Stephen Tall has been writing for Total Politics, painting a worrying scenario of what might happen electorally if the Liberal Democrats were to go into coalition with Labour after the next General Election. That ominous phrase “Be careful what you wish for” is the theme…
He points out that the Coalition has caused problems for the party:
In the circumstances, we might be forgiven for turning round to the voters and saying, “You know what, guys? Next time you can’t make up your minds, don’t look to us to break the deadlock. You can suffer Conservative/Labour minority rule instead. That’s right. See how you like the government being constantly held to ransom by Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries, or by Len McCluskey’s handpicked squad of Unite-sponsored MPs. We tried this ‘compromising for the sake of the national interest’ thing, and all it brought us was a load of grief. So we’re going to wash our hands of it.”
Despite that, he finds that the party has been remarkably resilient: no defections, no threat to the leadership challenges and strong support for the Coalition within the party. The deadline for this article would have been long before the announcement that membership had grown by nearly 1000 members in 2013, as well.
But, our preferred coalition partners, if the surveys on this site are anything to go by, are Labour. But Stephen argues that there are risks:
Yet among the party’s 57 held seats, the Conservatives are in second place in 38. This means the post-2015 Lib Dem parliamentary party is likely to be dominated by MPs in Tory-facing seats (usually with Labour in a distant third). True, any deal with Labour might allow us to squeeze their vote still further in those areas, but the bigger risk will be Tory-turned-Lib Dem voters returning to the fold to get rid of Labour.
So if, as expected, we lose a chunk of our current seats to Labour in 2015 as a result of our collaboration with the Conservatives, it’s at least as plausible that we’ll then lose a chunk of those seats that remain to the Tories in 2020 if we go into coalition with Labour. Talk about a double whammy.
What Stephen doesn’t look at is the consequences of another 5 years in coalition with the Conservatives. If, of course, we were seen to moderate Labour as well as the Conservatives, then our usefulness in government would be clear.
Nothing about this government lark was ever going to be easy. There are pitfalls whichever way you look.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
99 Comments
May well be right, but it’s hard enough speculating about 2015 let alone 2020. One interesting possibility I’ve not seen much discussion of is a 2015 result something like Lab 290 Tories 285 LD 33 NI 18 SNP 11 PC 6 UKIP 5 Green 1 Respect 1. The only workable coalition I could see would be Lab: Con with LDs the official opposition. It’s more plausible than some of the suggestions being banded around.
Stephen is spot on here.
As I have been pointing out on LDV for a few months now, the apparent preference of many members for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition in 2015 suggests to me that they have not fully thought it through.
The article says “Be careful what you wish for” which is also how I would put it. (And just to be clear, I am not saying another Conservative/Lib Dem coalition in 2015 would be a good thing either).
This is where I come on stage with my barmy predictions about Labour splitting/going bust, cue gales of laughter, boos etc.
Before you laugh though, have a think about my case.
Money. Labour currently have debts of at least £12 Million, plus unknown liabilities. They used to have the backup of a “friendly” Bank but thanls to its effective privatisation that has gone. Whatever the result of the Reforms Labours income is likely to be substantially reduced in future.
The Reforms. Ever since Millibands original speech last July there has been a Labour campaign to downplay its significance. The original one day conference has been demoted to a two hour meeting tacked on to something else. The assumption promoted by all concerned is that a deal will be done, concessions made, everyone will be happy. We wont know the details till February 4th but the assumption is that Union Bosses will be guaranteed no reduction in their Votes at Conference, places on Commitees etc. The rumour though is that The Bosses still arent happy, for good reason. In the end Union power depends on money donated to The Party & any version of The Reforms will cut those donations by 80% or more. Less money, less Power – its as simple as that.
The Polls. Since last February Labours average lead over The Tories has fallen from 11% to 5 or 6%. If that trend continues, as seems likely, then sometime this Summer the lead will dissapear. Perhaps Labour will react to that loss with quiet dignity but on past form they are more likely to blame other & Milliband. Cue more cack-handed Coup attempts.
I expect Labours troubles to come to a head after the Euro Elections in late May.
Nostrabarkus wrote:
“I expect Labours troubles to come to a head after the Euro Elections in late May.”
That’s far too precise and not half Delphic enough. Much better to leave the timing vague.
We cannot expect to be in successive coalitions, the binary system makes this most unlikely. True enough if we did go from a coalition with Conservatives to a coalition with Labour we would be vulnerable to reduced support. If that unlikely scenario transpired I do not think we would have much of an option. The question would be the nature of the coalition: anything from an integrated coalition government to a loose pact with no ministers, but rest assured the problems would be greater for Labour (particularly a loose pact).
In party political terms a period of recovery would be more effective under a Conservative administration, however we would be faced with the prospect of boundary changes that would wipe out a disproportionate number of Lib Dem seats and target seats and we would be faced with being challenged to take sides in an internecine EU centred war in the Conservative party and a referendum that would exacerbate problems and solve nothing . Perhaps a wafer thin Tory advantage in the Commons would suit Lib Dems best, but these things cannot be engineered.
Despite the danger of a negative effect on Lib Dem support and my feeling is that these can be over stated, there are advantages: simply showing that an agreement between Labour and Lib Dems is possible sends a clear message that Lib Dems cannot be portrayed as an adjunct to anther party.
The next election result will include something unprecedented, since past history provides reason enough for all three parties to emerge disappointed and defeated. Presumably it is for this reason that the coalition issue is in the air. The only prediction I am prepared to make is that there will be no wins for UKIP.
Hmm. people don’t have an option on the ballor paper for a hung parliament so to accuse or praisew them for doing so or teling them l ? “Next time you can’t make up your minds, don’t look to us to break the deadlock. ” is a bit shonky.
Mostly likely on curent trends Labur will win a majority in 2015. Even in a hung Parliament they will have momemntum with them. The chances of the Lib Dems have the ‘power’ to put both Labour andtheTorie into office is quite remote. The chance sof any of the other parties favouring a coalition rtaher than a minority govt or another general election are even smaller. I suspect they would only want a coalition to finish the Lib Dems off and they aren’t that clever. A better line might be without electoral reform., coalitions are posioned. Would the current coalition be the same if it was 200 Tories and 150 Lib Dems ? Of course not.
Intersting thought re UKIP – lets wait tillafter the euro elections before predicting they will have no MPs.
@ Paul Barker – “This is where I come on stage with my barmy predictions about Labour splitting/going bust, cue gales of laughter, boos etc.”
Not ridiculous at all.
The liberals faded when they ceased to best represent the pole of politics they sought to fight from, there is nothing written in stone that labour should continue to occupy that pole.
labour 1915 = 14 million trade union members
labour 2015 = <7 million trade union members
there still needs to be a political movement that represents those who value collective enablement to a greater degree than individual freedom, are labour best placed to provide that vision in the 21st century?
dunno how i lost the above, but it should read:
labour 1915 = 14 million trade union members
labour 2015 = <7 million trade union members
lol, it seems i have fallen fall of BB code:
labour 1915 = less than 7 million trade union members
labour 1965 = more than 14 million trade union members
labour 2015 = less than 7 million trade union members
“Fallen fall”? Do you mean you have “fallen foul” of the code? That may not be the best idiom to use anyway.
