About a month ago I wrote a piece on my blog examining the rhetoric coming from Ed Davey about appealing to One-Nation Conservatives, and found that his words didn’t actually align with our current position electorally at all. This created a bit of a splash with it being featured on Liberal England, and even earned a response from political analyst William Lane detailing where we should go next. So imagine my annoyance when after the latest budget was unveiled by Labour Ed began speaking out against tax increases in a Tory-like fashion, most shockingly targeting the Mansion Tax of all things!
If you’re new to the party and a bit confused by why I have a problem with this, allow me to explain; in 2009 Vince Cable introduced a Mansion Tax policy to the party agenda, the details of which being slightly different to Labour’s own, but not significantly. In fact, this was a policy that Ed himself was elected on in 2010! Not only that, but a further paper on the matter was produced in 2013 to try and influence our Coalition partners, which to this day is still technically official policy. I’m not the only one to notice this either, the other day the Daily Telegraph used it to write an attack piece titled, “Lib Dems attack Labour’s mansion tax despite previously calling for it.” This was an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of our leadership; if Ed had suddenly decided he was against it for whatever reason, he should have held an emergency Federal Policy Committee vote to see if it could be dropped, instead of blatantly disregarding our Constitution.
I can only imagine he acted in this way to protect a handful of ultra-wealthy seats we currently hold, six to be exact, that are in the top 25 Constituencies in terms of housing value; but even of these only Chesham & Amersham could be considered actually in danger based on the previous election result as 3% of the population holding housing worth over £2 million, and there was only a 10% margin between us and the Conservatives, giving them the power to generate a significant swing. But, that’s assuming Reform doesn’t split the Right enough to prevent the Conservative vote from being effective, and based on the latest MRP polling by both YouGov and More in Common, it’s not one we should be concerned about. So I have to ask, was this blatant disregard for our policy and procedure really worth it to save a seat or two?
This hasn’t been my only gripe with the leadership recently either, I already mentioned how our targeting of One-Nation Tories is pointless, but so many other issues have come up too; for one, the change in quota rules that was performed against the explicit desires of Conference in an entirely underhanded effort to prevent legal trouble for an unreleased, and indeed, unenforceable guideline that exists solely to discriminate against trans people. Or for another, the recent rumours circulating in Liberator that suggested leadership was actively suppressing attempts within the party to be vocal over the right to protest over Palestine.
With so many MPs now, I can’t help but notice that there has been some decisive power grabs to enforce HQ’s agenda over the membership, particularly with a pseudo-official endorsement for Federal Election positions by Mark Pack which was subsequently sent on official WhatsApp communications. The way I see it now, we are at a crossroads, we can either sacrifice our values and become the One-Nation Conservative Party as driven by the leadership, or we can agitate for a Liberal Democratic Party, driven by the membership. I sincerely hope we do the latter.
If what I’ve said here has struck a chord with you, then I urge you to sign the Radical Association’s Open Letter condemning the Mansion Tax u-turn and show the leadership that we want better.
* Rosemary Runswick is a Liberal Democrat activist in West Suffolk and a member of the Radical Association. She writes a blog at the Green Ribbon Club (https://greenribbonclub.blogspot.com/p/about.html).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
81 Comments
I don’t see our party as being at a crossroads, Rosemary; Conference remains strong, but we do certainly need to remind our leadership that policy decisions are made at Conference and not by individual MPs, as you and Paul Hindley are rightly doing.
I am anxious however that MPs do not seem to be speaking out in defence of free speech in our country (even if unwilling to seem to support certain expressions of American leaders!), to condemn the shocking over-reaction and judicial action taken against hundreds of supporters of Palestine Action.
We have to broaden our base, where is our appeal to the Midlands and the North. We are allowing others to step in.
It is only 10 years since the end of our agreement to support a Conservative government led by David Cameron. Our membership fell as those who couldn’t accept being in government with the Tories, or us breaking solemn pledges to do so, voted with their feet and left. For anyone who remained a member through the coalition, the idea of positioning ourselves as a centre to centre/moderate right party to benefit from the collapse of the Conservatives, should be less challenging. Those who have joined in the last 10 years will have realised that we were willing to work with the Tories so should not be surprised that we are positioning ourselves to attract their vote.
@Jenny I think you should also read my article about how One-Nation Tories aren’t going to be our core voter base, I make a lot of points there about why trying to attract them as our voter base will prove futile long-term. But to summarise:
* Most of the seats we won were in regions where we have historically come second place in terms of voter share, the South East and South West.
* Looking at polling shows Tory voters on the whole lean closer to Reform than to us, and Labour voters are closer to our own.
* There are only about six “Moderate Tory” seats left where we have a chance of winning in the next election.
* I rarely hear the coaltion brought up anymore on the doorstep, it’s been a decade and most people have moved on now.
It’s definitely also worth reading William Lane’s post that I linked in this article, I think he pinpoints the exact type of voter we should be going for.
People should keep their eye on the big picture – the real and significant threat to the country is international authoritarianism al la Trump Putin and their acolytes like Farage. As Josh B says, we are the last line of defence for the UK. A public row about a minor tax policy that allows our enemies to portray us as driven by envy is the last thing we need.
” For anyone who remained a member through the coalition, the idea of positioning ourselves as a centre to centre/moderate right party to benefit from the collapse of the Conservatives, should be less challenging”
I would describe it as anti-authoritarian or liberal centre myself but I think Jenny is absolutely right in principle. There is plenty in the party’s history and tradition that allows this – we need not be limited to social liberalism. In my view the party is at its most creative when the social liberal and classical liberal traditions engage constructively. Besides, the recent budget shows the intellectual poverty Labour’s tax spend approach.
As I have argued before, the space on the left is pretty full right now with Labour, Green and “Your Party” while the liberal centre is relatively empty. Occupying it in a “stop Farage” election seems like the sensible thing to do.
Having read William Lane’s piece (thank you for the link) I have say the kind of voter he advocates the Lib Dem should go after sound like the young aspiring type the Tories have lost and who we should indeed go after.
They are (from the article:
white-collar
private sector worker,
living in a prosperous area of the country
importance of place and local area
greatest desire [is] her own home
upper working/lower middle class, but through education has gained a place in the solidly middle classes,
values life in a prosperous urban town or small city
traditional service industries
Britain’s new growth industries
business-minded
They sound like Thatcher’s grandchildren to me. They’re not socialist by any measure, and I bet they’d be very pleased to live in a £2million house.
Being coalition with the Conservatives directly and/or indirectly gave a message that the L. D. Party supported Neoliberalism/Austerity.
Neoliberalism/Austerity has failed and still demonstrably fails.
Does the L. D. Party still support Neoliberalism/Austerity like the Labour, Conservative and, possibly, the Reform Party, thus minimising voter choice and supporting a failed and failing basic socio-economic policy?
