Let’s Replace the Tories!

I can see three possible conclusions to the Brexit debacle. First, we’ll crash out the EU without a deal. Second, Brexit will become untenable and we’ll have to end up staying in the EU. And third, we’ll be stuck in a transitional limbo with a debilitated leadership and endless bureaucratic wrangling that may further weaken our economy and global reputation. Nevertheless, if we ever get through this mess, we will most certainly hit rock bottom. However good this imaginary deal might be, relations with our European partners will have been broken beyond repair. We need to prepare ourselves for any of these circumstances.

For the Corbynistas to enact their glorious revolution in this climate would then be quite inconceivable (anyway I suspect Corbyn will be old news by 2022); with the Tories facing potential wipe-out due to their irresponsible mismanagement – the public will be soul-searching for a party with prior experience in government, economic competence and a positive, progressive, social outlook.

The aftermath of Brexit will be fertile ground for us. But we need to make it a fertile ground; otherwise we’ll be dead in the water. I reckon people will look back on the coalition years as a time of unprecedented political stability in a decade of upsets. Therefore, the Lib Dems should be in a prime position to scoop up votes.

However, we should not be aiming to pick up, say ten or twenty seats. We need to aim for government. Is that not what a political party is for? Our reliance on being a protest vote, a vote for “the party inbetween” is too fragile and isn’t attractive to the public.

Here’s something controversial: replace the Tories. I know this is difficult to swallow, but I think it’s a strategy worth thinking about. The only way of winning by FPTP is playing by its rules. Look how the Liberal party was replaced in the 20s by Labour, as they targeted our core vote and gave our policies a socialist flare. For too long, we’ve been trying to be an “alternative” to the 2 main parties. We are the typecast 3rd party. It’s almost second nature reverting to the old “Cor, look at those two squabbling and bickering. Vote for us, the plucky 3rd party!” routine. The reason why the Tories weren’t finished off completely in 1997 was due to tactical voting to get them out, not to replace them. Their share of seats was reduced by 49% in 1997, compared to 75% for us in 1924.

For the next five years I would suggest this course of action: understanding the reasons why people voted to Leave; keeping our main principles, but changing our focus onto the “Shy Tory” demographic; making steady gains in council elections by putting localism first and working with Labour to undercut the Tory vote.

More than ever this country needs the Liberal Democrats. Let’s not waste our chance.

* James Richardson is a 17 year old student from Suffolk and a recent member of the Liberal Democrats.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

48 Comments

  • nigel hunter 6th Nov '17 - 9:22am

    May is commenting that the Govnt will not attempt to shield the economy from market forces. If things go badly in the future of Brexit we will head for a low wage economy to compete with the rest of the world, a Singapore style economy of greater extremes. It could be the Tories weakness.

  • “For the Corbynistas to enact their glorious revolution in this climate would then be quite inconceivable (anyway I suspect Corbyn will be old news by 2022); with the Tories facing potential wipe-out due to their irresponsible mismanagement – the public will be soul-searching for a party with prior experience in government, economic competence and a positive, progressive, social outlook…….In the aftermath of Brexit will be fertile ground for us. But we need to make it a fertile ground; otherwise we’ll be dead in the water. I reckon people will look back on the coalition years as a time of unprecedented political stability in a decade of upsets. Therefore, the Lib Dems should be in a prime position to scoop up votes…..

    I’m trying not to be reverse ‘agist’ but, as a 17 yo, I’d suggest that your experience of the 2010-15 coalition years, and the damage it did, is limited…I’m old enough to remember the Saturday cinema matinee serials when, “With one bound, the hero was free”…

  • Trying to attract an imagined shy centre Right is what the party to 7% in the first place. This is because dissatisfied Conservatives tend more right wing rather than less right wing than the mainstream of the party. The reason the Lib Dems picked up votes from New Labour is because Tony Blair refashioned the party leaving the poor, the disabled, trade unionists, public sector workers and students unrepresented. This is who was voting Lib Dem in the pre-2010 era. To replace the Conservatives you would need to attract a different kind of voter with different values because at the core they are the everything has gone to hell in a handcart Peter Hitchens contingent. IMO, The lib Dems actually need to be liberals in the freer anti censorious, relaxed and progressive sense. In short to embrace their inner “hippie”.

