On Sunday’s Andrew Marr show, Ed Balls caught the chancellor off guard when he all but forced him (in one of recent television history’s most awkward moments) to shake on an agreement to hold a television debate.
That agreement did not include provision for a Lib Dem presence – something which Danny Alexander tried to rectify when he appeared on Sky News yesterday with Mr Balls:
Ed Balls and Danny Alexander in heated exchange on deficit cuts http://t.co/OPJWUbkcDv
— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 18, 2015
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers' Diary: The arid south of Rutland
Reform UK had bank account frozen during general election
Big money should not buy elections
The infected blood scandal highlights the siloed nature of Whitehall
Chloe
David Garlick
Graham Jeffs
Ruth Bright
Tom Arms
9 Comments
The best bit there was at 2:04 when Danny says “Come on Ed, live up to your name.”. That’s a bit risque for political knockabout isn’t it? I’m impressed.
Re: Danny’s alternative budget: Lib Dems need a new policy on tax evasion.
Tax avoidance is using tax reliefs and is basically the responsibility of the Treasury.
Tax evasion is illegal and the responsibility of those who commit it.
Trying to conflate the two under the term “tax dodging” and trying to make it illegal is wrong. Just makes politicians look clueless.
It wasn’t long ago since Alexander regularly refused to go head to head with a Labour spokesperson on Channel 4.
What’s inspired his sudden rush of confidence ?
&…who’s idea was the Lib Dem budget stunt ? Turning out to be a real embarrassment, particularly with so many party MPs not there and Clegg disappearing.
Any here old enough to remember Spitting Image ?
Remember the Nigel Lawson sketch where he wails that he can’t even look after the red dispatch box ?
Someone’s liable to photoshop Danny with a similar caption.
Politicians should always think how their PR stunts are going to be turned around on social media.
According to the BBC – “The Lib Dems would aim to eliminate the deficit by 2017/18 through £30bn of spending cuts and tax rises – the same date as the Conservatives. But they would net an extra £6bn from tax evaders – and an extra £6bn in tax rises on the better-off, including a “mansion tax” on high value properties, enabling them to cut less from departmental budgets.”
It the sign of a party with a death wish that it thinks anyone is going to vote for them because of a tiny difference in spending plans.
It’s not all bad – Danny’s appointment as Shadow Chancellor helpfully draws attention to the enormous boost in apprenticeships Dr Cable has overseen.
I must admit I thought the budget box stunt was naff! No doubt thought up by the same ‘advisor’ who advised Clegg on the second Farage debate.
someone needs to grab the BBC where it hurts and get us a more balanced coverage. They are forever, lazily, hiding behind ‘what the papers say’ or ‘what the polls say’, neither of which is balanced.
I agree with Mark. I was less impressed with Danny’s ‘alternative budget’ and yellow box malarkey.
Eddie: Spot-on. The Cambridge economist Nicky Kaldor, one of Harold Wilson’s ‘two Hungarians’ at the Treasury (along with the lamentable Thomas Balogh), was a bit hit-and-miss in his policy judgements but a bright spark. He surely hit the nail on the head when he observed: “The existence of widespread tax avoidance is evidence that the system, not the tacpayer, is in need of reform.”
The IFS expanded on this in their conclusion to their Mirrlees Review: “One of the central problems of dealing with tax avoidance in the UK has been the propensity of governments to tackle the symptom, by enacting ever more anti-avoidance provisions aimed at the particular avoidance scheme, rather than addressing the underlying cause – often the lack of clarity or consistency in the tax base.
“If activities were taxed similarly, there would be no (or, at least, much less) incentive for tacpayers to dress up one form of activity as another… The primary response should be to address the fundamental causes of avoidance rather than blindly resorting to anti-avoidance provisions, whether of a general or a specific nature. Simply demonising tax avoiders and exhorting them to behave better is a feeble strategem.”
Now we just need politicians to grasp this nettle and stop all the displacement activity…