Might it offer Social Liberalism which gives freedom to those able to use it combined with enabling protection for the vulnerable?
Perhaps Ed Davey and Daisy Cooper think that the particular design of Labour’s housing tax supplement is not very good, and oppose it on that basis? Doing so does not mean that they are opposed to a well-designed mansion tax.
@Tristan while the Left space is certainly being filled at the moment, it is being filled almost entirely by the far-left and not the centre-left; I know a lot of people who would normally be considered in the centre-left space who are deeply distrustful of Polanski who are turning to him because they feel he’s the only one offering a real alternative.
The overton window has moved so far to the Right that Labour, ostensibly practicing centrist politics currently by triangulating some strange formula for what voters would want (anti-immigration, law & order etc) is looking more Right-wing than some of the Tory Governments of the past decade! We will not push it back leftwards by doing the same. I think Davey and Starmer are two sides of the same coin.
I’m not arguing to adopt Populism, but I think we should consider looking at policies that are distinctly Left and Liberal, such as an LVT to try and solve the taxation crisis, or more open support for the LGBT+ community from the main Party comms and not just Plus, rather than just allowing ourselves to sit around in this centre-right hole that Clegg dug us into and has fared the Party incredibly badly.
Anyone got any more context on this which seems relevant:
“Will Forster (Lib Dem) says he is would be willing to accept these plans {Lammy’s proposals to scrap jury trials], if the government can show it is putting victims first. He asks the government to publish a an impact statement.” – Guardian report – 13:42
@Tim: that’s an interesting notion, but as Ed Davey is the architect of the “local income tax” policy in the mid-2000s who sought to replace that with the party’s position on site value rating, it doesn’t seem very credible does it?
The party’s position on all wealth taxes in recent years has been to simply oppose them. I’ve yet to see them bring forward actual detailed wealth l, property or land tax proposals in recent years. Maybe they’re developing them but keeping them really really quiet? It’s a novel strategy if so.
Those arguing that opposing existing party policy is necessary to retain our new voters are missing the point, and should take a look at the proportions of houses affected in each seat at the bottom of the linked Guardian article.
The numbers are so small that this is irrelevant to our more affluent voters; we’re talking higher rate payers, not asset multimillionaires!
And none of them are seats that look remotely likely to vote Reform or for anyone else.
The most affected is Richmond where it’s only 9% and thats one of our safest seats that the Tories lost during their best election since 1987.
After that it’s:
Wimbledon 5%
Esher and Walton 4%
Herpenden and Berkhamsted 4%
Chesham and Amersham 3%
Twickenham 3%
The numbers of leave voters in these seats is allot greater than that, as is the probable number of leave voters that voted for us in most of them (and that’s before we look at our seats that actually voted leave), so do we now need to drop our Customs Union policy???
We basically can’t have any policies if we’re afraid of such tiny numbers of voters.
And by opposing party policy without changing it first, the leadership has ridden roughshod over our constitution and spat in the eye of the membership and all those who help make policy for the party.
If they can do that over something with ZERO electoral implications for us they can do it with anything!
I would add that many on the right of our party have long talked about moving towards taxing fixed assets in order to move away from taxing incomes.
The most likely reason the government went with such a watered down version of the mansion tax is because they just wanted to use it as a test case to gain the experience needed to do exactly that.
Those who want this should be urging the leadership to support it in order to give the government the political capital it needs to build on it and through with this much needed reform to our tax system.
And there’s no economically centre right policy you could have us adopt that would not be opposed by at least 3% of voters in a few of our seats.
So – Some Lib Dems want to boast about Coalition with the Tories, other Lib Dems want to bury its memory. Some Lib Dems think the biggest empty space in British politics is on the centre-right, others think it’s on the centre-left. Meanwhile the headline is “Lib Dems attack Labour’s mansion tax despite previously calling for it.”
Perhaps the biggest empty space in British politics is for a party that knows what it believes in, sticks to its principles, stops advertising that its main goal is to chase down voters and tell them whatever might win their votes – and stops the mindless mud-slinging.
“The most affected is Richmond where it’s only 9% and thats one of our safest seats that the Tories lost during their best election since 1987.”
I think looking at policies in that way is a very limited way of understanding electoral dynamices – particularly around tax. To analyse it into
Because voters simply don’t apply that level of analysis or even rationality. Far more so is the emotional factor of ‘I’ll be taxed for all the things I’ve worked hard to get’ (albeit many people haven’t ‘worked’ for the value of their property at all.
This is a tax that also ‘only’ raises £400m which is really peanuts in the scale of things.
@Hwyel
That kind of hysteria from voters (even if it ever was electorally significant for us) is mostly likely to occur when a tax has been talked about allot but not yet implemented.
Once a tax has come in people will obviously know if they are paying it.
And very few people are going to vote against us for failing to oppose a tax that they’re not paying.
Especially not people who weren’t already going to vote against for failing to support cuts to any of the other taxes that they don’t pay.
Meanwhile I suspect we are very unlikely to propose any way of reversing the tax rises that do affect most people, because any way of getting the money to do it is going to be opposed by somone that current leadership is afraid of.
We can’t fund everything by taxing banks and social media companies.
Rosemary Runswick,
Your ‘One-Nation Conservative’ article makes a strong case that appealing to them is not going to gain us many seats in the next general election. I know we won a few seats because the Conservative vote was split by Reform UK. It would be interesting to know how many seats that we gained were due to just non-Conservative voters voting for us, without us gaining any extra votes from the Conservatives.
It is interesting that us supporting the mansion tax is unlikely to lose us any seats because the number of voters affected are smaller than our majorities.
However, the party isn’t at a crossroads. The leadership seem to be able to win most Conference votes when amendments based on liberal principles reach the agenda that they disagree with. I am not convinced that Ed will change what he is doing because of an open letter to him. He didn’t after the open letter on November 2023 (https://www.libdemvoice.org/senior-liberal-democrats-call-for-bold-and-distinctive-offer-to-voters-74298.html).
It would need a constitutional amendment to stop Ed and our spokespersons making and unmaking policy, but I don’t think a two-thirds majority could be achieved to do it.
I read that in the 1980s our support came mainly from white-collar workers, such as middle managers from the private sector and those working in the public sector. Perhaps William Lane’s Oxford Lib Dem is the modern successor to these groups.
The error in 2010 wasn’t going into coalition with the Tories, it was failing to differentiate the Lib Dems sufficiently from the Tories in the Coalition. As a result, many voters who liked the Coalition voted Tory because they saw no reason to vote Lib Dem instead. This is always the danger in sounding too much like another party.
@ Rosemary
The centre-left hole is being filled by the Labour party. Look at their budget, how it was crafted and who it was for for proof. As Ed Davey says – you can’t tax your way to growth. They are making a ham-fisted attempt to deal with migration etc but that is what they are – a protectionist party whose authoritarian instincts remain rooted in the idea of organised labour and class. Not the people identified by Will Lane at all.
