The latest YouGov poll showing the Lib Dems at 10%, one of the party’s worst ratings in years, has excited comment, especially and not surprisingly among those who are pleased to see the Lib Dems struggling. Less surprisingly still, YouGov’s fndings attract more publicity among our critics than ICM’s polls, which show the party consistently at or around the 18% mark.
Credit, therefore, to the New Statesman’s Sholto Byrnes for bringing a quality on scarce display in political commentary: a sense of perspective:
Ever since I entered journalism I have noticed how quick many, if not most, commentators and political reporters are to dismiss Liberal Democrats as no-hopers not to be taken seriously, frequently rating their consequence by their relatively low numbers of MPs rather than the sizeable proportion of the electorate who have taken a different view – and voted for them. … not only have they been there before, but it’s been much worse. Those with longer memories will remember the chaos after the merger between the Liberals and the Social Democrats in 1988. … In [1989], the recently merged party achieved only six per cent in the European elections, being beaten into fourth place by the Greens. It was a woeful and dispiriting time to be involved with the party, and I can recall ratings far lower than ten per cent.
And yet. In 1992, the Liberal Democrat share of the vote was just shy of 18 per cent, dropping one percentage point in 1997, back up to above 18 per cent in 2001, and rising to 22 per cent in 2005 and 23 per cent in 2010.
For all that the coalition with the Conservatives may hurt the Liberal Democrat badly in the short run, the party has a habit of recovering from all sorts of disasters – not least the end of Charles Kennedy’s leadership, the perceived weakness of his successor, Ming Campbell, and the sad tabloid exposure of another contender, Mark Oaten – and achieving a share of the vote that would be hailed as a great success in countries that do not have such a skewed electoral system as ours.
Sholto’s conclusion:
Ever since 1983, roughly one fifth of the population has voted for the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors. It seems to irritate the hell out of those who believe, for some bizarre reason, that only the two big parties have a right to govern. … don’t count those pesky Lib Dems out just yet.
Now, before the C-word — complacency — is thrown around, let me be clear… the threat posed to the party by being in the Coalition is a real one. Though the party has been gaining members (just how many we will shortly see when the party publishes the ballot results for the all-member party presidency election), it has lost some long-standing activists, unable to stomach Coalition with the Tories, and/or the polices resulting from it. That trend may continue, both as the spending cuts bite, and if poor local election results unseat hard-working local councillors. The party knew — though perhaps did not fully appreciate back in those heady days of May — that the next few years would be tough ones in which to be a Liberal Democrat.
But just as complacency is entirely the wrong reaction, so too is pessimistic foreboding of the inevitability of the party’s wipeout whenever the next general election is held. We do not, can not, and will not know the political circumstances which will decide it for at least another two or three years (assuming, as currently seems most likely, the Coalition lasts most or all of the Parliament). There is a long way still to go, and it’s way too early to write off the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
Suzanne Fletcher
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
117 Comments
Stop kidding yourself m8 get out now why you can ,please tell me is this what Liberal values are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qagXyuEZaE&feature=player_embedded#!
if you dont get out now this will hang over the lib dems for years ,remember the Tories waiving their order papers when the cuts were announced ,why should disabled people feel scared ,shame on you all,i thought Nick was better than this
andy edinburgh
Good article.
Write them off? in 3 or 4 years they will have merged with the Tory party completely, there will not be a party to write off.
This article might give people the impression that YouGov is alone in giving the Lib Dems a poor opinion poll rating. In fact two other recent polls from Ipsos MORI and ComRes have placed the party on 14%. That is a repetition of MORI’s July figure, but with that exception it is an 18-month low. The ComRes rating is the lowest for nearly two years.
What really should be banishing complacency is that this is happening at a time when opinion in the country as a whole is still reasonably evenly balanced between supporters and opponents of the government and its policies, and when opinion polls show the Conservatives substantially above the level they attained in May.
So this is not down to the usual unpopularity of the incumbent government. The implication is that when the government really does start to become unpopular, the Lib Dem poll ratings are likely to drop even further. I’d guess that will happen in good time for the Spring, when there are not only local elections but – far more importantly – the referendum on AV. And even now the polls are showing a significant lead for the “No” campaign in that referendum.
We’ll know soon enough who’s polling is most accurate at next years elections but after Osborne’s vicious attack on the poor and vulnerable this week the ground game will be that much harder to win.
I think the point about the ‘disasters’ you highlight is that Liberal Democrats never lost the trust of the people through all those. After our couragous stance on Iraq, as well as strongly and consistently fighting for the poor and vulnerable in society, even our worst enemies had to concede that we had a reputation for fairness and honesty that was the envy of the other two Parties.
That is now being shattered into a million pieces, and whatever polling metric you care to choose, it’s blindingly obvious that it’s not the Conservatives who have suffered a poll shock, it’s the Liberal Democrats.
Because… “A person’s trust is like a virginity. Once it is lost, you can never get it back.”
There need to be a differentiation and disentanglement from the Conservative Party NOW.
Not two weeks before next years elections and AV referendum when it’s far too late.
It’s really quite simple.
Liberal Democrats are not Conservatives and we have to remind the electorate of that. Constantly.
The problem is Nick. He shows no inclination to do so.
It’s also not even close to a strategy to hope things will get better and that who knows what circumstances will miraculously turn up to save us. They won’t. As the “events dear boy, events” that are unforeseen in politics are bad 99% of the time for those governing, not the other way around.
Don’t get too excited, the cuts have yet to be felt. When 750,000 public sector workers are dismissed, the disabled unable to afford their care, unemployed made homeless, then we will see the true polls.
I think there is a comparison of apples and pears and there is a risk of complacency
I would think it is difficult to see the party recovering in the north and possibly Scotland due to the distribution of the effects of the cuts. In these places the party tries to attack Labour from the left but the hoisting of the colours to the Tory mast will make that next to impossible.
The party will now be perceived as centre-right at the next election and may hold on to some strength in the South, the Tories could also squeeze the party out though
Also, I cannot see any protest vote now going to the party – I do not find it inconceivable that the Greens will have more of the vote at the next election
As said before the identity has to be refound now – the image of Clegg and Alexander slapping Osborne on the back after the SR will haunt the party for a long time
“We do not, can not, and will not know the political circumstances which will decide it for at least another two or three years (assuming, as currently seems most likely, the Coalition lasts most or all of the Parliament”
To even think that this coalition will even come close to lasting a full Parliament is delusional. I know I keep repeating myself but in my opinion this coalition government will only last as long as it is convenient to the Tories.
To think that Lord Ashcroft has not already got wheels in motion to discredit Clegg and Hughes is very blinded, He has already been polling there constituencies and publishing results on his website.
Recent polls are showing that Liberal Democrats are taking massive hits, with most of the gains going to Labour and some to the Conservatives.
The only reason why the Conservatives would be scared stiff to end this coalition at the moment is because the Polls are showing that labour are only 5 seats short of a Majority Government.
If the Tories can find a way of taking some of them gains away from labour whilst leaving Liberal Democrats floating around the 10% mark, then you can bet your last quid, Tories would dissolve this government and go to the polls again in the hope of getting a Majority Government.
Matt – then Cameron would be at the behest of his own backbenchers. That’s the last thing he wants – he would much prefer to be relying on our votes. That’s how I see it, anyhow.
Personally – I think scrambling around trying to keep the protest and tactical votes rather than trying to get Lib Dem policies (even if compromised) into legislation would be the party really selling out.
If people voted Lib Dem when Clegg talked of ‘savage cuts’ and refusing to rule out coalitions with either main party and they still feel betrayed then what WOULD they have been happy with?
If the party had gone the other way and dealt with Labour – the Lib Dems might have lost the 10-14% of supporters that they’re holding on to and been left with, erm, roughly 10-14%….
@Foregone Conclusion
you seriously believe that Cameron prefers to be in a coalition government, rather than a majority?
Please elaborate, I am intrigued
Richard,
“Don’t get too excited, the cuts have yet to be felt. When 750,000 public sector workers are dismissed, the disabled unable to afford their care, unemployed made homeless, then we will see the true polls.”
You are making the mistake of assuming that the majority who will not be much affected by the cuts care that greatly about the minority who will be. Why do you think the Tory government is targeting welfare so heavily? Do you not recall the early 1980s, when there were in excess of 3 million unemployed, but the Tories still won a landslide victory at the 1983 general election? What probably will hurt the Tories is the reduced service people are about to receive from local councils, the health service and the education system, but that will take a while to kick in. So I anticipate a moderate slump in Conservative support registering from around early next year.
“I think the point about the ‘disasters’ you highlight is that Liberal Democrats never lost the trust of the people through all those.”
On the contrary, trust was the key reason given by people who deserted us over the 1988 merger. We had set ourselves up as the two cooperating parties who wanted to change politics and eliminate the yaboo element, yet we were exhibiting very publicly some of the worst excesses of the things people like least about politics. We have never fully recovered from what David Owen and his friends did. There are still people who won’t vote for us because of it.
I don’t think Clegg is anywhere near as malign a figure as Owen, but his crime is even greater. He has dragged the party to the right, he fought an election on a manifesto which he now says was a load of rubbish, and has sold the party out to our deadliest enemy getting nothing in return – at least not for the party or the British people. His crime is far worse than Owen’s, even if he is a substantially less repellent individual.
On the Polls, there is a consistent pattern, the better a Polling organisation did at predicting the GE result, the higher they have the Libdems. The group that came top was ICM.
The issue of trust, highlighted by @LDV Bob, seems to me to be a major difference between the current situation and those referred to by Sholto Byrnes in the article referred to in the original post. Some of those past negative incidents were unfortunate or about personal misfortune. They were not about the integrity of the party. Re-articulating an independent identity and differentiating the LDs from the Tories is a pressing concern.
On the recent thread discussing the prospects for the AV vote (http://ldv.org.uk/21711) the majority of comments are pretty downbeat about the chances of a yes vote without a clearer LD position. And commentators are sceptical about a yes vote even if the party does articulate its identity and achievements more clearly because of the negative social and economic context in which it will occur. If the outcome is a no vote then one would anticipate some very serious soul-searching – what would have been the point of so much compromise?
@Sesenco – As I recall a big factor in the 1983 GE victory was the Falklands War – let’s hope that something similar is not going to be manufactured to ensure Tory victory in 2015. Then the LDs really will be up the creek!
@Senseco
The knock on effect of the things I mentioned will affect all, which includes Conservative voters. Crime will rise as homelessness and poverty rises, with the reduction in police staff, prisons and courts, the situation will come to a head, sooner rather than later.