I THOUGHT – we need to stiffen the spine of Labour, to do radical things. The last thing we want to do (as New Politics exponents) is to moderate NunuLabour! So it is the opposite of the function that we need to perform on the Tories.
” What Stephen doesn’t look at is the consequences of another 5 years in coalition with the Conservatives. If, of course, we were seen to moderate Labour as well as the Conservatives, then our usefulness in government would be clear.”
Quite. Another five years of Osborne, Gove, May et al may be the devil we know but we have to be firm on the redlines from the start. These people are not cuddly but ideological and neither are they favourable towards Lib Dems – remember the AV referendum?
Of course there are very awkward Labour politicians but at least Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor and there are more leading pro-European Labour ministers than anti. It’s a low base but it’s a start.
“Quite. Another five years of Osborne, Gove, May et al may be the devil we know but we have to be firm on the redlines from the start.”
Then start thinking about what it takes to to displace one of the big two and actually get elected with a majority once in a while.
Enough of the incessant naval gazing and pious mutterings about worthy ideals that the public don’t give a damn about.
Not directing this at you, just pointing out this place is rife with it.
jedibeeftrix: ” Then start thinking about what it takes to to displace one of the big two and actually get elected with a majority once in a while.”
Of course. Labour has had no vision or visible philosophy since they ditched socialism in the 1990s – a vague centrist authoritarianism seems to have replaced it, while the Tories are out and out Thatcherites.
There is a compelling argument to be made for Liberal Democracy on the lines of 2010. It was lost in the byways of the Rose garden love-in but now is the time to reassert our distinctive left of centre vision.
However, one must be prepared for a possible coalition with Labour or the Tories and not fall for their warm words. Redlines are redlines and ‘reform’ is not a byword for introducing Thatcherism by the back door.
“Another five years of Osborne, Gove, May et al may be the devil we know but we have to be firm on the redlines from the start”
You weren’t even firm on the Coalition Agreement.
“Since last February Labours average lead over The Tories has fallen from 11% to 5 or 6%. If that trend continues, as seems likely, then sometime this Summer the lead will dissapear.”
Ha, ha.
Anyone see what he did there?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
And the lead needs to do more than disappear, because of the distribution of the vote.
@ Helen Tadcastle
Based on past experience I would suggest Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the next two generations to this one rather than your “Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.”
Martin ‘The only prediction I am prepared to make is that there will be no wins for UKIP.’
They got frighteningly close to winning Eastleigh, thankfully we were able to get out the postal vote and save the day.
We must not be complacent, any wins for UKIP will be indicating an undermining of confidence in the EU. If we want a healthy and prosperous EU, then we have to stop UKIP in its tracks somehow. Any suggestions please?
I posted, at 5.57pm yesterday, that the function of the Lib Dems should be to stiffen the spine of Labour, not to “moderate” it. No-one has yet answered that post. For much of the life of the Lib Dems, certainly since the foundation of nuLab, this has been our function as a party. At a time when the Tories have moved significantly back into Thatcherite territory, and when a neoliberal strategy has been called into question as never before, I find it strange that at present there are not many echoing cries from within, and from those who have left our party in despair. Where are all the New Politics supporters?
@Joe King – can I suggest that your comment puts the cart before the horse? I would suggest that “if we want to stop UKIP in its tracks, we need a healthy and prosperous EU” – that is an EU where there is less propensity for the young and capable to leave their homes looking for less opportunities and which provides a healthy market (both for labour and goods) for the UK.
The first and most vital step in that is for the ECB to take steps to end the deflationary trap that is responsible for the on-going depression in the EZ periphery and which is now threatening the core. We need to be working to persuade others (particularly the Finns and Germans) to allow the ECB to take action.
@Tim13
“I posted, at 5.57pm yesterday, that the function of the Lib Dems should be to stiffen the spine of Labour, not to “moderate” it. No-one has yet answered that post. For much of the life of the Lib Dems, certainly since the foundation of nuLab, this has been our function as a party.”
As you ask, Tim, I would say I strongly disagree with that, for two reasons:
1. I don’t think it is our role “to stiffen the spine of Labour” any more than it is to stiffen the spine of the Conservatives. It is our role to stand for our own beliefs and to represent the significant number of people in Britain who share those beliefs.
2. If that were our role, what would you say should happen if Labour’s spine were to become stiffened? Should the Lib Dems then cease to exist?
Absolutely not, Simon. I sometimes suspect that your stance in the Lib Dems has been, similar to that of Nick Clegg, that the Labour Party (and, especially their nuLabour manifestations and predecessors) are in some way unacceptable to us as Lib Dems in a sort of a “left” way. I joined the Liberal Party in the mid 1960s as a protest against the timidity and conservatism of the Labour Party, and what I have seen from many Labour politicians over the years has reflected that timidity. You will remember (sorry, you probably won’t) that one of the Liberal slogans of the 1970 election was “Which twin is the Tory?” Unfortunately, the country was moving towards the Tories at the time. But it represents a continuing strand of liberalism and Lib Demmery over the years, of which the New Politics which had become a mainstream slogan was a significant part.
No, Simon, I do not want a Lib Dem free politics in this country, I want a radical force which has something more to say to the country than the bland mainstream “centrism” I have just heard Clegg spouting on Andrew Marr! No words there about the need for redistribution, no words about the major changes resulting from our needed reaction to climate change and other major environmental threats, minimal mention of other “political” aspects of the EU that are vital for all of our interests to remain “in” etc.
@jedibeeftrix “Then start thinking about what it takes to to displace one of the big two and actually get elected with a majority once in a while. Enough of the incessant naval gazing and pious mutterings about worthy ideals that the public don’t give a damn about.”
Bang on. The big two would rather the Lib Dems disappeared, giving them both a clear run at a majority. That’s the main aim of the Tories going into coalition with us – they know it’s a ‘death hug’ that will haemorrhage our left-leaning support. That’s also the reason why the Tories and many in Labour want to keep FPTP, which as we generally agree, is unfair and the biggest single block to further Lib Dem advances in Westminster.
So we should make electoral reform our biggest priority. Which means a coalition with Labour makes far more sense, as there are plenty of key Labour figures keen on PR. But there’s a case for saying no more coalitions until we get electoral reform – by which I mean STV voted in by politicians – none of this referendum rubbish which will allow the Tory press to distort and destroy the pro reform arguments.
@Tim13
“No, Simon, I do not want a Lib Dem free politics in this country, I want a radical force which has something more to say to the country than the bland mainstream “centrism” I have just heard Clegg spouting on Andrew Marr!”