I think the “left” – specifically socialism – has been shown by history to have been an historical failure. History is now “marching by the right” if you like.
Labour may have won a huge majority aided by first past the post – but they did it by pretending not to be socialist, and won an astonishingly low share of the vote given the size of the majority. They have no confidence – with their majority Starmer could be doing what he likes – but he doesn’t. Their political philosophy is bankrupt.
“We will not push [the Overton window] leftwards by doing the same”
The political battle right now is not left vrs right. It is liberal vrs authoritarian, or liberal democracy vrs illiberal democracy. As Josh B says – we are the last line of defence against Reform. I have no particular wish to push the Overton window leftward – but it does need to go in a liberal direction – which is not necessarily the same thing.
What all of us active in our party believe in, I trust, and can promote to the public, is our Liberalism, so different from that of committed Conservatives, as discussions of fairness and freedoms would soon show. I hope we will be speaking out on vital questions, such as freedom of speech (as shown by the brave people arrested for backing Palestinian rights), and the value of and need for so many immigrants who contribute to our society.
@Katharine
Thank you. You have summed up my faith in fighting for Palestine and thanking immigrants. My father was in Rafah, Palestine in October 1917 fighting with his Palestinian truck drivers. I led the WOW – War on Waste – national campaign in 1973.
The reaction to my TicToc campaign has been “excellent”. Lets “Thank Immigrant Carers” and “Thank Older Carers” as my dear friends pass away.
@
“It is interesting that us supporting the mansion tax is unlikely to lose us any seats because the number of voters affected are smaller than our majorities.”
The message sent is not “don’t worry about mansion tax because you won’t pay it”.
The message sent (to the young and aspiring voters we want as well as everyone else ) is “don’t bother to succeed because if you do we will penalise that success”.
From which it is all to easy to conclude (incorrectly) that Liberal Democrats don’t like people succeeding and realising their dreams.
@ Katharine,
“…..our Liberalism, so different from that of committed Conservatives”
The problem seems to be that the word Liberalism (or liberalism) is taken to mean what anyone wants it to mean. In the USA is almost taken to be synonymous with socialism. In Europe and Australia it has a more right wing meaning.
In the UK a faction of old Liberal Party, the National Liberals (or Liberal Nationals ?) , joined forces with the Tories and finally formally merged with them in 1968.
I remember, as a child, asking my Dad why there was no Conservative candidate in our constituency . His reply was “they’re called Liberals around here” 🙂 My first political lesson.
There is a need context for those who regard a ‘mansion tax’ as a minor and painless boost to the economy. The term is used casually and often without qualifying any likely threshold so that millions of home owners are now concerned. Raising anxiety and further reducing trust in politicians (is that possible still?) is further weakening our democracy.
The generation now retired and owning houses that have roughly doubled in value above inflation paid a very high price to get there. Our mortgage rate hit 15% as we were raising our family. Those ‘cheap’ houses were very expensive to buy and made other savings impossible for most families. The ‘free’ added value in most houses now will not pay for much time in care, so carelessly threatening to raid a whole generation is neither fair nor politically astute. We already have mechanisms for the state to take a cut when high value assets change hands – stamp duty, inheritance tax etc. Their thresholds can readily be adjusted without introducing another complication.
Maybe the activist members should just calm down and let the leadership lead the party. The trouble with policy being decided by activists at an annual conference is that their ideas need a conservative element of restraint.
My recollection of 2009 is different. The Council Tax had been introduced in 1990 to replace the Community Charge or poll tax which in itself was introduced by the Thatcher Government to avoid the periodic revaluation of property for domestic rates which had last been undertaken in 1973. This had played a small part in the Tories losing both elections in 1974. By 2009 a revaluation of domestic properties for Council Tax was long overdue. The Liberal Democrats had advocated a local income tax to replace the Council Tax but that was far too complicated to explain in the runup to the expected General Election in 2010. The Party wanted a simple catchy populist policy – the Mansion Tax.
This Labour Government has once again ducked the need for a revaluation of domestic properties for Council tax in England. It is quite unpopular enough already thank you. In Wales the Labour Government undertook a revaluation in 2003 and added a band I. This experience has left successive Governments deferring further revaluations most recently to 2028.
At some point in England a Council Tax reform, revaluation or scrapping will have to be undertaken. A Governing Party with a three figure parliamentary majority should be in an ideal position to introduce a bold radical policy. But not now and not this Labour Party.
“The trouble with policy being decided by activists at an annual conference is that their ideas need a conservative element of restraint.”
In other words, the activists should confine themselves to delivering leaflets, canvassing, giving elderly Lib Dems lifts to the polling station, and provide an orderly audience for the speeches of the bigwigs in the party to emphasise their standing and so that it all looks good for the cameras.
I’m going to answer a few of these because I think there’s been a lot of good conversation here!
@Tristan Labour being Centre-Left at the moment is a fallacy, no party of the Left would be so anti-trans and indeed so anti-working class by throwing in masses of stealth taxes that will no doubt increase the cost of living while failing to make almost anybody but the Government better off, their rhetoric does not change their actual position; when I call the party Right I naturally am also referring to their authoriarian leanings as well. You are right to call Farage our largest threat in this regard, but to fight him we must go beyond our current disquieted opposition to a full, open, force of Liberalism, and that means putting our members central to this. As for your point on Lane’s article, being the “Oxford Liberal” myself, though I am no doubt in a better situation than many, I have most assuredly not lost touch with the working class roots of my family and still see their struggles as my own, even if it does not affect me.
As for young people, most aren’t worried a about getting a Mansion right now, I’d know because I’m young! Most of us are fundamentally worried about the cost of living, and certainly don’t mind those that don’t have to worry paying their fair share to make it easier for those who can’t. It’s one thing to penalise success, it is another to not have the opportunity to succeed to begin with; to give an example, Labour’s VAT on private school fees for instance has raised more funds than expected because most people sending their children to private schools still had the means to pay that little extra at the end of the day, and this will no doubt be of benefit to those who have no choice but to go to state schools. A harsh market in this regard won’t make someone work harder, it’ll make them give up. We owe our liberty to the restrictions we put on it.
@Peter You’re right about Liberalism being a very broad ideology that can cover both left and right of the spectrum, both are valid in their own respects, what unites unites us is a belief in freedom and anti-authoritarianism, where we differ is in application of those beliefs. Liberal Democrat voters in 2010 saw the Conservatives as the continuity in 2015, earlier as you said the National Liberals split from us during the depression due to their protectionist views and eventually joined the Conservatives, and even earlier the Liberal Unionists did the same over their imperialism; Right-leaning Liberals and their voters have almost alway switched to join the Conservatives when push comes to shove, and that is why I hold some scepticism over our attempts to court that ground. Further, the greatest Liberal victories of the past year have been D66 in the Netherlands and the Liberal Party of Canada, both ostensibly Social Liberal Parties, there’s definitely a taste for the anti-authoritarian Left internationally at the moment.
