Is this the backcloth to Clegg’s tax cutting approach?
July 18th, 2008
What should the Lib Dems do when the Tories are advancing?
The latest Lib Dem approach to taxation and public spending is very different from what we are used to from the party - remember the penny extra in the pound for education and them being the only party at previous elections prepared to increase rates for the well off?
This is going to cause fierce debates within Clegg’s party but I wonder whether the new young leader is sensing that the nature of his party support is changing. Just look at the polling finding reproduced above and in particular the responses of Lib Dem supporters in the final column.
One trend that I track closely is the response to the monthly forced choice question in the Telegraph’s YouGov poll over whether voters would prefer a Tory government led by Cameron to a Labour one led by Brown. In particular I look at how Lib Dem voters split which is available from the detailed data.
For long periods the Lib Dems were mostly in favour of Labour. For several months, until June, LD backers have split fairly evenly on the question. In May it was 40-40-20 while in March and April Brown had a small lead.
The latest figures point to the biggest pro-Tory split on the question amongst declared Lib Dem voters that we have ever seen and undermines the conventional assumption that Lib Dem voters are as left-wing as many of the party’s activists.
This is perhaps the backcloth for Nick Clegg and his colleagues as they try to steer the right course between the big parties. How can they argue a distinctive approach that keeps both Labour and Conservative waverers on board? Maybe this explains what seems to be a major U-turn on taxation and public spending policy?
Seepage to the Tories particularly in the seats they hold is their biggest challenge at the next election and Clegg’s message on spending cuts seems designed to impede that. At the same time the other part of the package for the least well off could help in their Labour targets.
UPDATE 1045
Rest of the Day - For the rest of the day I am in London helping my son and his family move house so won’t be monitoring the site.
Scheduled to be published at 4pm is “PB Election Countdown: What makes marginals different?”. This is a re-run of a great guest slot from last year by Blair Freebairn which made me looking at the coming battle in a completely different way.
Automatic moderation of comments from posters the server does not recognise is still on. It might mean that there are delays in freeing them.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It would be more fun if the SNP candidate’s name was Jason Mason (as was erroneously reported briefly a while ago). In 1991 Private Eye said that the Conservative candidate in Kincardine & Deeside was going to be Humphrey Dumpty, and I was disappointed when I found out it was only a joke.
Where is everybody? Have you all taken the overnight train to Glasgow?
Are those figures today’s Lib-Dems, or YouGov’s sample of 2005 Lib-Dem identified people, many of whom may already plan to vote Tory.
Nick Clegg is desperately trying to hold onto seats that are at high risk of going blue. Not a bad attempt. However, I think that the opportunity to really kick Labour out will prove too strong for many in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
O/T - So the government can’t stick to their own rules, so the rules are gonna be changed. Quelle surprise!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7512972.stm
4. Can you explain how a LD/Tory marginal changing hands (either way) helps get Labour out? It does not affect the Labour majority at all.
Yes, bold move by Clegg but surely the right agenda for the right time. Looking at ID cards and this great phone call database, these are both things the Government could do but shouldn’t, on both civil liberties and cost grounds. While people are watching their spending more than they have for years, and the focus is on MPs expenses, any politician suggesting a tightening of the belt in Government is on solid ground - a brave move given recent policy, but skim-reading yesterday’s thread I didn’t see any LDs whining - I certainly wasn’t.
I suspect Mike might be right and Clegg might be wrong, which is to say that these figures (or the obvious dynamic that has produced them) is what’s behind the Lib Dem move, but that move is unlikely to work.
There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it’s a very defensive strategy, aimed at trying to hold on to as many Lib Dem seats that they won from the Conservatives (IIRC, over half the Lib Dems’ current total were won from Tories since 1992). These seats are clearly vulnerable to a Tory revival (some more than others), but is trying to seem a Tory-lite party the way to do it - especially when many of those seats will have been won with tactical Labour votes?
Virtually everyone believes the Conservatives are the party most committed to tax cuts. It’s one reason Cameron has been able to leave the subject more or less alone: Labour is now well associated with stealth taxes and the Lib Dems made a virtue of being in favour of some higher taxes for so long that many people will believe they still are. If a person wants tax cuts as a main personal priority, they will vote Tory. If the Conservatives do win the next election, Osborne (or whoever is chancellor, but probably him), will then get a bit of slack to deal with the economic situation, but will still be expected to deliver tax cuts. Only if he doesn’t do that might the Lib Dems’ policy about turn start to chime - though if he doesn’t, the probability is that the Conservatives will be a good deal less popular than at present enabling the Lib Dems to revert to a more comfortable ‘tax and spend’ position.
Another factor why I’m not sold on Clegg’s proposal is that I’m not convinced that the change in Lib Dem voters’ preferred choice has much to do with policy. Probably there is some move as ‘tax and spend’ has once again been shown to deliver less than expected for the resource increase and as taxes begin to bite, but I would suspect that most of the shift is down to preceived incompetence in the government, a favourable viewing of Cameron over Brown personally, and of Cameron’s leadership skills compared to Brown’s indecision and ineffective populism.
The third reason why this is a big risk for Clegg is that the Lib Dems’ policy is far more likely to be of interest to Lib Dem activists than their voters. Most people know that the chances of a UK Lib Dem government are close to nil, so might vote for them to express approval for a policy position, but are more likely to do so for local political reasons (candidate effectiveness etc), or as a protest against the other two parties - something that ties in with the Lib Dem campaigning style which is usually a combination of going very negative against their main opponents and a list of little local triumphs. To that extent, annoying much of the activist base may produce little in the way of electoral gain.
To me, the main thing this move shows is how the tide is moving on the tax/spending debate. The mood is swinging away from higher taxes and more spending (and hence away from ‘better public services’) and towards lower taxes. If the Lib Dems adopt what many will see as a Tory agenda, it is likely to do at least as much for the Tories - seen as being ‘in touch’ - as for the Lib Dems.
8 - yep, there will probably be an assumption that if the Tories can’t find a way to deliver tax cuts, then the LibDem numbers probably won’t add up.
6. Two ways:
In a hung parliament, a Tory MP is much more likely to vote to kick Labour out than a Lib Dem.
Voting in a Tory is a step closer to a change of government; returning a Lib Dem is not necessarily.
It is this difference that I think a lot of Lib Dems (and Labour supporters for that matter) miss. Someone posted yesterday that the balance between the incentives of winning office for themselves and kicking the other lot out is different between Labour and the Tories, and I’d agree with that. Labour is more motivated by ‘getting rid of the Tories’; the Conservatives more by ‘winning the election’. To that end, Labour is more prepared to use tactical voting to support other parties assumed to be relatively sympathetic (whether or not that one exists is of course a factor in that consideration).
Lib Dems tend to incline to the Labour viewpoint but the assumption that Tories will vote Lib Dem to get Labour out might be in vain; certainly the idea that replacing a Lib Dem with a Tory will make little difference will be laughed at. The important column is the number of Tory MPs, not the number of Labour ones.
re. 3 the numbers are current Lib Dem supporters
10. You made every point I was about to make.
But, on topic, I think Clegg has realised far more quickly than the other two party leaders that the public mood on tax and spend has shifted markedly, even compared to 2005. Unjustly, he won’t get much credit for this, but he may well demonstrate to the Conservatives that it’s safe to make the case for reining in public spending.
12, I agree that the public mood has shifted. However, Clegg can promise what he likes, he isn’t going to be Prime Minister. Brown and Cameron have to promise something at least approaching realism.
The example he gave on Newsnight (equalising pension exemption from tax) would actually increase the tax take.
However, I do agree with the general principle of lower taxes and a smaller state. But even the Thatcher government had to raise taxes to get the country on its feet again, and we have no idea what the finances will be like in 2010. Given the possible rewriting of the iron pyrite rule it seems like Brown’s simply going to borrow a fortune and mortgage the future of the country to try and bolster his own electoral hopes.
Bad news for Clegg - former Brown fan Janet Daley agrees with him !
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/janet_daley/blog/2008/07/17/nick_clegg_tells_the_truth_about_tax_and_spend
Shoud have the sandal brigade choking on their museli..
Seems Clegg has captured the mood pretty well. Brown getting slated all over the media for changing the rules on borrowing. Clegg has rightly judged that the public have had enough of tax and spend.
Oh and Mark ‘Soros’ Senior it seems that Vince Cable agrees with me about the collapse of government revenue and the need to increase borrowing (god forbid they should actually cut spending).
Vince was, as ever, very good on radio 4 this morning.
12. Always happy to agree with you, Sean
This is a very long overdue revue of the direction of travel for the Lib Dems and as a Conservative I can only welcome Nick Cleggs late conversion to the cause of a low tax economy.
I think the Lib Dems will suffer two immediate challenges to this however, 1) the credibility of leaping with one bound threough 180′ on such a fundimental cause as this may only add the the widely held belief that the Lib Dems are the ’sitting on every fence’ party and 2) their activists (and a lot of their MP’s) down in this neck of the woods are unreconstructed lefties who have slotted in to the vacancy left behind by New Labour and who will view this proposal with horror and not a little dismay.
I think it is too little, too late but we shall see.
Mike, you assume that Lib Dem voters have a political philosophy. My experience of them is the opposite. At a general election the Lib Dems tend to pick up the voters who “dislike” the main two parties, based on a wide range of issues. They may pick up votes because of the appeal of the leader, but to suggest that the average Lib Dem voter at a general election is positively voting for a their manifesto is massively wide of the mark. It also means that Lib Dem MPs can (and do) have a wide divergence of opinions on policy and it does not affect their national polling levels.
18. No, Marcus. As a ‘lefty’ Lib Dem activist, I am quite content with this tax policy (and thank you Mr Brown, for changing the borrowing rules so any ‘affordability’ question is now moot).
What most Lib Dem activists want from tax changes is re-distribution of the tax burden to those ‘with the broadest shoulders’.
Previously the policy attempted this as part of a net tax hike, which was easy to be attacked as a ‘rise for the average tax-payer’. I’m sure your 2005 campaign would have majored on this.
As part of a net tax cut, the Tory fox is shot, and the policy of re-distribution through progressive taxation is easier to sell.
