in his grave) wouldn’t you go for corporation tax or employers NI ?
Great announcement, I agree with everything except getting rid of nuclear power, but I’ve always disagreed with that.
I also like the more sombre colours. Although I’d much prefer a move to darker shade of yellow than the bluey-green thing.
Is that supposed to show us as a cross between the greens and the tories?
Moving on from my unease about cutting the overall tax burden in the current economic climate…
1. “British Freedoms” sound like anyone we know ? I thought this sction was very strong but showed more than a nod to David Davis.
2. we are going to make college “affordable”. Not exactly a St Crispans Day speech defense of Abolition of Tuition fees.
3. abolishing 150 MP’s will be popular (though clegg said a third on radio 4 which would be 200 odd) but what does that do to constituiency size under STV in multi member seats ?
I’m really surprised at the level of this debate, from tangents into economics through criticism of the type face to niggles at the policy.
It might perhaps be better to look at the big picture (though perhaps not the one of Nickers on the front cover) which is that this is a serious attempt to set out our stall in a serious yet approachable way at a time when Dave’s Tories seems to be sweeping all before them on a wave of froth.
It is a very welcome step, it looks good and it is easy to communicate.
A* to all concerned.
A few additional comments:
1) Jock is right about broad money, but in addition we have enjoyed the deflationary effects of Chinese manufacturing. Without the Chinese we would have seen much higher inflation; without escalating taxation we would have seen higher growth. Now that China is no longer acting as a global deflator or prices and wages, we are beginning to feel the effects of excessive public spending.
2) Abolition of Tuition Fees is a subsidy for middle class children. We would be better spending the extra billions on early years and primary school, so that more children from poor backgrounds get good GCSE and A Level results and so can get into college in the first place. At the moment, between a quarter and a fifth leave school functionally illiterate and a third have no valuable qualifications at all. There is no place for them in the C21st workforce. THAT should be our priority.
3) Nuclear power? I agree completely. The government should neither subsidise nor abolish nuclear power. It should leave it to the market where prices include a carbon tax to reflect the true social cost of coal and other fossil fuels (and the costs of waste disposal and decommissioning of nuclear power stations of course).
But this is in danger of descending into a policy debate :o)
Feeling very uncomfortable about this. The taxation bit is incredibly vague and looks like it is designed to be something everyone can project their own wishes on
“It means taxing the rich”
“It means decreasing taxes” etc.
Nobody has answered any of Anonymous points about cutting taxes and spending in a recession.
I am worried that this is part of the right wing coup and dead suspicious that the majority of people on here at the start are unquestioning in support.
Been a member since 1973 and am a serving councillor but for how much longer…
Ten years ago we were all desperate to see an end to the Tory cuts and the revival of our public services. If we are to avoid the accusation of flip-flopping, we need to make clear that:
1. It’s the right policy for hard times – a government which helps people by taking a share of the pain. In the longer term we still believe in properly funded public services.
2. It’s a tax switch not only a tax cut. We will clobber the polluters, and that’s how we will afford the really big cuts in income tax.
3. We mustn’t just waffle unconvincingly about efficiency savings. We will have to identify the £20 billion savings in wasteful government spending and make them credible. Otherwise Labour will argue we would wreck the NHS, etc.
This is not to say that we can’t do it – I believe we can. We can start attacking wasteful hospital PFI schemes, we can go on to attack massive “ecotown” development when builders can’t find buyers, etc. We can make this idea work – provided we work at it!
That ten years, David, happens to coincide with the time it has taken me to understand what a Liberal is, and more importantly to grasp that economic liberalism and social liberalism are not mutually exclusive and indeed the former can be a better way (certainly more liberal) to achieve the latter than socialistic state run redistribution schemes.
Few political journeys in a decade could have travelled further, at least in appearance. Though in practice my aims have not changed, I just no longer believe government, of any political hue, capable of delivering such important things.
In an era of government encroaching ever further into our personal lives, the only way we can get out of that is to liberate people from dependency on and slavery to the state.
John D,
I would hate to see any activist/member, especially a sitting councillor, leave the party.
However, talk of a “Right wing coup” is rather melodramatic isn’t it? If members of the party believe that the level of taxation in this country is an assault on freedom, isn’t that a reasonable argument to make. If you disagree, debate it.
Let’s face it, every decison taken by “the party” is sub-optimal from the point of view of many individual members. I’m sure we can all find things we disagree with (c.f. my comments at 4.17pm) but that doesn’t make us give up on the party.