@John This is valuable context and absolutely not something I thought about when writing this, although I am well aware many of the older generation fought hard to get the properties they now own, and wouldn’t take that for granted at all, though I don’t believe it was intentionally targeted at the elderly and many of whom I know don’t own properties worth over £2 million to begin with. I am not a big proponent of property taxes myself, and am moreso against the leadership’s actions in this case than in favour of the tax itself – I’m far more to the taste of an LVT as I mentioned earlier
@Christopher We have listened to more conservative voices in the past to get things like a UBI adopted as official policy; in return we got a heavily comprimised policy that was subsequently completely dropped in all future campaigning and manifestos by leadership regardless, so forgive me for being frustrated. Due to this problem, as well as many others I have mentioned, I am calling for scrutiny of the leadership and their ignoring of the membership’s collective decisions. If you want to see what happens to Parties that leave most policy to their Leaders then take a look at Labour and the Conservatives, surely we can both agree those parties haven’t been a net good for the country? Activists are ultimately the backbone of any political movement, if chartists, suffeagists and many others had not risked their lives for the extension of the vote, few of us today would even have the privillege.
To all of you, I just want to make it clear that I’m personally quite ambivalent about a Mansion Tax, and against the budget as a whole. My problem here is that the leadership chose to completely oppose a policy that is still technically official without consulting the necessary body! It’s quite clear a conversation needs to be had about radically reshaping our failing tax system, to that I absolutely agree, but the almost anti-tax rhetoric coming from HQ is not an answer.
The big paradox. We would very much like centrist, one nation Tories to vote for us, but please don’t join the party and try to influence policy. And leadership must respect the democratic decisions taken by conference even if conference is only a few hundred people do, or can manage to get there. Not sure there’s much future in this kind of thinking.
“Right-leaning Liberals and their voters have almost always switched to join the Conservatives when push comes to shove, and that is why I hold some scepticism over our attempts to court that ground.”
Given the Tories’ s move to the right on the one hand and democratic socialism’s historic failure on the other they well could be coming back. That is why we need to court that ground. Over the years cooperation between liberals and conservatives have not been unknown at all.
“We would very much like centrist, one nation Tories to vote for us, but please don’t join the party and try to influence policy”
Why on earth should (former) one nation Tories not join the Lib Dems? By joining they are rather publicly dumping the conservatism? If if members they can take their part in making policy. I don’t understand this at all.
I was speaking to someone active in Islington last night. Apparently Lib Dem membership there is booming – and many are former Tory supporters. A good thing too.
“but the almost anti-tax rhetoric coming from HQ”
Yet it’s not inconsistent with Liberal and Liberal Democrat positions over the years. For example Joe Grimond was suspicious of an overmighty state and generally resisted higher taxes and free markets (including marching (with the rest of the party) into the the lobbies with Thatcher, Lawson, Tebbit and the rest to vote against Labour’s 84% and 98% tax rates.) We all know about the coalition , and Gladstone (in an admittedly different world) wanted to abolish income tax altogether at one time.
@Ross O’Kelly – so who should make policy? A few hundred members at conference, usually voting on a motion prepared by a policy working group that has taken evidence from actual experts, or a handful of people in the leader’s inner circle who have listened to lobbyists?
Hi Rosemary,
Thanks for responding. Discussion around a mansion tax, including by LibDems, has seldom included a threshold value. With the other drumbeat of the retired boomers continuing to selfishly occupy their family homes, which comes from both LibDems and Labour, ordinary retired home owners have had good reason to be concerned. I don’t know anyone with a £2 million house either, but that figure has only recently emerged from Labour. If we had that threshold when a mansion tax was apparently party policy, I never heard it mentioned in discussions by its proponents. Indeed, I have heard the tax being discussed as a way to get the retired out of their houses to free up the housing market for younger buyers.
All parties keep floating possible policies that are very poorly thought through without any real regard for the effect they have. Often nothing happens, but there is no publicity for policies being dropped. Are we LibDems still planning to add an increase to income tax specifically for the NHS? Are we still vehemently opposed to infill city development – ‘garden-grabbing’, which was party policy? I’m not sure and I’m a member. Our party has no clear narrative that voters can remember, which I believe is why we have so few core voters. I hope that your interest can be part of improving public understanding of why the party deserves to be taken seriously. Regards John
@ Tristan Ward Jo Grimond, if you please, ……. who, incidentally, favoured a realignment on the left when I joined the Liberal Party way back in 1961.
@nick Baird. Policy made by a few dozen leaders and advisors, or a few hundred activists ? To be honest, in a party of 60,000 there isn’t much in it democracy wise, and the former seems more likely to produce good policy. The current system allows relatively small groups of highly motivated activists to determine policy and if the leadership push back that’s often a good thing. If we really believed in democracy and fighting concentrations of power we would find ways of involving the broader membership. For Heaven’s sake, even the Tories have a formal structure of local policy forums.
@ John
“Discussion around a mansion tax, including by LibDems, has seldom included a threshold value. ”
Really?
“Liberal Democrats therefore continue to propose the introduction of a Mansion Tax of 1% on the excess value of residential properties above £2m, which represents the top quarter of 1 per cent of the country’s homes”
Should be at east 2% IMO!
I coudn’t see anything about this in the 2024 manifesto though.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/fileadmin/groups/2_Federal_Party/Documents/PolicyPapers/111_-_Fairer_Taxes__2013_.pdf
@Tristan Precedent or not, I hardly agree it’s the position we should be taking under current circumstance, there’s many examples of left-leaning actions in the party I could make that would make equal sense in this situation: Joseph Chamberlain’s Municipal Liberalism buying out local utilities and putting them in public hands, the Liberal-led Governments of 1906-1922 that created the modern welfare state or more recently Charles Kennedy, a politician who I have largely only ever seen love for on almost all ends of the spectrum who brought us our greatest number of seats until the latest general election.
What matters is if taking an anti-tax position in a time where people are fundamentally already so unequal – which has allowed Reform to wrongly point the blame at the migrants – is the right position to be taking, and I think right now that position would disproportionately benefit those who are already doing well. If we want to win, we’re going to have to break into the Labour vote at some point too, the moderate Tory vote is already at it’s limits.
@ Rosemary
Thank for your responses. All interesting and this discussion is important.
“Labour being Centre-Left at the moment is a fallacy”
This – from the Economist – is another take, and I find it persuasive. You have to register to read it.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/11/26/britains-left-wing-government-is-left-wing
“no party of the Left would be so anti-trans”
Trans rights are not a left/right thing – they are an authoritarian vrs liberal thing.