For the LDs to succeed, they need to attack both the other two parties. But occasionally, one main party offends the public mood (Tories in 1997, Labour now). At this particular stage of the political cycle, there is no value whatsoever in criticising the likely new govt. Nobody wants to know.
‘We are at one with X party in that getting rid of this tired and incompetent govt is the number one priority. The LDs are important to try to limit daft excesses like….’ Or ‘a stronger LD party might have prevented…’
Actual LD policy is as irrelevant as ever.
The people who would gain from the Lib Dems change in taxation policy are the lower earning workers, apart from those in public sector affected by the £20bn of cuts. In recent GEs these workers will have mainly voted Labour and Lib Dem. The previous LD tax policy of removing council tax and replacing with an income tax would have also benefited lower earning workers.
Maybe this time around the tax policy will be more attractive because it is simpler? However it is true that a large part of the LD vote is a protest vote and is more volatile than the other main 2 parties. But the Lib Dems do lack the ability to communicate their national ideas to the public partly due to media time and partly due to their fragmented FOCUS network.
What we can expect to see is a more timid approach from the Lib Dems towards opposing cuts now that they have £20bn of their own to find. Is this the Lib Dems Clause 4 moment?
The LibDems can come up with whatever tax/spend policies they like - they will never have an opportunity to implement them.
At this stage in the economic cycle, it is wrong for any opposition to commit yourself to anything specific. Talk in general terms by all means but wait until you get a chance to look at the books before bringing forward detailed proposals.
Clegg is an opportunist who is trying to get some publicity. His period as leader has not been a great one - he is trying to find a voice.
So far, I am not convinced
re 19. I disagree with you very strongly. All the polling data on attitudes to different issues suggests that Lib Dem supporters have a distinctive philosophy compared with Labour and the Tories. They are much less hostile to immigrants, more pro-EU and very much against invading other nations which pose no threat without the sanction of the UN.
They are likely to be
lessmore opposed to hanging, detaining people without trial for long periods and are stronger on general civil liberties issues. The ID card is a case in point.20. It’s not the tax cuts that will anger activists (no-one like paying tax) it’s the cuts in services, and especially sacking thousands of civil servants/town hall staff where the Lib Dems traditionally draw a lot of support.
The merits of Clegg’s proposals are that they are right, that they reflect the views of a plurality of voters, and that they accord pretty closely with the views of Liberal Democrat voters (more of whom read the Mail than the Guardian).
But the popular element is surely the proposal to cut the number of MPs by 150.
All talk of tax cuts is nonsense at the moment. We probably need tax rises and big spending cuts. Changing the rules to ignore reality as Brown is doing today is disastrous, epsecially when you consider all the off balance sheet PFI schemes which really should be counted already. I.e. the figures are already in reality much worse than they appear, so moving the goalpsots (to a different bl00dy postcode) is catastrophic.
Nick Robinson on Radio 4 this morning was saying the govt needs to either borrow more or raise taxes. I nearly threw the radio out the window as i shouted “OR CUT SPENDING” but it just doesn’t occur to them.
More petrol on the recession bonfire. I despair.
25
Of course we shan’t be having the problem, of sacking thousands of civils servants, (cuddles please note) town hall workers etc. when Dave gets in, as he’s already admitted he’ll be raising taxes anyway: I respect his honesty!
The Daily Mash on the crime figures.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/government-releases-danish-crime-figures–200807181106/
24: “They are likely to be less opposed”
More opposed, surely?
26.The LD’s would have had a lot more credibility now if they had agreed with all of this (£20bn efficiency savings, cutting the number of MP’s by 150) when Michael Howard suggested it in 2005.
6 Can you explain how a LD/Tory marginal changing hands (either way) helps get Labour out?
I can only second what 10 said.
When a government is very unpopular, the voters want to kick it out and replace it. In 1997, that meant voting for whoever could beat the Conservative incumbents. In a Lib Dem / Tory marginal that meant Lib Dem.
Fast forward to 2010. The voters want shot of Brown, and the only real alternative is Cameron. In a Lab / Lib Dem marginal, they will probably choose to kick Labour by voting Lib Dem. In general however, the Not Labour party is Conservative. Voters will want to make sure that a stake is driven through the heart of the beast, and that doesn’t mean voting for a party that might be a coalition partner.
So in the Lib Dem heartlands, they will probably loose support but gain it where they are the alternative.
Iain Dale supports Clegg, he also seems to be calling for a coalition: I Think!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/18/do1804.xml
28 You are correct about raising taxes. The country is bankrupt… the only option is to raise taxes to restore public finances. As ever a Tory govt will have to solve the disaster left behind by these socialist idiots.
Mike are you sure? - Lib Dems I know tend to be against hanging - even for Conservative Party members.
re 34. Thanks Icarus - Lib Dems are much more opposed to capital punishment than supporters of the other parties. I’ve changed it.
24 I’d be interested in seeing links to any polling data showing what are the general political beliefs of the supporters of the three main parties. One of the things that has struck me is that there seem to be a fair number of party members whose own political beliefs seem to have little resemblance to those of their party.
23 You have to give the public some indication of the direction you’re travelling in. I tend to agree with Matthew Parris that the Conservatives should be clear that we won’t be matching Labour’s public spending plans.
33….you can restore the public finances by cutting spending. you just remove a large chunk of the Brown client state. their contribution to the nation’s wealth is virtually nil.
37, also, massive and useless grand masterplans (ID cards and the NHS database) are either wholly unnecessary or can be watered down. They cost billions upon billions and do bugger all.
37,38 - Or you can do what the government seems hell bent on doing, tear up your fiscal rules and ignore the state of the public finances by piling up masses of deferred taxation.
33
Hmmm of course thats what Labour people say about Tory governments.
If Mr Cameron is being honest, then he should say before the election, which taxes and by how much!
Some of us, (Have to be careful, here Martin Day hates the past, believing as he does, ‘In the beginning was the word and the word was Dave’) remember 1979 when the Tories denied they would raise VAT and the almost doubled it in one go and put 2% on interest rates. Or John Major’s pledge, ‘I have no intention of extending or increasing VAT, then tried, (but failed) to put 17.5% vat on domestic fuel’
So if it is the intention of an incoming Conservative government to increase taxes, tell us all before polling day.
Also the Libdems should tell us, how much and what taxes they’ll be reducing.
36. Sean, the official party line is that we would have matched Labours *current* spending plans but clearly this commitment only lasts for this spending round which expires in November (and became obselete as soon as th election as off). Presumably whether we agree with Labours next round of spending commitments depends on what they are.
27 jon C quite right, the BBC and RedNick Robinson just do not understand that there is an alternative, CUTS. Maybe Nickinglesstaxes Clegg will help educate them?
Overall I have read about countries making mistakes by having their military setup to fight the previous war and not the next. The Conservatives GE 2005 manifesto does look like a manifesto to fight the following (2010) election. Ahead of its time and out of sync with the then voters.
It has not been all plain sailing for the Lib Dems, but one difference I have noticed when canvassing or just talking with friends is that unlike 30 years ago the “wasted vote” argument does not seem to come up. We are treated as a genuine alternative - OK in many constituencies were we are in third place the anti vote may go elsewhere, but there is perhaps the view that neither Conservative or Labour governments (or their MPs) have been that wonderful.
We have new gravitas from having serious sensible politicians like Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable on board. If Nick Clegg can continue to push the line we have thoughtout policies and they are fair (Conservatives have no policies and the Labour government has not been fair), then given the exposure that we would get in a General Election campaign the result may surprise some.
If Gordon really is forced to hang on until the last possible date then the effective campaign will last about six months rather than the usual 3 weeks - The Lib Dems will be entitled to ask for equality of air time for all of this time.
How refreshing it is to see a thread specifically dedicated to the LibDem leader and his thoughts, it makes a pleasant change from the cursory footnote usually afforded.
O/T, Whether or not this volte face by Clegg appeals or antagonises the activists is moot, it will resonate with the electorate who vote, however, like Marcus @ 18, I too believe this action to be ‘too little too late’, already 45% of the voters believe the Tories have this angle wrapped up and Clegg’s new stance is well behind the bell curve. If ever the term ‘political opportunism’ could be thrown about, then this is it.
Keep trumpeting Clegg’s brilliant foresight by all means, but this is no more than hindsight and he’s already missed the train.
Sean 36 - you can see it in the detailed data from almost every survey from YouGov, ICM, Populus and ComRes. They break down all their responses to non-voting questions in line with how people say they are voting.
43 Cleggs tax hike on pension funding - 20p in the £ for everyone earning at higher rate will not endear him to many new voters - he is not only taxing higher earners more, he is taxing them twice - on their earnings and again on their savings. The Lib Dems should be honest and state that wealth and success are a bad thing and they will do what they can to scupper them.
43, the Lib Dems are taken more seriously than before, and rightly so. However, they are still a long way from becoming the official opposition, let alone the government.
It’s an interesting point about airtime. Personally, I agree with you. I suspect, however, that the BBC will do a Let’s Save Gordon campaign, which will involve pretending Brown’s super, denigrating Cameron and ignoring Clegg.
In fact, I think Cleggs pension tax hike is his 10p tax moment - badly thought through and with unforeseen effects (which I am currently foreseeing)
We are obviously hearing a different Conservative message, Simon. Osbourne has promised to maintain Labour spending on health and education and actually increase spending on the military (Clegg has said we will cut military spending and activity).
Yesterdays message from Cameron was quite clear. - It may be necessary to increase taxes. I trust the Paxmans and Humphreys to keep getting him to repeat this umpteen times between now and the election.
41
Bet y’do!
It’s going to be interesting for you Marcus, putting on your leaflets, ‘Vote Tory the party that is promising to increase your taxes, don’t vote Libdem, ‘cos those fibbers are promising to cut them’
But then of course if Mrs Dale is right you could be snuggling up to them anyway! So it might be, ‘Vote for me, (Not that the Libdem isn’t a really nice guy, who might even be in Dave’s cabinet) but I need the job’ I’d be convinced!
49 as long as they continue to pick away at the evident flaws in Cleggs proposals and remind everyone on higher rate who invest in a pension that they are getting a 20% tax hike that should be fine.