1. It’s a great document, because it actually provides some answers. It gives just enough information to stop people throwing it away with a dismissive “but they don’t have any policies”, without being too much.
2. Broadly in favour, at least of the actual policy. Would prefer it to sound a bit less “Yes folks, we can magically cut your taxes and spend more on the things you care about!”. I know people are congratulating the party on “sharpening its message”, etc, but to the cynic, I think it just makes us sound dishonest. We do know where the money comes from, but people who are so disposed will seize on this as an opportunity to say we don’t.
3. Yes.
John D
You suspicions of a ‘right wing coup’ seem based solely on the tax policy. Surely you do not see the rest of the document as leaning to the right?
Also, this is for submission to autumn conference, not set in stone. If you’re really unhappy with the direction the party is taking at least go and try to change it before leaving
David Allen,
I agree that we need to identify what we’ll cut. We used to say we’d start with the entire DTI. How about moving onto the entire DCMS. I’ve never liked the idea of state-run culture anyway, and state-run media is positively frightening :oD
Seriously, though, the anti-waste crusade is always a little hollow. Look at Gershon and Tory’s James Review. There is international evidence to suggest that the only way to improve efficiency (i.e. cut waste) is to keep public spending tight so that budget-setters have to be efficient. This is why there is little macro-level evidence for welfare gains once public spending rises above 35%.
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is whether a tax SWITCH is sufficient (good though it is in itself) or whether tax REDUCTION is called for. I would suggest that the latter is necessary.
In answer to the question as to how one cuts taxes in a recession, the answer is one stops funding unnecssary public spending. It’s unpopular with the vested interests, but it is necessary.
(An example: if the EU did not prevent it, would you not be willing to cut farm subsidies?).
This is an excellent policy initiative though the leaflet itself is one of the worst designed I’ve seen since, well, Henley or Crewe and Nantwich… Is someone in the Campaigns Department colour blind?
Well, Jock, I don’t think that a philosophical odyssey from social liberalism to economic liberalism will really “resonate” with the great British public! But I concede that it should be easy enough to convey the message that Labour have wasted our money. It will also be easy to oppose their overbearing and intrusive Government.
Many of our supporters will share John D’s views, and will intuitively feel that “economic liberal” just means “right wing Tory”. If we are not to lose their support, we have work to do. We have to prove our commitment to fairness as well as to freedom.
At long last! The beginnings of a sensible policy on tax. The socialist model of tax and redistribution is broken and it’s high time we stated campaigning for a liberal alternative – leaving people to spend their own money and make their own choices as far as possible.
Spending will have to be cut hard in the near future in any case; the coming recession is going to be savage with a devestating impact on Govt finances. As Vince Cable pointed out last night falling house sales have already smashed a £5 billion hole in them (this from memory).
Finding tax cuts from ‘efficiency savings’ has always been the Holy Grail of Govt irrespective of Party – always promised, never delivered. It can be done but it will be quite a challenge for Clegg to solve this puzzle.
David
I agree. The reason people associate
‘economic liberal’ with ‘right wing Tory’ is because of its use by Thatcherism. I have little memory of Thatcher (I’m 20), so the connotations are not there for me or many people who have grown up under New Labour.
Therefore, we need to reclaim the term as our own, rooted in the classical liberal foundations of our party, and adapt it to work alongside social liberalism.
I don’t believe Tories when they go on about ‘cutting waste’ so I don’t see why I should believe my own party either. That is not to say that the government does not waste billions of pounds of our money: defence procurement, IT systems, external consultants, and so on. But identifying wasteful expenditure is the easy bit: stopping it from happening defeats every government – socialism, privatisation, PFI, every solution ends up impoverishing the average taxpayer and enriching….well, who’s got the money?
Back to Gladstone it is, then. Personally I was always more of a Lloyd George fan.
Computing…
cutting taxes – right wing policy
handouts for the poorest in society – left wing policy
cutting taxes for the poorest in society… liberal?
computing…
cutting services – right wing policy
the nannystate and overregulation – left wing policy
balancing the books while redefining market parameters… liberal?
“This is shrewd political calculation by Mr Clegg.”
Well, I reckon it’s a disastrous miscalculation by Mr Clegg.
To put things in a simplistic nutshell, I think we have gained seats from the Conservatives by adding to our own support both Labour tactical voters and “Tories with a social conscience”. I don’t think either of these groups will be attracted by a policy of cutting public spending to pay for tax cuts, and I don’t think our own core supporters (or activists) will either. And I don’t believe right-wing Tories are going to vote Lib Dem anyway.