Alex M,
The Tory opinion-poll rating started rising before the Falklands War, in fact before the Hillhead byelection, which Roy Jenkins only just won.
Something similar could be manufactured. In two years time there may be a Republican in the White House installed under the clear instruction that he must go to war against Iran. Can you imagine Clegg uttering a murmur of dissent?
Richard,
“Crime will rise as homelessness and poverty rises, with the reduction in police staff, prisons and courts, the situation will come to a head, sooner rather than later.”
Crime rose markedly during the 1980s. However, the Tories succeeded in blaming it on the premissive society, single parents, trendy lefties, the previous government being soft on criminals, etc, etc. I’m sure they will do so again.
I’m pointing out that the Tory government is likely to become unpopular, but nowhere near as unpopular as the Major government, which was sleazy, bickered about Europe and lost its reputation for economic competence in September 1992.
“On the Polls, there is a consistent pattern, the better a Polling organisation did at predicting the GE result, the higher they have the Libdems. The group that came top was ICM.”
As a matter of fact, if we consider polls concluded 1-5 May, the accuracy of ICM is virtually indistinguishable from that of YouGov.
The average of ICM’s final two polls was:
CON 34.5% LAB 28% LD 27%
The average of YouGov’s final five polls was:
CON 34.8% LAB 28.2% LD 27.4%
The result (GB) was:
CON 36.9% LAB 29.7% LD 23.6%
Actually, YouGov got slightly closer, but perhaps that’s only to be expected as they conducted more polls.
Sorry going to re-post a message i did on another thread. Apologies to those who have already read it.
I think the problem for Liberal Democrats and for AV is now.
A) For Coalition to seem attractive to the Electorate, It needs too be seen that 1 Party is Curbing the Excesses of the other. I Think it is fair to assume that any Coalition Government would be, either a, Con-Dem Coalition or a Lib-Lab Coalition.
And for that Coalition to work and be acceptable in the Public’s eye they would want to see.
If It was a ConDem Coalition, For Liberal Democrats to infuse “Fairness” into the coalition and to restrain Tory Governments from hammering the poor and vulnerable (Conservatives have been known for this, for Decades, Liberal Democrats have accused Tories of being so fo decades, Just because your in coalition now does not make all those thought’s and feelings go away and is political Ignorance to try and think otherwise) They would also want to see Liberal Democrats using their position’s to prevent the Tories from destroying our Public Services, especially the NHS. ALL Liberal Democrats and Labour Supporters Remember how the Tories Destroyed our Public services the last time they where in power.
I think most people would agree that public services improved dramaticly under Labour (not to say there wasn’t problems)
If it was to be a Lib/Lab Coalition the public again would want to see the Liberals using their power to curb the excess of Labour. Although Public services improved dramaticly under labour, the amount of money that was wasted on Quango’s and Managments was getting riddiculous, it was something that Liberal Democrats and Vince Cable had been very vocal on for ages. The public would expect the Liberal Democats to play a major role in making dramatic improvements to Education and especially HE, Again Labour did improve standards over tories, but too much money was wasted in the wrong area’s. Liberal Democrat Policy would have brought balance, sense and major improvements to the system.
The reason it is not working at the moment is because Liberal Democrats are failing to curb those excesses of The Tory Government, they have always been famed for.
I think the public would have the same opinion, if Liberal Democrats had gone into coalition with Labour, and where failing to Curb, Labours Excesses, that so many people where unhappy with
B) Liberal Democrats, need to maintain a sense of Identity. It is also Vital to the Public that they are able to see that Identity.
At the moment to the public eye, It appears that we have Tory Government. And 63.52% of the Voting public did not vote for a Tory Government.
Disagreements in public between coalition partners is NOT a sign of weakness, It is a sign to the public that both parties are acting in what THEY believe is the national Interest. It is through those differences that balances can be found for fairer policies.
Having a media blackout from liberal democrats preventing them from expressing differences to Tory Policies shows great signs of weakness.
We all know where Liberal Democrats stood on polices at the start of the Election, And now we see them making complete U-Turn policies in favour of Tory Right Wing Policies.
Many of these changes in Policies where not known to the Public before the Election.
Because the Public do not know where the Tories or the liberal Democrats stood on these policies before they where announced, and because Liberals are preventing from expressing their views in the Public. We have no Idea what influence one party has had over the other, Therfore it will always appear as though Tories are getting there way yet again.
This again makes the Coalition look Weak and makes the proposal of AV less and less attractive.
For AV to win at the referendum and for the Electorate to be willing for more Coalition Governments. It is Vital that the Liberal Democrats be allowed to express differences in Public
The Tories will likely call an election when the Country goes into recession (let’s face it – it’s only a matter of time given that land/house prices haven’t deflated yet, combined with the removal of the aggregate demand by the cuts sending us into deflation/liquidity trap when consumer confidence evaporates and everyone starts hoarding baked beans, etc) but only if at the same time they have a lead in the polls. They will do this because of the rising level of dissent within the Lib Dem party and will say they need a clear mandate – they know that the Lib Dems will annihilated in two-way ideological war that follows. I’m off to the supermarket for my stash.
If the AV vote is a no, well the party is over in more ways than one.
“In fact two other recent polls from Ipsos MORI and ComRes have placed the party on 14%. That is a repetition of MORI’s July figure, but with that exception it is an 18-month low. The ComRes rating is the lowest for nearly two years.”
And actually the latest figure from ICM tonight – 16% – is very much in line with MORI, in that it repeats the June figure, but otherwise is the lowest for 21 months.
wow, you still don’t get it.
I have voted Lid Dem several times over the past 20 years but never again. Never.
I’m not a troll, I follow no party in particular etc
What you have done is beyond reproach, With the Tories, you expect it, but not from a party who said virtually the total opposite of what they are now doing.
Are their any Lib Dems willing to comment on this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/exodus-poor-families-from-london
I for one would like to hear a defence, although one happy side affect (for the Coalition parties that is) is that The Representation of the People Act 1983, which requires six months permanency of residence therefore making those of ‘no fixed abode’ unable to vote, so no only the Coalition are engaged in ‘economic cleansing’ it could also be seen as denying the right to vote to large number of people (the homeless and those in temp accommodation such as B&B’s)
nige (an angry ex LD)
There is solid evidence that Clegg and Cameron were bred by US military scientists at Roswell. Anyone who doesn’t believe it is in denial.
I work it out at 6.94% per annum cuts over 4 years = 25% cut from the original amount (you’re cutting from a smaller amount each year, so the percentage has to be higher than 6.25% to achieve the total)
0.9306^4=0.75
It partly depends how “very sort of evenly” they are spread, I suppose.
Doctor: “I’m afraid you’re going to lose that arm.”
Patient: “Oh my God, no!”
Doctor: “But the good news is that we can slow down the spread of the disease, so you need only lose a quarter of an arm per annum for the next four years. There. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?”
“Tory MPs were shocked yesterday after a senior aide to David Cameron suggested that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will remain Deputy Prime Minister even if the Conservatives win outright victory at the next Election.
Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, one of the chief architects of the Lib-Con pact, said the Coalition is a ‘bloody good thing’. There was very little difference between the parties, he said, and many Tories wanted the pact to carry on far beyond the present five-year deal.”
Why debate the future of the Lib Dems when it is clear that Dave and Nick have decided it between them. I was particularly interested to read that the government considers that there is very little difference between the parties. I was also interested, in the light of how hard Nick is suppoosed to be fighting for LibDem policies to hear Francis Maude say:
The two parties had hardly had any disagreements in power. A ‘coalition committee’, created to resolve disputes, had met twice: once to ‘say hello’ and once to discuss controversial health policies. Even at the second meeting there was no fall-out.
nige
“Are their any Lib Dems willing to comment on this?”
I assume you are talking about the very serious error of fact within the article. Did you spot it as well?
@ Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Feel exactly the same way, I’m no pro-Labour troll and have voted Lib Dem at the last two general elections.
I will never vote for them again. They campaigned as a party to the left of Labour and have joined an extremely right wing government.
The image of Clegg and Alexander practically jumping on Osbourne, as if he had netted a 92nd minute winner in the cup final rather than a devastating budget, sickened me.
I see a new BPIX poll also has the Lib Dems on 10% (though Anthony Wells wonders whether “won’t votes” have been excluded, as the figures would imply a very high percentage of “Others”).
“Though the party has been gaining members (just how many we will shortly see when the party publishes the ballot results for the all-member party presidency election), it has lost some long-standing activists, unable to stomach Coalition with the Tories, and/or the polices resulting from it”
So in other words the (long standing) left wing activists of the party are leaving and are being replaced with starry eyed right wing activists in love with Clegg.
But what happens when these love sick ‘activists’ return to their natural home, The Tory Party? do you imagine the ‘ Left’ will return or that the Party will crumble into insignificance from within?
At this point I no longer care if the party is wiped out electorally.
Why should I care at all when all my previous campaigning has achieved is a load of parliamentary representives who are doing the opposite of what we campaigned for.
The comments from many posting on lib dem voice nowadays calling long standing lib dem activists labour trolls and suggesting that the party would be better off without those of us who always believed that we where a centre left party with actual principles, and behaving with all the tribalism and calling white is blackism in regard to vicious cuts on the poorest in society has sickened me.
I no longer recognise this party, our leadership and a majority of our parliametarians who raise no dissenting voices are not distinguishing us in any degree at all from the conservative party. I can only conclude that the party has been aggresively infiltrated by right wingers in the same way that militant tendency once tried to infiltrate the labour party, except succesfully in our case.
So why exactly should I care anymore about this party? If i wanted to be in the Conservative party I would have joined the Conservative party.
@ Amy Mcleod
Well said, I cannot agree with more.
nige (ex LD)
*you
“I no longer recognise this party, our leadership and a majority of our parliametarians who raise no dissenting voices are not distinguishing us in any degree at all from the conservative party.”
The conduct of the leadership is, sadly, not so surprising, but the supine acquiescence of the parliamentary party is really depressing. I had naively hoped that some MPs at least were biding their time and waiting to see whether the poorest really would be protected, as we had been assured so many times that they would be. And that when it became apparent just how much of the burden was going to be borne by the most vulnerable, some of them would speak out in no uncertain terms.
It only goes to show how wrong you can be about people.
Prime Minister David Cameron pledged in June that the pupil premium would be funded by money from other government departments.
He told the Commons: “We will take money from outside the education budget to ensure that the pupil premium is well funded.”
But Mr Gove admitted to the Politics Show: “Some of it comes from within the education budget.”
So much for the much trumpeted pupil premium…. day by day the ‘concessions’ we hear so much about are falling apart. You get the feeling that if Cameron announced that the AV referendum was called off Clegg would support him and wish him well.