Tim, could I ask you what I think is a key question? Looking at people on a left-right basis (which, of course, isn’t the only way on looking at them) which party would you want people in the middle (say) 25% of the spectrum to primarily vote for?
“True enough if we did go from a coalition with Conservatives to a coalition with Labour we would be vulnerable to reduced support.”
Martin has it totally correct with this statement, especially in places like Rochdale were the Conservatives always come third. The Liberal Democrats have won this seat in the past with considerable blue support diminish that support in any way and we lose the seat. For evidence look at the recent General Election results:
2001 – Labour: 19406, Lib Dem: 13751, Con: 5724. LABOUR HOLD.
2005 – Labour: 16345, lib Dem: 16787, Con: 4370. LIB DEM GAIN.
2010 – Labour: 16699, Lib Dem: 15810, Con: 8305. LABOUR GAIN.
This trend repeats itself consistently throughout the recent past. Tell the conservatives to rid themselves of Labour they must vote tactically for us and they do so, when they think it’s safe to vote Tory the seat turns red! Imagine how many more would vote for their first choice if they thought we would put Miliband and Balls in Downing Street. The majority wouldn’t be small any more and the seat would be solidly safe Labour not the marginal it has been in the past few elections.
A coalition with Labour wouldn’t just wipe us out in Rochdale, I fear it would do the same across the whole of the North.
Simon, your question sounds as if it may contain an elephant trap!! I think one of the key points is that the spectrum overall seems to have moved “to the right” over a couple of decades (not totally unassociated with the success of nuLabour). I do think, in what we have seen of the recession, the erosion of middle to lower level incomes, the increased real threats from climate change etc, that it is part of our mission to position that spectrum more towards a more equal society, an understanding of what greenness might mean in both economic and practical terms (implicit is what is likely to happen without such green action), and more international terms. Yes, of course, Simon, we may not win votes from people currently wedded to neoliberalism in the short term, but we do incredible and continuing damage to our perceived trustworthiness among people likely to support our social economic and environmental values. Do you not think that is important? Or do you not share those values?
@ David Evans: ” Based on past experience I would suggest Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the next two generations to this one rather than your “Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.”
I was describing a general principle which they purport to subscribe to – I didn’t argue that they achieved it under Blair-Brown. As I wrote earlier, under those two, Labour ditched any pretence principles and governed on the basis of authoritarian-centrist-pragmatism.
If there was indeed a Liberal-Labour coalition, there is a greater chance that Labour might learn to govern fairly and practice some principles they have traditionally subscribed to.
“Since last February Labours average lead over The Tories has fallen from 11% to 5 or 6%. If that trend continues, as seems likely, then sometime this Summer the lead will dissapear.”
Actually, looking at YouGov, the first 5 polls of 2013 had an average Labour lead of 11% and the first 5 of 2014 have had an average Labour lead of 6.8%.
I wouldn’t be so bold as to say that or any trend will continue, but if it did Labour would still have a lead of 1.2% in May 2015, just enough for an overall majority on a uniform swing projection.
@ Will Mann – “That’s also the reason why the Tories and many in Labour want to keep FPTP, which as we generally agree, is unfair and the biggest single block to further Lib Dem advances in Westminster.”
Yes and no.
I’m delighted you agree that the Lib-Dem’s ought seek to win, but, but the biggest block to the party’s advance in Westminster is being irrelevant to electorate on the broader questions that command an opinion across the country and political divide. Navel gazing and pious muttering.
I like adversarial politics, and I accept FPTP for that reason, I simply demand that the Lib-Dem’s succeed with the system rather than whinge that the rules are unfair.
@Tim13
“Simon, your question sounds as if it may contain an elephant trap!!”
It depends what you mean by an elephant trap.
There are 3 obvious answers to my question: “Looking at people on a left-right basis (which, of course, isn’t the only way on looking at them) which party would you want people in the middle (say) 25% of the spectrum to primarily vote for?”
The answers are:
1. For the Conservatives
2. For Labour
3. For the Lib Dems
The problem with two of those is this:
1. If we expect people in the middle (say) 25% of the spectrum to primarily vote Conservative, then, together with the 37.5% who lie to the right of the middle, you are accepting a permanent Conservative hegemony in British politics (I’m ignoring the recent and temporary complication presented by UKIP).
2. If we expect people in the middle (say) 25% of the spectrum to primarily vote Labour, then where are the Lib Dems to be on the left-right spectrum? It seems clear that there are some Lib Dems who would say the answer is that the Lib Dems should be to the left of Labour. The main problem with that is that it is difficult to see how we can ever enter a coalition with the Conservatives.
It seems to me that there is only one logical answer to my question – that is that we expect voters in the middle 25% of the left-right spectrum to primarily look to the Lib Dems as the party which represents them.
And, just to be clear, I am not saying that our votes are ONLY to come from that middle 25%. I would expect us to garner some support from the more leftward 37.5% in particular.
@Helen Tedcastle
“Of course there are very awkward Labour politicians but at least Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor”
Helen, just to make the point that all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.
There is no “trend” of the sort mentioned above. You cannot pick two points on a complex graph and extrapolate a straight line into the future; that is statistical madness. Labour’s poll numbers fell slowly but steadily over the first half of 2013, but by mid-2013 they hit a floor and bottomed out. Since then they’ve remained steady. Tory numbers also fell over the first half of 2013, then rebounded in the 3rd quarter, and since then have also been flat. One cannot possibly project from existing numbers what will happen over the course of 2014 — that depends on events that have yet to happen — but the present-day trend, such as it is, is one of no change to a continuing Labour lead of about 6%.
@ Simon Shaw
You are assuming the electorate can be distributed relatively evenly across the left-right spectrum, But there is no reason why that should be the case and polling would suggest it isn’t. Nor has anyone explained why a liberal should of necessity find themselves in the middle of the left-right spectrum.
@AndrewR
No, I am not assuming that the electorate can be distributed relatively EVENLY across the left-right spectrum. What I am saying is that if you were theoretically able to RANK people then there would be the most left wing 7%, the most right wing 11.5%, etc, and there would be the middle 25%. I was asking about that middle 25%, i.e. in statistical terms the MEDIAN +/- 12.5%.
Also, nowhere did I say that a liberal should of necessity be in the middle of the left-right spectrum. My question was asked in terms of who do we expect “people in the middle” to mainly vote for. What is your own answer?
“Helen, just to make the point that all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.”
Agreed Simon, it is purely a matter of where one sit on the spectrum between enabling collectivism (positive liberty) and individual freedom (negative liberty).
No MAINSTREAM party does not accept the value of both positions, it is simply a matter of where they place the emphasis.
@Simon Shaw
You are assuming that this middle 25% have at least enough ideological homogeneity that they can be persuaded to vote for one particular party. But if the electorate is highly polarised then this middle 25% will consist of people who are strongly left wing and people who are strongly right wing and it is highly unlikely that they can be accommodated by one political party. So your question only works if you assume that the distribution is even enough to prevent this being the case.
