NEW POLL: Do you support Vince’s ‘mansion tax’?

Even Vince Cable now admits that his announcement during the party conference that he wants the Lib Dems to adopt a policy of levying a new tax of 0.5% on the value of properties over £1m could have been smoother. His failure to consult shadow cabinet colleagues, let alone the party’s policy committee, dented even Vince’s seemingly unassailable reputation. However, the process muddle is a side issue to the bigger question: is the policy right, and could the party campaign successfully on it?

First, the policy, and here are two alternative, liberal views. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has declared his firm support for Vince’s plan:

Property taxes are economically desirable, though the best such tax is on site value, rather than on completed development. What makes such taxes attractive is that they bear not on effort, but on “rent” – value over and above the economic costs of production. Income tax, by contrast, bears on successful effort. …

The case for imposing a proportional tax (proposed by Mr Cable at a mere 0.5 per cent) above this sum is, as Mr Cable himself has noted, that “Messrs Mittal and Abramovich in their £30m palaces pay the same as a [top band] family home, though their properties may be worth 40 or 50 times as much.” The top band is unreasonably broad. Only in a country both besotted with property and determined to tax the middle classes, rather than the hugely wealthy, would people object to this obviously just idea. The UK should either impose several further upper bands on the council tax, or a proportional tax within the top band.

Less enamoured of Vince’s proposal is Lib Dem blogger, and land value tax advocate, Jock Coats:

It combines everything we know to be bad about the Council Tax with none of what we promote as good about Land Value Tax. … It seems to me that it is primarily aimed at sating the desire for a particular type of modern liberal to hammer the wealthy in order to “redistribute” to the less well off, rather than to create a genuinely more equitable system in which taxation is transparent, applied as far as possible to everyone of a similar class – ie land owners or income earners and so on.

The greatest benefits of land taxes can only be gained when land taxes are applied to the sort of land that those of us struggling to find a home need to be cheaper – which means taxing all land. If we cannot
show these benefits, and quickly, then the arguments for land taxes will go stale before the benefits are apparent, and this sort of measure will foreshorten that process.

And now let’s turn to the campaigning issue. Here, again, opinion may well be divided. When Vince first floated his ‘mansion tax’ proposal 18 months ago, he was forced to drop it under pressure from colleagues whose concerns included the impact it might have in the eyes of middle-class voters who aspire to live in £1m+ houses. I suspect this concern is over-done. After all, a home-owner in a house worth £1,000,001 would pay just half a penny in ‘mansion tax’ annually.

I was very struck listening to Lord (Michael) Heseltine’s comments on the issue of the ‘mansion tax’ on BBC1’s Question Time on Thursday night. He dismissed the idea as “mad”, and then let his rhetoric run away with him, ridiculing the very notion of property taxes – allowing David Laws to well-and-truly skewer him by pointing out it was Hezza who brought in the Council Tax, the most regressive property tax invented. Lord Heseltine did at least have the grace to look embarrassed. (You can watch the 5-minute exchange on BBC iPlayer here about 35 minutes in).

His attack, though, was the one we could expect to hear from the Tories if we did adopt the ‘mansion tax’ – that it’s a tax which will hit hard those living (I quote Lord Heseltine) “in a modest terrace house on the periphery of central London”. Now I’m not an expert on London property prices, but when I checked out the BBC’s UK house prices webpage from May, it showed the average terraced house price in Greater London to be £352k. In fact there were only two authorities where the price of the average terrace house exceeded £1m – Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. In a further 30 Greater London authorities, the average terraced house costs less than £1m.

My guess is that the ‘mansion tax’ will likely prove popular among Lib Dem voters, and those thinking of voting for the party. Indeed, the fact that the party’s ratings are up above 20% in the two post-conference polls to date suggests voters did not exactly recoil in horror from the idea (though these are doubtless only temporary surges that will even out as the party conference season progresses).

Such are my thoughts on the ‘mansion tax’ – but what do you, LDV’s readers, think of it all? Here’s the new poll question:


Feel free to show your working in the comments below …

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Voice polls.