“But Mr Gove admitted to the Politics Show: “Some of it comes from within the education budget.”
Let us have the full quote here!! See who has also paid for the Pupil Premium! The sick, disabled and vulnerable. note the words ‘quite a bit of it’
He added: “Quite a bit of it comes from welfare spending… we’ve ensured that there is money that comes from welfare which is being spent on pupil premium and, without the welfare cuts, we wouldn’t be in the position to have a real terms increase in school spending.”
At least the truth is coming out now and I hope there are no more posts talking about the coalition ‘win’ on the pupil premium.
And then we have Clegg on Desert Island discs!!
“I have certainly searched long and hard into my own conscience about whether what we are doing is for the right reasons.
“I am not going to hide the fact that a lot of this is difficult. I find it morally difficult. It is difficult for the country.”
He finds it morally dificult, so admits then that he has thrown out said morals. How can the Lib Dem party tolerate this man any more? He will never feel the dfficulties and hardship the most vulnerable in society are going to face because of him. Yes, I blame him and the Lib Dems in coalition for allowing the worst excesses of Tory ideology when the electorate wanted any form of coalition to stop this. The ‘pessimistic foreboding’ of the Lib Dems being wiped will get more correct by the day. I too would not be surprised if AV was shelved.
Amy Mcleod
“The comments from many posting on lib dem voice nowadays calling long standing lib dem activists labour trolls”
The problem, Amy, is that an awful lot of those posting on LDV clearly are Labour trolls. You only have to note how often pseudonyms are used.
The banner says “Our Place to Talk”, but talk between genuine Lib Dems is far too often crowded out
Simon Shaw
I use the same tag I use on all my postings to numerous sites.
What do you refer to as a ‘genuine’ Lib Dem – a member? a voter?
I have set out where I stand in other posts. I am a centre-left liberal who stopped voting Labour after the 2001 election (prior to that I had voted Alliance in 87 and Labour in 92, 97 and 2001)
I changed because I believed your party fitted my politics better – in 2010 these were the main policies that appealed to me were:
i. PR
ii. Tuition fees abolition
iii. Civil liberties
iv. Slower reduction of the deficit with better balance between tax/cuts
The party betrayed my vote on all these bar civil liberties and I am actually very sceptical on that with some of things I have been hearing recently.
I still believe there needs to be a centre-left party to challenge labour and I hope it will be the LIb Dems that will fill this gap.
I am interested to know how the party is going to position itself in the future and listen/contribute to the debate. If I am not considered ‘genuine’ enough then sorry about that and I will leave you to the Tories
Also, for an active lib dem website there seem very few posters and those who oppose the direction the party is taking outnumber those who seem happy with it. If you are not happy with how the debate is going on the comment pages then why don’t you and your ‘genuine’ friends come and join in and explain why people such as I should continue to support you
PS You could start with explaining the pupil premium to me
@Simon Shaw
“The problem, Amy, is that an awful lot of those posting on LDV clearly are Labour trolls. You only have to note how often pseudonyms are used.
The banner says “Our Place to Talk”, but talk between genuine Lib Dems is far too often crowded out”
Perhaps you should look here https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrat-voice-team at the Comments Policy
We welcome comments from all our readers, including those who are supporters of other parties, or none at all.
Are you seriously objecting to people exercising their democratic right to question or to object to policies that are being implemented by a Political Party?
You say talk between genuine Libdems is often overcrowded, when it is clear from from the LDV Friday 5
That the 5 most active “Members only Forum” are
Why politicians should never sign personal pledges.
The Government plans to store your emails and phone calls
Equal representation for N to Z
Party President Campaign Literature
FOCUS refuseniks
Clearly your party is not even discussing in “Private” the subjects that are most important to the Public
And you still seriously object to the Public trying to get liberal democrats to acknowledge and debate these issues?
@bazsc
I take it from what you say that you are not a Lib Dem member or activist.
You quote 4 policies which you say were key for you in the last election. You really need to ask yourself how those 4 policies would have fared if Labour had won an overall majority in 2010. On at least 3 out of 4 you it is clear that would have been seriously unhappy if Labour had got back in.
What is bizarre is that you blame the Lib Dems for the fact that having secured around 10% of the seats in Parliament, on slightly over 20% of the votes, we haven’t secured 100% of our manifesto.
@Matt
I am fairly certain you were an example of the sort of “Labour troll” I had in mind.
Sort of depressing that the first response has the word “m8” in it.
This is why I prefer discussions on forums rather than blog comment/screaming threads.
@Simon Shaw
Please change the record.
I will be intrigued to see how you hold on to your marginal seat of Birkdale come May, when you accuse everyone who questions your party as being a Troll.
Maybe you would do better spending your time debating the issues that are raised by the Public instead of your constant rants its “Labours Fault” and calling everyone Trolls
There is a simple reason the LibDems are consistently squeezed before mounting a fightback – false arguments are habitually employed against us.
This may be done sincerely or as deliberate politically-motivated scare tactics, but the truth has a way of fighting back.
Labour is currently scaring people that the cuts are a callous ideological-based attempt to hit the poor, and this clearly has some traction, but while some thatcherites may wish this the doubling of the long-term growth rates in public spending since 2000 from 3% to 6% simply can’t be sustained – especially during an economic downturn.
In fact this is one of the major contributory factors in spurring the downturn, and until spending is put right the national economy risks spiralling out of control.
The thatcherites want to see the trend fall below inflation. LibDems are arguing that current spending growth should return to trend.
Cameron has overseen the formation of a coalition between these two different arguments and this enabled him to gain power – it is interesting that he has diplomatically avoided a full declaration of his intentions, which is why he is regarded with suspicion by both thatcherites and LibDems (and outright contempt by left-wingers), but that is how he was successful in becoming PM – he holds the key to maintaining the tenuous balance of power.
Which is also why the left is remorseless in attacking Clegg’s use of ‘fairness’.
According to forecasts the cuts will see the country return to trend in 4-5 years, or about the time the coalition has stated they will call the next general election at the end of the parliament.
If LibDems didn’t support the proposed level of cuts the point at which our arguments diverge from the thatcherites would occur after the next election and this would necessitate an electoral pact – which is against LibDem interests.
So Labour’s hopes of returning to government within the next decade depend upon either an early election caused by LibDem withdrawl from the coalition, or upon a lower rate of cuts to enable them to paint LibDems as tories in disguise.
@matt
No, I was just accusing you of being a Labour troll.
And, btw, it is “Labour’s fault”.
How do you excuse the fact that the Labour Party left our country running an annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000 per year, so that there was a national debt of £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Even with the cuts that the Coalition Government is putting in place that is still going to rise to around £24,500 per capita at 31 March 2011 and to £26,500 per capita at 31 March 2012.
I would love someone to explain why burdening future generations with such a rapidly rising national debt is in any way progressive or “centre left” politics. Surely it is selfish, or “right wing”.
matt
“I will be intrigued to see how you hold on to your marginal seat of Birkdale come May.”
Which, bearing in mind that we won Birkdale Ward with a majority of 2000 votes last time (with 55% of the vote going to Iain Brodie Browne, Lib Dem, as against 25% to Conservatives and 7% to Labour), is exactly what you would expect a “Labour troll” to say.
@Simon Shaw
Again you resort to blaming labour for everything instead of actually coming up with decisive arguments on why YOU believe these coalition Policies are FAIR.
Your posts are so aggressive and Personal, that I am surprised that they manage to get past forum monitors at times.
BTW forgive my ignorance, but would you please explain what you mean when calling me a Labour Troll?
@matt
Now you are telling lies.
matt
“Again you resort to blaming labour for everything.”
I referred to one issue only, which was the out-of-control budget deficit left by Labour. Only to a “Labour troll” would that become “blaming Labour for everything”.
I repeat my question, which I would welcome anyone (even you, matt) attempting an answer:
I would love someone to explain why burdening future generations with such a rapidly rising national debt is in any way progressive or “centre left” politics. Surely it is selfish, or “right wing”.
Wow someone is a bit aggressive today
You are perfectly right that i would have been disappointed on three of those policies under labour which is why i didn’t vote for them!
I voted for a party which had these as policies. I was not happy with a coalition as i do not have the same values as the tories but what has annoyed me is the vigour with which the party has thrown out their old policies without a whimper
If you support all tgese policies then you are the same as the tories in my book
These comments make it pretty certain that there is no place for me as a ‘genuine’ lib dem.
I will stay as i am. A let down centre-left liberal
Ps can you explain to me how the extra funding for the pupil premium works! Is this another fib
@simon Shaw
It is like being at PMQ’s all over again, with the Prime Minister answering the Question with a question.
When I said “Again you resort to blaming labour for everything instead of actually coming up with decisive arguments on why YOU believe these coalition Policies are FAIR.”
that is because for the last week, in ALL your posts, all you have done is insulted people by calling them a Labour Troll (Which I genuinely still want to know what that means)
Or you have said
“How do you excuse the fact that the Labour Party left our country running an annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000 per year”
So I will reiterate my point again.
Maybe you would do better spending your time debating the issues that are raised by the Public instead of your constant rants its “Labours Fault” and calling everyone Trolls
Do you work for tory central office?
This focus on the future generation means what? 20 years time?
We could also say that vicious cuts to poor families is an attack on the next generayion n’est pas?
I will not argue on the economics. You can debate that with messrs Klugman and Stiglitz. What exercises me is that the focus is far to much on cuts to welfare that are starting to become less acceptable to me the more the detail (or lack of it) becomes apparent
The only thing that allows the csr to show any effect on the rich is the 50% tax that you didn’t even introduce. There are lots of other ways funds can be raised from taxation in order to spread the impact
The decision to attack the deficit as the coalition has is a matter of choice. There are always other ways to do it depending on you values.
It seems as though I won’t get an answer so i searched myself what a labour troll is, and found.
(In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum)
Now part of the Stephen Tall’s Blogg said
“For all that the coalition with the Conservatives may hurt the Liberal Democrat badly in the short run, the party has a habit of recovering from all sorts of disasters ”
Now since my posts have been in response to the damage I BELIEVE the conservatives have been doing to the Liberal Democrats and the dangers to the party. how have my posts been “inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages”
unless you like to call people a troll for other purposes?
matt
“that is because for the last week, in ALL your posts, all you have done is insulted people by calling them a Labour Troll”
Again, you are telling lies.
You are the one I have accused of being a “Labour troll”. The fact that you repeatedly try to ignore the issue of the massive, out-of-control budget deficit, inherited from Labour really says it all.