@AndrewR
“You are assuming that this middle 25% have at least enough ideological homogeneity that they can be persuaded to vote for one particular party”.
No, I am absolutely not. That is why I specifically asked “who do we want (or expect) people in the middle 25% to PRIMARILY (or MAINLY) vote for?”
I never suggested they would all (or even most) vote for one particular party. I would just like someone who thinks the answer is anything other than “mainly for the Lib Dems” to say so, and hopefully explain their rationale.
(Incidentally, when you say “if the electorate is highly polarised then this middle 25% will consist of people who are strongly left wing and people who are strongly right wing” surely the “strongly left wing” will be within the 37.5% to the left of “the middle” and the “strongly right wing” will be within the 37.5% to the right of “the middle”. I’m effectively asking about the people who are NOT strongly left wing or strongly right wing.)
In which universe do the Conservatives subscribe to redistribution from rich to poor?
The comment from the Jedi at 12th Jan ’14 – 3:37pm seems to indicate a strange disturbance in the force.
Simon Shaw “…all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.”
I’m with John Tilley on this one. In which universe do the Tories subscribe, as a basic principle, to the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor? Perhaps someone should tell Lord Ashcroft…
@JohnTilley
@Helen Tedcastle
The progressive Income Tax system, for example, redistributes from the rich to the poor. Are you saying the Conservatives would scrap progressive Income Tax if they could? Really?
Simon Shaw, can you explain why you believe that the Conservatives believe in a progressive system of tax when all the evidence says that they do not ?
“In which universe do the Conservatives subscribe to redistribution from rich to poor?”
Simon Shaw has beaten me to it, but yes; the same universe where the very rich pay the same 30% of their income as the joe-the-plumber, 30% which is used to subsidise the enormous program of in-work benefits used by callcentre-sharon, and orders of magnitude in advance of the services those rich people might ever expect to use.
I do so love how some so called liberals refuse the concept of social responsibility
Who would that be?
Well, well, well. How revealing! Should the screen NAME of this regular commentator in LDV more accurately be JEDI-tea-party ?
” Joe-the-plumber “, we all remember him, a creation of the Far Right manipulators who are the shady people behind The Tea Party in the USA.
I doubt that Simon Shaw is too happy about being associated with that group’s perspective on taxation.
But at least we know which universe the LDV Jedi comes from. It is the universe where multi-billionaires complain that they are paying “more tax ” because they present taxation in terms of what they get back rather than in terms of their ability to pay.
jedibeeftrix 12th Jan ’14 – 10:19pm. Gives the game away when he says –
Simon Shaw has beaten me to it, but yes; the same universe where the very rich pay the same 30% of their income as the joe-the-plumber,
Two hundred years ago the allies of the Duke of Wellington would have recognised this argument against income tax. But then the Tea Party types probably regard him as one of history’s dangerous socialists. 🙂
@ John Tilley,
Not to defend young Jedi – he’s more than capable of defending himself – but there are honourable proponents of a flat tax, and given that the wealthy are offered a whole range of opportunities to reduce their exposure to tax that simply aren’t attractive to the rest of us (for reasons of risk, lack of opportunity or simply resource), one might credibly argue that ensuring that the rich pay at least the same proportion of their income to the Exchequer would be a start.
I’ll leave Jedi to respond to the accusation of ‘tea-partyism’… 🙂
@JohnTilley: I had assumed that jbt, wherever he had come across the phrase, was ignorant of its American connotations. However, it’s certainly true that jbt has always offered a right-wing view; on the other hand, over the past three-and-a-half years, discourse at LDV has shifted so far to the right that jbt no longer stands out as exceptional, a situation I don’t doubt he finds very satisfying.
Re. Joe the plumber : if you find yourself wondering whatever happened to McCain’s (non-plumbing) white-van-man and want a laugh then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber#Controversies
@ JT – “Well, well, well. How revealing! Should the screen NAME of this regular commentator in LDV more accurately be JEDI-tea-party ?”
Aha! It is nice to get back to a good bit of outing, it may disappoint you to realise that you are not the first. It is in fact a semi-regular occurance, but always treated with enormous gusto by those doing the grand reveal. Sadly for you, i did not say what you think I said, and thus the reference to joe-the-plumber does not mean what you think it means.
I did not call for flat taxation, i merely referenced treasury figures that show when all forms of taxation and benefit are taken into consideration all deciles within the british taxpayer base pay roughly 30% of their income. As this equation includes benefits we may consider this to be a redistributive society. Ol’ Joe was only there as an average income reference to distinguish them from a low-wage earner like Sharon who will be the recipient of working families tax credits and income tax credits by the bucketful.
I am sincerely hoping that the Office of Tax Simplification will result in an enormously more simple tax regime in Britain, as I find Brown’s client-state distateful, being willing therefore to tolerate a more ‘lumpy’ tax system in the name of Adam Smith like tax efficiency, but a closet tea-partier I am not.
@ Mark – Mid thirties, and not in fact calling for flat taxes there, as noted above.
@ David – Not ignorant, I am well aware who joe-the-plumber is. I simply don’t subscribe to the right-on mental conformity that treats ‘foreign’ ideas as the mark of Cain.
@JohnTilley
“Simon Shaw, can you explain why you believe that the Conservatives believe in a progressive system of tax when all the evidence says that they do not ?”
So “all the evidence” says that does it? How about giving one example of such evidence.
For myself, the reason why I said it was that, so far as I am aware, every Conservative government in history has operated a progressive system of income tax. But you may be right, maybe they didn’t actually really BELIEVE in what they were doing.
Mark Valladares 13th Jan ’14 – 7:38am
“… … there are honourable proponents of a flat tax … ….”
Well there are proponents. Not sure how honourable they are. Every member of the House of Comons is called honourable and that even includes Iain Duncan Smith and Nicholas Soames.
” … …. one might credibly argue that ensuring that the rich pay at least the same proportion of their income to the Exchequer would be a start. “. Well yes I certainly agree with that. People suggested that to my multi-millionaire MP who is Zac Goldsmith. I believe various members of the House ofLords have also been asked to pay UK tax, at least on the rare occasions when they actually visit the UK.
But why should membership of the UK parliament have anything to do with paying taxes? After all paying nothing is a type of flat tax. You cannot get flatter than nothing.
Do believers in a flat tax have to belong to The Flat Earth Society ? Just a thought ….. .. .
So Simon Shaw thinks that Conservatives in government are all nice people who BELIEVE in what they were doing.
What next? Conservatives in government who BELIEVE in what they are saying ?
I prescribe a nice lie down and relaxation cure for Simon, followed by repeated episodes of ‘ Yes Minister ‘ until he has recovered. After which he will hopefully no longer be hugging huskies and applauding the greenest prime minister in history .
@JohnTilley
You are doing what people do when they know they have lost the argument.
I was asking for something very straightforward: you said that “all the evidence” says that the Conservatives do NOT believe in a progressive system of taxation.