‘We might raise taxes as Labour have screwed the economy’ versus ‘I am an idiot who taxes success like a raving socialist nutjob’ is ok
I take it that the general concensus is that Clegg’s ‘tax cutting’ is not the sort of tax cutting that the Redwoods of this world would call for? Its more about taxing the rich via pensions to offer some sort of redistribution at the lower end and as such is a straight Labour core-vote grab?
It should, if anything, make Cameron’s journey to number 10 rather easier
52 I say ‘rich’ I of course mean ‘middle england’
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Clegg is talking about tax cuts - because to deliver those the challenge would be to cut spending - but rather tax redistribution - taxing the poor less and the rich more.
The biggest extra tax on the rich is the dream of removing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions which was investigated, thoroughly, by Adair Turner’s Pension Commission, who concluded that while final salary schemes exist this change could only be made if you were prepared to tolerate significant unfairness or greatly increased complexity. The LDs have yet to say which they favour, preferring to continue to talk in generalities.
It is always possible that Dave will not be able to keep to his “Higher taxes may be necessary” policy. There will be lots of “old” Conservatives who will publicly ask for tax cuts now. Tax cuts for their friends, that is, Mr Letwin will have a job convincing us that Tories care about the poor! The Tory party may well go into the next election as a badly divided party.
On Clegg again, I think this potential change in strategy is a wise reaction to the London/C&N/Henley results. Clearly the Lib Dems cannot hope to beat the Conservatives in a face off against them and their best bet of maintaining a credible number of MP’s is to look to make gains in the North to compensate for losses in the South.
This policy will help hugely to position the LD’s to win tactical votes in Labour - Lib Dem marginals.
Clearly it will add to tactical unwind in pre-1997 Conservative seats like mine but Clegg must have assumed (as most commentators have been saying all along) that most of these seats are going to be taken blue anyway.
Disws - the flaw in your flaw-spotting about the pension credit issue is that the potential is there for high earners to receive a 40% tax credit for a pension that could only be taxed at 22% when it’s paid out (or presumably 16% if the Lib Dems have their way), which means they’ve receive more relief then they’re entitled to (the pension ‘tax relief’ is to ensure that the income is only taxed once).
Surely the issue at hand for betting chaps is that this rewrite of the golden rules finishes Browns premiership. Not one person is going to wander into a polling station and then into the booth and put his X next to the labour candidate.
The man is a liar and a cheat and Labour have no chance with him as leader……… even Labour supporting friends of mine openly say they wont vote for him.
What ever the truth, the fact that there is so much coverage of the issue, is a, ‘Victory’ for Clegg, what sort of ‘Victory’ we have yet to find out.
I’ve been very harsh about Nick Clegg, but I think that this is one of his better moves. He has relatively few chances to grab public attention, and his tax policy is a clear signal of his direction of travel.
A year ago I would have been surprised that the question at 6 needed to be posed, but I have been genuinely taken aback on this site how many Lib Dem supporters on here appear not to notice that the likelihood of ousting the current Government differs according to whether a constituency has a Lib Dem or a Tory MP. Of course, the more that the Lib Dems suggest that they would be inclined to look right rather than left, the safer it is for floating voters currently antipathetic to the Labour party to vote for them. That, by the way, is a category that I fall into.
57. Yes Woodpecker, we know that is a problem, but what is the solution, and how does it work for the 8 million people accruing benefits in final dsalary schemes? Abolishing higher rate tax relief on contributions (and that has to include employer contributions otherwise employee contributions will merely be re-directed) will only work with the massively increased complexity of working out exactly how much is paid into the scheme for every individual.
58: If everyone was wlel informed and had an independent brain then yes, but 25% of people will vote Labour come waht may, irrespective of whether the country has been utterly ruined.
Why is there not MORE ANGER about Brown and his wrecking of our economy? I am beginning to think he has given up on winning, and just wants to wreck it so badly that the tories can’t do anything about it and have a nightmare when they get in. He’s going the right way about it.
Labour: Empty heads vote them in, empty wallets vote them out.
Just exactly how bad are GOvt finances, is it 50 billion, 60 billion PSBR? never mind the off balance sheet stuff of Northern Rock and the PFI stuff. Gordo will never cut a penny off spending.
This could get really nasty for the ordinary taxpayer.
The only show in town this morning is the admission by the government that the fiscal rules are going to be scrapped to allow Brown to borrow more. Not content with running up huge debts (aswell as stealth tax increases) during the (debt-fuelled) boom years, Brown now has to borrow even more to maintain the illusion of prosperity for the near-term.
The ever-loyal BBC may be spinning this in positive terms as “it means he doesn’t have to put up taxes”, but it will lead to the ruination of what’s left of the UK economy and will leave a poisoned chalice even worse than the mess left in 1979 for an incoming Tory government in 2010.
62 Quote of the day
“Labour: Empty heads vote them in, empty wallets vote them out.”
re 46. I agree completely with that. The whole concept of pension taxation is that you should pay when you receive the income - not when you make the contribution. If it’s such a good idea why didn’t Gordon, who was very happy to raid the pension funds, do it?
As you get closer to retirement pensions are such a massive issue particularly if, like me, you have suffered as a result of a company I used to work for later going bust taking almost all of its pension scheme with it. To have faced extra taxation in my final employment years as I tried to remedy the situation by paying in large parts of my income would have made me very bitter.
This is very dangerous territory. Such a move ought to be part of an overall look at pension policy - not just a means of grabbing some extra taxation to suit a political end. The Lib Dems have got this wrong.
57 - You’re thinking about it the wrong way around. From the individual’s viewpoint, he doesn’t get any money in hand until the pension gets paid out, and giving him the lower marginal tax rate at that point when he receives lower income is logically correct. Your concern about giving too much relief is probably based on a subliminal idea that the pension investments might do “too” well. If the investments do very well, the likelihood is increased that the individual will pay tax at a higher marginal rate. That has to be a good thing all round, surely?
There is a warp in the tax system, which is that on retirement a tax free lump sum is usually paid out. Nigel Lawson looked at scrapping that over 20 years ago, but bottled out in the face of an intense campaign. A principled political party would charge that at the individual’s marginal rate, but principled political parties don’t win that many votes.
59. Well its certainly got the Tories here in a spin.
They don’t know whether to attack it by:
saying the Lib Dems won’t be in power to implement it (which is a back-handed compliment to the policy); or
attack it from the right by saying it punishes the ’successful’; or
attack it from the left by saying that are no efficiency savings to be made in the Whitehall bureaucracy, and it means ‘cuts’.
Clegg:
1. Why should any voter trust a policy that has been drawn up on the back of an envelope by the party leader, that appears contrary to everything previous leaders had proposed, that is the result of zero consultation with MPs, Councillors, activists or supporters?
2. Does Cowley Street not possess a diary? Why launch a major new policy direction when the entire country is on holiday or is about to go on holiday?
Do they think we will all sit comfortably in front of Radio 4 and the Six O’clock News saying: “Ooh look, that nice Mr Clegg is changing the entire political philosophy of the Liberal Democrats. Let’s spend our hols talking about how we will benefit and how we’ll refrain from voting Tory now that he’s woken up to the importance of tax cuts.”
[55] - “The Tory party may well go into the next election as a badly divided party.”
I would wish that to be true, but I think it highly unlikely. People like yourself had similar hopes over grammar schools, but that all died down. One or two figures may well pipe up in such a fashion, but not nearly enough to qualify as divided, let alone badly so.
I’m sure there were Tories who convinced themselves that New Labour were badly divided in 1997 because Arthur Scargill criticised Blair, but in reality they were united in their eagerness to drive the Tories from office.
The Tory response to Clegg should be simple..spin it entirely as a Brown like raid on pensions. There are a lot of high rate tax payers in Libdem/Tory marginals who will vote accordingly.
Hmm. I’m in a Lib Dem/Tory marginal, held by a Lib Dem. I have no inclination to vote Tory, which would exchange a fairly helpful Lib Dem MP for an unhelpful Tory councillor.
Such tenuous evidence as I have that there are any politicians who give a stuff whether I live or die suggests that they will not be Labour or Tory, but that they may, possibly, be in other parties.
Its good to see an unavowedly Liberal policy being put forward by NC, mainly because its the right thing to do. And also good when you have someone like “High Voltage” to back it up, rather than “Squeeky Gideon”
To those talking about Con/Lib battles and the effect on a Labour government, one argument Matthew Parris used to put forward was the “Vote Lib Dem in this case to ensure there’s a brake on the socially Conservative side of the Tories”
57
As Mike says at 66, pension savings are from net income - therefore 40% tax payers have already been taxed at 40% on what they save to a pension plan - the whole idea of pension tax relief is that in order to ease the state burden the state rewards pension saving - you get the tax ALREADY PAID effectively back on pension contributions - you are then taxed again on payment of the pension at the appropriate rate.
Its a 20% tax hike on people (hard pressed families, lol) in Middle England who are trying to ensure they are provided for in retirement and not forced to rely on the State….
Well done Clegg, bravo - this is even worse than a 50% banding.
Does anyone know what (if there have been) the Labour and Conservative responses to this is?
75 Nick Who?
42. so you think the electorate will be won around to a racist, pro-iraq war viewpoint eventually?
Public sector deficit figures for June are out, and predictably, are awful. Borrowing is up £10bn on a year ago, and looks set to spiral higher still. Revenue growth half last year’s while spending growth actually rising. Oh dear.
78 - Yes hence the Treasury running around scrapping the fisal rules.
75
Yes, Both Labour and Tory spokespersons, have said, ‘what a wonderful idea, wish we’d thought of it first, we are going to recommend that everyone in the country votes Libdem at the next election, in fact we’re not even going to bother putting up candidates’
78
If one assumes Gordo has been getting lots of extra money from fuel duties, it makes the extra 10 billion defecit a very scary figure. Economic activity must have been dramatically cut to see these sorts of figures.
Rest of the Day - For the rest of the day I am in London helping my son and his family move house so won’t be monitoring the site.
Automatic moderation of comments from posters the server does not recognise is still on. It might mean that there are delays in freeing them.
62. you don’t live in a safe Con seat do you, by any chance? never seen a Lab voter? oh, on the telly.
Morning all. Excellent piece, fascinating thread.
