“For a Fair Deal” is the party’s pre-manifesto policy paper, to be debated at the Brighton Conference. You can read it in full here.
You’d think that, after 13 years of Tory misrule, and with the clowns in charge of the asylum for the past four, an opposition policy paper for the next election would be suffused with anger, outrage and frustration. Instead, this paper, to be discussed at conference, reads like a bland wish-list from some nice people. But, there again, maybe the working party has judged the mood of the electorate better than I. Look what happened to Labour with an all-out blast for socialism under Mr Corbyn.
Whatever, amongst the insipid prose are some gems, namely:
2.5.3. We will (my emphasis) introduce PR. Great: no ifs nor buts or talk of a referendum. Given the chance, we’ll do it.
16.4. We shall protect the BBC and Chanel 4.
17.5. We shall scrap the Illegal Migration Act. Not only that but we shall lift the ban on asylum seekers working. Common sense at last.
18.5. We shall champion (yes, “champion,” not “apologise for” ) the Human Rights Act.
19.4. We shall scrap photo ID for voting.
And For me best of all
21.4. We shall restore the oversea said budget to 0.7% of GDP. Whoopee.
Others may want to cheer the inclusion of some of their own pet projects.
One other caveat: it’s disappointing that we’re falling into the Tory trap of over-hyping the UK’s importance. For example in 2.3.2 we want to “Lead the world”, in 4.3 be “world leaders” and in 9.3 be “the best place in the world to work.” For goodness sake let us “lead the nation” in putting behind this “exceptionalist” jingoism and aim for modest competence.
That apart , I hope that in our election campaign, when it comes, we shall highlight the items I have enumerated and not try to hide them in case they put people off , but campaign for a just and fair society with fire in the belly.
* Peter Wrigley is a member of Spen Valley Liberal Democrats and blogs as keynesianliberal.blogspot.com
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A remarkabe woman and a park
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2025
A journey along the disused Market Harborough to Newark railway
Friends of Blackness Summer Fair tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Greg Hyde
David Sparrow
Paul
Nonconformistradical
21 Comments
One of the bullet points under “3.6 In particular we will:”
“Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall
disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’
tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains
tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to
income from work.”
I am very disappointed that the Party is not committing itself to taxing unearned income and capital gains at the same rate as earned income. That is fair taxation. I would abolish the tax-free allowance on unearned income as well and use the money saved to raise the personal allowance.
If Johnson can inflict his hard Brexit with a simple HoC majority then I see no problem with bringing in PR. Also, 13 years? Weren’t the libdems in coalition for the first 5?
Gems indeed…..but the policies that will resonate with most voters are about down to earth problems like staggeringly expensive mortgages, reckless sewage discharges, decaying schools and hospitals, and the disappearance of nhs dentistry.
In the coalition we did some good stuff ,not least Ed Davey and renewables.What we did not do WAS BLOW OUR TRUMPET on the issues we got through.We did not emphasise them enough.Equally on the ground not monitoring what was happening behind our back re Conservatives undermining us (we did do some of that ourselves!).We have to be always alert AND continue regular surveys on what the public talk about.
On balance, not too bad.
As always I believe we should start by plugging the sentiments expressed in the first sentence of 21.1 in terms of UK society, rather than lurching into lists of specific wrongs (lists of wrongs are hardly unique).
Then go on to show how everything else we propose is linked to that broader philosophy.
I believe that form of structure would make for a more compelling read and also inform our strategy at the next GE.
I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats appear to support removing the current 24 week limit for abortions and permitting abortion up to the point of birth.
…it’s disappointing that we’re falling into the Tory trap of over-hyping the UK’s importance.
Many people abroad regard the UK as a leader; it’s one reason why so many want to come here. Since regaining our independence, our standing and influence in the world has risen markedly…
‘Global Soft Power Index 2022: USA bounces back better to top of nation brand ranking’ [March 2022]:
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/global-soft-power-index-2022-usa-bounces-back-better-to-top-of-nation-brand-ranking
‘Gulf Nations on the Rise in Global Soft Power Index 2023 – UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar Climb in New Rankings’ [March 2023]:
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/gulf-nations-on-the-rise-in-global-soft-power-index-2023-uae-saudi-arabia-qatar-climb-in-new-rankings
The way to tax wealth is not to tax capital gains same as income. The clue is in the name. Income is annual. Capital gains is not. The tax paid on a £1M is very different to £50k over 20 years. There is also inflation/dcf. It could also impact on investment. There’s a reason Labour have backed away from this idea.
@Russell Go to the recent Social Liberal Forum discussion between Will Hutton and Sarah Olney at the NLC. “Putting Leaves on the magic Money Tree” https://youtu.be/moYM6vkcCwM Wealth Taxation in the sense of taxing people on their possessions rather than what they convert to money doesn’t work as Hutton explains.
Back in 1987 Nigel Lawson was quite comfortable taxing Capital Gains at the same rate as income, and one would hardly call him a Liberal.
@Jeff
Not sure I trust BrandFinance’s methodology. Also, UK didn’t regain “our independence” post-brexit. The UK has only just started out as an independent nation station. Before joining the EEC we were a (dying) empire. Pure nation-states don’t have the best track record as we saw with Eastern and Central Europe during the interwar period.
Once again, the failed and unfair voting system penalises the non- LAbour and Conservative Parties nationally and locally in England. Labour and Tories think they can win a General Election by getting 35-40% of the vote. Remember Labour got 35% in 2005 and ended up with 56% of the seats. If Labour gets the most seats, say 300 and Lib Dems hold the balance then STV must be a price that Labour must agree to. I don’t trust the old class based parties, Tories particularly but Labour’s record on being progressive is not good at all, many are happy for the collectivist trade unionist barons approach from the 70s with high tax and spend and Tories of course are geared towards privatisation and non state education. Lib Dems should not make the mistake as they did in 2010 of being in a coalition Government, that will not be a good idea as the senior coalition partner will use it as a firewall as the Tories did in 2010-15. Should be confidence and supply so that Lib Dems can hold Labour’s feet to the fire if needed, that’s more important than Cabinet posts and limousines.