>b>Are you able to supply one example of such evidence?
It really shouldn’t be that difficult, should it?
We already have several ‘flat’ taxes. What matters is the overall system. Low earners on universal benefit will get to keep 35% of what they earn. The rich typically get to keep over 60% of their gross income. A fair tax system would be much flatter than the current one.
Have we really forgotten that in most seats we contest with the Tories, the tactical Labour vote is crucial? So far, in local elections, we’ve shown with a strong campaign we can still get people whose first preference is Labour to vote for us. If we keep on being identified as partners of the Tories, that will end at the national level and decline at the local level. Just look back to before we emerged as the clear alternative to the Tories in Somerset, for example. Labour were getting over a quarter of the vote in seats we now hold or are near to winning.
There are deeper implications of being willing to partner with the Tories but not with Labour because of fear of what it would do to our chances in the Tory/us marginals. We’d become identified as permanent add-ons to the Tories, something between the FDP in Germany and the Country Party in Australia. That way lies terminal decline or irrelevance.
Simon Shaw
A cursory glance at the key points of the last Tory manifesto reminds us that indeed the Tories are the party of cuts and sharing the proceeds of growth with their comfortably off ‘hardworking’ friends. Not much here on sharing wealth with the poor…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/party-policy/7159139/economic-policy.html#conservative
Perhaps this reminds us that without Liberal Democrat influence, the Tories on their own would have been even nastier.
So Simon Shaw thinks I have lost the argument. Why then does he continue to argue ?
Simon,
Helen has pointed you in the direction of the recent Tory Manifesto. She could of course have pointed you to every Tory manifesto ever produced.
I am not sure why you want to continue to flog the dead horse of pretending that the Conservative Party is in the business of redistributing wealth from rich to poor. It is patently nonsense. Pretending that the continuing existence of the current income tax system is somehow evidence of Tory beliefs or motives is a weak stance. It is made weaker by the record of the Tories in office. Perhaps the classic example in the last 30 years was the introduction of the Poll Tax. Go back and read what Thatcher and the Tories said at the time. In particular check the turnout of Tory Lords when the Poll Tax was voted on – Tory landowners who had not been seen near the Palace of Westminster for a generation or three turned up in droves to vote for the Poll Tax. They were more enthusiastic about that bit of legislation than they had been about anything for a very long time. The issue was simple if you do not remember, the Poll Tax meant that the Duke of Westminster (you know – the man who owns all the green and dark blue properties on the Monopoly Board only in real life) would pay the same flat rate tax as the poorest of his tenants. It was to quote the Conservtive Party at the time A FLAGSHIP CONSERVATIVE POLICY.
Evidence enough for you?
@jbt: Or in this case, the mark of McCain.
@ David – well quite, very witty indeed. 🙂
@ jt -“Pretending that the continuing existence of the current income tax system is somehow evidence of Tory beliefs or motives is a weak stance.”
No, not just income tax, the whole edifice of tax and benefits.
What you really mean is that it is not redistribute (enough), in your opinion.
@JohnTilley
“Evidence enough for you?”
No it’s not. If the evidence existed then surely you could produce at least one link to it?
May I remind you of what I said: “Helen, just to make the point that all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.”
So what I said was that not all three parties subscribe to the principle of redistribution to the same extent (that’s what “it’s a matter of degree” means) but that even the Conservatives believe in a massive redistribution from rich to poor.
The fact that you place so much reliance on the Poll Tax (which clearly was the opposite of redistributive) and ignored the 90% to 95% of other taxes applicable at the time, virtually all of which were progressive, shows what shaky ground you are on.
@Helen Tedcastle
“A cursory glance at the key points of the last Tory manifesto reminds us that indeed the Tories are the party of cuts and sharing the proceeds of growth with their comfortably off ‘hardworking’ friends. Not much here on sharing wealth with the poor…”
But the fact that the Conservatives almost certainly want less redistribution from the rich to the poor doesn’t mean that they want none at all, does it?
When you said that “at least Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor” I read that as you implying that the Conservatives DON’T subscribe to that basic principle at all. Did I misunderstand you?
Well, Simon Shaw, if you track back through this thread and read again what you have said on separate occasions you might notice some movement away from your original very categorical statement.
You originally said –
Simon Shaw 12th Jan ’14 – 1:26pm
Helen, just to make the point that all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.
Now you may have a different understanding of the words BASIC PRINCIPLE.
But I hope you are not going to ask me for evidence of what they mean and also ask for a link ?
Simon Shaw : ” I read that as you implying that the Conservatives DON’T subscribe to that basic principle at all. Did I misunderstand you?”
Correct. Tories do not subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution. If, as a by-product of tax -cutting, ‘hard-working’ people gain from savings made, then this is good for families as they see it.
They subscribe to shrinking the state and cutting tax – that is what motivates a Tory : http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Cutting_income_taxes.aspx
“Tories do not subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution. They subscribe to shrinking the state and cutting tax – that is what motivates a Tory”
I’m sorry to say, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
jedibeeftrix: “… the two are not mutually exclusive…” Which is why I was careful to explain that certain groups which ‘work hard,’ ‘play by the rules’ and are ‘savers’ to use Tory-speak, may well benefit financially from tax cuts and receive the proceeds of growth but that is a SECONDARY outcome. The primary principle is to cut taxes so that the rich have more incentive to be competitive, to generate wealth. On the previous link, one is hard pressed to find any reference to providing help for the poorest groups in society – unless one counts pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.
Those of us who regard themselves as progressives, start from the motivating principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor – Tories don’t, as I have tried to point out.
@JohnTilley
“Well, Simon Shaw, if you track back through this thread and read again what you have said on separate occasions you might notice some movement away from your original very categorical statement.
You originally said –
Simon Shaw 12th Jan ’14 – 1:26pm
Helen, just to make the point that all three main parties subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s a matter of degree.
Now you may have a different understanding of the words BASIC PRINCIPLE.”
What??!!?? You claim that there is “some movement away from your original very categorical statement.” You appear to base this on the fact you think I MAY have a different understanding of those words. I don’t.
What I am still waiting for is just one piece of evidence to support your claim that “all the evidence” says that the Conservatives do NOT believe in a progressive system of taxation. Do you even understand what a progressive system of taxation is?
@Helen Tedcastle
“They subscribe to shrinking the state and cutting tax – that is what motivates a Tory : http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Cutting_income_taxes.aspx “
Thanks for that link to the Conservative Party website, Helen.
Did you read what it actually said, and consider in what way it is any different to what a Lib Dem website would (and probably does) say?
Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty
We are helping hardworking people be more financially secure
We are cutting income tax for 25 million people – and lifting 2.4 million of the lowest earners out of income tax altogether.
By cutting income tax, we’re saving the average taxpayer £590 a year – ensuring they take home more money each week, and are able to provide for their families.