It really is a very straightforward, but absolutely crucial. question, and I am sure we would all love to hear your views on the issue, matt (or anyone else, for that matter):
I would love someone to explain why burdening future generations with such a rapidly rising national debt is in any way progressive or “centre left” politics. Surely it is selfish, or “right wing”.
bazsc
“The decision to attack the deficit as the coalition has is a matter of choice.”
Of course, but the first question is whether the rate of attack on the deficit is too fast or too slow. I had previously thought you were suggesting it was too fast, but you seem to have dropped that point.
Are you now saying that the speed of attack on the deficit is about right, but that the “balance of fairness” is not all it could be?
@simon shaw
“You are the one I have accused of being a “Labour troll”
To the set the Record straight, I have been posting on this website for 1 WEEK, I had never been to this site before that, and if Forum Moderators wish to confirm that via my IP address they may.
At the begining of the week in my 1st posts, I made it quite clear that in the last election I voted Liberal Democrat and feel betrayed by this coalition government and that I would be voting Labour again in future elections.
(I am not a labour member or activist)
I am a disgruntled Voter who feels let down by government and am expressing my democrat right to question and hold government to account.
(If that makes me a Labour Troll, so be it)
You constantly accuse me of being a Troll, which we have already established means, someone who posts
inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages
Which constant accusations in itself could be construed as being a troll.
Maybe you should write a story about Labour Trolls, where we could have a appropriate discussion on it, in the appropriate thread.
as well as that you may wish to write a story on.
“How do you excuse the fact that the Labour Party left our country running an annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000 per year, so that there was a national debt of £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK”
As you are being a TROLL by constantly mentioning it in threads where the subject had nothing to do with this 🙂
I apologise to the forum, that this thread seems to have turned into personal Vendetta’s and preventing people from sticking to the subjects, but it appears that we have a liberal democrat councillor who is intent on destroying sensible debate, with personal attacks and allegations.
No i think it is way too fast and i base this on what i have read and my limited understanding of economics. I do know however that a country’s finances in no way replicate those of a household which seems to be a common approach of the fast cutters
I accept that we will only fully understand when we see the effects of the coming year
Even if you believe in fast cutting though it is clear that they have been done with little attempt to balance the impact never mind skew it to the rich. As i said the curve only changes when the higher tax kicks in at very high salaries.
If i am a dual earning income housejold earning 40k each in the south of england. What pain am i feeling?
@bazsc
I think the real issue is that we shouldn’t be in this position to start with. Labour allowed the deficit to get out of control, even in the “good times”. For the country to be spending at a rate of over £150,000,000,000 pa in excess of what it collects in taxes is appalling. As I understand it, slightly over 2/3 of that total is “structural” – i.e. not arising from the recession.
In terms of the “balance of fairness”, I think you are missing out on the fact that many of the measure announced in the Budget and the CSR do hit the most affluent. Two examples:
– According to the IFS the increase in VAT is “mildly progressive” as a large proportion of what the very poorest spend their money on is zero-rated, exempt or only subject to 5% VAT (which is unchanged)
– the “means-testing” of child benefits will only affect the most affluent (for example it will hit most of those families on a combined income of £80,000+ in the south of England, as you referred to)
Sorry i disagree with you.
I supported better investment in public services and it was mainly the massive fall in tax receipts that caused this issue
I loathe some of the things labour did but i am sure that if the tories had won in 2005 with howard things would have been worse
The two examples you gave are fairly poor seeing what cuts are going to come.
I also do not like the approach to child benefit. It is poorly thought out. I set this out on another thread and wont repeat it here. Not all people have kids so what does a single man in surrey on 50k a year going to see change
If that is the best you can do then you really are in trouble
Simon
“In terms of the “balance of fairness”, I think you are missing out on the fact that many of the measure announced in the Budget and the CSR do hit the most affluent.”
You can’t possibly be trying to tell us that the measures in the emergency budget and the CSR are anything like fair in the way they distribute the burden between poor and rich. The IFS judged the changes still to be regressive even when they were combined with the (very progressive) measures announced in Alistair Darling’s last budget.
Below are some figures I posted on another thread showing the combined effect of Osborne’s budget and the CSR on household income for different income groups, as estimated by the IFS. The fact that people are trying to pretend this is “fair” is almost as offensive as the measures themselves. It feels like adding insult to injury.
_______________
These figures are very approximate because I estimated them by eye from the IFS graph, but here are the percentage effects on income by 2014-5 for different income groups:
1 -5,6% (poorest 10%)
2 -4.9%
3 -4.5%
4 -3.6%
5 -3.1%
6 -3.0%
7 -2.3%
8 -1.5%
9 -1.2%
10 -1.2% (richest 10%)
bazsc
” I supported better investment in public services and it was mainly the massive fall in tax receipts that caused this issue”
No. That’s the whole problem. The majority of the current year’s deficit (around £150,000,000,000) is structural, not cyclical.
At least for the next two or three years all the cuts proposed by the Coalition Government are to the structural deficit. My argument is that there shouldn’t have been such a massive structuarl deficit, and for that Labour are utterly to blame.
What I am saying is that if you don’t like the cuts, blame Labour for making them necessary.
@matt
If you really want to know what is meant by a “Labour troll”, then Anthony Aloysius St would be quite a good example.
You seem to have given up on the fairness
Of course the structural deficit will need to be sortrd out but economists squabble amongst themselves how quickly
The most important part of reducibg deficit is growth and it is this the coalition puts at risk
Of course labour have to take part of the responsibility but remind me of how much the ld were proposing to cut spending by. They seem to bot have been very vociferous. I dont remember a pledge for that in 2005
As you well know the recession had to lead to more public spending in any case to keep people in jobs
Labour take the blame for their mistakes. The coalition will yake the blame for theirs
If the ld had been in opposition would ypu really be supporting such a regressive csr?
Why is he a troll.
He is challenging your assertions. There are plenty of ed ld voters who agree with us and probably not a few members
If you reply like a tory then you will be challenged
@Simon Shaw
I feel you should start again by reading the original article by Stephen Tall.
Then read the subsequent posts that where in response to the topic.
The topic pretty much stayed on track until 4.27pm when you posted
“The problem, Amy, is that an awful lot of those posting on LDV clearly are Labour trolls. You only have to note how often pseudonyms are used.
The banner says “Our Place to Talk”, but talk between genuine Lib Dems is far too often crowded ”
You then went into your usual attack of talking about the annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000
which is totally off topic.
It is wrong to accuse people of being “trolls” when one is seen to behave by definition of the same !
As recommended before, why not be constructive and use your time to write an article on a topic you clearly seem to be obsessed with, where it can be debated accordingly
(attempting to repost with edited text as last one is being moderated, Apologies if it reposts
This popularity thing. Really makes life tough for an ambitious careerist like me. This Lib Dem vehicle has brought me close to power remarkably well, but just look at the future! The year 2015 will be here before we know it. And we can guess the result, if the Lib Dems compete in the usual way. Plucky little third place. Absolute majority to someone else. Lib Dem leader falls on his sword. And I’m on the scrapheap before I’m 50! The horror!
So, how to change the scenario?
Dave won’t want more than two good terms. He’ll be happy to go out on a high note. Handing over to his soulmate. That’s me. All I’ve got to do is make sure to be there.
The thing is, this idea of an independent Lib Dem party with a mind and principles of its own, that’s what’s getting in my way now. It has served its purpose. Time to write it off.
What I need to do is to make sure is that by 2015, the Lib Dem party cannot function on its own. It has to be clear that we are part of an indissoluble centre-right coalition, and that we have nowhere else to go.
Of course, I can’t possibly say anything about that now! But along with my tame toady Danny, and of course David L (who will we soon be able to bring back), we have to start working now.
The first thing we must do is lose voters. Lots of them. Fast. Anybody to the left of Dave, I want them out. (Thank heavens Ken C’s not a Lib Dem, we’d have to put him up for late-early-retirement if he was, ha ha!) “Nobody who ever thought of voting Labour should even dream about voting LD.” That’s a nice line. That will drive loads of our voters away.
Oh, and by the way, that Lib Dem Voice blog, it gets so many transparently straightforward people commenting on it, who want to tell everyone how they have wavered between Labour and the Lib Dems over the past 20 years. We’ve got to drive these thoughtful guys away! Let’s get the staff to call them all Labour Trolls, once a day, every day. Until everyone gets the message.
What else? Well, our attitude to the cuts, of course. Some of my minions want to fight them tooth and nail. Some of them are prepared to go along with them if we can get a few good wins to compensate. And some of them just want the Tories to let us claim the credit for making the policies a bit less nasty, even though it isn’t true. Well, you know what? They’re all wrong.
We have to champion the cuts. We have to wrap ourselves in misery. I need a photo-op with a family losing benefits and being forced out of central London. Preferably onto the street. It’s about shedding all our independent voters and tying ourselves tightly to the Tories. That’s the way we have to go!
@David Allen
Careful there, someone might accuse you next of being a labour troll lol.
It’s actually refreshing to read from A true liberal democrat who is willing NOT to toe the party line.
It show’s hope that there are still some in the party who are willing to stick to their values 🙂
Hey Simon
Tell me, if Simon Hughes writes a post regarding changes in housing benefit would you accuse him of being a labour troll? after all he disagrees with the Clegg and the ‘party line’?.
nige (ex LD)
@Anthony Aloysius St
“The fact that people are trying to pretend this is “fair” is almost as offensive as the measures themselves…
These figures are very approximate because I estimated them by eye from the IFS graph, but here are the percentage effects on income by 2014-5 for different income groups”
Anthony, I can’t find any graph in http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5313 that matches the figures you give. The closest I can find is slide 8, and the trend is completely different, though admittedly mostly regressive. Below I have your figures on the left, and what I read on the graph on the right.
1 -5.6% (poorest 10%) -5.6%
2 -4.9% -4.9%
3 -4.5% -4.4%
4 -3.6% -4.3%
5 -3.1% -3.6%
6 -3.0% -3.7%
7 -2.3% -3.2%
8 -1.5% -2.8%
9 -1.2% -2.7%
10 -1.2% (richest 10%) -4.6%
But, to use that graph in isolation would be misleading. On the next page, we have, among others, the figures in the table below. These shows a mostly flat progression, but a slightly progressive trend. (Of course, to use these figures in isolation would also be misleading)
% of total income, by expenditure deciles
1 -3.3% (poorest 10%)
2 -3.2%
3 -2.8%
4 -3.3%
5 -2.9%
6 -3.0%
7 -4.1%
8 -3.8%
9 -4.2%
10 -5.6% (richest 10%)
I’m also a little surprised that you quote the IFS analysis with such unqualified support, considering the comments you made in July. When commenting on work by the same IFS researcher, you said: “If the IFS can’t estimate household expenditure better than to within a factor of three, their report clearly isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-genuine-progressives-should-suggest-cuts-20352.html#comment-133831
I’m less critical of the IFS than you were, but I agree that they are fallible.