It has been clear for some time what the public’s priorities are from its government – the NHS, Cost of living and the economy.
In presenting a manifesto there has to be a clear vision for how people’s lot can be improved. That includes making a convincing case for the benefits of higher levels of spending on public services as well as how that spending is to be financed for day to day spending (taxes) and longer term investments (borrowing). For a fair deal makes a good start on doing that.
With higher projected spending as a % of GDP, the level of taxation will need to increase to avoid reigniting inflation. Ensuring additional taxation is equitable and does not further squeeze lower and middle-range incomes is essential to public buy-in.
An increased level of both public and private investment with a heavy bias towards renewable energy, council house building and insulation retrofitting is an essential component of restarting economic growth, addressing climate change issues and delivering real wage growth, as is reopening access to the EU single market. Rejoining EFTA looks like the only practical route there to me.
Other issues, (regardless of their import) will likely gain minimal traction with voters (but can be tripwires) and hence have little impact on the overall outcome of the election campaign.
“Income is annual. Capital gains is not”
The majority of taxable capital gains is on fungible financial instruments. Capital gains on these can and should be measured annually and basic rate income tax could be deducted at source.
Indeed Peter, all our policies are uniformally beige to quote Billy Connolly.
The entire process is managed in such a way as to produce boring uninspiring grey/beige porridge where any gems are almost totally hidden and the chance of them being noticed by a member of the media and publicised on mainsteam TV news or in the press is absolutely nil.
It is as if the production of policies is regarded as an end (a dead end) in itself instead of as a mechanism of taking our values and visions and using them to promote us as a party with relevant ideas on how to solve people’s problems.
I’m sure there are many who will tell us we need great policies to show we are ready to go into government. The problem is they are so uniformally dreary, they do nothing to help us get elected into government and implement them!
Skimming that pre-manifesto policy paper, it appears that conference votes on
grammar schools in 2016, calling on “the government to abandon the selection by ability and social separation of young people, into different schools”, and
faith schools in 2017, calling for an approach which “ensures that selection in admissions on the basis of religion or belief to state-funded schools is phased out over up to six years”,
continue to be ignored or forgotten. Are they policies (and do they reflect the position of the party) or not?
And why does “lions led by lambs” spring to mind so often when I read comments on this site and then look at the party?! 🙁
We will work with others to defend the rule of law, human rights and for nuclear disarmamant. We will work to defend and enhance democracy using our international contacts. We will campaign for more effective global organisations such as the United Nations, World Bank and IMF so they are more pivoted towards combatting issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, persistent waste, trafficking and inequalities.
2.5.1 “…put real power in everyone’s hands”. Great. How ? We’re talking about more than PR here I assume ?
Thanks for your comments and further suggestions. My list was not meant to be exclusive: I just mentioned the issues that excite me. (I’m disappointed that no-one has seconded my enthusiasm for highlighting the restoration of the Aid Budget to 0.7% of GDP. )
I recognise that, as Anthony Acton, Joe Bourke and others have pointed out that the main concerns of the bulk of the electorate centre around the quality of government, the NHS and the economy. However, unless we emphasise the values that make us Liberal and, to me, excitingly different, we are never going to recruit the activists necessary to put us into government. As Ian Dunt points out on Page 442 of How to be a Liberal “For many years now Liberals have failed to argue for out values. We have apologised for them, or seemed embarrassed by them, or not mentioned them at all.” If we continue to hide our lights under bushels, we shall remain on the fringe for ever.
William Francis 23rd Aug ’23 – 3:39pm:
Not sure I trust BrandFinance’s methodology.
Brand Finance’s annual Global Soft Power Index is the most broadly assessed and largest study for measuring how countries are regarded internationally. It’s widely cited, although not always credited. Here, for example, is the Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union…
‘The World’s Top 20 Soft Power Nations In 2023’:
https://aalep.eu/world%E2%80%99s-top-20-soft-power-nations-2023
William Francis 23rd Aug ’23 – 3:39pm:
AThe UK has only just started out as an independent nation station. Before joining the EEC we were a (dying) empire.
Prior to joining the EEC, the UK had been an independent nation for centuries. We made our own laws and set our own trade policy. For example, in the nineteenth century the UK introduced and then later repealed the Corn Laws – a protectionist tariff which benefited wealthy landowners and farmers at the expense of workers. Both actions were the decision of parliament — the UK had sovereignty.
Pure nation-states don’t have the best track record…
The vast majority of countries are independent nation states including the most successful and fastest growing economies. For example, Japan grew to be the world’s third largest economy as an independent country, South Korea grew to be the eighth largest after gaining its independence from Japan, and Singapore went from being one of the world’s poorest to one of the richest in two generations after gaining its independence from first Britain (as part of Malaysia) and then Malaysia.
‘The History of Singapore’s Economic Development’:
https://www.thoughtco.com/singapores-economic-development-1434565
Jeff continues to show how Brexit is the triumph of ideology over geography, and of superficial analogies. ‘Singapore is a successful nation so the UK was right to leave the EU’ is a non-sequitur.
The departure of N. Dorries from Parliament is an opportunity to consider her ‘achievements’ as Culture Secretary during a time when UK exports of cultural services to Europe have been devastated by Brexit. A researcher-performer-pianist of my acquaintance can no longer take his piano to the Venice music festival because of all the extra bureaucracy, including the need for an licence for the ivory of the piano keys!