The recent political upheaval necessitates an assessment of our position as a party. How do we respond when Labour now has a large poll lead and the Tories have tanked but have a new leader? Our lack of visibility, reflected by a slight drop in our poll figures, is in part a consequence of the recent drama but is it also that we haven’t yet got enough to say?
The exposure of Tory Brexiteers as both morally and economically bankrupt leaves a large political space to be filled – what is the way forward for the UK? Policy positions and messages have a balance to strike between bold and safe – too bold and we are thought of as scary (for example, revoke), but if we are only ‘safe’ (i.e., the same as other anti-Tory parties) one could ask what is the point of the Lib Dems.
We need a combination of the safe/consensus and the bold that is unique to Lib Dems. These positions also have to combine as a story of what is wrong and how it can be fixed, and also define our role in the post-election parliament. In addition to representing our voters and values, a key role in parliament is not to present ourselves a government or opposition in waiting (as in 2019) but to influence government policy. We can argue that we have already done this re the energy cap and windfall tax but we should go further.
On the “safe” side it is straightforward to attack the incompetence of the Tory government and demand a general election but this is not enough and a critique that is the essentially the same as Labour. That’s fine but in addition we need policy positions that are differential from Labour that also can engage the public imagination, in the space left by the Brexiteer free market vision of the Tories.
One central question is that of the economy and how we are going to pay for the public sector investment that is required and support business enterprise, without over taxing the bulk of the population. This bolder distinctive economic story has to centre not only on green economics but on a new relationship with Europe as part of the single market, and to date we have been too shy in proclaiming that this should be an essential part of our economic vision. We could also advocate a shift to taxes on wealth as well as income and look at the ideas of the 2021 Wealth Tax Commission and Tax Justice Campaign.
The defeat of Trussonomics opens up more space to advocate for Europe and Wealth taxes. This article is not to spell out the detail, but to urge the party leadership to speed up the development and communication of a bolder story of our future that has clear and distinctive messages. If we rest just on the safe story – that the Tories are incompetent, we are in danger of being further side-lined.
* Richard Elliot is a Lib Dem member living in Lewisham, London
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Damian Collins at Hereford Military History Festival in September
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
Peter Martin
26 Comments
This article highlights an important issue at a time when public spending is likely to be cut back when the opposite is needed. Where Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were right is that we do need a rational plan for GDP per capita growth to be able to maintain good quality public services and welfare provision. Where they were wrong is in assuming that a tax cutting fiscal stimulus aimed at business and higher earners and financed by increased borrowing could generate that growth in an era of global stagflation where inflation was reaching double digits.
The wealth tax commission concluded that an annual wealth tax is a non-starter in the UK and we should fix our existing taxes on wealth instead.
Four leading economists published a paper last year Post-Corona Balanced-Budget SuperStimulus: The Case for Shifting Taxes onto Land
“The post-Corona economic environment puts a premium on finding fiscal means to stimulate the economy while continuing to finance current levels of expenditures and debt. We develop and carefully calibrate a model of the US economy to show that an increase in the tax rate on the value of land, balanced by decreases in the tax rates on the incomes of capital and labor, can meet this need. We find that the US share of land in total nonfinancial assets is more than 50%, so that the tax base is very large.”
Liberal Democrats have the policies sitting on the shelf or under development to go about fixing our tax system and facilitate economic growth- Commercial landowners levy to replace business rates, council tax proportional to house values, land value tax., minimum income guarantee and more.
For further detail on Land Value Tax see ALTER
Hello Richard,
I don’t think we can say that our share of the polls has decreased because of the collapse of the Conservatives and their vote. It should have increased from those Conservative voters who could not vote Labour but are willing to vote for us.
The first part of your answer, where you say it is because of our invisibility in the mainstream media, is absolutely right. Quite simply, there are too many senior figures in the Lib Dems who seem to be content that we say nothing of interest and so appear totally irrelevant as a nation force as far as 90% of the population are concerned.