I don’t rate Clegg, and I am fairly agnostic on tax as an issue, so I am only interested in this electorally.
It is a good tactical move, and a poor strategic move. Clegg has recognised that the country is sick of tax (political titan that he is) and that the Tories are not filling this space (promising to share the proceeds of growth is a few apples short). It may help some of those semi-marginal LibDem seats where they are facing a new model Cameroon A-list Tory that the constituency isn’t too keen on, and wants a straight-forward tax-cutter. It may not matter, but i can see the logic.
I think the problem is that trying to steal Tories is going to be like running into a tidal wave - the policy in the South needs to be ‘hold on’. Gains and positive movement needs to happen to the Left - where activists are, where disillusioned Labour voters are, in the North where Cameron can’t reach. This won’t chime as well with them, because it re-enforces the view that foppish Clegg is Tory-lite.
I am not surprised that LibDem supporters prefer a Cameron-led Conservative gvt to a Brown-led Labour gvt, as that is true of at least half the Labour party members I know as well. I don’t think that implies that they are more amenable to the right generally, or that they will welcome what looks like a move to take the party to the Orange Book wing.
Essentially, even if Clegg wins the support of the Lib Dems he has now, what is more important is whether he can win the potential Lib Dems - be they the other 8% who supported the party under Kennedy, or a different 8% (which I think will still be to Clegg’s left rather than his right).
How does this affect the election? It makes the possibility of a Hung Parliament coalition with the Lib Dems more palatable to the Conservative Party, meaning that even when the ‘tack right’ strategy loses the LDs seats, they will still stand a better chance of seeing their leader in the Cabinet.
The only other way this affects the election is that it may induce Cameron to grow bold enough to offer tax cuts of his own, knowing that there won’t be a joint LibDem/Lab barrage of criticism about ‘Tories cutting Public Services to fund tax cuts’. The Lib Dems taking this position gives him cover, making Labour look yet more out of step, and it would be an easy way to energise the base (rationalised as ‘there won’t be any proceeds of growth to share if we don’t cut some taxes’).
I think the winner out of this in the long-term will be Cameron, Clegg will get a brief filip in the polls (maybe) but fundamentally this is still the wrog strategy - the Right is strong, Labour is weak - he should be tacking left.
To qualify Mike’s view on LibDem voters - I think there are actually two quite distinct groups. There are core LibDem voters who are pretty much as he describes (with the normal variations that individual humans always have), but at least as many who simply see them as a ‘not the Tories or Labour’ vote, reinforced by ‘my local LibDems do a good job in keeping me informed with Focus leaflets’. The latter group doesn’t have views that are very distinct from the general public, hence results like the Times June poll on 42 days, which showed Tory and LibDem voters virtually identical (both moderately in favour with some reservations) and not very different from Labour voters.
At multi-member local elections you see all kinds of odd voting combinations, including people who vote for a LibDem and the BNP candidate (you see the same for Labour and Tories and even Greens).
But I’d think Clegg can probably take risks with his core vote. It’s only an experience of actual government that makes most core voters question whether the party’s got it right - up to then, people ascribe to their party the virtues they want, and try to ignore contrary evidence.
So only 2% of Tories are satisfied with Brown’s performance as PM. I’d have thought it would be much higher! Still, can’t accuse them of putting tribal loyalty before the country.
There does seem to have been a sea-change in public opinion, but i think that is down to confidence in the Government, not to do with tax rates. Any Lib Dem tax cuts must be targeted at the poor and the long-term strategy should be to replace Labour not be Tory-lite. Such a strategy might help some of their MPs at the next election, but it won’t do much beyond that.
Public finances are grim looking at this morning’s announcement:
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=96690
77 I don’t think the electorate will be won round to supporting the Iraq War.
Generally speaking the electorate do want much lower levels of immigration, which you regard as “racist”.
Mike, thanks. I’ll have to dig through the data.
88. are you thinking what i’m thinking?
84. this tax announcement can be spun to Lab voters as “tax cuts for the poor” and to Con voters as “tax cuts”. a classic LD strategy, surely?
90 Doubt it.
91 - everyone gets a tax cut, but the poor benefit proportionately more.
@90:
Yes. You have a filthy mind. There’s no way you’ll get all THAT in THERE. Tsk.
84. Superb!
87. Other news today is that oil has dropped by about $12 a barrel in a week. With the Tories’ new policy of stable fuel prices, by how much would they be raising fuel duty to compensate?
96 Presumably by an amount that still results in a noticeable fall in price - but something less than the 9% that represents.
As it is, has anybody seen petrol prices fall yet?
96 - one question I haven’t heard answered about this policy is this:
If the Tories promise to reduce fuel duty whenever there’s an increase in the oil price, what’s to stop the oil companies putting up prices knowing that tax will drop and their profit will increase?
84 - Morus, I disagree - the long-term winner from Clegg’s move is Labour (if not GB himself).
The Lib Dems are choosing to try to defend what they have (understandably popular amongst the Parliamentary party, I suppose), rather than focus on targeting what looks likely to be an absurdly weak and demoralised Labour Party. Short-term they may end up with slightly more seats at the next election; long-term they are missing the chance to supplant Labour as the party of the ‘left’.
97. that fuel price plan is bonkers. the more i think about it, the more it can’t work.
the volatility of oil prices is legendary - so _when_ exactly does this thing apply? if the tax is immediate, then tax and therefore petrol prices must change every hour! if not immediate, it presents loads of opportunities for middlemen to cream off profits and avoid tax. similar problems surrounding who is taxed? the petrol station? carriers? dealers? oil co.? etc.
99. how does this policy prevent them picking up Lab seats?
99 - except that the policy benefits people who might switch Labour to Tory and helps them to look at the LDs, and in Lab/Lib seats encourages Con -> Lib tactical voting (which has not really existed as a phenomenon before).
That looks pretty good electoral strategy to me.
100 In principle, it could make sense. If we consider it’s sensible to reduce our dependency on oil (and thus, our involvement with World’s most volatile countries) then keeping the price at a level that will achieve this, without letting it get to ruinous levels, makes sense.
100, 101 - ed, stop it! That’s two similar posts!
101 - it doesn’t, but they won’t pick up as many (nor get as close as they might in safer Lab seats - much like 2005).
This tax policy will disintergrate in an election campaign. It has tactical merit bt at a strategic level Clegg has just taken the party off a cliff.
Tax revenues are falling, the economy is slowing with the possibility of full blown recession. The party still has a wish list of extra spending pledges. The Government has a large and growing structural deficit. benefit costs will rise in a slow down. Inflation in adult social care is running at 5% to 8% a year, aquisitive crime will rise with a slow down putting pressure on police budgets. The cost of NHS drugs can’t be mantained by RPI levels of budget increase every year. we have a £100bn of PFI ebt off the balance sheet but still costing
In this context committing to £20 bn of spending cuts funded by “waste” is insane. To properly fund income tax cuts this waste needs to be ongoing revenue no one off cancellations like ID cards.
If he can list £20bn of onong revenue expnditure he can cut with out hurting services and still juggle all the other budget pressures then I’ll cut my head off with rusty axe.
And if he can’t then the journalistic class will evicerate him. It will be the prism through which he’ll be viewed just at the non election defines Brown.
Ok the direct mail might save 10 to 15 southern marginals bu at a very siignifgant price. I’m also suspicious that some eople will be able to digest the speed of this change. On December 18th the day he was elected we were broadly happy with overall government expenditure. In march he moved to sharin the proceeds of growth. now he wants less state spending than the Tories.
A lot of people will feel very dizzy for a while.
£20bn is c.3% of government expenditure. If you were told to cut your own expenditure by 3%, I’m sure you could manage, and I’m sure you manage your own finances more effectively than the government does theirs.
So Ken Livingstone will definately stand for mayor in 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/18/livingstone.london
He’s 10/1 with Ladbrokes. Clearly two elements to this - will a Labour candidate win in 2012 and who will challenge Ken for the candidacu. It’s quite likely that a Labour candidate for London can win under a Tory Government. Boris may not enjoy the same levels of popularity as now. People may reminisce about ‘how it was in Ken’s time’ as they did when he led the GLC. Who might challenge Ken for the Labour ticket or match his profile? Alan Sugar?!!
once an item is taxed,like fuel,it does not follow that if the tax is reduced then the price falls.
105 - Do you really think that the Lib Dems would have the slightest chance at present of supplanting Labour as the main party of the left?
Political forces are tugging all of the parties rightwards, and it would be odd for the Lib Dems to paddle against those forces. They would be better advised not to intrude on the Labour party’s private grief; the strains on the Labour party’s structural integrity would be exacerbated in a vacuum on the left. The Lib Dems could pick up the pieces later (just as they did in the 1980s).
For those of us fascinated by the US election campaign, this is a great take on what’s happening. Great video, one of the best I’ve seen of its type
http://sendables.jibjab.com/
108 Unless he screws up very badly, or Cameron’s government does, I think Boris Johnson will win fairly comfortably next time.
PA reports:Home Secretary Jacqui Smith faces the possibility of becoming the most high profile General Election loser after Tories gained two council seats in her Redditch, Worcestershire, powerbase.
Their candidate Juliet Brunner won in the county’s Arrow Valley East division which has more than a quarter of the constituency’s electorate.
The swing was 14.2% since the last shire contest which took place on the same day as the 2005 General Election.
A shift of just 3.4% since then would be enough to unseat Ms Smith.
A small boundary change is expected to make her even more vulnerable.
There was slightly better news for her party in a Redditch Borough by-election at Batchley.
Tory Brenda Quinney gained but there was a 4% swing back to Labour from Conservatives’ high water result this May when they had won another of the ward’s seats.
However Ms Smith would still face defeat even on the basis of this result.
Elsewhere, Tories missed another gain by just 22 votes as Liberal Democrats held on at Uckfield New Town, Wealden District, East Sussex.
Labour easily defended a Townfield seat at West London’s Hillingdon Borough where the party candidate’s nomination papers were signed by Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell.
In a result from last week Labour’s Deirdre Campbell, wife of Blyth Valley MP Ronnie Campbell, defended a Croft ward seat on the borough council.
RESULTS:
Derwentside District - Castleside: Ind 297, C 64. (May 2007 - Ind 428, C 81, Lab 69). Ind hold.
