Stephen Tall’s Diary: liberal jottings on the week’s big events

Spending Revue Reviewed

‘You make your own luck,’ goes the saying. In which case, and only in this respect, George Osborne truly has started a “march of the makers” because he’s one hell of a lucky Chancellor. Had the independent Office for Budget Responsibility not lavished on him a £27 billion fiscal (and notional) windfall, this week’s Autumn Statement would have been far more wintry. As it was, he was able to play out the role of Santa, albeit a very Tory version: snatching away fewer of the kids’ presents in order to re-gift them to their grandparents. For this was a spending review which confirmed this Government stands shoulder-to-shoulder with pensioners (who vote, in droves) while shrugging its shoulders at the plight of the younger, working poor (who often don’t vote, and if they do probably vote Labour anyway).

Yes, the tax credit cuts were jettisoned for now — take a bow all those who’ve campaigned against them because it took concerted action to persuade the House of Lords and a few Tory MPs with a social conscience to stand up to this government — but, really, they’ve just been deferred. Once universal credit has been implemented (assuming that Godot-like day ever arises) the Resolution Foundation calculates eligible working families with children will be £1,300 a year worse off (even taking into account the so-called ‘national living wage’ and planned increases in the tax-threshold). Which might sound bad, but that average actually conceals far worse news for some. For instance, a single mum working part-time on the minimum wage will receive £2,800 a year less by 2020 under the Tories’ plans, while a working couple on the minimum wage with three kids will lose out to the tune of £3,060. Meanwhile the pensions ‘triple lock’ (of which Lib Dems have often boasted) will guarantee that pensioner benefits grow to more than half of all welfare spending.

Gone are the days when the Lib Dems could require a distributional analysis to ensure the pain of cuts was shared around to ensure that, as far as possible, Britain was all in it together. It’s George’s Show now. It’s just a shame some of his luck won’t rub off on those “hard-working families” he’s soon going to clobber.

Rational actors

There was much talk before the election of a thing called ‘the candour deficit’, the unwillingness of politicians, especially (though not only) the Conservatives, to level with the voters about what their policies would mean for their living standards. “We may, we may not, decide that it’s relevant to put something out there about some of those changes,” said Iain Duncan Smith in March, airily dismissing the notion that those who’d lose out from the Tories’ planned £12 billion cuts to social security should understand this before they voted. I suspect one of the lessons politicians will draw from the OBR’s major revisions will be further to entrench this candour deficit. After all, why risk antagonising a whole load of voters weeks before they cast their ballot by spelling out the consequences of cuts you think might be necessary if it’s quite possible a later change to economic modelling will give you all the wiggle room you need? The rational politician will put off making their final decision until the last possible moment in the hope that something might just turn up. It’s worked for George. This time.

Magic Mao-ments

Enough incredulous bafflement has already been expressed at Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s excruciating decision to stand at the despatch box in his spending review response and shout “Let’s quote Mao” before flinging his own copy of the Little Red Book at Osborne. Some things cannot be un-seen and some tracts cannot be retracted. It doesn’t, of course, make McDonnell a Chinese Communist; but it does make him a fool. (What is it with the Bennite Left? They’ve had more than three decades to prepare for this moment and now they look like they’ll be un-done through their utter incompetence rather than their ideological idiocy.) The figures you pray in aid in such situations should be those your opponent will find embarrassing, not you. Thus McDonnell could have laid into the Tories’ decision to give millionaires an inheritance tax cut by invoking free market hero Adam Smith, a powerful opponent of the inequality of inherited wealth: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

But Syria-ously

Should the UK join the bombing raids on Syria to counter the threat from Isis? It’s a dilemma I’m still wrestling with (and am mystified by those who’ve already made their minds up with cast-iron certainty on either side). No perfect outcome currently appears possible either way: both action and inaction will result in death and destruction to many innocent people. The principled, moral case for intervention is clear to me: as per last week’s UN resolution we should be “determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security”. What’s a lot less clear, even after David Cameron’s Commons’ statement yesterday, is what will happen after the bombing (hopefully) weakens Isis’s grip on its Raqqa stronghold. While it’s hard to believe things can get much worse for the region than they already are, no-one can be sure. Yet I also know it’s wholly unrealistic to expect a perfect exit strategy that pretends everything will be happy ever after. Bismarck said politics is the art of the possible. Put another way, it’s about choosing between the least worst reality.

Damned lies, and “1 in 5” statistics

Much controversy this week, after The Sun splashed with the misleading headline ‘1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis’, prompting the pollster they paid, Survation, to disown the tabloid’s distortion. Another ‘1 in 5’ poll result caught my eye this week – that’s the proportion of Lib Dems who trust Jeremy Corbyn to make the right decisions in regard of Syria and Isis. Which is better than he scores among Labour MPs.


‘It may just be, with all that happened, that we were simply fucked anyway’ was the rather brilliant last line of Nick Harvey’s verdict in Liberator on the Lib Dems’ election catastrophe. However, the rest of his article strains to identify “a better strategy” which could have saved the day. For example, Nick suggests the party should have tried “to scare the nation witless about what a majority Tory Government would be like” — nice idea, but with not a single poll suggesting that was a remote possibility, we’d have got short shrift. And I couldn’t help but remember Nick’s interview with the Huffington Post two years ago when he declared with near-certainty, “Labour is on course to win the next election.” He also added he was confident the party’s 56 MPs “will survive largely intact”.