The dread hand of too many senior figures being totally wedded to a stifling bureaucracy and an entrenched unwillingness to even consider that they are the reason things are not improving as exemplified by “National crisis – We don’t need a party Conference!” shows how stasis has taken root.
We need to shake things up and we need to do it now.
I agree. A shake up is needed NOW! People get complacent/unradical/secure and do not want to ‘rock the boat’ when they have been in position for some time.That leads to STAGNATION.That rebelliousness the party had needs to be reborn.
As we get little media coverage we have to campaign on the streets,knock on doors and leaflet everywhere to get noticed.We have the policies ,ideas we have to show the voter we have something different to offer.
Re 2019. If Farage had not done his deal (secretly) with the fellow people of the right ,Conservatives, our position today,would be different.It did not help that Labour did not help the position.Disunity in the opposition can/is exploited by ‘the enemy’ along with their supporting papers.
Richard Elliott,
You should have set out what our economic vision is and then set out what you want it to be.
I think you will find it in “A fairer, greener, more caring society” policy paper and motion passed at our Autumn 2021 Conference “in which all contribute their fair share, and every person can have a decent income and a secure home, and can rely on good public services,” being “a leader in the fight against the climate and nature emergencies”, providing “a green jobs guarantee, offering a well-paying green job to anyone who wants one”, being “the best place in the world to start and to grow a business”, having “a truly world class education and skills system”, providing “training courses free to those not in work via a training guarantee scheme” and “creating the closest possible alignment between the UK and the EU, including rejoining the Customs Union, Single Market and other EU agencies and programmes as appropriate, and supporting a longer-term objective of UK membership of the EU” (https://www.libdems.org.uk/f24-a-fairer-greener-more-caring-society).
I would change the first objectives slightly to “that everyone who wants a job has a secure one which pays a decent income, everyone who wants a home of their own has one,” and I would add, “that no one lives below the poverty line for their household type and the government runs the economy to achieve economic growth closer to it pre 2008 average.” And the aim of “good public series” could be expanded.
As has been discussed previously, Universal(or Guaranteed) Basic Income has/had the potential to be a big, distinguishing policy for the party after the planned conference vote. What is the status of that now?
Our party is in trouble. Bleating for a General Election is patently absurd – there must be more important and defining things to say and do.
David Evans’ comment is absolutely correct. So was the article by Khaled Hassan – and the comments by Gordon Lishman and Patrick Morrissey need to be actively taken on board. In this context, the article by David Evans on October 12th should be re-read and acted upon.
What depresses me is that we seem to be in a mire of our own making, presided over by a group of people who are collectively blind to their own inadequacies and some of whom actually seem to believe that the answer lies in identity politics!
We need someone who has the time and the skills to champion positive action within the party. I hope it is not too late – but it may well be.
Might we start by undermining Neo-liberal socio-economics which is at the bottom of the mess into which our main political parties have led us?
I’m not sure I know what Neo-Liberal socio-economics is but I’m certain the public doesn’t.
“We’re going to give everyone a decent income and pay for it by taxes on the rich and on land” would be a better pitch.
Very good from Richard, David, Peter Graham as well.
Think of these policies-
Drugs decriminalsed, is a lousy policy staated that way. Canabiss fine, cocaine, no. Starmer would slaughter us.
Nuclear disarmament, what? Unilateral, of course not at the moment Putin is taunting! Multilateral, perhaps.
We need to recognise that if people who claim we need to have a distictive policy, always pick the very policy that most find off putting, we fail. Most who favour supposed radical and distinctive are in the wrong party. The Green party has those policies.
We have good policies. We alas wrap them in a woke vs wonk mix, that decries centre ground and centre left, in favour of mush.
I want a robust Liberal and yes Democratic party!
I would prefer a Starmer led, or better, social democratic one, to a bleeding heart identity politics dominated left liberal one.
Lorenzo – I don’t think we should automatically associate being radical and distinctive with left liberal identity politics.