Hillingdon London Borough - Townfield: Lab 1031, Lib Dem 506, C 445, BNP 186, National Front 74, Green 33. (May 2006 - Three seats Lab 1503, 1379, 1358, C 743, 657, 637, Lib Dem 352, 324, 323). Lab hold. Swing 10.6% Lab to Lib Dem.
Redditch Borough - Batchley: C 630, Lab 539, BNP 299, Lib Dem 121, Ind 25. (May 2008 - C 968, Lab 709, Lib Dem 205). C gain from Lab. Swing 4% C to Lab.
Wealden District - Uckfield New Town: Lib Dem 311, C 289, Ukip 56. (May 2007 - Lib Dem 410, C 237). Lib Dem hold. Swing 11.7% Lib Dem to C.
110 But that should not preclude aggressive targetting of a number of Labour seats where the Lib Dems aren’t far behind.
112. Johnson is 5/6 with Ladbrokes to win the next mayoral election. I think it’s perfectly sensible to back Boris at that price as a saver.
103. i think the sentiment may well be sound, although politically the main reason is not the one you state but to alleviate the anger of white van man at high fuel prices.
in a free market it cannot work [it has also been tried under communism with disastrous economic consequences]. it incentivises oil companies to raise their prices.
110 - Absolutely, though they should have started laying the groundwork in 2001. Old Labour hasn’t won an election since 1974, and their original raison d’etre has been thoroughly undermined by the shift in nature of Britain’s economy (and also the related neutering of the trade unions).
114 - I’m not suggesting otherwise. I live in one such seat, and may well vote Lib Dem next time. I’m still considering which party is closest to my views and what I am looking to achieve with my vote.
99 - Actually, I don’t disagree with you. I just hadn’t seen it that way.
110 - All parties are being tugged rightwards, which is precisely *why* the Lib Dems should move Left now. The population is sick of Labour, but the Left hasn’t disappeared. You can’t win voters on the Left away from Labour when they are strong, and you can’t win voters on the Right away from the Conservatives when they are in the ascendency.
If the Lib Dems ever want to be more than third party and hypothetical coalition partner, they need to overtake either Labour or the Tories as either the main party of the centre left, or as the main party of the Centre Right.
You get few chances to do that, usually when the Big Two are at a point of unparallelled weakness. For the Tories it was in 1997-9, for Labour it is now. I suspect that, given the activist base, it would be easier to go Left now than it was to go Right in 1997.
Labour are on low-to-mid 20s and have two years left of Government if they can handle it. They have alienated the Left and the working classes, and are notorious for two policies that should be LD keepers - civil liberties and the Iraq War. There are few natural pockets of support for them - who is speaking to them, except the unpalatable hard left.
Swim with the tide to the right, and the LDs remain a minnow party. Tack hard to the Liberal Left, and they could overtake a Labour Party is as weak as it has ever been.
Must be another great day to wake up and be a labour supporter……….. all together now
“Things can only get better……”
110 - Actually, in light of Aaron at 117, I re-read your post.
Are you just saying its a timing-problem?
on London mayor betting: didn’t Boris pledge to introduce term limits? and wouldn’t that preclude Livingstone from standing again?
morus as I read this thread I wonder if this is not an attempt to have the tax cake and eat it.
Clegg wants to shout he is in favour of tax cuts headline to attract soft blue LibDem votes, but says that he will at least partly fund it through higher taxes on higher earners and so trying to attract pink soft Labour voters.
The problem with this is that he is likely to be rumbled by both, and be seen as two faced.
Secondly, he will have to rework an awful lot of the mountain of LibDem policy to make it all fit in the very variable economic weather we are suffering. He can’t do that in any immediate time frame, so his opponents, external and internal, will easily find ammunition to demonstrate this is an ill thought out opportunist mess.
Question: Mr Clegg, how will you fund your tax cut for the lower paid when the economic downturn is particularly effecting the middle classes whose pensions you want to tax more to pay for your policy?
I honestly don’t believe that the LibDem’s package will any discernible impact in the polls/public opinion/by-elections etc one way or another. Whether Kennedy’s travails, the Ming interlude, and now Clegg, the party remains has remained within its 16-20% rating, while the ascendant Conservatives are consistently polling 40% or above. I see no reason why that those basic positions should materially change for the foreseeable future.
OT. Good news, the drugs cheat, Chambers, has lost his case
Has Clegg explained how the removal of higher tax rate relief for pensions could be implemented in a way that is fair between this in defined contribution schemes and those in defined benefit schemes?
For those (mostly private sector workers) in defined contribution schemes it is easy to see what the extra tax would be paid on - the amount you save in your pension scheme each year.
But for a headmaster or MP or judge in a defined contribution schemes what would the extra tax be paid on? Would they really be taxed on what it would cost them to buy the pension entitlement they accrue each year if they bought it privately?
@122:
Boris can’t introduce term limits even if he wanted to. I very much doubt he’ll want to stand again in 2016, but mainly because he’ll be angling for a senior cabinet job by then.
127. i’m fairly sure he said he did want to, and the outcome is very important if you want to take 10/1 on livingstone.
are you sure he can’t do it?
125 That has to be the right outcome, or people would just have two careers - their drugged-up first one until they got caught, then their “clean” second career.
Should oil companies own or monopoly supply petrol stations? Would it be better for petrol stations to be owned by companies, (franchises) who buy off the spot market?
One of the problems I saw with the, ‘Gas Market’ was that suppliers would nominate gas to cover their customers. I always thought that a simpler and more efficient system would have been a bidding system.
The pipeline operator, (Transco) would cover demand by buying gas from suppliers, cheapest first,(when demand reduces, expensive off first) suppliers putting their gas into a pool, price per KWH would be secret, any supplier attempting to rig or game the market, would be subject to the criminal law.
Gas companies would buy their gas from Transco, all Transco’s costs would be transparent with the regulator adjudicating any disputes.
The saving to the Gas customer, would be to buy from the company which sold on at the lowest price.
The link between gas/oil should be broken, it only goes back to 1980 when the government of the day, (guess who) gave into the oil companies who were losing the heating market to gas which was much cheaper. The government introduced the gas levy, gas prices were raised by 9% above the rate of inflation for four years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7513309.stm
Does this news about highest June borrowing push things towards Labour losing in Glasgow East ???
@128:
Yes, it would require an act of parliament amending the Greater London Authority acts.
124 - They polled noticeably higher under Kennedy, and as much as Ming and Clegg have had similar scores, there was a good deal more range to them under Ming.
I think the bigger danger than strategic mistakes (such as lurching right when Cameron has just made the Tories resurgent) is the danger of just stagnating.
See here
119. this analysis relies on a general public split left vs. right, two positions and three parties, and the LDs must try to squeeze the weaker of the two.
arguably there are in fact two axes, economic and social, and therefore 4 basic extremes and three parties. in this scenario LDs actually hold a stronger hand than that. they are always screwed over by FPTP voting, but ideologically they always have a choice of which flank to attack on.
Term limits for Mayor would need primary legislation. Given John Howells Age Boris may well go back to henley in 2018.
108
Ken must be mad! Oh! if you want to see the rest of that photo tis ‘ere
http://davehill.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/17/kenmunira.jpg
Poor girl doesn’t know whether to turn left or right!
136 is that Commie Huq?
So, looking at the thread it seems Clegg is attempting to appeal to the light blue LibDem vote with a headline about tax cuts, and to the a pale pink vote with redistribution to the poor by hitting the middle classes.
Looking two ways at once tends to get you run over and mugged at the same time.
And the really difficult thing is the reworking of that mound of LibDem policy to make it fit the necessary spending cuts to fill the gap. And where do all those lovely and excessive green taxes and local income taxed stand in this bright new dawn?
So, first question, Mr Clegg. You will lower taxes on the lower earners by taxing the middle classes’ through their pensions, who are suffering so much in this economic downturn. How do you think they feel about that?
And when you impose a local income tax on them - while further relieve lower earners from paying that tax or the old council tax - and you tax their cars and holiday flights, do you think they will feel any more positive towards you?
121 - I’m saying that the Lib Dems are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that they can supplant Labour as the main party of the left in 2010 (and indeed I don’t think that they - or you - are saying that). With that in mind, how should the Lib Dems behave now?
They are not close enough to Labour to take that many seats off them next time through organic growth. Meanwhile the Lib Dems’ past successes have been to the right, where they are threatened by a newly-reinvigorated competitor. The immediate priority must be to defend the existing base, while at the same time developing the possibility of exploiting opportunities to the left.
The existing base needs some signal that it’s safe to vote Lib Dem. That message must be more or less what Tabman ascribes to Matthew Paris: “Vote Lib Dem in this case to ensure there’s a brake on the socially Conservative side of the Tories”.
Labour are doing an excellent job of self-destructing, so there is relatively little work that the Lib Dems need to be doing just yet (though they might want to make encouraging noises to the Blairites). Following the election, there are goodish chances of internecine warfare within the Labour ranks. The Lib Dems should offer the New Labourites a tempting home. It could give them as big a boost in the 2010s as the Liberals got in the 1980s when the SDP broke away.
The big question for the LD’s are they still equidistant or are they abandoning this stance? I seem to remember the LD’s became Pro-Labour in the run upto 1997 and indeed joined a cabinet - commitee for a few years once Labour got power.
The LD’s have intimated a fiddling around on tax and spending that maybe more in line with the current revulsion of Socialist waste, high taxation, high inflation and a slumping housing market. Lending figures have slumped again for June 2008. But is it just a trick for LD politicians to retain seats? What ever happened to a penny on income tax etc? LD’s seem to be acting like a duel personality!
134 - I think that is true if you are mapping political philosophy, but I would stand by a simplified single axis for two reasons:
(a) The three major British political parties are all broadly (rhetorically) aligned on the social issues that people care about enough to vote upon - gay marriage, free public services, lauding hard-working families, environmentally-friendly everything, notionally secular without wanting to offend faith. They might get to the centre by very different philosophical journeys, but they all get there. The arguments about social policy are around focus for money and prioritisation. The only hard and fast differences that we might see under a Cameron government are, I suspect, in the economic sphere - if that includes the funding of programmes, rather than the choice of programmes endorsed.