  • Matthew Huntbach 26th Sep '09 - 11:05pm

    It says a lot that dropping the abolition of tuition fees seems to have been regarded by the comentariat as far less damaging electorally than this mansion tax. I.e. a few very wealthy people living in luxury are regarded as more important than a much large number of young people. This shows just how appallingly biased the commentariat are in favour of the rich. It also shows the utter stupidity of the anti-politics “I don’t bother voting” mentality which is sweeping across the young. If a small number of very rich people can exert more electoral pressure than a very much larger number of young people, then politics will go against the interests of those young people.

    Jock Coats is showing his true colours here – he’ll say he’s theoretically in favour of land value tax, but denounce any attempt to move towards it as motivated by the wish to “hammer the wealthy”. Well, sorry Jock, but when I have to pay large amounts of tax on my income, and much wealthier people don’t have to pay tax on what they take from community generated land value, yes, I WILL hammer those wealthy. The recent economic crisis in this country shows many of the wealthy deserve a thorough hammering – this wealth is not generated by true hard work but rather by exploiting their privileged position to rig things in their favour.

    The arguments that are being used against this “mansion tax” could be applied hugely more to a proper land value tax. So if they are employed here, how much more would they be employed if full LVT were proposed? If we are meant to feel sorry for people living in huge houses who could move to something smaller and still live in luxury and not pay this tax, or who could very easily arrange for an equity withdrawal scheme of payment, how much more would we be made to feel sorry for low-income people living in moderately sized houses with a bit of garden who would be hit hard by LVT? If we are told this tax is crazy because it’s impossible to value a house, how much more crazy would we be told a tax based on nominal rental value of the land it sits on is?

    We can see that the likes of Jock will go on about how in theory they are have the answer to the problems of wealth inequality which their “libertarian” politics leads too, telling us about supporting LVT in theory, but that part of their politics will never get wider endorsement. The other bits of their politics, however, the bits which favour the rich will be enthusiastically endorsed. And, funnily enough, it’s those bits which they are most keen on shouting aboutthemselves – the bits which sound like Thatcherism – cut tax, cut public services. They don’t seem to have any problem with that when it comes to it being a bad idea because it’s not the full package.

    So, if we are going to shift taxation off income and onto land, we must start somewhere, and this seems to be worth flying to see if people can be got to see the benefit of it.

  • Andrew Duffield 26th Sep '09 - 11:12pm

    All Vince had to do was to bring forward extending SVR/LVT to domestic sites too – as per the Party’s agreed longer term objective. SVR/LVT is already Lib Dem policy for commercial land, for development permitted land and for second homes. Completion of the national land register is a necessary precursor to such a policy in any event, making SVR/LVT for all land a straightforward step. With so many homes now being used for business purposes – or as buy-to-let “businesses” in their own right – there is unavoidable economic logic to such an approach.

    Martin Wolf and Jock Coates completely co-incide over that fact that “economic rent” is the natural, equitable and socially just basis for taxation. In both theory and practice, taxes on productive endeavour in the form of imposts on income, employment, and enterprise are economically harmful, socially regressive and ultimately unsustainable. Vince knows this of course – and has already publicly floated our ditching of LIT. Not before time.

    David Laws and the Party as a whole would be far more effective if they were to ask the Heseltines of this world – as Churchill did to LVT detractors 100 years ago – “where does property wealth come from?” Laws had the perfect opportunity to do this when Hezza cited his imaginary couple in a million pound Kensington pad, bought for £300k. Any uplift due to their own effort and capital investment should be theirs to keep. No question. However, the uplift due to the effort and investment of the wider community – almost certainly larger part – morally belongs to that community and should be collected accordingly, and in lieu of other (damaging and deadweight) tax.