We have also cancelled Labour’s planned rises in fuel duty. This means you will save £11 every time you fill up your car – and means a motorist filling up once a week is already saving £360 a year.
These important measures mean that hardworking people are more financially secure, and have more to spend on the things that matter to them and their families.
Helen, I can’t help feeling that you have been taken in by the rhetoric of some on the Far Left, along the lines of “The Tories want to/plan to dismantle the Welfare State”. It they truthfully were going to do that, then it would be fair to say that the Conservatives do not subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution.
But they aren’t and it isn’t.
@ Helen – “Those of us who regard themselves as progressives, start from the motivating principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor”
And you’re still wrong. To rephrase the above:
“Those of us who regard themselves as conservatives, start from the motivating principle of providing opportunity for people to better their position in life.”
This is not a position that is antithetical to redistribution in theory, and it is not counter to what we see in practice.
They simply do not redistribute as much as YOU would like, nor bloviate on the ‘obvious’ moral worth of their stated commitment to redsitribution over and above all other motives.
An attitude that hannan once beautifully described as the triumph of the moralistic over the moral:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100024522/michael-moore-and-the-unquestioning-self-righteousness-of-the-left/
You remain wrong in your original rejection of what Simon said, just as JT is. Give up gracefully.
Simon Shaw
It’s amazing to me that some people think that the desire to rebalance the economy in favour of fairness, is redolent of ‘far left’ rhetoric. I never argued that the Tories wanted to dismantle the welfare state, though it is quite clear they wish fragment it.
This statement is similar to my view: “As Liberal Democrats we want to radically rebalance the tax system, cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes which we will pay for by cutting reliefs and closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest.”http://www.libdems.org.uk/your_money.aspx
You won’t find that kind of statement in the 2010 Tory manifesto – cutting tax loopholes for the super-rich, the mansion tax – curiously omitted from Tory policy.
Where is there any reference to just helping the curious grouping of ‘hard-working families’, so that they can ‘feel secure’ ? Instead, Liberal Democrats help a wider cross-section of society – the low earners and pensioners on low incomes: “We will raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to £10,000, cutting the average working age person’s income tax bill by £700 and cutting pensioner’s income tax bills by £100. These plans will mean that almost 4 million people on low incomes will no longer have to pay any income tax at all.”
Does any Liberal Democrat think that the policy of increasing the tax threshold would have occurred with the Tories governing alone? Only the most fanatically pro-Tory Lib Dem could believe that.
@jedibeeftrix: I won’t take any lessons from Daniel Hannan and the Tory right – can he really talk about the self-righteousness of the left with a straight face?
Simon Shaw
If we cannot agree on the meaning of the words BASIC PRINCIPLE, perhaps we can agree on the accepted meaning of the word SOPHISTRY.
sophistry [säf′is trē]noun
Sophistry is the deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false.
@Helen Tedcastle
“I never argued that the Tories wanted to dismantle the welfare state, though it is quite clear they wish fragment it.”
But that was what you were arguing, when you said: “Of course there are very awkward Labour politicians but at least Labour subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.”
If you acknowledge that the Tories DON’T want to dismantle the welfare state, then it is clear that they do subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.
You will recall that I originally said “It’s a matter of degree”. I think your most recent posting is in line with that.
@JohnTilley
Why do you have any difficulty with the meaning of the words “basic principle”?
Also, do you understand what my phrase “It’s a matter of degree” means?
@Helen Tedcastle
“Where is there any reference to just helping the curious grouping of ‘hard-working families’, so that they can ‘feel secure’ ? Instead, Liberal Democrats help a wider cross-section of society – the low earners and pensioners on low incomes.”
Helen, just to mention out that I think you are getting a bit hung up on the phrase “hard-working families”. Personally, I don’t like it (the fact that it is a favourite of Eric Pickles contributes to that) but I am fairly sure politicians in all three parties have used it, or something similar.
I can see no reason why it isn’t read to include low earners and pensioners on low incomes. Essentially, I think the phrase is intened to mean “people”.
Simon Shaw
“If you acknowledge that the Tories DON’T want to dismantle the welfare state, then it is clear that they do subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.”
The Tory Party contains people who would like to dismantle the welfare state eg: Liam Fox and the Tory right. Let’s not kid ourselves.
I don’t take the Tories at face value. For instance, David Cameron and Andrew Lansley were committed to no top-down reorganisation of the NHS before the General Election. They even fooled the Liberal Democrats.. If I believed that, then how disappointed, even disillusioned would I be when they reneged on their coalition agreement promises!
The Tories pay lip service to the principle of redistribution. If it wasn’t for the coalition, the rich would be doing even better under this Government.
“Hard-working people” – is not just an innocent phrase dreamt up by the cuddly Tories. It is a deliberate phrase used to attract those who define themselves as ‘working hard’ over against those who appear not to. It is a divisive, us against them phrase, which goes down well with a certain demographic.
One only needs to recall who Osborne, Gove and May attack constantly – the poor, the unemployed, immigrants – the understand who are not regarded by Tories as “hard-working people.”
Don’t fall for it.
@Helen Tedcastle
“For instance, David Cameron and Andrew Lansley were committed to no top-down reorganisation of the NHS before the General Election. They even fooled the Liberal Democrats”
Why do you think they fooled the Lib Dems, after all the Lib Dems wanted to do some major top down reorganisation so perhaps the Lib Dems fooled the Tories?
@ Helen Tedcastle
“Simon Shaw: “If you acknowledge that the Tories DON’T want to dismantle the welfare state, then it is clear that they do subscribe to the basic principle of redistribution from the rich to the poor.”
The Tory Party contains people who would like to dismantle the welfare state eg: Liam Fox and the Tory right. Let’s not kid ourselves. “
I think you are kidding yourself. Yes, if Liam Fox were Tory Party Leader (which could happen, I suppose) then there would almost certainly be less redistribution from the rich to the poor than under Cameron, the Lib Dems or Labour. But that is not what you are saying. I think we are back to being taken in by the rhetoric of some on the Far Left, but it is now amended to “A significant chunk of the Tory Party wants to/plans to dismantle the Welfare State”.
“Dismantle” means what it says.
“I don’t take the Tories at face value.”
Neither do I. It’s just that you give the appearance of taking Labour at face value.
“The Tories pay lip service to the principle of redistribution. If it wasn’t for the coalition, the rich would be doing even better under this Government.”
You are wrong on the first point, but correct on the second.
“’Hard-working people’ – is not just an innocent phrase dreamt up by the cuddly Tories. It is a deliberate phrase used to attract those who define themselves as ‘working hard’ over against those who appear not to. It is a divisive, us against them phrase, which goes down well with a certain demographic.”
Incorrect. As I stated before, it is a phrase used by all three parties. It is not divisive in the way you claim, it is actually quite clever (although still nauseating). The reason being that 80%+ of voters would categorise themselves as “hard working”. So many politicians use it instead of “people”.
So the “certain demographic” is virtually all voters.