And I don’t believe public spending cuts will go down at all well in Labour-Lib Dem marginals.
And I certainly didn’t join the party to campaign for cuts in public spending.
Odd that so many people are still worried about the money supply and other monetarist dogma when even the Tories gave up on this when it was shown to be nonsense in the 1980’s.
Cutting waste and making efficiency savings are possible – £20 billion is a small part of government expenditure.
Not wasting billions on the tax credit system would save money without needing to make people worse off. Combining income tax and national insurance will save money.
The party needs to stop trying to cost every last detail – hardly anyone is bothered, what it needs is some clear tax aims e.g.
£7000 basic tax allowance
Next £5000 income taxed at 10% (including national insurance)
Next £10,000 taxed at 20% (including national insurance
Next £20k taxed at 25% etc
No marginal tax rate for anyone higher than 50%.
People need to be better off for working hard or harder, les restore incentives for all not just for non-doms and the mega rich
Mouse:
“The party needs to stop trying to cost every last detail – hardly anyone is bothered …”
Well, in a sense it doesn’t matter if we come up with impossible promises, because no one believes we are going to form a government anyway. For parties that are really in contention, the consequences of proposals that don’t add up can be disastrous, as previous general election campaigns have demonstrated.
“Cutting waste and making efficiency savings are possible – £20 billion is a small part of government expenditure.”
Then presumably you could say the same about £30bn or £40bn.
Another report in the Independent says:
“Mr Clegg has told his Treasury spokesman, Jeremy Browne, to find £20bn of cost savings in the Whitehall budget.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/we-will-be-the-party-of-tax-cuts-says-clegg-869727.html
I’d have thought it was self-evident that this was completely the wrong way of going about it. If we really think there are these efficiency savings to be made, surely the right thing to do is to try to make some rational estimate of what can be achieved, and base our plans on that.
But no doubt hordes of eager young beavers will now rush to tell me that it’s much better for Nick Clegg to specify a priori what the savings are to be, and proceed on that basis.
Anon @ 9.48:
“Well, in a sense it doesn’t matter if we come up with impossible promises, because no one believes we are going to form a government anyway. For parties that are really in contention, the consequences of proposals that don’t add up can be disastrous, as previous general election campaigns have demonstrated. ”
I think that depends on whether you are trying to come across as managerial, good, penny-pinching custodians or whether you are dealing with “principles” and “ideas”. I’m not sure, for example, anyone really spelled out what monetarism implied in the late seventies, other than through snappy jingles and reductionist sound-bites.
If you go into too much detail you tend to be hostage to fortune, especially the mis-fortune of actually seeing the state of the books when you take over and having to change specific commitments. If we try and sell it as an ideological, aspirational, aim and try to give only enough specific examples as required for people to see that we have really thought about it, I don’t think the dangers are so great.
Hywel @ 2.24pm:
“The house price bubble (which hasn’t been present for all that period) is more to do as much to do with the banks more liberal lending policies.”
Given that when I first got involved in Community Land Trusts in 2003 we were already looking at a market that had doubled in price in the preceding five years and has doubled again since, I’d say that bubble has been around as long as this government, who specifically encouraged it.
So let me get this straight!
When our aim was to “replace the Conservatives” we fought to raise tax. And now the opportunity is to replace Labour – we’re……!
OK! Right! Hmm!
The real opportunity is to take the mantle of ‘most trusted on the economy’ – and the way there is to challenge people about choices. “What sort of economy do yo want – one where such as poor housing supply leads to recession and unemployment”?
“… now the opportunity is to replace Labour …”
I really don’t understand where this notion comes from.
Even with Labour at a historic low, we are nowhere near the point where – psephologically – we could do that, even if we assume there will be no recovery in the government’s popularity before the next election.
There has got to be some realism here. We are not on the brink of some historic breakthrough. Far from it. The challenge is to maintain our current parliamentary representation. And that is a very stiff challenge.
This is the best and boldest policy announcement by a LibDem leader in some time. It fits with the zeitgeist, appeals to swing voters in target seats and shoots the Cameron/Osbourne fox. But most importantly, it builds a distinctively liberal identity and narrative for the party. This is Nick Clegg at his absolute best. Also, his presentational style on the TV and radio bulletins was exceptional today. His insistence that we need to define our broad narrative and then move on to specific policies is bang on. Sometimes, we get too bogged in detail. Any way you look at it, this is a very good day for the party and also for Nick’s leadership.