    I never cease to be amazed by the fact that , as a Party, we are signed up to this principle as equitable and appropriate for so much of our nation’s most precious and abundant natural resource, yet apparently so reluctant to complete the fiscal equation by extending social and economic justice to domestic property as well. Vince’s “mansion tax” is an unbelievably poor substitute, raising a paltry amount for the flak involved. Indeed, it is little more than a new “super-council tax” band – with all the inequity associated with that particular regime.

    One thing’s for certain; SVR/LVT it ain’t.

    Given the desire of our Policy Committee (not to mention the wider party and a large swathe of the electorate) to find a way of retaining scrapping tuition fees as a key – and immediate – policy plank, surely the simple extension of SVR to ALL land, with deferral options for the “income-poor/asset-rich”, should form some part of their calculations going forward. I bloody well hope so.

  • I totally approve; taxation must be fairer and progressive.
    I also approve of the way it was done; at this last conference before the GE it was necessary for Vince to float some big ideas, otherwise what would have been the public impact of our gathering.
    Reading between the lines it seems he has tried to get it past his parliamentary colleagues for some months without succcess, so he just had to go over their heads to the party and public. Good man.
    I thought Heseltine deliberately mischievous and misleading, to the point of inciting passion in the normally too-cool (but excellent) David Laws.
    So if the Hezza line is the tory rebuff it behoves us to get out there and explain it properly.

    Having said all that, I would like more clarity on the valuation aspect. Current council tax is based on a valuation from before the housing boom; Stephen, can you find out from party sources more about the valuation dating?

  • I think it is stupid. It isa lso poltically naive. There seeme to be some concept that the poorer and working class sections of society want greater and greater handouts and more and more punishement of those who have managed to get money and better houses and standards of living. We don’t. It is absolutely insulting to think people want “help” and handouts and extra concessions. The working class was proud to pay its way and a proud quote would be “I have paid my taxes” menaing I am part of the society that is part of society and able to contribute. You really are insulting. We and my forebears want to be independent, self sufficient and have enough money to cover living with extra for planning and going forward. It does not take much and less than you think. A million pound house is not a lot these days and may have got there after half a century of saving, working and buying the next property. Why pick on these people. Many may have started as working class investing in buying their first run down terraced property 5o years ago instead of putting it in the pub and living in a council property.

    I think a lot of money could be saved by reducing the fat hiearchy of public sector jobs, the impossible increasingly complicated bureacracy which hinder anything getting done. The rip off services making money out of govt and local govt. £150,000 consultancy fee for somthing which was never started. A simple plan for a short railing near a car park entrance going from £1500 for parts and labour to over £15000 for surveyor, health and safety paper, etc etc. Also make compensation cases faster and cheaper. Service men exposed to Hydrogen bomb and miners with lung disease still have not got their compensation, but solicitors have made millions off pursuing it. Some the criminal court has already past that a crime has been committed and the person guilty of damage, negligence and assualt. Person ahs been sent to gaol. But compensation court continue to argue who was at fault decades after. Still no money fro man in wheelchair with full head and spinal injury dribbling and pooing and weeing in his pants. That should be changed.
    Also a lot of courses are a lot of rubbish. A fought to do “o” and “A” levels in the evening while working to go to have a Degree. I enjoyed myself although struggling. but it was a load of nonsense. Totally useless in the wroking life. As far away with the faeries as you could get. Except for some intense course I think many skills could be done in a module way. So the person can take the module while working or bringing up kids or whatever. Being taken out of the workforce, do nothing but silly ivory tower studies for 3-4 years and live in poverty and struggle with no life or prospects during these years is MAD. There is no sense to the Liberal Dem ideas. Created in a political cocoon and an intellectual void over breakfast starring out the window of the Bournmoutg hotel watching the waves. Obviously doing the saem as Gordon and Dave. Opening your mouths and coming out with the first idea before checking it is viable or achievable. You missed your opportunity at Bournmouth. You had two open goals with no defence with the opposition. A total given to you opportunity and you missed it. Not only that you managed to score several own goal even though you did not have anything to defend, give away several penalities to the other sides and shoot yourself in the foot. and I would say managed to piss down your own ankle. I looked to you and it was a shambles. So angry I would not vote for you. Will only vote for my local Lib Dem because I want to get the Labour MP out and the Conservative looks like a Nadine Dorries simpering airhead lookalike. REALLY FURIOUS at your performance. For an example of what I think of Cleggs speech please see rendition of “If I Rule the World” from Harry Secombe on youtube. I would also suggest looking up “Time Warp” from Rocky Horror and replace it with “Lib DEm. Should be your dance and song. That is what you remined me of. Absolutely furious. Whoever gets wins the country will lose.”