“One only needs to recall who Osborne, Gove and May attack constantly – the poor, the unemployed, immigrants – the understand who are not regarded by Tories as “hard-working people.” “
That, again, is something that the Far Left repeatedly say, in the hope that others will believe it. I’m not saying that no senior Tory has ever attacked the groups you mention (a particularly nauseating Conference speech from Osborne maybe 18 months ago sticks in my mind) but the idea that they do it CONSTANTLY just isn’t borne out by the evidence.
@ Helen Tedcastle
“’Hard-working people’ – is not just an innocent phrase dreamt up by the cuddly Tories. It is a deliberate phrase used to attract those who define themselves as ‘working hard’ over against those who appear not to. It is a divisive, us against them phrase, which goes down well with a certain demographic.”
Helen, just to demonstrate that they are all as bad as each other on this, here are just a few Labour examples:
“Cameron seems intent on squeezing hardworking families and making them pay for his government’s cuts” – Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary.
http://www.labour.org.uk/cameron-is-making-hardworking-families-pay-for-his-cuts
“Ed Miliband has promised to show that Labour was back as the party of hard-working families at this week’s annual conference in Liverpool.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/24/ed-miliband-labour-back-families
“Children and Families Bill will do little to help hard working families” – Sharon Hodgson MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Children and Families.
https://www.labour.org.uk/bill-will-do-little-to-help-hard-working-families,2013-02-05
Simon:”… they are all as bad as each other on this.” Yes and no. Yes, political language has been reduced to stock phrases and sound-bites. As you point out, Labour and indeed Lib Dems use the ‘hard-working family tag’ not as a mantra but as a neutralising phrase (neutralising the Tories). I say this because who they regard as ‘hard-working’ differs from the Tories.
For example: the Miliband link you provide,goes on to describe these same hard-working families as ‘hard-pressed,’ victims of being ripped off by big companies; the Sharon Hodgson link describes hard-working families as those with special needs and disabled children. There is a slant towards righting injustices or helping those in need. I am not arguing that Labour are of always being on the side of the angels (far from it) but their starting point is in stark contrast to the motivations of Tories:
#Hard-working families’ for the Tories, are equated with a certain set of attitudes and ‘aspirations’ who strive to ‘better themselves’, in contrast to ‘others’ (shirkers perhaps – again, the unemployed, those in receipt of benefits, immigrants?) :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/meet-the-hardestworking-family-in-british-politics-8422961.html
To quote from the above article:
” The Conservatives’ new online ad campaign starts with a question: “Who do you think this Government should give more support to?” The gif file then cuts to an image of a family with Von Trapp good looks and teeth that dazzle, and the caption “hard-working families”. We then see a single man with a goatee sitting, feet up, on a sofa – the words “or people who won’t work” hovering, malignly, like a thundercloud above his head.”
The Tory philosophy is that of divide and rule, with emphasis on helping the comfortable and do it yourself type of demographic.
Labour are far from perfect, particularly under the disappointing Blair-Brown governments, ( there is a good argument to be made that Blair wasn’t left of centre but an authoritarian-centrist) but as a party, we have more in common with them than the Tory party.
@Helen Tedcastle
I see. When the Conservatives use this phrase, it is because they are heartless b******s.
When Labour use exactly the same phrase it is because they are caring and compassionate.
I’ll repeat what I said before, the reason why politicians from all over the spectrum use it is because virtually everyone who hears/reads it thinks the politician is talking about THEM.
Personally, I have never used the phrase and I hope I never do!
@Helen Tedcastle
I see. When the Conservatives use this phrase, it is because they are heartless so and sos.
When Labour use exactly the same phrase it is because they are caring and compassionate.
I’ll repeat what I said before, the reason why politicians from all over the spectrum use it is because virtually everyone who hears/reads it thinks the politician is talking about THEM.
Personally, I have never used the phrase and I hope I never do!
Simon, I simply think that our party has more in common with Labour – we start with some basically similar principles and motivations. If that makes Labour more compassionate than the Tories, it means we are too.
I have no illusions about Labour – they could not deliver effectively in Government from 1997 and have authoritarian instincts. We are reasonably effective in Government in comparison, despite our small numbers and we are committed to civil liberties as well as fairness. That’s why I believe that a Lib-Lab coalition would be a good complement.
The well-worn phrase we have been discussing is quite clearly being used to attract a certain demographic by the Tory Party (specifically Lynton Crosby) – the evidence is there – it’s a tactic of repetition reminiscent of the Republicans. i wish other parties wouldn’t copy it.
I am still puzzled as to what universe provides a home for the views of Simon Shaw when it comes to wealth and the Conservative Party.
Simon Shaw 14th Jan ’14 – 1:59pm
@ Helen Tedcastle
I think you are kidding yourself. Yes, if Liam Fox were Tory Party Leader (which could happen, I suppose) then there would almost certainly be less redistribution from the rich to the poor than under Cameron, the Lib Dems or Labour. But that is not what you are saying. I think we are back to being taken in by the rhetoric of some on the Far Left … ….
Simon Shaw cannot acknowledge Helen’s mainstream Liberal Democrat view so he introduces yet another false argument.
His suggestion is that Helen’s view iresults from “BEING TAKEN IN BY THE RHETORIC OF THE FAR LEFT”.
Is this deeply patronising or something else ?
Maybe Simon Shaw regards mainstream Liberal Democrats as the Far Left?
Simon Shaw has repeatedly said he believes that the Conervative Party, as a matter of basic principle , wants to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. Indeed, he said Conservatives believe in a massive redistribution from rich to poor.
Simon Shaw 13th Jan ’14 – 7:36pm
… … what I said was that not all three parties subscribe to the principle of redistribution to the same extent (that’s what “it’s a matter of degree” means) but that even the Conservatives believe in a massive redistribution from rich to poor.
@JohnTilley
What position (if any) do you hold within the Lib Dems?
The reason I ask is that you say that Helen has a “mainstream Liberal Democrat view”, and I assume that must mean that you must have some evidential basis for saying that.
Simon Shaw: “The reason I ask is that you say that Helen has a “mainstream Liberal Democrat view”, and I assume that must mean that you must have some evidential basis for saying that.”
As I quoted to you an extract from Liberal Democrat policy which concurred with my view, 13th Jan ’14 – 11:59pm:
“As Liberal Democrats we want to radically rebalance the tax system, cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes which we will pay for by cutting reliefs and closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest.”http://www.libdems.org.uk/your_money.aspx “…. perhaps this is at least some evidence to prove that my opinions are not ‘Far Left’ (unless Lib Dem policy is Far Left in your view)?
@JohnTilley
Have you ever thought what it means to redistribute from the rich to the poor?
The following are all examples of things which contribute to the redistribution from the rich to the poor:
1. A progressive taxation system for Income Tax where a larger percentage is taken from the income of high-income earners than it is from low-income individuals.