Granted we got our ‘current parlimentary representation’ on the back of a deeply unpopular Tory party but I do recall a certain “decapitation strategy” – strangely aimed at the opposition – not the government last time. We’re hopeless at positioning ourselves so let’s not go down that road.
Let’s instead challenge peoples thinking and challenge current thinking. A quiz: If we had a two lever economy (I think we’re seeing the limitations of a single lever design) – what would that other lever be?
I agree with Mark. there are problably details I could disagree with – and a bigger number than 20 bn would suit me. But a huge step forward.
JohnM @ 11.20pm:
“A quiz: If we had a two lever economy (I think we’re seeing the limitations of a single lever design) – what would that other lever be?”
If we had large scale LVT, we wouldn’t need levers or lever operators.
“His insistence that we need to define our broad narrative and then move on to specific policies is bang on. Sometimes, we get too bogged in detail. Any way you look at it, this is a very good day for the party and also for Nick’s leadership.”
Does it matter at all what the “broad narrative” is? Or will anything do?
Anonymous – of course it matters what the broad narrative is. But it also matters that we have one. As it happens, I applaud the tax-cutting, smaller government narrative. But I also applaud Nick understanding that we need a “story” not just reams and reams of policy. The policies should follow the narrative rather than – as some criticised us for at the last election – having a ten point plan that didn’t really “hang together”, but was just a list of (mainly good) stuff.
If the desired effect is to attract Tory voters it seems to be working judging by the poll on the Torygraph web site.
Epoll
Would Nick Clegg’s tax cuts make you more likely to vote Lib Dem?
Yes56% No22% Maybe22%
Well, it’s all very puzzlng.
Are any of the people enthusiastically welcoming this new lurch to the right old enough to have supported the party when our policy was precisely the opposite?
If so, how do you explain your change of heart? And can you explain why the rest of us should rotate through 180 degrees?
But maybe a poll showing Daily Telegraph readers are “more likely” to vote Lib Dem is nowadays judged to be sufficient justification for a complete about-face?
Anon @ 1.14am:
“Are any of the people enthusiastically welcoming this new lurch to the right old enough to have supported the party when our policy was precisely the opposite?”
Patronizing, much!
For the record, yes, I am and I supported them then as well. But, like that other great Liberal, “when the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do. sir?”
We have gone through an entire decade of living proof that the welfare state’s main institutions have reached the point where throwing money at them is just not delivering proportionate benefits. We have gone through a decade of ever centralizing government, whose fiscal policies have made the tax and benefits systems even more complicated than ever, yet has failed to make any large inroads into the distribution of wealth or opportunity. A decade of a government that has thrown billions at their friends in the QUANGOcracy with little perceptible benefit and much duplication, and at outrageously statist illiberal projects like ID cards and NHS databases.
I see lots of opportunity there for a liberal alternative that delivers leaner, more efficient, less intrusive government balanced with ensuring people have more of their money in their own pockets, rather than in the hands of big-statists. And I see little contradiction personally.
I’m concerned that we are responding to anonymous critics who describe our actions with the language of our opponents.
Gavin Esler let himself and Newsnight down with the presentation of the subject by falling into the old-fashioned inadequate rhetoric of wing politics, and all those who copy this flat-earth mode of understanding politics only highlight their simplistic explanations which do nothing to satisfy public needs and demands.
This is a general problem in society where communication standards on even flagship operations like Newsnight fail to do more than appeal to the lowest common denominator, and to some extent I’m a little disappointed that Clegg didn’t challenge this preconception during the course of his interview.
Secondly the post-rationalisation that anyone who casts their vote for the LibDems is not actually supporting the LibDems also needs challenging for its ludicrous idiocy.
All our representatives are in place having won their elections with more votes that their opponents – no party can presume to take public opinion for granted by suggesting support is anything but conditional. The fact is that votes for LibDem candidates are votes for LibDems: it is our job to grow the numbers of votes cast our way.
The facts are that there will always be taxation and there will always be spending. The political differences between the parties are over how the levels and balance will be spread our across the economy and society.
We have a clear framework of principles for how we decide the details of our policy proposals which are based upon increasing the fairness of imposed burdens, by decreasing the unfairness created by artificial distortions and restrictions and by looking at ways to improve natural sustainability through getting the balance right under any particular circumstance.