It seems to me that what some are trying to do is to get human society to reorganise itself on the basis of gender along a non-binary continuum instead of on the lines of 2 [biological] sexes.
Given that sex is (obviously) fundamental to reproduction – the most basic animal drive there is after survival – and humans do it with two sexes as engrained by eons of evolution (somewhere between 2.2 and 1.6 billion years) – that’s a pretty big ask.
That is not to say that trans people should not be free to identify or otherwise live their lives as they wish (provided of course they do not infringe other’s rights and claims in an intolerable way) – but it does mean that caution (or indeed paralysis) is understandable in politicians trying to balance the rights and claims of the various affected individuals.
There is some truth in Ed’s statement that you cannot tax the country into growth; economic growth has far bigger issues than that, such as devolution of resources and powers, investment in infrastructure and social housing etc. etc BUT on tax, Ed should have been saying that we are not a high tax country but just below average for a developed nation. There may be details in the Mansion tax that may cause problems, but the principle is a good one. So I have just added my name to the letter.
@ Tristan Ward “Given the Tories’ s move to the right on the one hand and democratic socialism’s historic failure on the other they well could be coming back.”
Sorry, Tristan, but as a child of the 1940’s, as a 1960’s Liberal, and as an F.R.H.S., I’m sorry to have to point out that most historians regard the Attlee government as one of the all time great UK governments.
With all its faults and problems, you don’t really want to privatise the NHS, do you…… and the over paid privatised water barons don’t seem to be doing that well in Tunbridge Wells either, do they ?
@ Tristan Ward “Gladstone wanted to abolish income tax”. Yes, in 1853, he did, though he didn’t carry it through. More to the point is that in 1853, Gladstone wasn’t a Liberal. He was a Peelite a member of the transitional Peelite faction, a group of free-trade Conservatives.
@David Raw
Come on David. We all know that Gladstone favoured low taxes whether as a Peelite, Tory or Liberal. For example the Liberal general election platform in 1874, with Gladstone as leader of the party, included a commitment to income tax repeal. There was no damascene conversion to a tax and spend Gladstone in 1959 if that is what you are trying to suggest.
@David Raw
“most historians regard the Attlee government as one of the all time great UK governments”
Indeed they do, and I think they are right. But that was 1945-51, before socialism had been found out.
One achievement was of course the welfare state. You will recall that Liberal Nationalist Ernest Brown commissioned Liberal William Beveridge to produce his report “Social Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd. 6404”. With Lloyd George’s introduction of pensions it’s arguably Liberals who really produced the ideas behind the welfare state. Labour just make a lot of noise about implementing those ideas.
I think Lib Dem plans for water being run by public benefit companies are sensible, and I hope (for example) Thames Water is pushed into administration so its debt can be written off before ownership can be passed to such a company.
There will never to enough money to pay for all the demands on the NHS as more and more people live longer and longer and medics get better and better at finding treatments. If some way is not found to deal with this in the public sector – probably rationing of one kind or another and care/prevention will help – either the NHS will collapse completely or it will be wholly or partly privatised overtly or by stealth because there will be no alternative at a price the taxpayer is willing to accept.
Don’t get me wrong – unlimited healthcare free at the point of use is wonderful – but how to pay for it?
Tristan, “With Lloyd George’s introduction of pensions”. Really, Tristan ?
Asquith did the spadework on pensions as Chancellor shortly before becoming P.M.. He introduced and spoke to that part of the Budget in the Chamber after becoming P.M., and I well remember hearing Lady Violet Asquith waxing lyrical on this back in the sixties.
On the same day that a single donor has given Farage’s lot £ 9 million, it’s pretty obvious there’s plenty of money around in far too few hands these days if only the politicians had the guts to get after it. You could look at the two Duchies….. Cornwall and Lancaster just for starters.
Tristan Ward,
We disagree on how young and aspiring people think. I don’t think they wouldn’t bother being successful because they have to pay some thousands of pounds of extra tax.
The relation of Council Tax to property value is weak, with homes in each band attracting the same rate, and owners in Band A paying proportionately more than those in the top band, meaning the owner of a £100,000 home can pay around five times more as a share of value than a £1 million-plus property owner. Property values have soared and Council Tax bills have increased, but average incomes have stalled, so the amounts of disposable household income spent on Council Tax vary between 0.8% and 4.5%, with people in the North-East and South-West paying the most, while London homeowners pay the least.
In my area a band H property is valued above £1.1 million according to the internet, has to pay £4239.10 a year if they don’t live in an area with a parish council. A band G is valued between £400,000 and £1.1 million and has to pay £3061.58. I think it is reasonable that a property valued over 81% more than £1.1 million has to pay about 81% more than what a band G property pays currently; a property valued 2.27 times more has to pay 114% more; valued 3.18 times more has to pay 163% more; and a property valued 4.54 times more has to pay 245% more.
@David Raw. I really do get fed up with your nit picking about DLG. Why do you want to deny him any kudos? He was chancellor when the people’s budget was introduced and when pensions started. I have no doubt that lots of people worked on the details, including civil servants and junior ministers. Of course Prime Ministerial support would have been vital, but why deny DLG the credit for actually introducing the bill? Sure, the man had feet of clay, but name any successful politician who hasn’t.
@ Mick Taylor. Sorry, Michael, if I upset your breakfast, but I’m afraid my comment about the introduction of pensions in the 1908 budget is not nit picking but factually correct. Look it up in Hansard if you don’t believe me.
As for LLG, a man of great drive, talent and ability….. but also a rascal in more ways than one…… who contributed in no small way to the downfall of the old Liberal Party after 1918.
@ Rosemary,
“Labour being Centre-Left at the moment is a fallacy, no party of the Left would be so anti-trans ……”
You’re confusing economics with social policy. The Workers Party are also cool on the idea of trans rights. This issue has only come to the fore recently. On the one side we have the argument that anyone who feels they should be socially classified as a woman should be. On the other side, many women, including those on the left, are saying ‘No way! We’ve fought for our safe spaces for decades there’s no way we are giving this up just on the say-so of any group of individuals’.
The ruling class don’t particularly take any side on this one. On the other hand they certainly do on other issues such as foreign policy (Nato, support for Israel or Palestine etc), wealth taxes, high income taxes on high earners and the possible widespread nationalisation of the means of production.
“… and indeed so anti-working class by throwing in masses of stealth taxes that will no doubt increase the cost of living ”
Yes you’re right about this and the later remarks made in the same comment !
@ Michael Taylor Here you are, Michael/Tristan, to save you looking it up.
“THE BUDGET STATEMENT.
HC Deb 07 May 1908 vol 188 cc445-6445
§* THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E. This is, I suppose, the first time in the memory of any of us when the annual financial statement has been submitted to the Committee of Ways and Means by any other Minister than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although there are precedents for that course as far back as the time of the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel. I need hardly say that it would have been more 446agreeable to me to leave the task where it naturally falls, in the hands of my right hon. friend; but we both felt that my relinquishment of his office, and his accession to it, are so recent that for me to take his place this afternoon would be a matter not merely of personal, but of public convenience. But it is only for this afternoon. I hope and believe that in the later stages of our discussions the Committee and the House will have the full benefit of the assistance and guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer”.