  • James Richardson 6th Nov '17 - 10:01am

    I have little experience of the coalition, as do millions who will be legal to vote in 2022. Memory is short in politics.

  • Peter Watson 6th Nov '17 - 10:05am

    “replace the Tories … working with Labour”
    I believe there is an inherent contradiction there. Replacing the Tories by attracting their voters requires Lib Dems to attack Labour more and the Conservatives less, and this looks like the strategy the party has attempted to follow in recent years with little success, appearing to be aligned alongside the Conservatives as a nicer version.
    Whether the Lib Dems are centre-left / centrist / centre-right / all-of-the-above / none-of-the-above has looked increasingly unclear, and articles like this add to that confusion about the party’s political identity. The overwhelming emphasis on opposing Brexit has not helped either, since, although a very important issue, it does not clarify the position of the party on social and economic issues.

  • James Richardson 6th Nov ’17 – 10:01am………….. Memory is short in politics……….

    Were that only true…
    Even in this party, apart from a few diehards, I’ll wager the ‘coalition years’ do not bring back fond memories..

  • chris moore 6th Nov '17 - 10:39am

    Hi James,

    Always delighted to see new members contributing.

    My feeling is that the Lib Dems have become over-identified wth one policy: offering a second referéndum.

    This is problematic to say the least: most voters have more pressing concerns than another referéndum, including many who voted Remain. And a significant percentage of Remain voters do not accept the Lib Dems’ justification for a second referendum.

    I’m strongly pro-European, but I’m afraid the offer of a second referéndum merely alienates all Leave voters, many of whom were core Lib Dem voters.

    You’ve focused on tactical positioning. But tactical positioning has to be based on a coherent and attractive general stance, itself backed by a coherent policy offer. Currently, we do not have such a stance; tactical positioning must wait.

  • Richard Underhill 6th Nov '17 - 10:57am

    We were the first party to have a policy of votes at 16, decades ago, in the early days of the Liberal Democrats, after the Liberal – SDP Alliance and merger.
    Between the 2015 and 2017 general elections Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) tabled a 10 minute rule bill on the subject with SNP support. Labour MPs were absent from the vote. A Tory MP opposed the bill, talking nonsense. Tory MPs arrived to vote the bill down. This was sheer hypocrisy from the Tories because David Cameron had signed the Edinburgh Agreement allowing votes at 16 for the 2014 referendum in Scotland. Labour seemed to forget that former Prime Minister Harold Wilson had reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 across the UK. Labour’s relations with the SNP were described by Charles Kennedy MP on BBC1 Question Time: “Speaking as a Scot …They hate each other.” Putting aside the calculations of how many people would vote for whom, this is an issue of principle/s for us. We want to widen the franchise for all the reasons spelled out in an entire episode of a popular US television series in which a group of 16-18 year olds visited the White House for a tour of the building. The other reason is that democratically elected conference delegates voted in favour and thereby made policy in a way that is different from some other parties.
    Last week’s edition of BBC radio 4’s Any Questions? is still available online with its companion programme Any Answers? which included a call from a 17 year old.
    Tony Blair’s government did several important constitutional reforms, Gordon Brown’s government ran out of steam and time, but it is true of both that “You were the future once”.