There is absolutely no inconsistency in our approach over the years – even if this has meant our opponents have been able to paint our flexibility over the specifics as incoherent or bad accounting.
But why should anyone listen to our opponents considering their track records over generations – the only good ideas they have had are the ones they have stolen from us, and they’ve only gone wrong when they’ve taken the opportunity to pervert our principles.
On a side note Clegg is reassuringly human, which goes down well in this neck of the woods and I think will allow him to grow as a person in the public consciousness: he is neither too slick or too flawed in style, yet he remains resolute if not quite as forthright as he might be on camera.
He is clearly growing in confidence on the floor of the commons and is overcoming many of the limitations of his current position, he can clearly grow equally as much in stature as he becomes more familiar through television.
I am more optimistic about our prospects under his guidance by the day.
Cutting taxes is not a lurch to the right. Just as increasing taxes doesn’t mean redistribution in favour of the poor.
Most rightwing tax cuts (Bush, Regan etc) have been aimed squarely at the rich and have been paid for by ballooning budget deficits.
One of the reasons why the party needs to be more general is not so the sums don’t add up, but so they do! The 1p on income tax for education was a product of it’s time, to persist with it in the face of all the other tax rises since
(including 1p on national insurance) makes no sense. Setting out an exact amount for any tax change is soon superceded by events.
There is a big difference between saying we wil scrap ID cards (saving approximately x billion) and we will make a 5% effiency saving at the home office without even indictating how.
Frankly, I just wonder how representative all these comments are of the active membership of the party.
Part of the reason for my “patronizing much” question about age is that my impression is that most of the enthusiastic “economic liberals” who post here are quite young and relatively new to the party.
I am 45, and I think I’m right in saying I am the second youngest of the 50ish members and deliverers in my ward.
Just out of curiosity, are any of you eager beavers older than I am?
To be fair Anon @ 8.48am I was going to make a point about ages too though from another angle – that those of us (I’m 41) whose first political memories (more or less – mine was actually writing to an education minister called “Shirley” about the unfairness of collective punishment at prep school in 1978!) are of the Thatcher regime have now seen a whole “cycle” if you like of, on the one hand, rampant “beggar thy neighbour” lopsided capitalism and, on the other, “throw all you’ve got at it” tax and spend of Labour, even if has not been the socialist “enemy” of old from that quarter.
And so the job of forging a distinctive alternative is tempered by those experiences.
However, I would turn your question around slightly, and wonder why those older members of the party who can remember that far back have allowed to disappear, over the years, a very real liberal alternative, based on our post-war to late seventies policies of “ownership for all” – the redistribution of capital and financial assets to labour and away from capital, “citizens income” and such like which really did offer a liberal alternative to socialism, state capitalism or the corporatarism we’ve seen over the past nearly thirty years.
Simple fact is that we have also witnessed over the last decade how the “left” even if they abandon such schemes as wholesale public ownership (which was always an inferior outcome than the Liberal party vision of individual, personal, widespread, ownership of the means of production) remain obsessed with control and “only I know best” spending policies that have really not delivered.
It seems to me that this paper is only a start, albeit quite a good one, that it does not delve sufficiently into our real liberal past to rediscover some genuine innovations in the way we “redistribute” (naturally more than coercively) that actually, I believe may have been ahead of their time but are now possibly “of the moment”, just as some of them were the last time we held power nationally nearly a century ago.
Public spending has doubled over the last decade. There have been some good results of that. There is also higher taxes and lots of waste. Adapting policy in light of all that has happened is logical to me.
I would like to hear those who think that tax and spending policies should be the same as 10 years ago explain why they think these huge changes do not make much of a difference to what policy should now be.
I am with Keynes – ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’
Firstly – David Allen: Hello!
To respond to several points here: as pointed out, tax cutting is not right wing per se. I applaud what appears to be a genuine attempt to move in a more Liberal direction.
To respond to David’s specific point:
“Many of our supporters will share John D’s views, and will intuitively feel that “economic liberal” just means “right wing Tory”. If we are not to lose their support, we have work to do. We have to prove our commitment to fairness as well as to freedom.”
“Economic Liberalism” was a term misappropriated and misapplied by the Thatcher administration. Conservatives aren’t really Liberals in this sense and applied economic liberalism selectively in favour of conservative ideals.
I would also challenge that “many of our supporters” would “feel this instncitively”. Mostly our support base is more moderate than many of our activists. The challenge for our leadership is to retain this (excuse me for the term) “moderate right of centre” support whilst garnering support from the less wwell-heeled sectors of society.