You can be radical and centre or centre-left, you can be distinctive and economically sensible, you can be liberal without being woke etc
I worry that the Lib Dems don’t have a raison d’etre at the moment but I would never vote Green!
We need to bring the discussion on Taxes to wealth taxes. This is the only way to stop the inevitable year on year increased in wealth gaps.
Super rich people are able to avoid income tax by not having income and instead relying on funds borrowed from banks against collateral.
Let’s use the same technique to charge a wealth tax that rich people can pay via borrowing with a bank secured against property/share portfolios etc.
In this way we can once and for all address the Tories on striving vs skiving. The Lib Dems are on the side of people to strive to go to work to earn income, who clean our streets or work in our hospitals.
For those who might not be sure about Neo-liberalism and the need to undermine it, the attached article may be of interest.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/10/28/the-maliciousness-of-central-bankers-is-showing-it-has-no-limits/
@ Steve,
I don’t agree that “malicious” is the correct adjective to describe central bankers. The problem that your linked article refers to has arisen because the Governments have abdicated responsibility for meeting inflation targets by giving this responsibility to the central bank.
The bankers only have one control lever which is the tightening or loosening of monetary policy. If they are told to reduce inflation they will tighten it. What else can they do? The only sensible solution involves a commitment to a restoration of the situation as it once was before Gordon Brown changed it.
It wouldn’t be a complete solution. We really need to understand what inflation is. If energy is in short supply energy prices will go up just like the the price of potatoes will rise if we have a bad harvest. It doesn’t necessarily mean we have inflation problem in either case.
It doesn’t make any sense to raise interest rates at the moment, except that the BoE feels it needs to match what the Americans are doing to protect the value of the pound. So this is at least one positive we can say about Andrew Bailey and others at the BoE. The solution therefore also involves an international collaboration to prevent one dominant central bank leading the rest of the world into an economic disaster.
Joe Bourke says it. We have the policy already: Land Value Tax. Nothing against wealth as such but when it accrues through inheritance or with risk or enterprise or hard work by all means tax it. As Herman Kahn said “the economy is the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment”. In a finite world the laws of supply and demand don’t work, which is why land values rise with no effort. “They don’t make it any more” (Mark Twain).
The arguments against LVT are technical “you can’t value land separate from buildings”. NOT TRUE developers do it all the time. And political in a home-owning democracy.
ALTER has devised a practical and politically acceptable but radical path to implement LVT on domestic land and property but Conference hasn’t been able to debate it.
See https://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/document/alter-conference-flyers/alter-flyer-lvt-homestead-allowance-2018-a4-folded.pdf
Marco
Yes thanks, Marco your’e right! I was stating that this party seems too oriented to that very either or, you explain. Either they see centre ground as stade, and counter blast that with unpopular left policies, or status quo in attitude if not policies.
I think exactly as I and you say here, we can be radical centre, moderate centre left and count.
Greens are good for you. But not to vote for necessarily!
Labour is a Brexit party, in parliament they voted for it at every opportunity. We should be shouting about our policy agreed at conference. Our priority is to start repairing the damage Tory and Labour Parties have done to our relationships with our European neighbours, build cultural, financial and business co-operation and see if one day it might be a good time to re-join the EU. Let’s shout it out loud.
@Lorenzo Cherin – I agree with your concerns, I’ve found many non-LibDem members of the public have picked up on the woolly and woke policies and thus dismiss the LibDems as being not a serious party.
@Marco – ” I would never vote Green!”
By voting Green throughout the 80’s and 90’s in increasing numbers (especially in “safe seats”), the public managed to get the majors including the LibDems to start taking environmental issues seriously and thus adopt greenish policies and move green concerns up the political agenda. It also got the Green party to become more serious about what its policies actually mean and create a fuller manifesto.
Roland
Thanks for a sensible opinion. I think mostly the party has good policies. A handful of not as important ones are too much. The emphasis is too vague or too overt, either, rather than definite and popular. Example, some want unilateral disarmament some do not. Policy, fudge. No point in going unilateral if the Green party and Labour left do. Our vote in most areas is moderate, that is not a moderate policy proposal, when Putin threats are real.