@Simon Shaw ‘”If you really want to know what is meant by a “Labour troll”, then Anthony Aloysius St would be quite a good example.’
Simon, I think you’re mistaken. I agree that Anthony Aloysius St always presents information with a spin to put the coalition in the worst possible light. But, while he is an opponent of the coalition, I don’t think he is Labour.
A troll posts with the “primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”. I don’t think he, or the other regulars who post against the coalition, are doing that. They just want to attack the coalition, and that’s perfectly within the rules of this site.
I think it’s counterproductive for them to be so remorselessly negative. The people they are trying to influence aren’t stupid, and they’ll be much more impressed with more reasoned arguments.
But I think it’s also counterproductive to call them trolls. It makes it look like we can’t take criticism.
And if you find someone impossible to engage in serious debate, it’s better not to call them a troll. Much better to just to reply to others, and ignore them.
@coalition opponents
I hope I don’t annoy you in making the same suggestion I did to Simon Shaw. But if you find someone impossible to engage in serious debate, wouldn’t it be better to engage with pro-coalition people who you get on with?
I understand the compulsion to rebut everything we disagree with, even if the point has already been rebutted in the past – I share the compulsion too. But wouldn’t we resist the compulsion. Wouldn’t we all enjoy this site more if we just avoided the people who wind us up the wrong way?
Hi David
I enjoyed your post
The thing is I don’t think all lib dems have changed their spots and a party for me is still in there somewhere. I worked with the wife of one of your (now very unfortunately ex) MPs in Scotland and he was a great guy who I thought was made sense
I only post on this board in order to have some good debate and to understand what others think will be the direction of the party post-Coalition
I can understand also why a lot of Lib Dems, especially in the North, are anti-Labour but the focus should be on trying to give their voters somewhere to go and I can tell you getting close to the Tories is not the way to do it – especially now Blair and Brown are away
@matt “Clearly your party is not even discussing in “Private” the subjects that are most important to the Public”
Matt,
There are many active threads in the members forum, and some of the threads you’ve listed have branched out in unexpected ways. Don’t take the title of the five most active threads as an indication that Lib Dems aren’t discussing the CSR in the forum. They are.
George
I do not presume to answer for someone else but I think the numbers from the IFS used by Anthony strip out the 50% tax band and other things put into place by Darling. This shows that the changes by the Coalition are all regressive. You can counter that it makes not difference as the have decided to keep it rather than rescind it but I think it makes a good point. Despite this the numbers are still not supportive of anything progressive
I think the numbers you quote are based on expenditure and are mainly based on the VAT rise and the tax changes. These are more evenly spread that the income based ones but not as relevant for showing how the changes distribute across the deciles
I know you have said that the IFS are not infallible – I agree – but even a non-economist can see that cuts to welfare and public services when not accompanied by tax rises that affect the top 50%are going to show a regressive trend.
My argument is that tax rises that allow for cuts to be less harsh and ensure ‘we are all in it together’ would allow the measures be less open to criticism.
The effect linked to income decile is more important and
@bazsc
Thanks for correcting me on that. I missed the fine print of what Anthony has written. A genuine mistake on my part, but still a mistake. Now you’ve pointed it out, I realise which graphic Anthony was referring to.
In my opinion, it is valid for the coalition, when it added to the Darling deficit reduction plan, to include the Darling tax increases in calculations of how progressive it is.
This is partly because there is a limit on how high you can tax the rich before it becomes counter-productive. The IFS have strongly argued that high rate taxes such as the 50% tax are a very idea ( http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn84.pdf ). If the implication of the IFS report is that, in order to be progressive, the government should have implemented more taxes like that, then that doesn’t square with what the IFS have previously, and in my opinion, rightly, argued. Keeping the 50% tax was a major concession, that the Tories hate having done.
But it is also because it is established fact that some of Labour’s more unpopular tax increases, such as Darling admits he was planning, were put off until after the election. Tax increases on the rich are electorally popular, but, as the IFS have argued, they are often economically unwise. And Labour has a track record in cutting progressive taxes (for example Brown’s 2% cut in income tax), and increasing regressive ones (as in abolishing the 10% income tax rate, and not raising allowances in line with inflation).
“I think the numbers you quote are based on expenditure and are mainly based on the VAT rise and the tax changes. These are more evenly spread that the income based ones but not as relevant for showing how the changes distribute across the deciles”
They are taken directly from an IFS graph showing the effects of the budgets and the CSR. Using expenditure deciles was the IFS preferred way to measure whether VAT is progressive or not. Unfortunately, this graph lacks credibility because weird distribution shown for the orange “% of expenditure” line. Anthony and I have discussed this before, and I admit it does make me pretty uneasy to put too much faith in these graphs. I’ve written to the IFS about this issue before, and while I was grateful for their answer, it didn’t resolve the issue. I may write to them again.
As to whether I’d prefer the CSR to be more progressive, yes I would. I suspect me may agree on some of this.
In an ideal world, I’d like to see:
– the Health budget take a small cut. It’s grown so enormously over the last few years, I can’t believe that there aren’t a lot of inefficiencies that could be cut. From a discussion on Newsnight, it looks like the editor of the New Statesman would agree with me.
– Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes, and free TV licences no longer to be given to high rate tax payers. It wouldn’t save a huge amount, but every little helps.
– A 1% increase in both basic rate income tax and higher rate tax
– Some of the cuts to welfare reversed
– Stretch the deficit reduction programme by an additional year
I suspect, if they had the negotiating strength, the Lib Dems would have pushed changes like the above through, But, too many Tory/Lib Dem marginals were won by the Tories, and so our negotiating strength is weaker than we’d like.
Ugh! Just re-read the above, and it’s full of typos. I had checked for typos, cut obviously not carefully enough. Sorry about that.
Below are, I think, the main phrases that needed correction:
“The IFS have strongly argued that high rate taxes such as the 50% tax are a very bad idea”
“such as the VAT rise that Darling admits he was planning”
“this graph lacks credibility because of the weird distribution shown for the orange “% of expenditure” line”
If only there were a way to edit your submitted posts 🙁
George
I see bazsc did actually read what I wrote and has therefore been able to explain it to you.
Anyhow, here’s a request. If you don’t understand something I’ve posted, can you just ask, and I’ll explain it? That would be preferable to suggesting I have made it up, or indeed to your making up things I never said (such as “unqualified support” for the IFS – I said no such thing; I simply quoted their figures for what they are worth). Or indeed, accusing me of “always [presenting] information with a spin to put the coalition in the worst possible light.”
Getting back to the point, I’ll tell you something. I have been a lifelong Liberal/Lib Dem, and I present information exactly as I see it. And I do see the government in an appalling light. The way it is penalising the poorest runs absolutely counter to what the party fought for throughout the time I was a member. It is not only the kind of thing you expect Tories to do – it is _worse_ than what Tories have generally done. So why would you assume I am putting a spin on things? I loathe what the party is doing, and it makes me very angry.
Getting back to the point, I really don’t understand why on earth the progressiveness/regressiveness of this government’s actions is being judged by lumping them in with the very progressive measures in Darling’s last budget. It’s completely irrational. Each government is responsible for its own actions.
And of course, it’s an entirely separate issue from “how much you can tax the very richest.” Of course there’s a limit to how much you can do that. The issue is how the burden is distributed among the rest. Take out the richest 20%, and look what the government has done (on the IFS figures of course; they’re the only ones we’ve got). How can it be defended? Do you defend it?
1 -5,6% (poorest 10%)
2 -4.9%
3 -4.5%
4 -3.6%
5 -3.1%
6 -3.0%
7 -2.3%
8 -1.5%
@George Kendall
I Take some comfort in when you say
“There are many active threads in the members forum, and some of the threads you’ve listed have branched out in unexpected ways. Don’t take the title of the five most active threads as an indication that Lib Dems aren’t discussing the CSR in the forum. They are”
I sincerely mean that, but i hope you can also appreciate the public’s concern of certain subjects.
And as I said in a previous post. I think it would be better for LDV to keep private what private members forum are talking about.
I also liked what you suggested you would like to see in your other post
“In an ideal world, I’d like to see:
– the Health budget take a small cut. It’s grown so enormously over the last few years, I can’t believe that there aren’t a lot of inefficiencies that could be cut. From a discussion on Newsnight, it looks like the editor of the New Statesman would agree with me.
– Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes, and free TV licences no longer to be given to high rate tax payers. It wouldn’t save a huge amount, but every little helps.
– A 1% increase in both basic rate income tax and higher rate tax
– Some of the cuts to welfare reversed
– Stretch the deficit reduction programme by an additional year
I suspect, if they had the negotiating strength, the Lib Dems would have pushed changes like the above through, But, too many Tory/Lib Dem marginals were won by the Tories, and so our negotiating strength is weaker than we’d like”
I still feel dismayed where I hear Liberal Democrats talk defeatist though when saying “and so our negotiating strength is weaker than we’d like”
I feel Liberal Democrats underestimate the power that they have in Government and hence the reason why they are not wielding that power in the way they could.
going further on your suggestions and cuts and tax rises.
I would like to see
1% rise in National Insurance- with an ageing population and rises in medicine, and also with threats to jobs due to the economic situation. It is right that we should pay more in NI. this income is supposed to be for Health and welfare
Cuts to Child Benefit from households with a combined income of £60’000 not a single higher rate tax payer.
Raise bank levy and to track the BOE base rate currently 0.5% rather than the dismal 0.04% been proposed
Force banks to start paying back all loans paid to them by the tax payer on a monthly basis. If they can afford bonuses, they can afford to make monthly repayments, which will help uk Balance it’s own books.
Raise Corporation Tax
remove VAT exemptions from Gambling and Publishings
There are many different ways this deficit could be being reduced. There are always options
@Simon Shaw
OK, I accept your point about how a £150b defecit is not sustainable, and that reducing it should be a priority.
The question I would ask is:
Why did the Lib Dems seem to be calling for higher public spending throughout all their time in opposition?
Why did the Lib Dems campaign on a basis of a slow, sensible reduction in the defecit?
Why did the Lib Dems campaign against the rise in VAT, referring to it as a bombshell?
Why did the Lib Dems sign a pledge against rises in tuition fees?
Now I would accept the arguement that you are in a coalition and implementing your own policies is not possible however to actively argue against the positions you received my vote upon just makes you look like massive hypocrits.
