If you haven’t caught up with it, yet there’s a must-read interview with Nick Clegg by Dominic Lawson in today’s Independent. Here’s an extract to whet your appetites:
In the half year since Clegg became Lib Dem leader, Gordon Brown has gone from hero to zero. Yet, I asked him, why is it that, at least so far as the opinion polls indicate to us, the Conservatives have gained enormously as a result, but the Lib Dems scarcely at all?
“You are inviting me to say that the glass is half-empty when I think it’s half full. I’m not innumerate. I can read that the polls are swinging in favour of the Conservatives. Do I think they are sustainable or permanent? No, I don’t. I think a lot of people who are commentating on politics completely overlook the frothiness and the febrile nature of the opinion polls. The average Conservative poll lead over Labour, the day before the March Budget, was only about 2.7 per cent. It’s all happened very recently. Last summer they were writing the political obituaries of David Cameron.” …
“If I had that big idea – and I’ve given you some indication of where I think it might lie – do you think it would be sensible for me to unveil that concrete policy two years before the general election? Have Labour and the Conservatives done that? Do you know what single issue the Conservatives stand for? No. Do you know what single issue Labour stands for? No. But we are clearly headed, more than any other party in British politics, towards an aggressive tax-cutting approach for the vast majority of ordinary income families in this country.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
26 Comments
Dominic Lawson is a c**t, just like his father before him. I’m surprised Clegg kept his patience as well as he did, I’d probably have thumped him.
Although having said that, he’s probably a wind-up merchant, so that’s what he wants. Either way, he’s a lowlife.
The whole article (which I have read) was all about Nick saying nothing.
And guess what?
Nick said nothing
And in the paragraph before the one containing “I’ve given you some indication of where I think it [the big idea] might lie”, Lawson says “Nick Clegg mentioned a commitment to cutting taxes several times in our discussion …”
Mark Littlewood weilding some influence over Nick?
Surely not…
The problem with a sudden emergence of a “big idea” is that it will take many Lib Dems by surprise as well as the other parties.
If it is (for the sake of argument) proposals to reduce taxes and cut public services, I suspect the other parties will be ready for it. And as I mentioned elsewhere, it wouldn’t be a sensible policy given the state of the public finances.
The man, as with Piers Morgan is an A1 prat. Rather like Ross on BBC1 he prefers to hear his own voive than those he interviews, he thinks his views are more important and his little one liners funny.
Its a shame that who ever the “giggleing girl” is did not do a better job telling Lawson to watch it. Time and again I have said we need a Alistair Campbell type figure, no matter what you say he would make sure our man did not have to face such inane and pathetic questioning.
Bring back Mark Littlewood I say!
Geoffrey Paine said:
If it is (for the sake of argument) proposals to reduce taxes and cut public services, I suspect the other parties will be ready for it.
Why is it that everyone assumes that cutting taxes means cutting services, or if you cut taxes here then you need to make it up there.
There is more than enough fat to cut in the delivery and administration of those services that will make tax cuts possible with no loss to the front line services themselves.
So surprise surprise Lawson does a hatchet job on his interview with the Lib Dem Leader!
He wants to know about Nick’s ‘big idea’
Perhaps he should ask Cameron what his ‘big idea’ is? Every time a Tory spokesperson is asked what they would do in government,(as with the 10p band) they give us some bulls*it about waiting to see what conditions they will inherit blah blah.
Totally cynical and insulting.
Waste of space like his father.
Meral, I don’t think the article was a hatchet job by any means, particularly coming from this source.
I think it shows Clegg as a mature politician and offers him a tentative endorsement from no less a person than one who is tainted by any measure or regard by our own constituency and support.
So it shows our hunger for the political fight and our willingness to take on our enemies and attempt to convert them to our cause – which is both admirable for its intellectual and political courage, as well as indispensible for our sense of purpose and direction.
To call Vince a shooting star of the political scene is to make an admission that he was ignored for so many years before he broke through into wider consciousness and highlight the failings and biases of the political press in this country.
This article does a successful job in making plan that more notice should be given to us and the growing stature of our leader.
Its a ghastly article which puts the party in a very por liht in an otherwise very sympathetic newspaper for us. For it to have appeared in this format there are onl realy two senarios.
1. Its an accurate write up of the interview.If thats the case then perhaps I’d better not comment further.
2. It really is a hatchet job in which case we shold come down on the IoS like a ton of bricks.
However i don’t buy the idea that just because its Dominic Lawson it means we are automaticaly gong to get a poor write up.In anycase if that was true the why do the interview ?
I’m also curious that a “Big Idea” shouldn’t be unveiled until nearer the election. While I accept that doing it now gives other parties time to either demolish, or more probably steal it, I think we have to accept that at the current rate no one may be listening nearer the election.
The zeitgeist seems to be Anti Labour/Chage of Government. If we wait to long to unveil our products for this market we may find all the cusomers have been signed up by or rival companies even if our product is better.
May I suggest that the first layer of fat we cut is the awful tax credit system?
What better symbol is there of the cynical and controlling attitude of Labour than taxing people till the pips squeak and then making them APPLY to be ASSESSED to receive a “gift” from the treasury in the form of their OWN money, paid to mitigate the effects of having been so punitively taxed in the first place? Oh thank-ee, thank-ee Mister Gordon, Sir, I’ll never think of not voting Labour again, Sir! *Doffs cap*
And that’s if the massive bureaucracy set up to administer it actually functions properly.