Similarly on drugs. Crass statements such as decriminalise drugs, sounds adolesacent. Decriminalise drugs says nothing that, help drug users to face their habit, does not say. So legalise cannabis, great, and help drug addicts, great.
Similarly faith schools. Support all schools, Liberal. Stop faith schools, draconian!
We ought to look at parties in Europe or the new Forward movement in America. The Liberals under Trudeau are a disasterous anti Liberal force obviously statist. The Democrats in America are increasingly shrill.
Lorenzo – Germany have recently announced plans to decriminalise cannabis following the Netherlands and Portugal have already effectively decriminalised personal drug use. This is sensible grown up politics.
Roland – You may well be right but I would still not vote Green because I see them as having an anti Humanist and anti growth mindset.
@ Marco “an anti Humanist… mindset”.
Really ? What on earth does that mean ??
@Marco – To really tackle the perfect storm in the coming decades, we have to go through a period of negative headline economic growth. Yes, the Greens tend to be a little extreme, but it really is up to us now whether we ride the storm and come out with a functioning society of circa 30M or a non-society of sub 5M people. Naturally, I’m assuming atmospheric CO2 levels don’t rise to the point where rain becomes acidic for more than a year, because at that point it’s pretty much game over.
Marco
I say here I agree that we must legalise cannabis. I am not criticising that. I am not in agreement with decriminalising hard drugs as that implies to people or confuses people,thinking we are in favour of legalising hard drugs, though we aren’t.
You are correct. It is right and adult to decriminalise or go further, legalise soft drugs.
With the looming Budget and the hard winter facing our country, the priority for Liberal Democrat answers to shout about are the policies for tax reform and stimulating economic growth that Joe Bourke reminds us of in the first comment here. They surely will need further development and assertion at our Spring Conference. And what they are needed for is what Michael Gooding then reminds us of, to create the ‘fairer, greener more caring society’ for which we passed a paper and motion in the Autumn 2021 Conference.
As people face the financial hardship of this winter, I believe we must assert that our first overriding priority for our country is to relieve poverty. This will be the first aim of the policies deferred to our Spring Conference, set out in the Fairer Society paper and motion. They include the commitment to either UBI or Guaranteed Minimum Income, but in either case to both welfare reform and its enhancement.
In the longer term, but to be asserted soon as very relevant, for the country to rejoin the Single Market and Customs Union of the EU might begin to remedy the harms of Brexit.
David Raw – What it means is that they see Human Beings as a problem generally, they advocate population control and they support policies which Liberal Reform called “miserabilism” in their excellent recent mini-manifesto:
https://www.liberalreform.org.uk/2022/06/08/cutting-the-cost-of-living/
The LibDems need new economic policies and need to realise that the world is changing fast. Globalisation is going rapidly into reverse. Long supply chains and Just In Time ( JIT ) overseas does not work. Brexit, COVID, Ukraine, various sanctions, the sudden decline of China, energy and transport cost hikes and the USA losing interest in trade agreements or the WTO, are all factors. But the trends against globalisation are deeper.
Trade agreements with India, USA and what was called TTIP in the pacific have stalled and if in place, would carry big policy drawbacks and limitations, for microscopic trade gains.
LibDems need a policy for a well resourced active industrial strategy to include Green and energy policy to make the various transitions. The 19th Century Free trade tinged Orange Book’s general thrust would be ill equipped to cope with the coming age. We have just seen a Hayek/Friedman inspired Truss budget go down in flames and the public giving Starmer’s Labour opinion poll leads of up to 39%.
We should emphasise our more long-term approach by focusing on climate change, improving our governance and a return to closer relations with the eu. We cannot ignore the glaring COL crisis, the plight of refugees and the Ukraine war. We can however revert to our previous strategy of allowing the other two parties to argue over them and show a coherent, progressive and long term raft of policies ready for our ge manifesto.