Whistling in the wind rarely communicates. If the Coalition cuts are unsuccessful in that they condemn us all to low or faling economic growth and a rising deficit. the Lib Dems are gonners. If Labour wins the next General Election all (or most) is lost. If the Lib Dems split, whose for gin rummy. If none of these things all is well. As with so many things in life you pay your money and takes your choice.
Hi George
Thanks for responding
I think you are being too prescriptive when it comes to just thinking of income tax. The 50% is probably the limit but you could bring it in earlier if you wanted.
The other options are taxing unearned income – I think in the UK there is a lot let taxation of unearned income than elsewhere and if you really had the will to do it you could.
To be honest the Tories have made no difficult decisions because the cuts approach works well with their voters and taxation wouldn’t. For the LD I think that is different
There are arguments for and against both cuts and extra taxes but this CSR was completely unbbalanced on that score and that is what I see is wrong
If growth continues to reduce as well then more ‘difficult’ decisions will be necessary
@matt
There’s a strict rule that we’re not allowed to share what was written in the private members forum. But I’m sure I can talk in very general terms, and say there’s been plenty of genuine angst about the incredibly painful decisions that the coalition is taking. (As there will have been amongst our Ministers)
One reason why you don’t see this being shared on the public site is that a heated argument is not a place where people give ground, and acknowledge issues they find difficult. Partly out of loyalty, partly because when people get annoyed with the way the party is attacked, and their position instinctively hardens.
But the main reason is, I think, is an awareness that this is a public forum, and if we believe the compromise of coalition is necessary, we are determined to be loyal. And so we don’t want to undermine it by providing unhelpful quotes for unscrupulous journalists to quote out of context.
“I think it would be better for LDV to keep private what private members forum are talking about”
Like you, I’d prefer it to be private. I’d like not to have to worry if the title of a thread I start might end up in the public domain!
“but i hope you can also appreciate the public’s concern of certain subjects”
Indeed. As I’ve repeatedly said, this deficit reduction is like a hurricane that’s going to bring enormous pain. In fact, perhaps many of the public aren’t concerned enough.
“National Insurance … is supposed to be for Health and welfare”
A lot of people see it that way, but, I’m afraid, it’s just general taxation. That’s why a lot of Lib Dems would like to see it merged with income tax. As a seperate tax it just adds admin cost and complexity, and confuses the electorate.
“I feel Liberal Democrats underestimate the power that they have in Government”
Don’t get me wrong, we do have power. But we also have to make very uncomfortable compromises. And those aren’t just because of the Tories, but the appalling deficit problems we’re struggling with.
I’m sure, again, you’ll also think we’re overstating the constraints caused by the deficit … A debate running on many threads, and I’m sure one that will remain unresolved.
@Nige
I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet (I got bored reading when Matt and Simon had thier tiff) but so far as I know the homeless can vote, at least in Northern Ireland. It would be very odd if this were not the case in the rest of the UK.
In terms of ghetoisation, it would be a disaster if London were to turn into Paris, with the poor stuck in suberbs around the outside. Our towns and cities are already too ghetoised with owner occupiers and council tennnants strictly seperated. I have not looked at the proposals for housing benifit in any great detail, but I have heard a number of issues raised in relation to them.
@bazsc
The IFS article was in response to a suggestion that there be a higher rate of tax of 45%. They said that 43% was probably the break even point for raising additional revenue.
If you believe the IFS, and in this case I do, then that makes 50% a pretty stupid policy if it is intended to help reduce the deficit.
However, after the financial crisis, most voters wanted to bash the rich, so it would be a brave government that reversed it.
The Tories have made a few decisions that are difficult for them. Raising capital gains has angered many of their supporters, as has the loss of child benefit for higher rate tax payers. The biggest angst among Tories is Ken Clarke’s enlightened prison policy. I keep pinching myself when I hear a Tory minister is going to reduce the use of prison for minor offenders.
But you’re right. It’s a lot easier for the Tories.
The only reason Lib Dems are supporting such heavy cuts is because, frankly, the country had increased spending on public services well beyond the level that the economy could sustainably support them.
I hope (and believe) that by 2015, we’ll be in a different situation, where the Tory manifesto will propose tax cuts, and the Lib dems will propose more investment – but only if that spending is underpinned by real growth, as opposed to another debt/housing bubble.
As for the CSR, I not going to debate it in detail for a while. There are things that sound alarming. But, in the past, I’ve found that policies can look worse in the initial press coverage, than they turn out to be once you’ve had time to examine them in detail.
“… we are determined to be loyal. And so we don’t want to undermine it by providing unhelpful quotes for unscrupulous journalists to quote out of context
…
As for the CSR, I not going to debate it in detail for a while.”
I get the picture.
@George Kendall
Can I start by saying I have the utmost respect for you and what you are saying.
It is far easier and a more pleasant experience to engage with someone like yourself, rather than being addressed by someone who chooses instead to go on the assault.
I for one recognise that I am guilty myself, of getting over emotional and sometimes rant, at policies and cuts that I feel are unfair or discriminating, or when there are policies that are announced that are not fully explained and left open to interpretation.
People are bound to get emotional over such area’s and end desperate in their bid to seek support, However I recognise that are far better ways to conduct ones self in order to get your point’s across.
I still stand by my point though, that I feel it is vital not only to the Liberal Democrat, but also to the Electorate, and for Democracy as whole, For Liberal Democrats to be able to talk openly where they stand on certain polices and issues.
On policies changes that had not been announced before the elections, which are now being implemented.
It is Vital that the public know where the
Liberal Democrat stood at the start of the discussions
What was the Conservatives stance
And what did we end up with.
(It is not a case of seeing who came out on top. It is a case of the public being able to see that 2 parties can work together, too compromise, that coalition is acting in the national interest and that Parties are not just accepting Coalition for Power sharing &government jobs)
It is important as it allows the party to maintain an identity, but it also allows the public to see how coalition is working.
Come May, The public have to Vote on whether we want a new Alternative Vote System.
At the moment, we can only judge the effects of what AV would have on us, by assessing our opinions on how the present coalition government has effected politics.
Now I am not trying to say that the Liberal Democrats have not achieved any of their Manifesto in this government, That would be wrong of me and disingenuous.
But they have had to abandon some of their manifesto, and make complete U-turns on other polices, and compromise on others. The same can be said for the Tories it’s true. (But we have seen the outcome of those differences, and it is fair to say that most polices have seen Liberals giving the most way on the outcome)
I think it would be healthy for the coalition in the long run to allow the public to see differences in the government.
It is a new kind of Politics and it needs to be viewed totally different to how governments worked in the past.
It stands to reason, that if you have a single party majority government, Then that government has to be seen as united and everyone tows the party line, because differences in government has been the downfall of Prime Ministers and parties in the past, it happened to Thatcher and to Major. The same happened to Browne in the end, and i think it was the constant in party fighting that lost Labour a lot of votes (Charles Clarke lost my Labour vote for his action)
But I think the public recognise that coalition government has to be viewed with a totally different view point, and differences between the parties are not only vital, but healthy and a sign of strong government working.
Just my opinion
@George Kendal
“The only reason Lib Dems are supporting such heavy cuts is because, frankly, the country had increased spending on public services well beyond the level that the economy could sustainably support them”
And I think most Labour supporters would agree with you. I would imagine it is also why a lot of disillusioned Labour supporters, voted instead for Liberal Democrats.
Personally I think Labour did fantastic things for public services, NHS, schools etc. These services where left in tatters by the Tories pre 1997.
But Labour got out of Control by spending Billions on Quango’s,bureaucracy, Managers. They also allowed Public Sector Pay for Managers to Spiral out of control, compared to other public service workers at the lower end of the pay scale.
I think it is right for Government departments to be taking cuts, to bring us back in line with Public Services that the economy can sustainably support. But it is vital that the Quango’s,bureaucracy, Managers go first, before the front line staff, Not only are they a drain on departmental spending, but someone earning 17 * more than the lowest paid worker is just plain wrong.
Like I have said in other Posts, there are always alternative way’s to cutting the deficit, that are fairer, and in the long run, better for the public purse.
And it’s to the Liberal Democrats we look to bring about that fairness, as we know we would never get it from a Tory, as they favour the rich 🙂
Well I don’t fancy canvassing in Elgin in April !
@Yellosmurf
Homeless voting rights is a bit grey area, yes technically the homeless can vote if they can prove an attachment to a particular area but that is usually done by providing a permanent address including hostels and B&Bs, it’s more difficult to register if the address given is a shop doorway somewhere. Besides that how high on the list of priorities would be the ability to vote when you haven’t got a home
But yes, your right the homeless can vote but with difficulty.
@matt
“It is … a more pleasant experience to engage with someone like yourself.”
Thank you. And likewise debating with you. The way debates help me to grapple with the issues is one of the reasons I take part in these debates. With good-natured discussions, I stop stressing myself about whether the other will try to score a political point. This it frees me up to think more honestly about the issues, and, if I meet a good argument, to change my mind. 🙂
“vital … For Liberal Democrats to be able to talk openly where they stand on certain polices and issues”
When I started contributing to discussions on this site, I was very reluctant to voice criticism of the party. I’ve since decided that it makes the party look bad if we are too loyalist, and look good if we show ourselves as we truly are: a broad church, and people who are able to appreciate that those we disagree with may have a point. I’ve started to talk about my reservations about coalition policy. I just try to communicate those reservations in a way that an unscrupulous journalist can’t misrepresent. But I’m not criticising those who are more guarded, I entirely understand why they might be.
With regard to ordinary members like myself, I agree that it’s good if we talk openly. But when it comes to the party leadership, it isn’t so simple.
I think it was sensible to keep the coalition negotiations private. In order for private meetings to work well, there needs to be an element of confidentiality. If the entire process had been public, or it were known it would be made public, I think the negotiations might have failed. (And, remember, the civil servants expected them to fail)
The whole issue of how the party maintains a separate identity is a huge debate within the party. If you look at the Presidental debate, Tim Farron talks about his ideas on this. But there’s a wide range of opinions. And I’m sure the debate will continue. I think there are problems with our leadership being too open with their differences with the Conservatives, but I think Tim Farron’s ideas have merit. And, if he becomes President, I think his approach may help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K96cEIQnYmA&feature=related
“It is a new kind of Politics”
Indeed. I think people forget that everyone is on a learning curve here, and this adds to the miriad of difficult judgement calls that the leadership have to make.
“Just my opinion”
You’re in good company. A lot of Lib Dems have made similar suggestions, though others have the opposite opinion. It’s not as easy question.