@ David Raw
Asquith did the spadework on pensions etc…”
OK, but it does not affect my point about Liberals being the real architects of the welfare state does it?
“there’s plenty of money around in far too few hands these days if only the politicians had the guts to get after it”.
But the money doesn’t belong to politicians does it? People are entitled to the enjoyment of their own property is what the Human Rights Act says, except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law.
Some may argue that it’s in the public interest to tax the rich until the pips squeak, but that’s not the liberal way (and this argument is sooo 20th century anyway).
More to the point is that political funding needs urgent reform. I can’t think why Labour are not on it.
@ Tristan,
“Some may argue that it’s in the public interest to tax the rich until the pips squeak, but that’s not the liberal way (and this argument is sooo 20th century anyway).”
The phrase “until the pips squeak” is a pejorative term. If we want to make society more equal we have to make a start by ensuring that the wealthy pay at least at the same rate as those they employ. Warren Buffet famously said that his secretary paid at a higher rate than he did. This is in the USA, of course, but it’s likely to be no different in the UK.
Of course, once we’ve done that we can move on to making them pay more.
This was the Liberal way in the 19th century. I’m surprised I have to remind you of the words to “The Land”:
“Why should we beg work and let the Landlords take the best?
Make them pay their taxes for the Land—we’ll risk the rest;
The Land was meant for the People!”
This would have been from a time when the emerging capitalist class was in conflict with the landed aristocracy over rent having to be paid on their use of the land. As this class conflict was largely resolved by intermarriage, Liberals became somewhat less economically radical during the 20th century.
It’s not been resolved for the rest of us in the 21st century though!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song)
@ Peter Martin, I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am wrong, Peter, but I can’t recall any British politician ever calling for British domestic taxation to be increased on the rich “until the pips squeak”.
The phrase was used by Sir Eric Geddes, a minister appointed by Lloyd George, on German reparations after WW1. Whether LLG followed it up with ‘Hang the Kaiser’ in the 1918 Election campaign is debateable, though he didn’t object to the tone – and the ‘Black and Tans’ episode in Ireland wasn’t his most Liberal phase. I tend to follow Keynes’ verdict on the Treaty of Versailles though Mick Taylor is the economist.
The Liberal Democrats and our former Alliance partners have been a social liberal parties for the best part of a century . Some times our leaders flirt with centralist conservatism . but activist like Rosemary remind them of our roots and take them to task . centre and centre right voters are fickle and should not be relied upon as a base vote .
In the speech that i heard, Ed Davey said he was against this implementation of the so called mansion tax which only taxes properties up to £5m. What about those large estates? What is needed is a complete overhaul of the council tax system so that there is no cap as at present. Every property needs to be revalued which is not too difficult since it is recorded in various sites.
The phrase “Mansion Tax” needs a rework. Call it what it is, Council Tax, with no cap, which everyone is relatively happy to pay. Even better, you can’t avoid it by hiring smart lawyers and accountants. Its land which can’t be deposited in a tax haven! If that is contrary to current policy, then we quite rightly need a debate at conference to vote on the changes.
Objective #1 has to be to gain power as we are at council level. Without power we will be unable to implement any of our policies. The letter need to appeal to a sufficient proportion of the voters. The trick is having policies which adhere to our core Liberal values yet appeal to a sufficient number of voters.
“The Liberal Democrats and our former Alliance partners have been a social liberal parties for the best part of a century”
Pretty unrewarding it has been too, in terms of MPs in seats as and Liberal Cabinets exercising power.
The below – from about 10 years ago – is worth a read. Consider how far the study of Jo Grimond’s thinking might overlap with “one-nation conservatism”.
https://www.ippr.org/articles/beyond-realignment-jo-grimond-and-the-legacy-of-civic-liberalism
Soem
Peter Martin,
‘His reply was “they’re called Liberals around here
I am interested to know when and where this was.
Rosemary Runswick,
‘the Liberal Unionists did the same over their imperialism’
The Liberal Unionists split from the Liberal Party in 1886 over Home Rule for Ireland not imperialism. One of them was Joseph Chamberlain who you stated practiced ‘Municipal Liberalism’. Liberal imperialists included Rosebery Liberal Prime Minister 1894-95 and Asquith Liberal Prime Minister 1908-16 (to name but two).
Ross O’Kelly,
I think over a thousand members attend our autumn conferences and possibly fewer to our spring ones. I believe that the majority of those who attend now don’t have the same political philosophy as the majority of those who attended in the 1990s, when fewer attended.
David Raw,
Gladstone in the 1874 general election stated he would abolish income tax (https://liberalhistory.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/101-Brooks-General-Election-of-1874-3.pdf ).
Tristan Ward,
The Labour Government of 1945-51 was the most socialist government the UK has ever had, if we define it by the amount of nationalisation that took place, which I see as the main aim of socialism.
Hopefully, all Liberal Democrats can agree in ‘opposition not to the state but all forms of concentrated power … anti-corporatist … the tyranny of employers’ (from the IPPR article).
@Peter
“You’re confusing economics with social policy.”
They are usually linked, when I discuss transphobia as a Right-wing idea, I do so because social & economic conservatives, supporters of tradition and heirarchy, sat on the right of the French Parlement during the French Revolution. Aside from this, I’ve noticed a correlation between racialism and transphobia; most of these people who seek to put restrictions on trans individuals do so based on appearance, particularly regarding what they view as “unfeminine” characteristics (which are usually regarded in a white-normative sense.) Take one look at the way Algerian boxer Imane Khelif was treated; she is from a country that would have executed her for being trans, and yet the accusations of her being a man who turned ‘domestic violence into a sport’ flooded becuase she was tall and muscular (unsurprsing for a boxer) flooded in regardless – most notably backed by a Russian-owned boxing board. Any so-called “solution” to the trans question will inevitably be based in pseudo-scientific measures, as can be seen with the leaked guidance that suggests women will simply be judged on their appearance and if we somehow don’t look right we will be barred from accessing the bathroom. Trans people have been noted for centuries, it seems really strange that it’s only an issue now.
“The ruling class don’t particularly take any side on this one.”
Labour has taken a position on the problem by agreeing with the SC ruling, to quote Starmer it brought, “clarity to the issue.” Even though it would be easy to undo the whole thing with a single bit of legislation if they so wanted to, not taking a position can equally be representative of a position, if I see any injustice and do not act, I am in a way giving a silent consent to that injustice.