  • “I suspect this concern is over-done. After all, a home-owner in a house worth £1,000,001 would pay just half a penny in ‘mansion tax’ annually.”

    But that’s not how taxes affect public perception. With the 50p tax band someone just over the threshold would hardly have paid any extra tax but it still had an impact on our support.

    @Philip Young
    The general view on opinion polling in conference season is you need to wait till all three have happened to get a true picture as there is a little spike for each party after their week. That said I’d rather see us at 22% than 15%¡

  • Matthew Huntbach 27th Sep '09 - 8:22pm


    Since Henry George was himself a Libertarian, and practically no libertarian/anarchist/mutualist questioned the fact that the “land question” had to be solved somehow until the nineteen thirties, I am at a loss to follow your reasoning that because I am a libertarian I will therefore ultimately not want this to happen.

    If everyone who called themselves a”libertarian” wrote as Henry George did, I would have far less to disagree with them than I do have. But my experience is that the word is used now by people whose sole concern is cutting down taxation and cutting down government services and so placing us all in the hands of big business. If LVT is a central part of it, I don’t hear people who call themselves “libertarians” saying so, and arguing as forcefully about the theft of land value as forcefully as they do about “evil gummint” and the sad plight of businessmen in today’s world and so on.

    Maybe the word has been stolen from you, and I’m suggesting by hanging onto it, you’re keeping bad company. Otherwise, if you insist that modern “libertarians” are all really Henry George fans, well, it might help their case if they made that a little clearer and said a little which suggested that was so.

    I think what is happening, however, is that vested interests will always take from an ideology what suits them and quietly drop the bits that don’t. So one can very easily see how it suits certain people with financial strength to claim to be “libertarian” but drop the LVT bit. We can very easily see how most forms of socialism have gone that way.

    With the “mansion tax”, it was suggested as an idea, I felt it valuable because it did shift discussion away from the idea that the only fair tax was an income tax. I can also see that the arguments raised against it are the same arguments that would be raised – but on a hugely greater scale – against LVT. So it seems to me that even if the mansion tax is a very poor form of tax, it serves at least to start a useful discussion which could eventually lead to the case for LVT being better understood. It may also help iron out some of the practcal difficuties that would be involved in getting LVT going, most obviously the “poor widow in a big house” one.

    You were quoted pouring scorn on “the desire for a particular type of modern liberal to hammer the wealthy”. I note that Henry George was not so reluctant to use strong language against the evils of poverty. I just looked at an example, here. I rather feel that if anyone were to come out with language like that today, the modern libertarian would be screaming abuse at him, saying he was just “envious”, and “enemy of wealth creation” etc. He would be just that sort of “modern liberal” you despise.

  • Cllr Patrick Smith 27th Sep '09 - 9:18pm

    The `Mansion Tax’ is targeted at the top tier of 250,000 one million pound property owners, who will be asked to pay a small half percent levy, as their share of this masterful progressive taxation measure, to enable 4 million lowest band taxpayers, earning up to £10K a total tax free income.

    The least off will be helped and this is a tax policy measure that will remain unequalled as the best example of `fairer taxes’ during all the Conferences.

    It is true that some of higher rate `mansion tax’ payers would claim that they are home owners too but their taxation contribution is far less than this Government`s harsh taxing of the least earning 4 million families during this tough recession.

    Labour taxes the worst off working class families and Vince Cable seeks to allow them all a £700 tax refund.