Income tax cuts for the less well off is a good start.
🙂
I think that’s a key quote for helping to sell this kind of policy development that could be seen as a major realignment but which in reality is liberal pragmatism. Which is why I beat you to using it Steve, at half one this morning…:)
Steve:
“Public spending has doubled over the last decade.”
Any chance you can justify that claim?
Central government, total payable, expenditure was £297bn in 97 and £502bn last year. Not quite doubled to be sure, but that does not include all the hidden debt in PFI schemes and so on over that decade, so it must be getting close to doubled. More importantly, perhaps though, are the big ticket items like health and education where spending has gone up vastly in both cases but delivered less than a proportionate amount of benefit.
But, of course, as a percentage of national income, public spending now is virtually identical to what it was when Labour came to power in 1997. And is lower than it was under Major in the mid 1990s, and definitely lower than under Thatcher in the mid 1980s.
On other issues are there any other sci-fi geeks upset that it wasn’t named ‘Make It So’…..that’s worth a few more votes surely?
To say public expenditure has “doubled” is disengenious in real terms. As a proportion of GDP its not dramatically different to large parts of the post war period.
I do recall a certain “decapitation strategy” – strangely aimed at the opposition
As I recall it wasn’t us that gave it that title, it was the media. Quite simply we targeted the seats that were the most marginal and many of those happened to include the Tory frontbench. We failed in most of them because they saw us coming. We succeeded in one – Westmorland & Lonsdale – because they didn’t and because we ran a brilliant campaign.
We stand a chance of decapitating a few Labour ministers (and former ministers) next time but fortunately no one has described as such in the media.
“…falling into the old-fashioned inadequate rhetoric of wing politics… this flat-earth mode of understanding politics only highlight their simplistic explanations which do nothing to satisfy public needs and demands.”
Absolutely! As Alfred Sherman said in “Paradoxes of Power”:
“Consideration of this issue has been clouded by reliance on crude antithesis like ‘left’ and ‘right’… We should long since have been liberated form shibboleths inherited from the parade of the Estates on the Versailles tennis court in 1789. True, the ‘left’ for the most part is still captivated by the belief that the acquisition and disposal of goods and services by the beneficent state will bring prosperity and justice for all. But the growth of state expenditure in Britain actually owes little to socialists… By contrast, ‘right wing’ means little more than being opposed to the ‘left’s’ wonder-cures…”
I am not an economist and so I won’t go in to all the economic arguments of the policy announced yesterday (some who read my argument will probably say that is the problem with it).
For me though it is simple. I was fully behind our proposals to raise taxes in the 1990s as it was the right call at the time as taxes were relatively low and there was a need for investment in specific services such as education.
Now there is a general feeling that taxes are too high, times are tough and that despite huge amounts of investment many services are no better, or at least more money won’t make a difference.
To me it isn’t an argument about whether we are being more truly liberal or not. It’s more about what is right at the time. I am more pro-public sector and using government to deliver services than Nick is and would support a higher tax level than many economic liberals. But I still think this is the right policy at the current time.
We won’t get loads of Tories rushing to vote for us as a result. It is proper campaigning on the ground that will win us seats. But what it does is help build an impression in people’s minds of what the Lib Dems are about. Once it has been fleshed out with specific savings and we have a stronger sense of what we would do about public services I think it will be an even stronger policy.
It is then up to the campaigners amongst us to turn it in to something that is catchy and Focus-friendly.
We are entering an economic slow down and perhaps a recession. Tax revenues have started to fall. Unemployment has started to rise (and thus benefit payments). Economic contraction will lead to an increase in aquisitive crime and thus pressure on police budgets. Inflation in adult social services is running at 5% to 8% . The UK has a large and now structural budget deficit and thats before a £100bn of PFI debt is counted.
“Absolutely! As Alfred Sherman said in “Paradoxes of Power”:”
Good heavens! I suppose we’re going to be told Alfred Sherman was a liberal next.
And perhaps Nick Clegg will go for a photo-opportunity kneeling at the feet of Margaret Thatcher.
No. Alfred Sherman was a Tory and a close adviser of Margaret Thatcher. But he is right about our atavistic use of a “Left-Right” axis that is nearly 230 years out of date.