Equally, any look at the Right-wing Press would show total agreement in the anti-Trans agenda, a pathologisation of a perfectly normal group of people as inherently evil, the terms I have seen used are not neutral, and the negative coverage disproportionate for what is about 1% of the population. In fact, just 5 years ago attitudes surveys on YouGov showed a shockingly wide support for Trans people compared to now, and as studies have shown, propaganda works best when it hits people’s underlying prejudices, and given just how much money has gone to the anti-trans cause, I hardly think it was a movement that started from the bottom-up.
@Micheal Ireland was an imperialism issue, though in all technicality it was a constituent Nation of the United Kingdom it was very much still treated like a colony, and I think this is best seen via the language used; politicians of the era would largely describe Great Britain as “England”. Ireland was instead called “Ireland” which fundamentally separated it from the rest of the country. Furthermore, Irish Parliamentary Party, William O’Brien, used Congress Poland, a self-governing part of the Russian Empire as an example of an ideal Home Rule settlement for Ireland after their Leader mentioned it in a debate on the Suspensory Bill. (15 September 1914) On Chamberlain in particular, one of his own concepts was the “Imperial Federation” discussed at the 1911 Imperial Conference, that he suggested would replace the British Empire, granting all Dominions equal standing to Britain and creating a new Imperial Parliament to decide central economic issues, with Ireland becoming a Dominion itself to account for this. Chamberlain viewed this as an alternative to Home Rule, and given this – alongside the history of Ireland more generally – I find it hard to view questions of it’s administration could not be seen as part of Imperial policy.
“Realignment of the left”
If what we mean by this is a replacement of Labour by Liberal Democrat as one of the two main parties of government (being in opposition to the right then I’m all in favour. Equally, if realignment of the right means replacement of the Conservatives by Liberal Democrats in opposition to the left then I’m very happy with that too. What matters is getting liberally minded people in government and making the decisions.
Here’s Mark Pack on this issue writing in 2015: https://www.markpack.org.uk/121390/liberal-democrats-repeated-jo-grimonds-mistake/
@ Peter Martin
The phrase “until the pips squeak” is a pejorative term.”
It expresses the problem rather well though, as does the equally pejorative “over paid privatized water barons” which you haven’t complained about!
it seems really strange {trans-right is] only an issue now.
Not strange at all given (i) trans rights are being politically asserted now (*) and (ii) the aggressive authoritarian right wants to identify, define and attack new out groups as part of its own identity.
(*) I’m not aware of open discussion of trans rights much before the late 20th century but I’m open to correction.
@Tristan I’m certainly in agreement with the fact Lib Dems as any opposition is better than none, definitely don’t get me wrong there, I just don’t believe a right-leaning direction will fare us well long-term, most people who want classical liberal economics have turned to the Tories, historically, or Reform, because they offer that. Most voters who like classical economics are also socially conservative, so we’d be playing to a very small group of libertarians.
As for Trans Rights, while it may not have been discussed in the modern sense, Magnus Hirschfeld was one of the first to do extensive research into the psychology behind it, and actively supported the acceptance of trans people in society, coining the term “Transvestite” in 1910, employed many trans people who otherwise wouldn’t have found jobs in Germany, and had one of the first sexual reassignment surgeries ever performed his institute. Most of the books he wrote on the topic were raided and destroyed by the Nazis when they came to power.
Even before this we have documented cases of gender-nonconforming individuals, such as the evangelist Public Universal Friend, (1752-1819) who after a bout of illness stated their previous identity had died and that they were now genderless, and preferred to be addressed as “The Friend.” Or, if you want something older, Indian texts from up to 3000 years ago have mentioned a “third gender” in connection the Hijara, who are a whole community of people we would see as transgender. So it’s definitely a phenomena that has been present throughout our history, but is rather more known about now.
@ Tristan,
You’re probably right that I haven’t questioned the phrase “privatised water barons” because I think it’s true! 🙂
As as matter of interest, can you tell me how these “barons” are recruited? Not just in water but everything else too. During my working life I used to search through the job ads from time to time but I never saw anything like:
“We are looking for a someone to run our privatised railway, water company etc. No real previous experience needed. Generous multi-million salary with share options plus chauffeur driven car etc. It doesn’t really matter if you make a total c0ck-up of the job. There will be a generous compensation package on offer if we have to ask you to leave”
Spot on, Peter Martin.
Tristan, the last time the Lib Dems were perceived as having veered to the right the outcome was disastrous : 56 MPs down to 8, 6.8 million votes down to 2.4 million votes.
Be careful what you wish for.
“Economics and social policy are usually linked…….”
This tends to be the liberal view but is it as clear cut as is often made out? Many voters have a chosen from a smorgasbord of policies which don’t fit easily into this world view. It’s quite common to find voters who may be opposed to high levels of immigration but want the renationalisation of just about everything that has been privatised. We find plenty of voters, particularly in the Moslem community, who are pro Palestine and cool, to put it mildly, on questions trans and gay rights. Many women, too, may be on the left on most issues but are firmly of the opinion that men are men and women are women. I know plenty!
I’ve managed to raise their ire simply by sending them scientific references, such as the one below from Scientific American pointing out that it’s not really that simple. So much for any concept of ‘Scientific Socialism’!
The science is one thing, getting widespread acceptance for it is another. An confrontational approach may be counterproductive. It’s going to take a while to work through the issues.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
Signed! Supporting and protecting the public sector and its workers should be top priority. We can’t enhance the public sector without stimulating strong sustained economic growth and a progressive tax régime. This equation looks contradictory from a twentieth century perspective. Business promotion and private profit is not necessarily in tension with welfare state values as long as you appreciate that social cohesion and inclusion is identified as the reason for and purpose of entrepreneurialism. No one is an island is not an easy LibDem message to relay but if articulated clearly, aims and policies of shared commitment resonate in every area.
Rosemary Runswick,
Joseph Chamberlain opposed Home Rule and wanted instead national councils for Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. I couldn’t find any references to him supporting Ireland being giving dominion status. He had a debilitating stroke in July 1906. I can’t see him being involved in the 1911 Imperial Conference or Ireland being discussed as being included. I don’t think dominion status was suggested for Ireland until after the 1918 general election.
Once Rosebery was no longer Prime Minister the Liberal Party is often spoken of as being divided between Liberal Imperialists and New Liberalism.
Will the Lib Dems gain more by tacking to the left of Labour, or by tacking to the right of Labour? Stripped of the waffle and diversionary theorising, that is what this – deeply cynical – thread is all about.
Neither – explains Andrew Rawnsley. The next election will be between Farage’s supporters (Reform plus the rump Conservatives, on 44%), versus Farage’s opponents (Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, also on 44% in total).
If we had the Netherlands’ PR voting system, these figures would semi-automatically imply two rival coalitions, fighting neck-and-neck. But we don’t.
On the race-politics Right, Farage’s “reverse takeover” of the rump Tory voters looks feasible. On the centre-left, as usual tribalism rules, it’s not only Your Party who behave like the Judea People’s Front. So no prospect of co-operation to win.