    I suspect that many of the top tier property owners will also vote L/D in the coming Elections as history has shown in the `Peoples` Budget’ 1909, the landowning hegemonic power of the H of L`s was reformed, as a result of the watershed progressive taxation principle from Lloyd-George`s measures on land values, that paved the way for the first Old Age Pensions and Unemployment Benefit in 1911.

    In both cases, the Liberal progressive national taxation was seen as being fairer and giving more control of earned income to the least off working families.

    Vince Cable is destined to storm the country with his package of economic reforms that are fairer and progressive taxes than anything else on offer and by shifting help to those who need it most and by including savings on the daily wasted resources, in the NHS.

  • Where I feel uncomfortable with all this, is the presumption of having to earn money in order to continue living in an expensive house (should it be sold).

    Suppose you lived in a zero carbon house that was valued at £1m. You’d worked like a dog to get the money to build it. It has good sized grounds that contribute to that value, and you’re pretty much self sufficient utilising that land to its full potential. You didn’t build it to sell it on, and are pleasantly surprised that what you have done is valued so much for it to be valued at £1m. It was your dream to be able to have a minimal effect on the environment and do something that showed a way for the future. You draw very little from the outside world, but play a role in helping other people interested in similar projects. As a result your outgoings are very low and are covered by your income without much to spare. When embarking on this project you budgeted carefully for how you’d draw in enough money to survive. A tax on the value of your house and land of 0.5% would mean you’d have to radically rethink your plans – as you’d need to find £5000 to cover it – more than you’re earning a year at present.

    Sure so this is hypothetical – but it’s not improbable. And I can’t see it as anything but wrong that someone who’s chosen to lead a life like this, that most of us would consider to be responsible (in terms or green living) if not virtuous, could have it blown out the water like this.

    In a sense it seems almost regressive to state that people can only live in expensive homes (which they may have spent their whole lives working for) if they continue to have a notable income.

    Interested in people’s take on this – or if I’ve just got the wrong end of the stick…

  • I’m not suprised you lose. So conerned with intellectualism of every arguement you forget the people involved. OH Yes. The people of this country who needs a party that represents all their interests instead of being sectarian and partisan. You are so incredibly insular, selfish and spiteful in your values and views I’ll not be surprised you do not end up all being little Hitlers to other people’s lives when you get in. Not LIberal or DEmocratic at all. Vicious virtriolic postured on intellectual rhetoric to try and make it look good. I don’t see how you represent planet earth when you are not of this earth. Partisan poltics again with no respect for anyone who’ life, family or home that stands in your way. “Shoot the Rabble” They are nothing. Britain has no hope in you lot either.

  • Matthew Huntbach 29th Sep '09 - 11:13pm

    JBK, if your point was addressed partly to me, can you say just what it was that I wrote that was “so incredibly insular, selfish and spiteful “? The argument here seems to me to be about practical issues. Some are saying real freedom is the absence of any but the most minimal form of government, this point of view has come to be known as “libertarianism”. This is something with which I disagree – I tend to feel that great imbalance of wealth is a barrier to the freedom of those who don’t have it, and that government action to redistribute wealth can on balance increase freedom. Why do you consider those who discuss these issues from different points of view to have “Partisan poltics again with no respect for anyone who’ life, family or home that stands in your way”? I have been involved in politics for many years, given a great deal of my time and money to it, and my motivation has always been to make people’s lives better. Why do you think this is not so?

    The particular issue here is that I feel much of the concern I have about the “libertarian” position would be answered by the introduction of a form of taxation known as “Land Value Taxation”, which some from that position advocate. I am suggesting if they spent more time talking about that and its benefits, and less on saying things like “cut taxes and cut government services”, I would be happier with them. In particular, I feel it would help separate them from those who say “cut taxes and cut government services” because they are rich and don’t like the idea of a fairer society and are rich because they have managed to gain control of things like land which enables them to profit from the hard work of others without them doing any hard work themselves.