Nothing I have seen since my last post has helped me apart from the valiant efforts of Anonymous to hold back the tide. The problem is this is putting the cart before the horse. “We are going to cut taxes”. I am up for re-election next year. How do I square this with
1. 100 year backlog on road repairs
2. The local high school needing to teach kids in the corridor next year in a 40 year old school building not fit for purpose
3. Shortage of school places
4. Barely legal minimum support in adult social care with demand growing exponentially
5. Rising land fill taxes to be replaced by expensive re-cycling and other treatment facilities
6. Likely massive cuts in bus services.
7. Withdrawal of support for voluntary sector.
I could go on and on…
But hey a few Tories might vote for me.
David at 12.01…
Your concerns about slowdown etc are exactly why in my opinion this must be sold not as a penny-pinching managerial efficiency measure, but a systemic change in the *way* we tax – that, as in 1909, we must ask not just “how much have you got” but also “where did you get it from” and tax those things that contribute most to the uneven playing field that currently gives big advantages to big business and the already wealthy.
For example, the best time to implement a wholesale switch from income to land taxes would be at the bottom of a property market cycle in order for it to have a sustainable buffering effect against future boom-bust type bubbles.
It must not be “savings” that can be characterized as “cuts” by those who don’t share our ambitions, but a tax revolution (I don’t believe a “tax switch” is now enough, given that this is the second summer we have published this sort of policy and nobody even remembers that we did it last year with the “lowest income tax rate since 1916” policy.)
Savings are a turn-off for many as it’s all been said before and never implemented. A tax revolution is a more engaging prospect to me.
Another anonymous at 11.17:
Given that this government have been touting as their achievment the longest continual period of growth in history or whatever it is Gordon keeps saying I don’t think it is disingenuous at all. “Real terms” to me means an overall increase ahead of inflation, not necessarily share of GDP.
The fact is that massive amounts of additional money has been available as a result of that growth and has not produced the sort of benefits the real terms increase in spending ought to have produced.
In that respect what Gideon and Dave (sounds like a good name for an Oxford Ice Cream Parlour!) have been saying about storing up some savings in the good times should have been happening for ten years.
Major’s years were indeed years of higher spending, proportionally speaking, but that has also got to be seen in the context of the bottom of the previous cycle in the early nineties. The fact that we are nearly at those levels at the end of the upward part of the cycle is indeed awkward for anyone wishing to take over managing the economy.
To Steve Travis (hi!) – Well, we can bandy fine words about economic liberalism, about how our free dosh is somehow philosophically different from Thatcher’s free dosh, etcetera – if we want to provoke distrust! The down-to-earth average voter view will be, thanks for the dosh but where’s the catch?
Now don’t get me wrong, we do have perfectly valid reasons for our reversal of policy, it is critical support I am offering. As Anders says, it is the right policy at the current time. It’s just that we mustn’t get carried away. Frying pans and fires come to mind.
Dogmatic, ideological tax policies are what is wrong. Labour’s big-promises-big-plans-big-bills policy is wrong, because it leads to overspend and waste. But the Thatcher-Major cut-cut-cut ideology was equally wrong, and they left government in tatters. Schools and hospitals in a mess. Never enough money to do a job properly. Resources wasted on emergency repairs and rework to put the original botch job right again. For those who take pleasure in being too young to have lived the history – do please read the books. Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it!
Mark Littlewood said “this is the best and boldest policy announcement by a Lib Dem leader in some time”.
You might say that having pushed for the policy change your self for some time now, just as I might entirely agree with you, having also wanted us to go down this route for some while too :-).
I don’t expect the party to go down the route of a tax revolution, but I do hope this change could act as a catalyst for us to rediscover some of our neglected & thoroughly subversive economically liberal past, i.e. of asset taxes and ‘ownership for all’. One day proponents of LVT will loose their beards and the whiff of BO.
“One day proponents of LVT will loose their beards and the whiff of BO.”
…shaved mine off on joining ALTER and have just been into Crabtree & Evelyn for new supplies, thanks!
Why is everyone so worked up over the tax policy when even if you disagree it there are loads of other proposals in the document to be pleased about?
Examples include:
Leading the way on nuclear disarmament (hardly a right wing policy)
State investment in high speed railways
Devolving local health services
The ‘pupil premium’
All of these suggest a centre/centre-left approach rather than a sudden leap to the right.
“One day proponents of LVT will loose their beards and the whiff of BO.”
A characteristic of the statist social-liberal tendency, surely?
James at 2.50, two / three of your example policies require or imply higher state spending. These sit uneasily alongside a policy of overall spending cuts!