“And I think most Labour supporters would agree with you”
If one just looked at the reaction on the web, you wouldn’t think so, but I think you’re right. A while back, I read that Labour strategists were worried that their core working class voters had a surprising amount of sympathy for the coalition’s deficit reduction strategy. I can believe it. I think a lot of people have had very bad personal experiences of debt, and this makes them regard the deficit as a very serious problem.
“Personally I think Labour did fantastic things for public services”
While it was good to have increased spending, I felt their overall approach was wrong. In order to spend efficiently, you need to increase the spending steadily and sustainably, not starve spending for a few years, let rip with massive increases, then have a massive bust.
“Labour got out of Control by spending Billions on Quango’s,bureaucracy, Managers”
While there was too much bureaucracy, I think the reason was overly complex legislation. Tax and benefits changes massively increased complexity, and so did a lot of regulation. I’m sure all this legisation was introduced with good motives, but I think, just because it might serve some good purpose, doesn’t mean the benefit outweighs the damage in creating overcomplexity.
“vital that the Quango’s,bureaucracy, Managers go first, before the front line staff”
I agree that some top management are paid far too much, but I’m uneasy about the popular call for the cuts to fall on bureaucrats. If the government cuts too much back-office, that could mean expensive frontline staff do administration work which they are not trained for. There’s been a big push from grassroots Conservatives for a bonfire of the quangos, but most of them actually serve an important purpose.
“It’s to the Liberal Democrats we look to bring about that fairness, as we know we would never get it from a Tory, as they favour the rich.”
I think our ministers are improving things, and making things a little more progressive. It’s incredibly difficult. And, I’m sure that a lot of decisions that look bad when reported in the media, are actually better than the solutions suggested by journalists.
In some areas I’m a little despondent. But there are bright spots. For example, I’m very excited about the pension reform that’s being talked about, to be pushed through by Steve Webb. It seems to be more progressive, and because of savings in administration, it’s believed it won’t cost any more.
And, to be non-tribal, some Conservative ministers have impressed me. Particularly Ken Clarke and Ian Duncan Smith.
“I think it was sensible to keep the coalition negotiations private. In order for private meetings to work well, there needs to be an element of confidentiality. If the entire process had been public, or it were known it would be made public, I think the negotiations might have failed. (And, remember, the civil servants expected them to fail)”
I agree the negotiatians on forming the coalition should have been made in private. There would have being succesful any other way, as you would have had a potential game of Ping-Pong between Labour and Conswervatives, and that would not have been constructive for anyone.
It’s the negotiations that take place now between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, that I think should be more public. I think it is important for everyone too see that there are 2 parties in Government and both those parties have seperate Identities.
This could be on issues like the announcements to reduce funding for social housing by 50%, And to put caps on housing benefit, at the same time as allowing, Housing Associations to charge 80% of the market rates, and cuts to housing benefit which are set to take place next year.
These issues on housing alone, where never mentioned in any of the parties election manifesto’s.
These are measures that have only been announced in the last week to the public, So we therfore have no idea on how the negotiatians went between the Coalition.
Was the Liberal democrats starting point to these cuts in social Housing 30% and the Conservatives 80% and through negotiations we ended up with 50%? We have no way of knowing, and so it makes it almost impossible for the public to judge if coalition is working.
To me Personally the figures released for these cuts to housing seems totally draconian as they are, but I could well imagine it would be something that was well welcomed by the Conservative Party.
So you can see why to the average joe they would perceive these as tory policies that are just being propped up by Lib Dem Ministers.
“In some areas I’m a little despondent. But there are bright spots. For example, I’m very excited about the pension reform that’s being talked about, to be pushed through by Steve Webb”
Whilst I welcome increases to state pensions broadly, I do have some reservations on this subject, but I have already spoken of this on another thread https://www.libdemvoice.org/welcome-news-from-vince-cable-on-pensions-21765.html and don’t want to bore people by constantly repeating myself. Would welcome discussing it, in more detail with you though.
Your post has given me a lot to ponder on and I appreciate that and no dobt you will hear from me again soon 🙂
The agonies that some people must go through, worrying in case they wake up to see their comments, wrenched out of context and twisted beyond recognition, on the front of tomorrow’s Daily Mirror …
damn word pad, sorry for the really bad grammar and typo’s lol
After watching Simon Hughes on channel 4 last night I’m glad that at least some are starting to speak up for the things they believe in, there has to be public difference between the us and the Tories for the party to have any chance of survival.
(copy and paste from C4 site) ……………………………….
My message to the government is I don’t think you will get parliamentary approval for you current plans. I don’t think there will be a parliamentary majority in the House of Commons for the current plans.”
Mr Hughes said that the proposals would not pass as they are, adding: “I think the government understands that there have to be negotiations”.
He said that as a Liberal Democrat and as an inner city London MP, he is clear that the current proposals are “not the best set of proposals”.
“Whatever the financial constraints there are better ways of doing it and we need to achieve them and I’m making sure the message from me and from many colleagues across the board is being communicated loud and clear to government,” he added.
……………………………………………………………………
That the Deputy Leader of the party has felt the need to speak out publicly about the unfair and regressive nature of a large part of these cuts is slightly worrying to me, not because I don’t believe in what he’s saying, but simply because he’s had to say it.
Simon is the party’s conduit to those in government jobs and him having to say this publicly is pretty indicative that Danny Alexander, Nick, et al have really “gone native” in the Tory led government (back patting George Osborne while Tories cheered the cuts) and have not taken on board any party concerns to the consequences of doing things like reduce housing benefit by 10% for those unemployed over a year in some bizarre punishment that is and should be anathema to the party.
If the Deputy leader can criticise the cuts then those here who are refusing to do so out of “loyalty” are being deeply misguided.
Whilst I mentioned housing.
BBC Panorama are showing tonight at 8.30pm
The Great Housing Rip Off
“With a shortage of social housing, and the private rented market booming, reporter John Sweeney investigates the so-called ‘rogue landlords’ – the housing barons accused of receiving large amounts of housing benefit while using the small print in their tenancy agreements to exploit the poor and vulnerable.
Councils say they don’t have the right laws to combat them, but with the new housing minister ruling out any changes in the law, Panorama examines a problem that is not going to go away”
Hopefully it will expose unscrupulous landlords, who are the real beneficiaries of our welfare state and are driving up rents.
It’s not always the claimants that are abusing the system
matt
@Simon Shaw
I feel you should start again by reading the original article by Stephen Tall.
Then read the subsequent posts that where in response to the topic.
The topic pretty much stayed on track until 4.27pm when you posted
“The problem, Amy, is that an awful lot of those posting on LDV clearly are Labour trolls. You only have to note how often pseudonyms are used.”
What you fail to point out is that I was specifically responding to a point raised by Amy Mcleod.
If I was “off track”, then it was only because Amy Mclead was “off track£ before me. I don’t think she was, but that is the implication of what you say.
matt
”You then went into your usual attack of talking about the annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000
which is totally off topic.”
That’s not actually true, is it?
I only referred to that because, without justification, you said the following:
matt
” Maybe you would do better spending your time debating the issues that are raised by the Public instead of your constant rants its “Labours Fault”.”
Because I had made no mention of “Labour’s Fault”, I responded (perfectly reasonably, i thought) as follows:
Simon Shaw
”And, btw, it is “Labour’s fault”.
How do you excuse the fact that the Labour Party left our country running an annual deficit at the rate of over £150,000,000,000 per year, so that there was a national debt of £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Even with the cuts that the Coalition Government is putting in place that is still going to rise to around £24,500 per capita at 31 March 2011 and to £26,500 per capita at 31 March 2012.
nige
” Hey Simon
Tell me, if Simon Hughes writes a post regarding changes in housing benefit would you accuse him of being a labour troll? after all he disagrees with the Clegg and the ‘party line’?.
nige (ex LD)”
No, because he doesn’t satisfy any of the criteria to qualify as a “Labour Troll”..
He certainly qualifies to come onto “Our Place to Talk”.
@Simon Shaw
Please do me the favour by not addressing me in any more posts.
This thread has managed to stay on subject all day, until you have come home from the office and expect to pick up from where you left off last night.
It has already been established today how constructive this forum can be, for all members of society, no matter what their political affiliation.
I do not wish to engage with you any further, whilst you are insistent on causing friction, rather than sensible debate.
If you care to write an appropriate article on the issues you raise, i may chose to engage with you on your own article, instead of Hijacking someone else.
Regards
Matt
Anthony Aloysius St
” Getting back to the point, I really don’t understand why on earth the progressiveness/regressiveness of this government’s actions is being judged by lumping them in with the very progressive measures in Darling’s last budget. It’s completely irrational. Each government is responsible for its own actions.”
No it’s not irrational at all.
Surely the appropriate thing is to compare the “final” 2010/11 budget with the “final” 2009/10 budget.
However it is arrived at, you must surely concede that the Coalition’s first (full year) budget is more progressive than Labour’s last (full year) budget.
matt
“@Simon Shaw
Please do me the favour by not addressing me in any more posts.”
Could I remind you that the only reason I had any need to “address” you at all was because you felt the need to respond to my early post yesterday aimed at someone else.
Similarly, this evening, the only reason I feel any need to “address” you is because I find a number of inaccurate/misleading posts under your name.
Timak
”@Simon Shaw
OK, I accept your point about how a £150b defecit is not sustainable, and that reducing it should be a priority.
The question I would ask is:
Why did the Lib Dems seem to be calling for higher public spending throughout all their time in opposition?
Why did the Lib Dems campaign on a basis of a slow, sensible reduction in the defecit?
Why did the Lib Dems campaign against the rise in VAT, referring to it as a bombshell?
Why did the Lib Dems sign a pledge against rises in tuition fees?
Now I would accept the arguement that you are in a coalition and implementing your own policies is not possible however to actively argue against the positions you received my vote upon just makes you look like massive hypocrits.””
In response to your four questions, I would answer as follows:
1. Maybe they “seemed” to be doing what you allege because of incomplete media reporting. It certainly was not a point I had noticed.
2. I think a sensible reduction in the deficit is what we have – as I recall it, the main difference pre-election was whether or not to cut £5 billion or so in 2010/11.
3. The Lib Dems didn’t campaign against the rise in VAT. Indeed, on BBC on 11 April, Vince Cable was asked a straight question “Would you rule out raising VAT?” He responded; “No, I don’t.”
4. I am sure there are all sorts of reasons why individual candidates signed – you would need to ask each individual.
Worried LDs should pop over tp Political Betting & read the peice on Lady Ts famous “Dead Parrot” speech. Labour trolls can go back to sleep.