  • While there’s nothing wrong with hoping to pick up votes from moderate pro-European Tories, the idea of trying to replace the Tories and everything they stand for leaves me cold. Nearly all mature western democracies have a mainstream centre-right party; that’s really not where we want to be.
    Regarding Europe, I agree that banging on about a second EU Referendum (or whatever) didn’t do us that much good in the last election. However, the political landscape changed somewhat after the last election and is still changing. We certainly don’t want to come across as a single-issue party, but keeping open the possibility of a referendum on the terms of any agreement or in case of no-deal deadlock in Parliament seems sensible to me.
    I know I’m a small dissenting voice in the party on this, but I am strongly opposed to reducing to lowering the voting age to 16 in national elections (even though the effect would almost certainly be beneficial for us pro-Europeans). Many people fought and some gave their lives for the principle of universal adult suffrage. Adulthood in both national and international law begins at 18. Young people are legally children till they reach 18. 18 is overwhelmingly the standard voting age for national elections in democracies around the world. For example, out of 32 EEA countries, only one (Austria) has reduced the voting age to 16; 30 out of 32 have it at 18, so what’s the great imperative to change it here?

  • They should rename this site “wishful thinking.”

  • I’d love to replace both tories and labour and have a 60 seat lib dem commons; sadly it’s not feasible.

    Nor is making a party, the vast majority of whose voters and members and activists lean left, the main right wing party.

  • 650 seat, sorry, typo

  • Matt (Bristol) 6th Nov '17 - 1:02pm

    What Jennie said.

  • nigel hunter 6th Nov '17 - 1:11pm

    Where 16-17 year olds are concerned we should be campaigning on giving them better life chances. I hear that the money for the 6th form is being cut by schools, This section of schools provide future scientists engineers linguists for business. Aim for future voters. The ‘well off’ schools are encouraging their pupils to learn a trade. These can be used throughout the world. Plumbers electricians are always needed. An example does a 17 year old know how to change a plug?do they know their is a fuse in that plug?can they identify where the water stop tap is for water. We must think of the future voter and their needs and then we could take votes off both parties and get those future seats.

  • Geoffrey Payne 6th Nov '17 - 1:18pm

    Many years ago the Canadian Tories were reduced to 4 MPs, but they came back again.
    As things stand there is a large number of people who dislike immigrants and welfare claimants and a good many of them vote Tory. Unless that changes they cannot be replaced.

  • David Evans 6th Nov '17 - 1:25pm

    Nigel, Indeed we should think of the future voter and their needs. Once upon a time our strategy was to do just that. Then we were led into coalition with the party of the old and well to do, and our leaders became so much more comfortable with cutting benefits for the young, protecting pensions and imposing massive increases in debt for youngsters who wanted to improve their chances in life.

    We certainly have a very long journey ahead of us and it won’t be sorted by trying to replace the Conservatives.

  • Laurence Cox 6th Nov '17 - 1:28pm

    @James Richardson

    I suggest that you read this post and pay particular attention to the Google slides which date from 2005 :

    https://www.flourish.org/2016/07/on-finding-political-axes-using-maths/

    It is very clear that Lib Dem supporters overlap strongly with Labour supporters, and far less with Tory supporters. Hence the only party we can replace is Labour (an inversion of what happened in the first few decades of the 20th Century). Replacing the Tories is a fanciful idea.

  • There will always be conservatives. Even if replacing the Conservatives (as what? The main party of the right?) was actually desirable (it isn’t) – it’s a complete non starter.

  • “I have little experience of the coalition, as do millions who will be legal to vote in 2022. Memory is short in politics.”

    Out of interest looking at demographics, it seems to be correct to say that voters who could not vote before 2010 (aged 18-25 in 2017) currently make up ~13% of eligible voters. In 2022 the same group (who will then encompass those aged 18-30) will make up some 21% of eligible voters.*

    The challenge in taking aim at these souls though, I’d suggest, is what is their lived experience of politics is by the time 2022 rollls around – will they be a distinguishable lump of votes compared to more orthodox groupings we think in terms of?

    *Based on a quick check at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/.