    The point is over whether a small tax on very expensive houses would be a move towards this position or not. Jock is arguing that it is so far from a true Land Value Tax that it is a bad thing. I am arguing that although it is far from that, it does at least enable some of the issues which support that idea to get a discussion. On this point, Mark Wright, who like Jock but not me calls himself a “libertarian” agrees with me.

    But where is any of us saying this spiteful or not of planet earth or any of what you wrote?

  • Matthew Huntbach 30th Sep '09 - 12:58pm

    Yes, of course JBK is a troll. So let’s challenge this troll and show him up as stupid and gutless because he is unable to reply to someone is giving him the chance to prove otherwise.

  • Blimey people – never let it be said again that Liberals are limp-wristed tofu eaters, theres some real vitriol in some of these comments.

    I think the above debate answers the question about why Vince Cable announced the policy he did in the fashion he did. First it was simple enough for the electorate to grasp in 30 secs of headline browsing the next day (modest tax on those with very big houses) unlike the intricacies of the debate above. Second by just sticking it out there he kept all this bad blood between party members in chat rooms rather than letting it spill on to the conference floor. Therefore right policy, right approach?

    At the risk of starting another personal grudge match by picking up on another person’s specific comments – ‘a million pound house is not a lot these days’? Wow – even where I work in the City theres not many people with the chutzpah to drop a comment like that.

  • In order to get the economy up and running the people need to be left with their money. No point blaming the rich and those who have been able to better themselves for the economic mess created by eco mega gods and a short sighted govt. Britian loves to make things more complicated then it is. Layers and layers or bodies and buearocracy more and more experts, investigations etc etc. Costing more and more of public money. I do not mid paying tax and NI. To exclude us may be used to exclude us from having a voice or services. 10p tax good idea. Reduce costs and public sector non-jobs. Stop the rip of of public money by solicitors and advisors takign cases and projects through a longer stupider processes. If I put a small railing in my backyard of 12ft to cordon off an area the cost would be negligble. Do the same at the entrance of a car park and it costs £30,000. STUPID!! Stop blaming the rich and those who have survived. It is just inappropriate childish jealousy than mature intelligent poltics. We need people to keep the money they have to spend and build and get out of the recession. Not pay taxes for some beaurcrat to drag out another much needed services for the sake of grabbing more expenses on it. Lib Dems. More like a Facist Tory party. Just call Clegg “Il Duce” get him sing Harry Secombe’s “If I Rule the World” and go watch “Time Warp” from Rocky Horror show as your suggested Party theme song, rant and dance. Not a braincell among you. Just vitriol.

  • JBK – I feel your pain! I started my career at the National Audit Office. Concerns about waste in the public sector are fully justified. Lots of services are being provided without asking whether (a) anyone actually wants them; (b) they are better provided by the private sector; (c) government is capable of providing them efficiently and effectively. Cuts do need to be ‘savage’, the government is squandering money that could be better utilised by the people who have earned it. And yes there is a lot of wealth envy in Britain, rather than acknowledgment of success…….

    However, surely this is to advocate reducing income tax (which hits the money people who get off their backsides and go and earn). These views are entirely compatible with a modest tax on those individuals who have made huge capital gains on property, through no exertion of their own, but purely because the government has allowed loose monetary policy to create an asset (housing) bubble?