“May I suggest that the first layer of fat we cut is the awful tax credit system?”
You may, and I second it.
I’ve recently met someone who has been on working tax credits for over a year. These fluctuate with her circumstances, number of hours overtime she does and so on.
At present she is taxed (only counting income tax and NI) almost the exact amount that she is then repaid in working tax credits. Utterly pointless, and of course this involves not only her time but also hours of the people beavering away at IR, not to mention the poor souls at Citizens’ Advice Bureaus who I’m told have to help hundreds of people through these complications.
As a further moan, the reverse-incentives of Labour’s benefit system were also revealed in this anecdotal case, as she’d calculated last week that if she did an extra few hours work she’d lose credits, be taxed more and in fact end up worse off. So of course, like any rational person, she’s not going to do the hours.
“Tax is complicated” says Darling. Indeed Sir, well done.
Meral, Cameron very clearly has his “big idea” marked out. I will be happy to give you my take on it if you like but it has been reiterated enough times you really should be able to spot it yourself.
Indeed, Meral – If you were at Liverpool you’d have heard Cameron’s Big Idea laid out plainly by Nick.
The Tories are in favour of winning…and against losing.
It’s really quite fiendishly clever!
I suppose it would be ridiculous to ask whether there’s a chance of the membership having any say on this Big Idea?
Anon @ 18:17, I fear it is far too late for that. It has took pretty much two years from the “Built to Last” project through the policy commisions for the Tory party to put in place a rigorous policy framework and frankly I don’t think the process could go that much faster (if you are going to have a set of coherrant policies that are worth the paper they are printed on, that is).
Benjamin & Julian H speak the truth.
Raise the tax threshold, rather than engage in this idiocy.
A person over 25 (that is the arbitrary cut-off point, utterly regardless of circumstances), who works full-time for the minimum wage, will pay around £40 tax and get around £40 “credits”. Why not simply raise the threshold, ffs?
It also discriminates against single, childless people and the young.
Labour: using the state for social engineering, trying to control the economy, creating a client state & betraying those poor souls who have to do low-paid jobs.
The poor have less chance than their parents of bettering themselves, which is an obscenity & should be utterly unacceptable in a civilised society.
And many people don’t claim them anyway,largely because of a justified fear of overpayment… which very often happens, leaving some parasite in the government destroying the lives of a “hard-working family” by their incompetence.
Extend opportunity, make work pay, enable people to get better-paid jobs, have a sensible & progressive tax system in which every hour at work brings more money into the house than doing nothing.
passing tory:
“I fear it is far too late for that”
I fear so too, though not for precisely the reason you give.
Asquith,
I work for HMRC and do not consider myself to be a parasite. An apology is in order, perhaps?
OK, I am sorry. I did not wish to state that government employees are parasites, since many/most of them do a worthwhile job. But I don’t disown the sentiments I expressed.
The behaviour of collecting money from people in low-paid jobs, then doling it back to them, is basically parasitical & can’t be justified.
You yourself will have observed the horrors which occur under this system, enacted by Blair & Brown. Having never encountered you, I obviously didn’t mean to single you out, or blame the victims of whichever policy is enacted. I am therefore sorry for intemperate language 😉
I think there is an argument that this illiberal government has over-expanded the number of job placements it manages.
That isn’t to say that those workers are parasitic, rather that the forces behind Labour are paranoid about unemployment and have become addicted to feeding this guilty fear because they have failed the test of creative leadership to see where sufficient and sustainable levels of employment exist within the national economy.
There is a clear and illiberal blockage in their thinking which prevents the market from freely functioning in a full and fully fair way – which is proving a severe drag on social progress.
Asquith,
I cannot help but agree that it is a administrative nonsense to take money from the lowly-paid in taxes, only to hand it back in a hamfisted manner.
Sadly, this government has an increasingly desperate desire to be seen to be doing something, preferably creating a client state in the process. A basic income system within a unified tax and benefits system would probably involve more paperwork for some but less for the very people struggling with it now, although of course it would be less obviously connected to Party largesse.
The poor bastards administering tax credits laboured initially under conditions of understaffing – since acknowledged and, to some extent, corrected – and a set of presumptions that were flawed. Given that the majority of HMRC staff are eligible for tax credits, the irony of the situation has not escaped us.
Yes, one thing that did occur to me is that it’s strange that public servants pay tax, when it’s surely better to pay them a lower salary & not tax them. That would save on admin costs anyway. Yes, I know “different departments don’t talk to each other”, but maybe they should.
Also, without wanting to sound too harsh, a lot of admin staff are not especially good at their jobs, & are not very clever.
I’m glad that you weren’t offended by my statements, since my meaning wasn’t what it would first seem to be. I must try harder 😉
Asquith it’s strange that public servants pay tax, when it’s surely better to pay them a lower salary & not tax them
Consider for a moment the impact on the tax take where the public servant has income coming in from outside their main job. Then there becomes quite a significant difference, once you take personal allowances into account. (in fact, I used to work under a system that worked precisely as you describe and it was very nice because I didn’t have to pay tax on my other – not very large – earnings).