  • Red Liberal 6th Nov '17 - 1:39pm

    The LibDems can be a centrist party, or a centre-left party, or a “progressive centre” party (i.e. centre-left, but with a different spin). It can’t really be a centre-right party without abandoning most of its historical and core ideals.

  • paul barker 6th Nov '17 - 1:54pm

    James asks a good question but the long-term answer still has to be No. We are Liberals & Reformists, we tend to instinctively welcome change, we cant become Conservatives.
    In the Short-Term however The Conservatives have been taken over by people who are defintely not conservative. Its hard to see how The Tories can can survive the next few Years, presuming they can get through the next few Weeks. We have to take Votes & Seats where we can get them while building a larger Core Vote & replacing Labour is still our Long-Term aim.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 6th Nov '17 - 1:58pm

    Where those who decry the centre go wrong is in presuming it is a dull area , devoid of excitement , they do not think that radical centre makes sense.

    This article shows it does. To be radical today is not to be only left or only right or a bit of both.

    To be radical today is to cut through all the labels and offer solutions.

    In the midst of the typical lets go left , but no, lets never go there, lets go right , to avoid those extremes, to defeat that mentality is radical.

    The article does not imply we must be right wing to replace the Tories, anymore than we would have been only left wing to replace Labour had they disintegrated.

    The flaw in the article , like so much in politics today , is it presumes too much.

    Do not expect Corbyn to go.

    Argue with him. Defeat him. Or work with him.

    The only way forward for this party is proportional representation and electoral and democratic reform.

    We need to say to Labour, we are progressive because we know that is the only fair system, if you are and you do, show us, because the more we recover the more one of the parties is going to gain, the other lose, and coalition is inevitable.

    Labour is the only game in town as an ally , so replacing is not the answer, persuading is though.

  • paul barker 6th Nov '17 - 2:26pm

    Perhaps it would be useful to narrow this down to one specific Election, in one place : next May in London.
    I still believe that our Long-Term aim has to be to replace Labour, especially in London where The Labour Vote is mostly Open & Internationalist in its outlook.
    However, unless things change very fast in the next 6 Months, next May will see us fighting a defensive battle in Labour areas while hoping to make gains in Conservative ones.
    We will be “replacing” Tories & at best, holding our own against Labour.

  • Lorenzo was asking for a new brand name for the party the other day. Would he be happy with The Moderate Radical Moderate Perhaps with a Bit of This and a Bit of That more words in its name than policies in it’s Locker Party ?

    @ James, I’m willing to forgive you James though I prefer a bit more of This than a bit more of That.

    Tommy Cooper could tell you how to achieve it,’ Just Like That’. !!

    Tommy Cooper – Just Like That – YouTube
    Video for Tommy Cooper Just like that▶ 2:43

  • The “centre” is our ground, and there are many people who traditionally back other parties who share many of our ideals. Our task is not to replace the Tories or Labour per se, but to attract those people, one nation Tories and social democrat (blairite) Labour voters by offering a clear, understandable and compelling proposition that they want to sign up to. We need to be seen to stick to a principled approach, pro Europe, truly Liberal policies that people appreciate, and a positive approach to support business and the economy. If we do this, and especially as the Conservatives and Labour are so useless at the moment, we are bound to gather a lot more support, and who knows, we could well return to the centre of power.

  • Tristan Ward 6th Nov '17 - 5:41pm

    Delighted to rfeplacwe the Tories, but that’s probably unlikely to happen (unless we emphasise the Liberty and Equality (of opportunity) a lot more than we currently do. Given the (incorrect *in my view) knee jerk adverse reaction of many to “Orange Book” liberalism at the moment that may be unlikely to happen.

    That said, if we believe (as I do) that Brexit will be bad for Britain (and hard Brexit worse) then we should also expect those responsible for it (the Tories) will become pretty unpopular pretty quickly. It ought to follow that there is an opportunity to pick up a good few votes without compromise of Liberal Democrat principles.