@Nigel:
This is with reference to the Daily Mail article in which Francis Maude suggests that the Coalition could continue after the next election even if the Tories win outright. NO IT COULD NOT. I cannot imagine the Lib Dems grassroots ever agreeing to such an arrangement. I’ve no idea if Nick Clegg was consulted over Maude’s comment, but even if he agrees with it, it wouldn’t matter, as the Lib Dems are not the sort of party in which the leader can force a coalition on the grassroots. Maude’s been in the Westminster bubble too long.
“No it’s not irrational at all.
Surely the appropriate thing is to compare the “final” 2010/11 budget with the “final” 2009/10 budget.”
Obviously not if one is evaluating the actions of the coalition government, because Alistair Darling wasn’t a member of the coalition government!
But suppose we have it your way, and include Darling’s last budget in the figures. Then this is what we get, according to the IFS. This is the percentage change in income for different income groups, by 2014-2015:
1 -5.6% (poorest 10%)
2 -4.9%
3 -4.4%
4 -4.3%
5 -3.6%
6 -3.7%
7 -3.2%
8 -2.8%
9 -2.7%
10 -4.6% (richest 10%)
I can only ask again: is this “fair”? Can anyone defend the poorest losing the largest percentage of their income?
With the passage of time it becomes more and more clear that what causes any proposal in the Coalition to be more or less progressive or regressive, democratic or centralising, realistic or ideological is the person in charge of the Department concerned. By the time proposals have got to Danny Alexander, Osborne and Cameron (oh, did I miss out Nick Clegg?)there seems little chance to change them unless a ‘big beast’ like Vince Cable or Chris Huhne is able to intervene.
Thus the highly ideological Academies policy of Gove was bounced on the Coalition even though only the ‘free schools’ bit was mentioned in the Coalition Agreement. This wouldn’t matter so much if only a relatively small number of schools responded, as in fact happened – and where they do it gives Liberal Democrats a chance to campaign against the proposal and reinforce their credentials as a Party committed to genuine localism through democratically elected Councils etc.
However, it seems clear that Gove & co. are intent on diverting large sums from mainstream schools in order to bribe potential applicants for Academy and ‘free school’ status, and thus negating the effect of the Pupil Premium where it may be needed most.
Likewise, Housing Benefit, while normally considered part of the Welfare Budget, is administered by Local Authorities under the Communities and Local Govt. Dept. under Eric Pickles. While there may be an argument, as with Labour, for reducing local assessed rents to reduce profiteering by private landlords, and while the influence of Andrew Stunnell may see an increase in actual Social Housing built, Eric Pickles seems quite happy to see poor claimants, large numbers of them in fact working all hours for less than a Living Wage, driven away from Central London and other affluent Cities.
Vince Cable’s public intervention in support of proposals by the excellent Steve Webb as Pensions Minister for a non-means-tested £140 state pension for all, and Simon Hughes’ warning about housing benefit cuts, are just the sort of thing we need to hear to show the differences between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. (Incidentally, Nick Clegg, a.f.a.i.k., dropped Steve Webb from his Shadow Cabinet in 2008, reportedly, ‘because he couldn’t stand the man’.)
The Coalition, like the ‘curate’s egg’ is ‘good in parts’ but sadly the taste of the bad parts often overwhelms the good!
With regards to Social housing and changes to Housing Benefit.
in response to last night’s shocking BBC Panorama Investigation into “The Great Housing Rip Off”
“With a shortage of social housing, and the private rented market booming, reporter John Sweeney investigates the so-called ‘rogue landlords”
I think it would be great, if someone could write an article, where these serious issues can be debated.
I was appalled to see the Squaller some landlords where forcing vulnerable tenants to live in.
These unscrupulous landlords are not only taking advantage of the poor, but are also ripping of the welfare, as it is from Housing Benefit, that these Landlords are lining their pockets.
The Investigation highlighted great concerns by exposing the already awful conditions some Housing Benefit claimants are forced to live in, and with housing benefit’s set for cuts, it is deeply worrying the measures some landlords will go to, too increase their profits.
This needs debating urgently
Anthony Aloysius St
“But suppose we have it your way, and include Darling’s last budget in the figures. Then this is what we get, according to the IFS. This is the percentage change in income for different income groups, by 2014-2015 ……. “
But isn’t the problem that the IFS provide more than one answer. Remember what George Kendall said:
George Kendall
“But, to use that graph in isolation would be misleading. On the next page, we have, among others, the figures in the table below. These shows a mostly flat progression, but a slightly progressive trend. (Of course, to use these figures in isolation would also be misleading)
% of total income, by expenditure deciles
1 -3.3% (poorest 10%)
2 -3.2%
3 -2.8%
4 -3.3%
5 -2.9%
6 -3.0%
7 -4.1%
8 -3.8%
9 -4.2%
10 -5.6% (richest 10%)”
Based on that table, wouldn’t you have to agree that the measures are “fair” (whatever than means)?
Peter Chivall
“Incidentally, Nick Clegg, a.f.a.i.k., dropped Steve Webb from his Shadow Cabinet in 2008, reportedly, ‘because he couldn’t stand the man’ “
Although to be fair, Peter, Steve Webb wouldn’t now be a Minister of State if Nick Clegg hadn’t wanted him to be one.
@Peter Chivall
I think you’re 100% right about the importance of who the minister is. And it’s not just the big headline decisions that you’ve mentioned. There are huge numbers of changes a minister can make without primary legislation.
That’s why I was relieved when we went for a coalition, rather than a minority government. Each of our ministers can make a lot of minor improvements with their below-the-radar powers as a minister. We’d have none of that if there’d been a minority Conservative government.
Each of these minor decisions might never be reported in the national media, but there will be a lot of them, and cumulatively, their importance adds up to a lot.
Simon
But those figures depend on assessing poverty according to how much people spend, not according to their income. On that basis, a miser with a large income would be considered poverty-stricken. I think that’s plainly nonsensical.
And even for those who think the principle makes sense, as you must remember, there are serious problems with those figures, which have been discussed here a number of times already.
In the IFS classification of households by expenditure, the “poorest” group has on average an expenditure of roughly £5,500 but an income of nearly £15,000. The second “poorest” has an expenditure of just under £11,000 but an income of nearly £19,000. Can it be right that a group of households which are saving on average £9,500 a year is classified as the poorest 10% of households? (Remember that means that if half of them are saving nothing, the other half must be saving £19,000 a year on average!)
The author of the presentation has indicated not that he thinks these disparities are real, but that there are large errors in the estimation of household expenditure. Yet household expenditure is the basis of the whole classification scheme! What sense does it make to try to classify households according to their expenditure, when your estimates of their expenditure are subject to such huge errors? None.
But as I say, this has been discussed a number of times here and you are already well aware of it.
In any case, your comment was really just an evasion of my question. Apparently you don’t dispute that households with the lowest incomes will be losing the largest percentage of their income. I’ll ask again, do you consider that fair? Can you defend it?
Anthony Aloysius St
“But as I say, this has been discussed a number of times here and you are already well aware of it.”
And I would assume that you are aware of it too. So why do you inist on using the one, and only one, of the IFS’s ways at looking at the issue, which best suits the political point you are trying to make.
I made comments recently on another thread concerning the IFS’s views on whether the rise in VAT was progressive or regressive. As I recall it the IFS acknowledged that there were major problems in basing an assessment on income bands alone. In fact, their comparable table there “showed” that the lowest income decile spent (I think) 19% on their income on VAT, and that the rise in VAT was regressive.
Obviously, that 19% figure was complete garbage and I think the IFS ended up saying that, on reflection, their view was that the VAT rise was “mildly progressive”.
So, Anthony Aloysius St, do you accept that where the IFS used only an income-based methodology it produced manifestly wrong results in relation to the VAT rise question?
And if you accept that, why do you still keep insisting that the equivalent income-based methodology here is the only right one?
I am not even saying that the other one is “the right one” – I am merely saying (like George Kendall, I think) that the fair thing is to look at them all. And you appear to be unwilling to do that.
Simon
No, you’ve got it completely wrong (and it’s not by any means the first time I have had to set you straight on this).
The problem with the IFS analysis of VAT was not with either an income-based classification or an expenditure-based classification. The problem was that – as the author of the study himself acknowledged – there were severe problems with the accuracy of their estimates of household expenditure.
Obviously that makes a nonsense of their analysis of VAT whichever classification is used, because VAT is a tax on expenditure, so if you can’t estimate household expenditure accurately, you can’t estimate the effect of VAT either. That was the reason their findings were “complete garbage” – nothing whatsoever to do with classifying households by income.
It is also – obviously – a problem for the wider expenditure-based analysis that you are currently trying to push. Surely you can understand that if there are huge errors in the estimates of household income – systematic errors of as much as a factor of three – then it does not make sense to classify households by income. It’s hardly rocket science!
Can you really not see the problem with the expenditure grouping, when supposedly the very poorest 10% of households are saving, on average, nearly £10,000 a year? Is that your idea of poverty?
@Anthony Aloysius St
Don’t patronise me. I’ve had to correct you on numerous previous occasions, but I don’t go on about it.
The problem with the IFS figures on VAT is that appear to have got things wrong!
Anthony Aloysius St
“It is also – obviously – a problem for the wider expenditure-based analysis that you are currently trying to push.”
You have a rather unpleasant habit of constatly misrepresenting what others say.
I am not trying “to push” an expenditure-based analysis; I am merely pointing out that you are wrong to try to ignore it. Did younot read my last paragraph, above:
Simon Shaw
I am not even saying that the other one is “the right one” – I am merely saying (like George Kendall, I think) that the fair thing is to look at them all. And you appear to be unwilling to do that..”
Anthony Aloysius St
“That was the reason their findings were “complete garbage” – nothing whatsoever to do with classifying households by income.”
Just noticed that you were up to your usual tricks. I actually said that the 19% figure was “complete garbage”, not all their findings in relation to VAT.
If you are suggesting that the IFS really think that their VAT regressive v. progressive analysis is a “nonsense”, then how do you explain that they ultimately expressed the view that the VAT rise was “mildly progressive”.
It does rather look as if you like to pick and choose which part of IFS analysis you accept.
Simon
For heaven’s sake – I am not “trying to ignore” the IFS classification by expenditure. I’ve pointed out to you about half a dozen times that it is based on data that by the author’s own admission are subject to large and unexplained errors – a fact which you carry on blithely ignoring while you churn out your guff.
Are you really incapable of understanding that those large errors – as large as a factor of three, apparently – render any analysis based on classifying households by expenditure meaningless? Do you really not see the problem with these data? I find it unbelievable.
@Simon Shaw
“I am merely saying (like George Kendall, I think) that the fair thing is to look at them all”
Indeed. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
There might be reasons to prefer one set of data to another, and therefore to quote that data, but I think it’s important to say why we prefer it.