As you know, not all my election predictions worked out well, either. But I’m going to claim a little credit for this one: ‘So how’s my scenario 3 – a Tory lead of 6% by May 2015 – working out then?’ Especially as, dear reader, many of you were pretty scornful when I first suggested it.

And finally…

“No one can do a sex scandal like Tories can,” claims David Aaronovitch, prompted by the revelations surrounding top Tory Mark Clarke. How soon we Lib Dems are forgotten.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

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


  • Richard Underhill 27th Nov '15 - 9:40am

    The BBC put a comedian on Question Time, but he did not make any jokes.
    He said he left the Labour Party the day that Jeremy Corbyn was elected.
    Ken Livingstone called him a Blairite, which he did not deny.
    He did have serious things to say about modern politics, so maybe he should consider his career choices.

  • Eddie Sammon 27th Nov '15 - 9:41am

    I’m not absolutely certain, but the idea that if we find military targets we shouldn’t hit them ourselves I find a strange one. The danger is the UK and France try to do too much and hit a load of civilians, so this is where Cameron should be facing pressure. Instead I see pressure put on him to have a peace plan and ground forces already mapped out.

  • Damned lies, and “1 in 5” statistics…

    Don’t mock the ‘1 in 5’ chances, Stephen.
    After all, there is only about a ‘1 in 15’ chance of finding a LibDem voter in any crowd…We’d sell our souls for a ‘1 in 5’ chance..Sorry, we did, that’s why we’re at ‘1 in 15’….

  • Stephen : no mention in your weekly review of the headlines north of the border. Front page lead in all the papers is that a second SNP MP has been suspended on a financial matter.

    Whilst I take no joy in this, I have to say Kezia Dugdale is beginning to make inroads against Nicola at FM questions. Nicola is looking a bit rattled. Early days, but…..

  • Stephen’s sense of proportion in response to the John McDonnell faction is well calibrated. Let’s hope we can stick with it.

  • Eddie Sammon 27th Nov '15 - 2:41pm

    The security industry is nearly all against airstrikes. From what I can see. They don’t suggest many alternatives though. There is a lot of outrage against Assad, but not much is suggested when it comes to what we should do about it.

    I still think we should launch limited and targeted airstrikes against Daesh. The security professionals are looking at it from the perspective of the Syrian civil war and mainly seem to be saying “it will get better when Assad goes”, but how do we make him go?

    I doubt the foreign policy professionals would be as unanimous if the proposal was to actually militarily remove Assad. We need to threaten Russia with more sanctions and possibly implement them.

  • Eddie Sammon 27th Nov ’15 – 2:41pm……………..I doubt the foreign policy professionals would be as unanimous if the proposal was to actually militarily remove Assad. We need to threaten Russia with more sanctions and possibly implement them………………..

    That’s all we need, an even more fragmented situation in Syria…… Assad, Assad, Assad?????? He’s not the problem….

    Most military experts agree that it is only ‘boots on the ground’ that will decisively defeat ISIS in Syria and, at the momen,t there are only two effective anti ISIS ground forces; the Syrian army and the Kurds. Turkey are targeting the Kurds and you seem to want to target the Syrian army??????? All this guff about 70,000 plus ‘moderates’ is just ‘smoke and mirrors’. ;

    If not the Kurds/Syrian army; who..British troops? I thought not!

  • Eddie Sammon 27th Nov '15 - 7:28pm

    Hi expats, I just want Daesh defeated and the civil war over with. If the experts are saying Assad is the main cause then I’m not going to turn around and say he’s who we should back – and from what I’ve heard definitely not.

    I probably went a bit far in saying most the foreign policy experts are against Cameron’s airstrikes, but they seem to be more indifferent to it and proposing alternatives that are based around Assad going, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a unified alternative action that they are rallying around.

    Cameron’s and Hollande’s position makes most sense to me, as long as we can hold them back from doing too much out of pure anger.

  • Eddie Sammon 27th Nov ’15 – 7:28pm….Hi expats, I just want Daesh defeated and the civil war over with. If the experts are saying Assad is the main cause then I’m not going to turn around and say he’s who we should back – and from what I’ve heard definitely not………

    Hi Eddie, Which experts? Would these be the same experts who said the problem in Iraq was Assad; the same ones who said Gaddafi was Libya’s?
    We removed those problems and things really went according to plan…..

  • Eddie Sammon 28th Nov '15 - 4:47pm

    expats, maybe it was the same experts, but I’m only referring to the ones at the think tanks and on Twitter. Haven’t had a look-in at what the foreign office and others think.

    Fundamentally, I don’t see dictators as part of the solution, unless they have public support, like a kind of popular monarch. It doesn’t mean we should militarily overthrow them all though.

    I don’t want to discuss this more under this thread. Thanks.

Post a Comment

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

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

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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


Recent Comments

  • Marco
    I think Labour will borrow more to invest than the Tories. Nevertheless we could pledge to spend more than them in areas such as education, early years and soci...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    Peter and Fiona - I think the chaotic possibilities of the coming election could include parties not being able to predict which seats fall to them, and non-exp...
  • Marco
    @ Alex Macfie as well as the points raised by Martin another problem is that boundary changes can drive a coach and horses through tactical voting. For example ...
  • David Raw
    @ David Symonds "One of the key things that Conservatives and Labour like is negative campaigning". Watch tonight's edition of "Have I got news for you", Dav...
  • Martin Bennett
    I certainly agree with William that we could and should be taking a stronger line on depleted services and yet worse public squalor as a result of a stagnation ...