    * I expect a significant response along the line of look where Orange Book liberalism has got us. I am coming to the view that it was not Orange Book Liberalism per se that was the difficulty ( the Tories have been pushing neoliberalism with considerable electoral success for years) but the coalition with the Tories that was the issue.

  • David Becket 6th Nov '17 - 7:41pm

    At the rate we are going we will not be replacing anybody. The Paradise Papers have highlighted an issue that the Liberal Democrats should have lots to say.

    Nothing on our web site
    Nothing in LDV

    What do we think we are playing at?

  • Ed Shepherd 6th Nov '17 - 8:22pm

    Corbyn revolution? I am not sure. The policies espoused by Jeremy Corbyn are mainstream in many other European countries and were the status quo in Britain from 1945 to 1979 when Tory councils were building vast numbers of council houses and abolishing grammar schools. It is only because neoliberalism has become mainstream in England that Corbyn seems revolutionary.

  • @ David Beckett Quite right, David.

    I tried to post about the Paradise Papers this morning…………. but was told I had posted too much already. We should be shouting about it from the roof tops – which Corbyn J. certainly is. The amounts involved suggest that all the austerity products such as Universal Credit et al might well have been avoided if Sir Daniel Alexander had got stuck in properly.

    “It’s the same the whole world over:
    It’s the poor what gets the blame.
    It’s the rich what gets the pleasure;
    Ain’t it all a bloomin’ shame.

    Come on, Vince, Get stuck in foe Gawd’s sake !!!

  • Lorenzo Cherin 6th Nov '17 - 10:25pm

    Davids Raw and Becket , good comments , but the issue is not going to make an impact as the practices are all legal and acceptable to the tax authorities!

    Those of us who want these things changed are going to get drowned out by the accountants lobby saying this is fine and so what.

    And David, Raw this is , thanks for the Tommy Cooper, how did you know that I am a big fan ,eh?!

  • @ James Richardson

    You do not make clear why the majority of Conservative voters would vote for a progressive and socially liberal party in 2022 nor what strategy we could follow to get these socially conservative and regressive voters to vote for us. Once we are out of the EU I imagine that Corbyn’s Socialism will be easier to implement without the EU restrictions on what a national government can do. The Conservatives will not be facing total wipe out; history should teach us that it is extremely difficult to wipe them out (in 1832 the Tories were reduced to just 175 MPs [26.6%]; in 1906 the Conservatives were reduced to 156 MPs [23.3%]; in 1945 – 197 MPs [30.8%]; in 1997 – 165 MPs [25%]{Wikipedia figures}).

  • Dave Orbison 7th Nov '17 - 6:05am

    Lorenzo it was once legal to drive a car without seat belts and ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Just because it was legal does not mean it is right, acceptable or harmless.

    Several here have rejected the thrust of this article that the LibDems should replace the Tories as the LibDems support radical change not the status quo. The tax situation is wrong and needs changing. We are not “all in it together”.

    Labour are shouting this from the rooftops yet the LibDems seem silent on the issue.

  • I like the spirit.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 6th Nov ’17 – 10:25pm……………… but the issue is not going to make an impact as the practices are all legal and acceptable to the tax authorities!……….

    Er, no! Tax avoidance by ‘loan’ is not legal if the ‘loans’ are not repaid…IOM’s VAT avoidance scheme is under investigation….

    The line between legitimate ‘avoidance’ and ‘aggressive avoidance’ is fuzzy to say the least…
    Theresa May refuses to commit to public inquiry or open registers…. We should be hammering her on this …..Jeremy Corbyn, goaded Theresa May, saying: “When it comes to paying taxes, does the prime minister think it is acceptable that there is one rule for the super-rich and another for the rest of us?”…But answer came there none!

    As has been said, the silence from this party is deafening..