2. A system of welfare for those out of work or unable to work or in low paid work (including Tax Credit system and Housing Benefits).
3. State Pension system and other pensioners’ benefits.
Each of these is measured in tens of £billions. Between them we are into hundreds of £billions.
Are you saying that the Conservatives are planning (or would like) to do away with any of these three or all of them?
If not, you have to concede that the Conservatives believe in a massive redistribution from rich to poor (assuming you accept that something measured in tens or hundreds of £billions a year is “massive”). It’s all a matter of degree.
To say otherwise debases the language of political discussion (a favourite trick of the Far Left, and of the Far Right, for that matter).
@Helen Tedcastle
Could I ask a strange question?
What constituency do you live in?
Simon Shaw: “…you have to concede that the Conservatives believe in a massive redistribution from rich to poor ”
If you believe that, after citing what a COALITION Government is doing; without acknowledging what Tory policy actually was in 2010 ; without referring what Tory Ministers like Osborne, Gove, May actually say about the poor, the unemployed and immigrants – only stopped from unleashing their full instincts by Liberal Democrats; then it isn’t surprising that you think fellow Liberal Democrats are dangerous Lefties.
@Helen Tedcastle
Could you explain further? Please bear in mind that the issue is whether the Conservatives believe in NO redistribution from rich to poor, as opposed to less than you and I would support.
Also, I didn’t say that fellow Liberal Democrats are dangerous Lefties. That is what JohnTilley (who I suspect is not a Lib Dem) misrepresented me as saying.
What I do think is that some Lib Dems are inclined to believe virtually everything that the Far Left says.
P.S. What constituency do you live in? (The link to your website doesn’t work). The reason I ask is that I imagine that you may not be from the North which may be an explanation for your fond view of Labour.
Simon, I’m not going to get into disclosing personal information on a public website. Suffice to write that I have lived in the north and am under no illusions about either Labour or the Tories.
We have been discussing core motivations and principles, I have pointed out several times the pre-coalition policies of the Tory Party and the negative rhetoric of Tory Ministers regarding certain groups.
If you are happy with the Tory Party and it’s philosophy, that really is up to you.
Coalition with the Conservatives again … over my dead body! Coalition with Labour … despite Labour’s former spin doctors predictions, I think Labour will win an outright majority – with us about 5 net gains from Tories, net loss of 15 to other parties (mainly Labour, couple of SNP?
Poor old Simon Shaw, you just getting things wrong. But this time you are very, very wrong.
Simon Shaw 15th Jan ’14 – 2:23pm
Also, I didn’t say that fellow Liberal Democrats are dangerous Lefties. That is what JohnTilley (who I suspect is not a Lib Dem) misrepresented me as saying.
Not sure when you joined the party, Simon but maybe you were not around when Duncan Brack’s book ‘WHY I AM A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT’ was published. You will find my contribution on pages 127/8.
You may have missed the ALDC publication ‘COMMUNITY POLITICS TODAY’ which came out in September 2006, the chapter I wrote starts at page 57.
But you do not have to take these as evidence that I am longtime member of the party, you could just ask your ward colleague Iain Brodie-Browne. When Iain was the parliamentary candidate in your neck of the woods , I launched an idea that a couple of constituencies in the North should get help from outside in the run up to the 1983 general election.. I think I am right in saying that Nigel Ashton moved to Southport as a result; that’s Councillor Nigel Ashton – is he still chair of the Liberal Democrat Group on your council?
Just for the sake of completeness, Simon Shaw, in case you are under any illusions about my view of the Labour Party or the North
( as you rather patronisingly suggest to Helen Tedcastle. — Simon Shaw 15th Jan ’14 – 2:23pm. —
you may not be from the North which may be an explanation for your fond view of Labour. )
I won my council seat from the Labour Party and they were our main opponents for the 16 years that I was a councillor.
I was born in Wythenshawe, a part of Manchester that makes Southport look like the Paris of North.
In fact I have always regarded Southport as a bit middle-class and fancy. It says something about you if you think it is something else. Is it not true that your ward is just one big golf course? 🙂
Simon: You might like to consider what Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg gas said about the Tory Party recently: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/06/nick-clegg-george-osborne_n_4547973.html and https://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-lambasts-george-osbournes-monumental-mistake-37740.html
Speaking about the Conservative Party, Clegg commented:
“One is to remorselessly pare back the state, for ideological reasons just cut back the state. Secondly, and I think they are making a monumental mistake in doing so, they have said that the only section of society which will bear the burden of further fiscal consolidation are the working-age poor – those dependent on welfare.”
While, Clegg criticised the Labour Party for spending too much and being slow to learn lessons, his most savage and prolonged criticism was reserved for the Tories.
This suggests that the difference between the parties is not simply a matter of degree with regard to aspects of spending but real and distinct philosophical difference.
Clegg notices that Conservatives instinctively bare down on the poorest and least able to cope, in a drive to shrink the state.
@JohnTilley
I made the mistake of assuming that another member of the Lib Dems wouldn’t misrepresent what another member said.
You ask when I joined the Party. The first campaign in which I helped the Liberal Party was the February 1974 General Election. I joined later in 1974.
As you are an expert on where Lib Dems live, John, do you know where Helen resides? Or would my “ward colleague” Iain Brodie-Browne know?
@JohnTilley
“I was born in Wythenshawe, a part of Manchester that makes Southport look like the Paris of North.
In fact I have always regarded Southport as a bit middle-class and fancy. It says something about you if you think it is something else. Is it not true that your ward is just one big golf course?”
You mean Wythenshawe, sandwiched between Altrincham and Cheadle Hulme, two of the most affluent, middle class towns in the South Manchester “stockbroker belt”? Except Wythenshawe isn’t like its near neighbours, is it? Just like Southport isn’t like you probably assume it is.
Certainly my ward contains no golf course (although it abuts one called Southport & Ainsdale GC at it southern end). I assume you are thinking of the adjoining, very Tory, ward to mine, Dukes Ward where in 2012 my colleague Tony Dawson gained the first Lib Dem seat in 31 years – that is first time since I won it in 1981). Royal Birkdale GC occupies a large area, but it is in Dukes Ward, not Birkdale Ward, just to confuse things.
Which only goes to show that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
@Simon Shaw
“As you are an expert on where Lib Dems live, John, do you know where Helen resides? Or would my “ward colleague” Iain Brodie-Browne know?”
That is pretty outrageous Simon. The lady has already told you that she wished for her “personal information” not to be disclosed on a public website and she is perfectly entitled to that right.
For you to ask another member of your party and this forum if they know where Helen is from is in my opinion, intrusive and disrespectful.
I am quite frankly rather shocked.
@matt
Sorry, I missed Helen’s post.
I’m still not sure what the difficulty is in saying something like “I live in East Anglia”.
@Simon Shaw
There could be any number of reasons why Helen does not want to point people to the vicinity in which she lives.
She is perfectly entitled to keep whatever personal details private and that should always be welcomed and respected.