As Rawnsley suggests, Labour therefore look best placed to win back voters from the Lib Dems and Greens, using an “Only Labour can keep Farage’s madmen out of Number Ten!” slogan.
https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/will-the-leftish-parties-unite-to-stop-nigel-farage-from-becoming-pm
And it won’t matter two hoots whether the LDs claim to be left or right of Labour!
Hywel 2nd Dec ’25 – 6:46pm:
This is a tax that also ‘only’ raises £400m which is really peanuts in the scale of things.
It won’t even raise £400million net. All taxes change people’s behaviour. We can still see the effect of the Window Tax (1696 to 1851) — an earlier version of ‘mansion tax’ — on some older buildings today. Firstly, it will likely devalue marginal properties just above the thresholds, in some cases helped by mitigating actions and expensive legal appeals. Matt’s cartoon has an element of truth to it…
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1994809059921568163
Then there’s the far more damaging second and third order effects. This tax is one of a barrage of tax rises aimed at those who already pay very high levels of tax — the UK is now 32nd. out of 38 OECD countries in the International Tax Competitiveness Index. It adds to an increasingly hostile tax regime for wealth creators and professionals such as hospital consultants. For some, it will be the final straw, pushing them out of the country to somewhere more hospitable. That doesn’t just lose their Income Tax revenue, but all the other taxes they would have paid and in many cases their business ideas, skills and investments with their resulting cascade of tax revenue.
‘UK’s millionaire exodus equal to losing 530,000 average taxpayers, study says’ [January 2025]:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reeves-labour-tax-non-dom-millionaire-b2684803.html
Michael BG 4th Dec ’25 – 11:43pm:
We disagree on how young and aspiring people think. I don’t think they wouldn’t bother being successful because they have to pay some thousands of pounds of extra tax.
Some may not bother and just get a regular job, but many are bothered and they are increasingly emigrating to places more conducive to creating wealth and prosperity. There are now an estimated 240,000 British people in Dubai alone; many young entrepreneurs…
‘I work with entrepreneurs – Labour is driving them away’ [November 2025]:
https://archive.is/31l3K
‘Exodus as young workers flee high-tax Britain’ [November 2025]:
https://archive.is/T580c
As always with economics, it’s not just about what happens and what we see, but at least as much about what doesn’t happen and what we don’t see. The businesses not started or expanded, the GP no longer in their surgery because they work part-time or have taken early retirement due to punitive tax rates, the High Net Worth immigrants who no longer come to the UK to invest, and so many more. Would a young Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou have come to the UK to set up EasyJet with today’s level of taxation and the recent irresponsible ‘kite-flying’ and speculation about wealth taxes and exit taxes?
It is too soon I believe to be theorising on ‘two rival coalitions’ or how to defeat Nigel Farage, whose image is happily darkening, before the next General Election. With the current government’s perceived failings, it should be possible for Liberal Democrats to win over current Labour supporters rather than the reverse happenings.
As to whether our party tends more to centre-left than centre-right in the next year, I trust Conference will back our Parliamentarians in defending the liberty of free speech, the economic protection of small businesses as well as all carers, the rights of Palestinians to a country of their own, the welcome of immigrants who can contribute to economic growth, and the defence of Europe against the Russian threat. We have very much to say and do to work towards a Liberal Britain.
“It is too soon I believe to be theorising on ‘two rival coalitions’ or how to defeat Nigel Farage, whose image is happily darkening, before the next General Election.”
That’s what the Democrats said about Trump. Don’t worry, he is doing things we sophisticates think look awful, ergo everybody else in our nation will think the same, ergo he will just blow up. Don’t worry about confronting difficult questions so that we can put up a good challenge to Trump. We don’t need to bother. We can just campaign on broad generalities and a message of “joy”. That will be enough to win.
There is a lot of hysteria about Reform , right now they are averaging around 29%, about 3% down on their peak in late September. This is easily explained because that peak was a classic third party bubble such as we & The Greens have had ourselves; they rarely did us any good because they didn’t last long enough to reach an Election. I expect Reform to go on declining until they reach their “natural” level of support, somewhere around 20% ?
I hate to be boring but the most likely result of the 2029 Election is a small Labour majority with Us & The Tories fighting it out for the role of Opposition. The thing that might change that is a Reform-Tory Pact; that would be an emergency. Our response ought to be a progressive Pact of our own.
“Would a young Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou have come to the UK to set up EasyJet with today’s level of taxation”. He first arrived when we had a 60% income tax rate.
David Allen,
If Labour is going to change direction to try to win back voters from us and the Greens, then we need to provide more social liberal solutions to the nation’s problems.
Jeff,
The Taxation Foundation states ‘Taxes on immovable property have the smallest impact on growth’, which supports the mansion tax. Our Commercial Landowner Levy is a land tax.
You make a strong case for taking a leaf from the USA and apply our taxes to British citizens in foreign countries while ensuring a person doesn’t pay more tax than if they lived in the UK.
The Patriotic Millionaires are calling for a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/policy-recommendations-2024.
I note you didn’t comment on the actual details that for the higher valued properties the mansion tax still doesn’t tax them at the same rate as properties valued under £1.1 million.
@ Jeff @ Michael BG,
“Some may not bother and just get a regular job,”
Just??
What’s the problem with this? I’ve just been out to the shops. Everything I needed was provided by someone with a “regular job”. The bread was baked, delivered, and sold to me by these “regular workers”. The same with the electricity and data connections that you’re using to read this.
It’s the “regular” workers who keep the economy moving. Without them, everything stops!
Paul Barker: “Hysteria” about Reform? Nonsense. Yes, it’s quite possible that Reform’s vote might drift downwards, but equally, it might not. All the conventional US commentators thought Trump’s poll share would plunge once he was convicted of felony. It barely moved. All the UK commentators thought Farage’s poll share would plummet over the schoolboy racism charges. It scarcely moved.
You can get roughly evens if you want to bet on Reform winning most seats. That looks about right. The betting market is the nearest thing to rational analysis of political prospects.
You say “a Reform-Tory Pact … would be an emergency. Our response ought to be a progressive Pact of our own.” Two cheers for this recognition of real danger. But – Why wait for the other side to get their ducks in a row first?
Reform and the Tories probably don’t really need a pact. Nowadays they mostly stand for the same thing (race politics!), so, we can expect tactical voting, with Reform the main beneficiaries. Then, once they get over 325 seats between them, coalition should be easy to agree.
By contrast, the centre-left desperately DO need a pact. Unlike the Right, they won’t readily unite. All the more reason to start looking towards a united front ASAP.
Later means never. Later means defeat by the Right. With Labour hoovering back desperate anti-Farage voters to achieve Opposition status, while the Lib Dems and Greens get squeezed into lowish single figures.