  • Philip Moss 7th Nov '17 - 12:25pm

    We should hang our hat on something, what about tax avoidance and evasion.
    We had our chance when we were part of, Government. We should have told the Tories is must be our way ,clamp down on tax avoidance/evasion, or we hit the highway.
    We need simple basic principles so we can be readily understood and hopefully supported.

  • nvelope2003 7th Nov '17 - 12:49pm

    The electorate is divided between those who in general accept the established order of things even if they do not agree with every detail and those whose chief aim in life is to punch the boss on the nose and complain about everything because they are unhappy with their lives even if it is sometimes their own fault or because of their own failings.
    The former vote Conservative and the latter support the Labour party and will go on doing so as Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan explained ( every child that is born alive is either a little Liberal (in 1880 when they were only left wing party, but now Socialist ) or else a little Conservative. People who hate those in authority are not going to vote Liberal Democrat except in those places where a tactical vote might get rid of the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are not going to replace anybody because they are generally moderate and rational people, totally untypical of the general population.

    There will be the usual ebb and flow of support when those who cannot make up (or change) their minds either switch allegiance or do not vote.

    A change would only come if Labour or the Conservatives were to completely collapse because they were proposing policies which were totally unacceptable to most voters.
    Mr Corbyn knows this and has very wisely limited his proposals to the restoration of the pre Thatcher settlement which many people would like, despite the fact that it was no longer working but they have either forgotten that or have no experience of the 1970s. Like Lenin he will promise the modern equivalent of land for the peasants without any intention of granting it and his supporters, like the safe places supporters in the Universities, will make sure that future elections can only be won by them because the people cannot risk any dangerous new ideas ( that is cannot be trusted).

  • Theresa May refuses to commit to public inquiry or open registers…. We should be hammering her on this

    Opportunity for a LibDem Private Members Bill – Members of the HoC and HoL must be a permanent residents of the UK.

    Another small practical step in the reform of Westminster that the Libdems could achieve this parliament – I’m sure David Steel would be happy to advise…

  • nvelope2003 7th Nov ’17 – 12:49pm…….The electorate is divided between those who in general accept the established order of things even if they do not agree with every detail and those whose chief aim in life is to punch the boss on the nose and complain about everything because they are unhappy with their lives even if it is sometimes their own fault or because of their own failings….The former vote Conservative and the latter support the Labour party…………….

    Thank goodness you didn’t fall into the sin of ‘Generalisations’…

    After reading your post I looked for the LibDems… I only found a couple of references to LibDem voters…
    The first I found was in the Bible…Luke 18:10 … and the LibDem prayed, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the other men’…
    The second was in a 1970’s song entitled “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble ….”

  • Regarding the Paradise Papers I agree, we should be leading the debate here. We can also tie in membership of the EU, which will make it easier to get the tax dodging corporates and multinationals to pay their fair share of tax than ourselves alone.

    In the meantime, may I make a radical suggestion that will cost us nothing? I’ve noticed that a lot of very rich and famous people are very vain with their faux patriotism; people like Lewis Hamilton wrapping the Union Jack around himself while living in Monaco to avoid tax and flying his private jet once to the Isle of Man just to avoid paying over £3m VAT due to the UK treasury. No one should be eligible for any awards, gongs, knighthoods, ennoblements etc unless they pay their tax in full in the UK. This should also apply to BBC’s highly prestigious Sports Personality Of The Year, so no Lewis Hamilton!

  • nvelope2003 8th Nov '17 - 12:01pm

    MersyLib; What a wonderful idea. Presumably rich people who pay their taxes and live in the UK can purchase their seat in the House of Lords in the usual way !

  • nvelope2003 8th Nov '17 - 12:13pm

    expats: Generalisations ? Me ? I cannot think what you mean ! And on Liberal Democrat Voice too. Dear dear dear ….

  • “Presumably rich people who pay their taxes and live in the UK can purchase their seat in the House of Lords in the usual way !”