  • I do not have pain. I have fury. With the same old sectarian politics and answers going round and round and round.
    As for people not getting off their lazy backsides. I would like it shown just how many workplaces are dangerous and unhealthy and more disfunctional than functional. Many people go to work, but they are not the ones who want to work. There is a lot of power politics and positions and cliques at work. Like school many do not want to work but will undermine those who do. I have worked all my life. But I have been punched (for resisting an advance and exposing) I have worked hard just to have my work destroyed. I have been denied breaks and had to sit in my own urine for 4 hours on a 16 hr shift. As a woman I have been propositioned so many times and it made clear my “job” depends on it. When I stand up the Unions don’t support and I get damage to vehicle, harassment and false complaints to the police. Many at work live in environments that are abusive and unhealthy. At the top of the league for Bullying, Harassment, and people dropping out and being damaged permanenlty with stress are public sector places. Teaching, NHS and local government. Even so called support services and representation services. Nurses have the highest rate of suicide among females. A third of nurses drop out of nursing. 13,000+ in 2004. 56% of student nurses dropped out last year. Not because of pay or conditions but because of bullying and harassment and bad management. Because they cannot ensure patient care and are threatened if they try to do so. Its Ok to blame people who are not working for the problem (even when there is a recession and less jobs and business) But how much is cost by accidents and abuse and unhleathy workplaces? Over a million people have serious head injuries in this country each year. Many by assualt or culpable accident. Of those a two thirds will not be able to do fulltime jobs again. A third will be so affected they will not be able to manage their own affairs and be with spinal injuries and wheelchairs or mental effects and in institutions. Back injuries are an real injury and the effect is well known. Many are being signed off at the moment because of the govt pressure. A friedn has seriously crushed his legs and it has taken ages to get them back. Nearly ahd them amputated. They found they had done the surgery wrong and he needs it all to be re-done again. He cannot go back to work – as a despatch rider – as if he is in another crash the legs will shatter and he will have to lose both legs. So in the govt review. Just a few days after being told the good news that he has to have two serious opperations on his legs again he is written off the benefits and told to go back to work. He cannot even balance the weight of his bike. Also he was a Fireman and was in the Kings Cross fire. Got PTSD. had to pack it in and went despatch riding. The m inuet he got written off his benefits stopped. No money fro anything. When he goes for hos surgery he does not know if they will be able to save them or have both his legs removed.
    I hate quick swift answers to everything. It is offensive and insulting. There are other ways. The system is too complicated and unhelpful. A monster that serves itself. Many disabled would like to work, but would lose out and only be on less han minimum wage and further endanger their health. There are simpler solutions. But the best and easy way is to find someone to blame and cause a witch hunt and start building the fires. After being raped and arm in sling I was off work. I was punched in the face and dragged round the pub with my hair again because I was not working. I am sick to death for suffering for your bloody beliefs and blind sweeping prejudices.
    Support the simple common economy and make interventions simple and logical nd supprot to be practical and relevant. Despiet having arm in two slings never got simple help for say a few hours a week. Just counselling GRRR reiki, aromatherapy, art workshop etc etc etc. help with bills and shopping and houSework NO! And YES. I am permanently disabled now with severe impairment. But it would al have been different if the input and support had been different and simple and relevant. And yes I was advised by a Liberal counsellor to contact my sexual abuser and rapist and try and arrange to meet up with him alone and explaint to him why forcing me agisnt a wall, punching me in the head, putting his hadn and arm up my vagina and fisting me then raping me may have upset me – as he might not have understood or realised. Do you really know who you are talking to when you suggest things? People who are more qualified than you. Anther Lib Dem said it was OK as working class women are next to primates. Like i said. You are a lost cause. Dont’ say “Sorry” I am beyond it. I wish Lib Dems were something to believe in as a viable alternative. They are not. Just grasping onto ancient political straws that should have been burnt up long ago.

One Trackback

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David Blake
    I've just watched today's Politics Live. Yet again it's had a Conservative candidate (former MP) and a former Conservative adviser on a 4 person panel. They s...
  • John Waller
    @Joseph “The purpose of NATO is the defense of Europe”. Yes, so why does Stoltenberg want a NATO office in Tokyo. “Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only a so...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Martin Gray, "Unless that right is reciprocated why would should any Greek national residing in the UK be given the same right ?" It's probab...
  • Simon Banks
    Like Mark, I remember 2010. What struck me about that, was that once Cleggmania had given us a big boost, we seemed to have no strategy to exploit it. If there ...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Catherine, It's all law not just some law. This is how the EU itself puts it: "The principle of the primacy (also referred to as ‘precedence’ o...