(b) Far more importantly, I think people in this country still think, and vote, Left and Right - they recognise that those terms have changed somewhat, but how many voters outside of the blogosphere describe their political views on a multi-axis Cartesian plane? Policy can be plotted as such, but political strategy still has to play to the voters’ impressions of where they are, whatever they may be.
133 Again superb.
137
She’s on the, ‘Libertarian Right’ now!
139 - Oh ok - yes, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder if ground work for a big move to pick up Labour voters needs to begin now whilst the weakness is most raw, but I agree that the LDs wouldn’t be able to reap that support to the point of overtaking Labour until at least the 2015-ish election, and probably not until the one after that.
That best-case timeline assumes that they start working on that aim NOW (and they should have started back when Kennedy was deposed), and I can only see Clegg’stenure and mollification of the Right as at best a delay, and at worst a huge mistake.
141. you obviously don’t think 42 day detention, knife crime, or ID cards provide differentiation between the parties then?
142 - You are most kind Yellow Submarine. I suspect many of your colleagues would not be as pleased!
140. Do keep up, Martin. The penny on income tax became obsolete when Labour put 2 pennies on National Insurance.
133 - Yes, a good article and I don’t think we are disagreeing. To stigmatize the LibDems as irrelevant and that we are somehow ‘back to purely two party politics’ would be unfair and incorrect. But the fate of the party is, i suspect, much less in their own hands as in the past, which has historically been the case when the Conservatives are popular.
My instinct is that stagnation will persist until the next election, but - as Stodge has argued many times here - their fortunes will rise again if and when a Cameron govt falters (not that there is the slightest chance of that ever happening I hasten to add
)
141 Surely immigration is one area of social policy where there is a divide between the parties?
145 - I don’t think knife crime does, or policing policy, and ID cards will never happen (two and a half of the three main parties oppose it, and it is technologically unworkable and prohibitively expensive).
You may have a point about the UK’s general approach to Liberty, but I think it will get lost in the shared view that crime and terrorism are very scary and should be opposed (how many Londoners would support removing CCTV from the Tube? Civil Liberties get people exercised when they are safe) and if the economy takes a serious turn for the worse.
I do take your point, but fundamentally, I still think people think of themselves as Left/Right and cannot help but try and interpret the Lib Dems in that way. You get to do the nuanced move to the Centre, or a mix of axes, when you are established (Blair, Cameron). Until you are a major party, those sort of mixed positions and straddling just won’t fly.
141/149 And on free vote issues, there’s a pretty clear difference between the way that most Conservative MPs vote from the way that most Labour and Lib Dem MPs vote.
174.
I did not notice! Mind you for the LD’s that’s even worse as i follow political developments pretty closely - just imagine the average voter being confronted by Clegg’s dramatic U-turn! A case of 
?
149. that as well. I reckon the LDs have loads of hay to make on all these issues - both Lab and Con have (rightly or wrongly) picked up reputations for being too authoritarian in recent years.
LDs can afford to be relatively neutral on economics (going with the prevailing political wind but always trying to appear more centrist and managerially competent than the government of the day is their best policy I reckon).
149 - All parties agree that we need tighter controls on immigration, all recognise we need immigration for economic purposes, all recognise we cannot restrict EU migration much more than we already do, and all condemn racism whilst acknowledging their citizens concerns about ghettoised subcultures.
Other than the means of administering it, what differences really exist?
151 - Yes, to be clear, I’m talking about Manifesto positions - from the Leadership, rather than party faithful or old school MPs
146. I once disscused this with then MP David Rendell. He laid out your thesis in 1999. Of course then it was a plan of action rather than a critique of a missed oppertunity.
154 My understanding is that the Conservatives propose to reduce, quite sharply, non-EU immigration.
157. I think that is in line with the public perception
157 - Really? I could imagine a token reduction, but I thought it would be some reduction but emphasis on better control.
Do you think they’ll make it a feature of their election campaign? After 2005 (which went well, but they got slammed on that issue by the media) I could understand if they didn’t campaign on it.
158 - Really? I don’t have that perception and I follow politics pretty closely! It might well be that I’m on my own there though!
154 Also, there’s the question of public sector workers “working towards” the government’s objectives . Under a Labour government, you get brownie points for moving public policy towards favouring certain ethnic groups (eg the LDA’s requirement that 50% of its funding should go towards ethnic minorities) whereas it’s unlikely you’d be so favourably regarded under a Conservative government for doing so.
159 I’ve attended several party meetings at which both MPs, and Parliamentary candidates, who are close to the leadership have made it quite clear that that is the intention.
Some comments on the June public sector borrowing figures released this morning. It seems even the hacks at the BBC can no longer ignore the looming crisis, caused by Brown’s policy of reckless borrowing and profligate spending to create an illusion of prosperity:
“(The figures are) horrific, absolutely horrific,” said Philip Shaw at Investec.
“The fiscal situation looks very unhealthy, especially if you take into account that economic growth is going to be considerably weaker than government estimates,” he added.
The Budget forecast for net borrowing in the 2008 financial year was £43bn, with debt expected to be 38.5% of national income.
“At this rate of increase, borrowing will come in at around £57bn this year, almost £15bn higher than the chancellor’s Budget prediction,” said Jonathan Loynes at Capital Economics.
“And this is before the slowdown in the economy has really had much effect,” he said.”
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7513309.stm
But there is hardly any non EU immigration - just doctors and Nurses from poor countries.
160. the danger of following policy closely is that you are probably aware of all sorts of promises the average voter has never heard of.
there will be plenty of voters out there who will forever associate
Lab with unions, lots of immigrants, NHS, chavs on benefits, minimum wage, party of the poor
Con with closing down coal mines, law-and-order, privatisation, big business, improbable affairs between ugly middle aged men and fit women, blue rinse voters, “toffs”, fox hunting etc.
and these perceptions shift pretty slowly.
An economic down turn will make it easier to limit immigration. many EU people will go “home” if the work drys up and less pressure from business to allow unskiled imigration to kep wages low. nemployment will do that.
What won’t happen though is any signifigant limit on Indian sub continent immigration. Cousins, wifes, parents of people already here won’t be limited. the varying commnities will write to many donation cheques and have too much political capital.
I suspect any real fall i the figure will be economic ot policy driven. the torys wont want to/cant change the fact we are an open, internationally focused trading nation. we’ll always be a clearing house for labour.
164 Actually, there’s loads, through family reunions and work permits.
167. you just think that. You think you’ll crack down on family reunions until the carrots ( constituiency donations) and sticks ( the most heart rending cases turn up at surgery) start.
You can’t touch EU citizens. Refugees are very small I number and then theres the Convention. You can crack down on the unskilled stuff but it just isn’t the flood of popular imagination so no one will notice when you do it. apart from miniumum wage employers.
166. yes, it would be nigh on impossible to stop as we are a nation of immigrants anyway - but we can make it pretty unpleasant for them while they are here.
O/T - Fraser Nelson’s take on the immolation of the fiscal rules.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/843721/brown-is-not-playing-by-the-rules-any-more.thtml
163 This post suggests that current levels of debt, combined with a rewriting of the rules by Labour to permit even more, essentially nullifies a policy to decrease taxes. Any incoming Government in 2010 will almost certainly have to implement a mixture of tax increases and cuts in public spend (shades of 1979).
“improbable affairs between ugly middle aged men and fit women”
Great. They should put it in the manifesto.
168 There is very little electoral downside for the Conservatives. The sorts of constituencies where people might be motivated to vote against them if (for example)they brought in a minimum age requirement of 21 for spouses to enter this country, are the sorts of constituencies the Conservatives have not a hope of winning in the first place.
164. Remarkable ignorance.
The problem is that Cameron is not proposing tax cuts and that is why lib dem voters are more amenable to him. There is a good chance to replace labour as an alternative, with a liberal left approach, as opposed to labour’s strange mish mash of managerial politics mixed with remnants of class and minority identification.
This isn’t going to win votes and it’s not going to please current voters, it is, to put it bluntly, a mistake. It could be fr long term (10+ years) benefit but far too much can happen in that time to use that as a reason.
(I haven’t read the thread yet so maybe that’s already been said!)
170: It is not off topic. The budget deficit is gigantic, and drives a horse and cart through Clegg’s plans, which are entirely divorced from the current disastrous economic reality.
We are borrowing £15bn in one month. Or nearly 6 grand a second.
We are toast.
175. You can’t replace Labour with a ‘liberal left’ approach - while the constituency for ‘old left’ politics is shrinking, it remains much greater than that for middle class ‘liberal left’ policies, and is actively hostile to many of the tenets of the latter approach.
What is instead more likley to happen is the left being split more deeply than ever in the years ahead, with the Lib Dems peeling off some of the Guardianista types from Labour. Think 1983, but with an even worse Labour performance and rather better Lib Dem one.
176 - Absolutely, and this prudent government have managed to set a record - the highest quarterly borrowing figures in 62 years.
178, now now, one thing you can’t criticise Brown for is lack of record setting.
Less popular than Neville Chamberlain in 1940 is pretty impressive.
With two years of this bad joke left I wouldn’t be surprised if they break their own quarterly borrowing record.
179 - I would suggest it is a near certainty as the tax receipts go down and the welfare bills go up. Not to mention that they have set a dangerous precedent that if a tax change is unpopular enough they scrap it and borrow the shortfall!
This is no longer a government, but a cautionary tale!
It now becomes clear that Camerons comment of “useless” at pmqs must be pressed home. The PM is now exposed as a shabby liar given his treatment of the public finances…….. the entire media are now lampooning the idiot Brown.
It really is a shameful episode in our political history
I think that there is room for quite a lot of tax cuts once we have slimmed the public sector a bit. Fire 70% of those in the government (central and local) with the word “diversity” or “equality” or “protection” in their job description. Productivity would rise as all the rubbish these clods produce is binned and large savings all round. Require a further annual 2% cut in the workforce for a couple of years based on job performance reviews and hey presto, big tax cuts and workers actually doing their jobs rather skiving off. Bad news for unemployment since most of the clods would probably never work again (after all they are probably unemployable being jobsworths whose allegiance to inanity is high), but great for the wider economy.