    Another opportunity for a private members bill: separating the appointment of people to the HoL from the honours system. Thus a PM can recognise a valued contributor without also them getting a seat in the lords. Given the direction of travel towards an elected HoL, this separation of honour and office has to happen at some stage, so why not now?

  • Peter Watson 8th Nov '17 - 3:02pm

    @MerseyLib
    “Regarding the Paradise Papers I agree, we should be leading the debate here.”
    I wonder if senior Lib Dems are first trawling through the details to ensure that large donors like Lord Sainsbury and Gregory Nasmyth are not featured!

    “We can also tie in membership of the EU, which will make it easier to get the tax dodging corporates and multinationals to pay their fair share of tax than ourselves alone.”
    The problem is that all this has taken place while we were in the EU so probably provides more ammunition for Brexiters than it does for Bremainers.

  • @ Peter Watson “I wonder if senior Lib Dems are first trawling through the details to ensure that large donors like Lord Sainsbury ………… are not featured!”

    Sainsbury was never a Liberal – he was right wing Labour and joined the SDP for a while. He rejoined the Labour Party in 1996.

    He funded the “Remain” side of the 2016 European Union membership referendum campaign, giving £2,150,000 to the Labour and £2,125,000 to the Liberal Democrats “Remain” campaigns

  • Does anyone here have savings?
    Where do you think the money is kept? In a shoe box in the bank’s head office? It’s just a number on a sheet that gets added to other numbers and moved here there and everywhere.
    The way the bank pays you interest is that it lends it to someone else and almost certainly your little nest egg is passing through some tax haven. So what? Bermuda doesn’t take a “cut” for passing that to a Lithuanian shopping centre to earn a return. Why should it? It didn’t do anything. Your savings just grow a little quicker and you can’t dodge tax because you have to collect your returns in the UK and pay tax on it here (unless it’s below the allowances).
    There will always be jurisdictions happy to see your investments grow free of tax.
    This is just confusing the real issue which is global giants who actually generate wealth in many countries but move the profit from there to a low tax haven by false inter group trading. For example the high street coffee chain which has to buy its coffee via head office but at such a fantastic price that the cost of UK sales generates no profit here. Effectively, the profit was exported to the low tax jurisdiction ‘hidden’ in exaggerated charges to the subsidiary.
    Why hasn’t this been tackled? Because it is hard to define and govts are afraid of driving away employment and the companies we want (like automotive).
    Posters on this blog would be better employed (electorally) to debate ways of taxing the massive multinational wealth generators but without negative side effects.

  • >’The way the bank pays you interest is that it lends it to someone else and almost certainly your little nest egg is passing through some tax haven.

    Given interest rates on average savings account have been in the order of 0.05% (instant access as low as 0.01%) for a few years, they probably are keeping it in a shoe box.

Post a Comment

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

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

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

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 17th Nov - 6:59pm
    Hi, Peter, it seems to me that a majority of the British people probably doesn't want to join the Euro, and I understand (I think!)...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 17th Nov - 6:52pm
    Nice one, Katharine, lass !!! Tha's so sharp tha'll be bahn to cut thiself. One of the few redeeming features in the dark days at...
  • User AvatarNigel Hardy 17th Nov - 6:44pm
    Dave Orbison 29th Jun '17 - 6:24pm Much as I loathe the Tories, I was not upset to see LD's go into coalition with them....
  • User AvatarThe High Castle 17th Nov - 6:43pm
    The last thing it needs is a 'big gesture'. Whatever happens has to be measured, proportionate and most of all just (a lot to ask...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 17th Nov - 6:17pm
    @ Katharine, I've always thought " that people voted to leave or remain for a variety of complex reasons". You and I aren't , perhaps,...
  • User AvatarNigel Hardy 17th Nov - 6:16pm
    frankie 30th Jun '17 - 7:31am That's absurd to say the LibDem Tory Coalition was a disaster. Far from it. The LibDem's tethered the Tories...