Jock, congratulations on helping kick start beard reform within LVT circles. Andrew, I didn’t say proponents of LVT wore sandals, a stereotype I’ve always associated with the old left. Many LVT proponents do however some times come across as (very well meaning) policy geeks, rather than communication specialists.
Oh dear, somebody mentioned “state support for high speed railways” – time to crank up Crewe Gwyn.
I hope this is going to be properly thought through :-
High Speed Rail Links CAN be :-
a) energy inefficient
b) huge consumers of limited funding
c) beneficial to the wealthy (who tend to make long-distance rail journeys) at the expense of the less well-off (who tend to make shorter rail journeys, or use buses).
Do hope somebody is thinking this through.
John D at 1:47
I share your concern that we must have a properly funded state sector … but I am convinced that cutting the overall burden of taxes as well as – and this is crucial – making them fairer in terms of ability to pay. This is in sharp contrast to the Tories whose plans are always utterly self-serving though all dressed up in pseudo-liberal economic language.
Labour may have spent a great deal more but their best idea seems to have been that if they throw enough money at a problem some will eventually stick. Well it doesn’t. More than anything this is where Lib Dems have to distinguish themselves from Labour.
Caring, yes. For a fairer society, yes. For a properly managed state sector, yes. For wasteful spending, NEVER.
“..this is crucial – making them fairer in terms of ability to pay.”
Gordon, the crucial thing our party finally appears to be grasping is that “ability to pay” needs to relate to unearned asset wealth at least as much (and ideally much more than) it relates to productive earnings. That is the key to shifting the tax burden off the poor.
And as the poor become financially emancipated of course, welfare state dependency becomes less necessary.
Our long-term “management” strategy should be to reduce the need for state management of individuals altogether – setting people free, economically and socially.
John D wrote:
“The problem is this is putting the cart before the horse. “We are going to cut taxes”. I am up for re-election next year. How do I square this with
1. 100 year backlog on road repairs”
[6 more items snipped]
Actually, I’d be interested to see some more reaction from Lib Dem councillors.
What do they think of this target of cutting government expenditure by 3-4%? Do they think cuts of that size in local government spending could be achieved without harming public services? Or is local government supposed to be exempt from the cuts (which, of course, would imply they would be correspondingly deeper elsewhere)?
Or do they take a more cynical view – that there’s no danger of this policy doing any harm or incurring any unpopularity, because it’s never really going to be implemented?
Since when did we become Tories ?
Wanting to cut taxes & improve the economy! While this is classic liberalism it is officially “illiberal & incompatible with party membership”. Mr Clegg must be expelled forthwith.
“While this is classic liberalism it is officially “illiberal & incompatible with party membership”.”
No it isn’t.
Accusing fellow party members of being fascists might well be, but nothing you have said (at great great length!) on this site comes close to providing any evidence for these sorts of claims from yourself.
You have repeatedly called various Liberal Democrats fanatical, near-Nazi supporting right-wing extremists.
I am not surprised if people found that such views were not compatible with you being a member of the party yourself.
Steve such classic liberal views have been officially described by the party as “illiberal & incompatible with party membership”.
That is a simple statement of fact, publicly on record & I ask you to retract your claim.
On your 2nd point – I have stated that the party & party members supported (ex-)Nazis openly committed to & engaged in genocide in Croatia, Bosnia & Kosovo. Do you deny that the party supported these people, that they were in several cases unrpentent ex-Nazis who served Hitler, that they were publicly committed to genocide & were engaged in same? If not then everything I said is truthful. If so on what particular point do you dispute.
If you do not dispute the facts what is your basis for saying anybody unwilling to censor evidence of genocide should not be allowed to be a member of the “Liberal Democrats”?
This is the right thing to do. I am a Lib Dem councillor in a Labour controlled authority in Northamptonshire (there’s only one – you work it out). It frustrates the hell out of me that so many councillors from all parties get taken in by the argument that lower taxes mean spending cuts as if all spending cuts are wrong. Its about priorities! Local government is inefficient. No doubt about it. National government is too. The easy way to cut spending is to attack front line services. The more difficult way, but the correct way is to tackle the inefficiencies, reduce bureaucracy and to decide what are priorities and what are not. e.g are public art and the promotion of tourism really priorities when compared to having well maintained roads and a cheap, efficient railway system? It is possible to expand front line services and cut taxes. I’m not saying its easy, but it is possible.