180. Public borrowing around £55bn this year and £70-75bn next seems quite likely.
73 - “To those talking about Con/Lib battles and the effect on a Labour government, one argument Matthew Parris used to put forward was the “Vote Lib Dem in this case to ensure there’s a brake on the socially Conservative side of the Tories”
Exactly right, but where’s the brake on economic policy going to come now? This was my fear about Clegg, that he was too close to Cameron to provide an alternative to voters.
182. striving for less equality, diversity, and protection whilst also increasing unemployment - a two-pronged strategy!
183 - Indeed, it is an utterly atrocious state of affairs. It is wise to be reminded that if borrowing is around 55bn this year that the government is effectively funding the defence budget (around 35bn) and sundry other items from borrowed money. ie if the government lived within its means then the nation would be undefended. Also interesting in this context is that debt interest on the accumulated figure is about 31bn so the government is spending almost the same servicing its previous stupidity as it does in defending our country.
Oh dear Mod admits 121 “sensitive USB sticks lost since 2004.
Why has it taken till now to tell us?
http://www.politicshome.com/landing.aspx#1975
164. You’ve trotted out this drivel before, Icarus - and been embarrassed when confronted with the facts.
The MAJORITY of immigration into the UK is from NON-EU countries - e.g. places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh - much of it is family reunions or marriages with foreign brides.
Given that this fact has been pointed out before, on this site, several times: are you stupid or lying?
ON-topic - ish! - I wonder where Gabble is this morning, perhaps resting after his five hour shift on the spin cycle, last night. Despite his claims that yesterday was a “good” day for Labour, this morning’s headlines are just horrendous for Brown - breaks golden rule, throws prudence out the window, highest public deficit EVER, &c.
This is catastrophic for Labour. Brown’s only selling point was his dour-but-honest, boring-but-competent Scottish bank manager image. The kind of man you’d never meet for a drink, but who you would trust with your savings. To find out this supposedly efficient bore has actually run the bank into the ground while spunking your savings on a Spanish holiday with his pig-ugly mistress, is all the more shocking because of his previous image of tedious probity.
Labour are not just doomed. They are DOOOOOOOOMED. They may never recover from this.
O/T - So crime is falling and we are a more law abiding society are we?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7513416.stm
170. Absolutely outrageous. How this unelected PM thinks he has the right to take the governments finances down the pan for his own cynical, manipulative party political gain, I don’t know.
Lets hope the Tories make the public aware of what Brown is doing and Labour suffer meltdown at the election and the humiliation of coming behind the Lib-Dems.
Gordon Brown refused to answer questions from the Charity Commission about the Smith Institute’s use of 11 Downing Street:
http://www.order-order.com/
@185. No, there will still be equality, diversity and sundry “protections”, but less of the bureaucracy that just shuffles paper and talks cr*p. Once these useless people are removed productivity should rise as the useless paper they generate is removed.
60% of marriages amongst the Bangaldeshi community involve a spouse from Bangladesh
84.”I think the winner out of this in the long-term will be Cameron, Clegg will get a brief filip in the polls (maybe) but fundamentally this is still the wrog strategy - the Right is strong, Labour is weak - he should be tacking left.”
Good post Morus and I think you hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. The libdems were very successful at targeting Conservative leaning voters when they were seen as a toxic brand, further helped by the campaign of tactical voting to further punish them.
Don’t always agree with Michael Portillo (tongue in cheek), but he said something very similar last night on This Week. He also made the point that the Conservatives still don’t need to put too much meat on the bones of their economic policy. He too remembers the dangers and fall out of doing that too far out from a GE.
Both the Labour party and the Libdems between them have effectively killed off the previous constraints on the Conservatives economic policies for a GE without them having to show more than a bit of petticoat and ankle.
It is the Libdems and Labour that have completed the detoxify the Tory brand strategy for both Cameron and Osborne.
If anything, the Libdems have just put themselves in the position that we did before the last two elections, we set out our plans and then watched the good ones get nicked without any of the credit, while the bad ones were picked to pieces in such a way as to cause the most damage.
Just reading through this thread the downside point about pensions being an example of how it the policy will be picked apart.
The increasingly useless Sky lunch time news is following the equally ludicrous Robinson on the BBC in saying there are only two options for the government: increase taxes or borrow more.
There is not recognition that borrowing has to be repaid and the only source of money for this is the taxpayer.
They also ignore the third option which is to reduce spending.
In this respect there is little difference between government and personal budgets. Both can be complex but both have followed the same principle for some time.
But never fear, there is a solution:
….short of cash, own a house (or country) come to Seaside Finance and we can bundle all you borrowing needs in one bumper bundle mess that you cannot afford. And why not borrow a little more while you are at it, and have a well earned holiday in the sun. After all spending all that money on tick has been exhausting,hasn’t it.
You deserve a bit of retail therapy.
And after all, your house is still yours, isn’t it? Well, for now, at least.
194, that is always entertaining.
“Are you in debt? Take out a massive loan secured against your house!”
193.Doh! Last sentence should have been “Just reading through this thread, the point about pensions is an example of how the policy will be picked apart. Didn’t finish editing it properly before posting!
194.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/government-to-consolidate-all-its-debts-into-one-low-monthly-payment–200807181107/
194.”There is not recognition that borrowing has to be repaid and the only source of money for this is the taxpayer.
They also ignore the third option which is to reduce spending.”
This type of blinkered reporting is why Brown got away with his mismanagement in the Treasury for so long. How much coverage has there been on the Beeb or Sky about the the incredible drop in the value of the pound, its certainly adding to our difficulties but not so you would notice with the media.
@197:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The problem for Clegg is that the headline proposal to cut taxes has already been overtaken by events. With a worsening budget deficit it just seems foolhardy. It also makes Cameron look more plausible and prime-ministerial: we would like to cut taxes and will do so when we can, but the public finances are in such poor shape that is unlikely to be practical for a few years. Clegg is a lightweight.
197.George Osborne should get that one framed and give it to Alastair Darling the next time they meet at the Despatch box, or better still just give it to him as a little light holiday reading.
We’ve got a pretty rough few years ahead economically. It wouldn’t matter who was running the country, we’d still be in this mess, and possibly even a worse mess.
Labour have lost an enormous chunk of support that is not going back to them over the next two years.
The conservatives have picked this up, much by default, without any major policy initiatives.
If the Tories cock things up in the next two years, then the Lib Dems will pick up support. Clegg has done well to maintain support and not see it drift to the Tories.
We are going to see movement in Lib Dem seats at the GE, losses in the south and gains in the North. Baring any disasters by Clegg I can see net LD gains, but possible only in single digits with losses in the South, Scotland & Wales, but gains in the midlands and north.
Cameron will then have 4 years to turn the county around. If not those lost seats in the South will go back LD and 2014 will see the LDs break though the 100 seat barrier.
201. Except it might tempt him to use the money to “bribe the shit out of the voters before the next election”.
Oh…. hang on a minute…. Labour won’t want to win next time, will they? They’d have to clean up the mess.
202 - “I can see net LD gains”
Get buying at 50 then! http://tinyurl.com/58motq
200 for most voters it will simply underline the need to do things differently. Clegg wil therefore look more relevant.
Osborne bleating about this looked more clownlike than ever. When will Cameron dump him? This weekend perhaps - sacking Spelman and asking Osborne to “run the GE campaign”?
202. Which seats are the Lib Dems likely to pick up?
205. wonder if David Davis would be any good with figures?
@205:
I love the sound of leftie denial at lunchtime.
191 So far the broadcast media have not picked up on the Charity Commissions Report into The Smith Institute which blames the Trustees for failing to control Brown’s mate Wilf Stevenson’s activities at the charity.
This story has as much malfeasance as any of the cash for honours activities. A story full of patronage, cronyism and misuse of public buildings for political purposes.
The Commission concluded that even if it was in a personal capacity , the Director’s (Wilf Stevenson) comments on BBC’s “This Week” could have furthered the perceptions that the Institute was promoting the then Chancellor (Brown) political aspirations.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/investigations/pdfs/smithir.pdf
202. A little over-excited? Have a nice cup of tea, dear, and maybe a chocolate hobnob.
The LDs are gonna be painfully squeezed at the next GE. Expect to lose 10-20 seats. The Tories will be given two terms to sort out the Brownian Mess, because Labour are now actively hated, so you won’t be regaining those seats any time soon.
Your party’s only hope was - and is - to go on the attack against Labour and hope to replace them on the left. However you will never do this, because, collectively, you possess the testicles of a termite. You had a chance to seriously F*** with Labour on the EU referendum. But you blew it. Coz you are gay, innit.
When the chips are down, the Lib Dems are Labour’s bitch, and they always will be.
206 - I can only see five Lib Dem gains in the north
- City of Durham
- Liverpool Wavertree
- Sheffield Central
- possibly Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central
- one of the Bradford seats (west, I think)
202 - I think there is a lot of wishful thinking there. The Lib Dems acheived 22% in 2005 and in all the latest polls have been bouncing between 16%-18% so have lost up to a quarter of the support they had. Ok it isn’t as bad as it was under Ming but it is still grim. And the idea that the Lib Dems will be in with a shot of 100 seats in 2014 predicated on a loss of support for Cameron is wildly over the top. Personally I think the Lib Dems will probably get somewhere between 45-50 seats at the next election. The only way they are going to be able to break 100 seats at the subsequent election is if Labour tears itself apart in opposition.
202 Cameron’s advantage will be that expectations will be very low by 2010, and the economy should be expanding again, even though public finances will probably be a mess. Unless he screws up very badly, I think he’ll be able to secure a second term.
The idea, whether from the LibDems or from right wingers in UKIP or the Tory party, that promising tax cuts is automatically popular is silly.
The electorate are wiser than that as we have seen at general elections in the past.
What they want is a government that takes and keeps a grip on the economy and makes it possible for them to earn a living in a stable environment. Certainly they get carried away with their house price rising and are suckered into taking out equity and large credit card bills by a complacent government.
But they learn fast and the last thing they want is another snake oil salesman telling them that there is an easy way out.
And Clegg is likely to fall foul of that as has Brown. The more measured Tory approach about cutting taxes when it is sensible to do so, and warning that there may need to be tax rises to deal with Brown’s mess is much more in keeping with their perceptions. Most of all the promise to provide economic stability as a core commitment is very important.
And becoming more important by the day.
The borrowing figures out today suggest a real crisis in the making where even Brown cannot avoid spending cuts. And when that happens his last fig leaf of presence to be a good economic manager will have blow away in the economic gale.
[202] - You are letting Labour off the hook. Ashley Seager at the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/18/governmentborrowing.economics
points out that the National Debt stood at 30% in 2001/2 [incidentally, Labour paid off so much of the debt in their first years that some economists complained there weren't enough government bonds on the market!]
Growth has been pretty decent since then, yet debt is now heading towards 40% at increasing velocity.
I would argue that much of the blame for this is the government’s market mania, that sees the NHS pay private companies to perform operations more than it costs to do the same within the NHS, for example, with many other instances of government cash thrown at private contractors due to Blairite ideology.
Tories would argue that it’s because of a bunch of useless paper-pushing nobodies employed by the government.
I’d hope we could both agree that there’s been a lot wasted on the sort of grand projects - like NHS IT or ID cards - that Minister’s all too often seem to fall for.
Whatever the precise cause, you really shouldn’t let the government off the hook for it. If they’d managed the public finances sensibly they’d be in a position to release money to help boost the economy at this difficult time. Perhaps some much needed investment in new energy technologies to reduce our use of highly inflationary oil and gas.
I still hope for a hung Parliament, but it’s looking pretty unlikely right now.
@212:
When Labour becomes bankrupt in the next parliament, the only parties who will be able to benefit from Labour’s dissolution will be the BNP and the Greens.
214 - I like the idea that Osborne is a man of competence and stability whereas Cable is some kind of snake oil salesman with no grip on the issues. Hilarious. Osborne is a jumped up oik, and would be an awful Chancellor.
Coffee House blog reporting that “Ken Livingstone has confirmed to The Guardian that he will run for Mayor of London in 2012. It is hard to see how anyone could stop Livingstone from winning the Labour nomination so we will likely have a reprise of this year’s Ken v. Boris race.”
Livingstone to run again
As we all know, two police officers were recently attacked by a screaming mob of adults and teenagers. The mob was enraged by the police officers asking a girl to pick up some litter. One of the policemen was bitten.
In an astonishing development, it turns out the mob was entirely black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4356394.ece
I am dumbfounded. I presumed the mob might have been made up of Orthodox Jews, angered by the Holocaust. Perhaps, I surmised, they were Chinese teenagers, feeling stressed after some Maths tuition.
But no, the gang was black! Whatever next??
217, have to wait and see. Have to see he doesn’t seem like a heavyweight, but he’d have to make a real effort to inspire less confidence than Darling.
217.Just keep underestimating him in that way….
217 - “oik”? I know he’s no Etonian, but that’s a bit harsh…
217 - Osborne actually makes a lot of sense. He also understands the future direction of the economy much more than any give him credit for. I always think that the misperceived in politics are always the most dangerous as they more than anyone else have the capacity to surprise.
212 The last five polls include two which are above your range - only you gov has put the lib dems below 18%.
211 Depends on what you call North but what about Derby North, Oldham East, Burnley?
I give Lib dems a chance in more Sheffield seats than Central too.
“Osborne is a jumped up oik”
?!?
So now Osborne is far too lower class to be where he is?
I’ve lost the thread of which party is which today.
“oik - a rude and unpleasant man from a low social class”
217. If Sir George is an ‘oik’ then who are you, exactly? The Duke of Norfolk?
218 - Labour won’t let Livingstone run, they will need to move on and they know that he will be (is) yesterday’s man. For his own self respect he needs to carve out a new role.
James I do not rate Vince Cable as much as you. For one thing he was firm to nationalize NR from day one. Thus putting the risk on the taxpayer and increase debt to the same long suffering group.
He was much lauded by left wingers for that but that ignores the fact that there were other options which did not leave us all holding the dirty end of the stick.
He is a good politician but if he were in the Treasury we would no be nearly as favourably disposed towards him and his belief in statist finance.
That is what happens to you when you are the economist for a company which has a turnover bigger than a medium sized country, and which often seems to have had a similar mindset corporately. They have learnt a lot in the last few years. Has Vince? Don’t think so.
224 And Rochdale of course, which is notionally Labour, now. Blaydon’s a target, as well.
216. Can’t see the Trade Unions funding either of them.
More on the Smiff institute investigation as in please stop appointing just Labour people or we will write another report in 7 years.
“Milligan and Myners were appointed as trustees following a 2001 probe into the Institute that criticized it for having too many directors who were Labour supporters.”
Guess what? Both of these trustees gave money to Brown’s campaign for the Labour leadership! Paul Myners is chair of Guardian Media Group. Labour supporters were replaced by Brown supporters, presumably there is a difference?
“In the inquiry that reported today, the Smith Institute told the commission that it hadn’t been aware of any political alignment for Myners.” (Hint to the Smiff Institute, Myners headed up the Guardian and they do not support the Conservatives!)
It really does take the P***.
http://tinyurl.com/6eko7b
“The Charity Commission also said Brown failed to answer its questions about his relationship with the institute,”
219. I don’t see the point you’re making.
227.Agree with you ukpaul, but that will not stop Livingston and his supporters running the election campaign they have been since Boris was elected. I think that we will see both Boris and Ken take hits over the next couple of years as if they are still fighting the previous mayoral campaign.
“228 James I do not rate Vince Cable as much as you. For one thing he was firm to nationalize NR from day one. Thus putting the risk on the taxpayer and increase debt to the same long suffering group.
He was much lauded by left wingers for that but that ignores the fact that there were other options which did not leave us all holding the dirty end of the stick.”
Yes Vince Cable was much lauded by those nasty leftwingers who write the FT and the Economist (which this week criticises the US govt for failing to nationalise Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae).
229 Thanks - I had forgotten about Blaydon.
Labour and Lib Dem supporters appear to have come to terms reluctantly with the idea that just because David Cameron is a toff doesn’t mean that he’s clueless, but many of them appear to have transferred to making a similar error about George Osborne. He seems like a pretty smart cookie to me.
O/T- Sorry if someone posted!
“For Obama: Not South But West”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080718/cm_thenation/45337488
224 - Oldham East too - yes, good point. Burnley I’d be surprised at, but you never know; I think that’s me looking through the prism of history rather than at actual recent results. But I expect Burnley to stay red. And as Sean Fear says, Lib Dems will have to regain Rochdale after the boundary chanmges - I hadn’t thought of that. Blaydon’s an outside bet, but I’d be surprised.
I’ll bridle slightly at the thought ofdescribing Derby in the north, but in terms of the original argument (Tory seats in the south / Labour seats in the north) it clearly is and is an interesting one. I’m still expecting the Tories to take this one, despite the rather unfavourable boundary changes there - but the Libe Dems must surely see this as their best hope in the East Midlands and will throw everything at it, while the Tories spread themselves a lot more widely. But Derby North also serves to highlight the scarcity of Lib Dem targets in the Midlands. I wonder why this is?
At 213, James Burdett writes “I think there is a lot of wishful thinking there. The Lib Dems acheived 22% in 2005 and in all the latest polls have been bouncing between 16%-18% so have lost up to a quarter of the support they had. Ok it isn’t as bad as it was under Ming but it is still grim.”
As you can see from the polling data tables (scroll down) here that (based on data pulled about a month ago) Clegg’s poll numbers with almost every pollster have been no better than Ming Campbells, and with lower maximums and higher minimums, have been at the same average level, but more stagnant - which I believe implies that he has hit a bedrock of support which is independent of anything he does. That stagnation is far more serious than the low number. At least people had an opinion that changed about Ming - Clegg is no more successful in driving up the LD poll numbers, and the number is static.
239 - on the other hand, I’m expecting the Lib Dems to lose Cheadle and I’m half-expecting them to lose Harrogate and Knaresborough (bit bold, this one, but we’ll see). I’m expecting them to lose York Outer too, although I’m not sure exactly how we account for that. So that’s still only a net gain of about 5 seats in the north.
@220 - Sean I like a lot of your output here, but if you are suggesting only blacks behave like this your off your head mate.
188 - don’t we also get a lot of non-EU immigration from the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa?
241 I thought York Outer would be an interesting three way fought seat that the Lib Dems could win (interesting demographics to a doughnut-shaped seat I reckon), but I would now be astonished if the Tories didn’t pick it up this time. I know the Labour candidate there, and know the area quite well. Certainly one to watch
237. Well Labour and LD’s become personal when they lose the argument; just look at Mark Senior - A personification of the nasty LD/Labour rebutal squad.
Instead of arguing the point, they start on about personal circumstances etc. Last night i got to Mark Senior by asking him whether he agreed with Clegg’s sudden conversion to tax cuts; he did not reply! Clegg has opened up a real rift with LD foot soldiers. Maybe Mark Senior is not in the wrong party maybe it is Clegg? It maybe the case that Clegg and the orange bookers need to be gobbled up by the Tories. The stayle and insepide Brown bookers need to merge with Labour or pack up shop and leave politics to the two serious parties?
241. Barely enough to cover the likely losses in Devon & Cornwall.
220 - I don’t get your point. I know you pick up on the Guardian’s refusal to indicate a criminal’s ethnicity unless they are white, but the Times has identified the ‘mob’ as black so there is no journalistic hypocrisy or double standards.
I take your point that it is rarely gangs of Hacidic Jews who beat up police officers, but I would have been no more surprised if this had been a gang of white or Asian youths.
226 / 227 - wasn’t ‘oik’ the name that Osborne had in the Bullingdon Club because he went to St Paul’s rather than Eton?
220. I was once attacked by a gang of three Black males. They kicked the shit out of me! I find Black males to be aggresive, paranoid and aloof.
Black males have:
Attacked me as above - causing serious damage to my employment prospects.
One Black male tried getting in my car drivers door at a junction, shouting swaring and being abbusive. Luckily when i drove off with the drivers door open the b’stard fell and i ran over his hand!
Another black male abused me verbally punched me in the shoulder and said i had been looking at him. As i was looking in the other direction and the Black guy came from behind me and i only turned round when he hit me…??
Sure white people have had a pop, but this is why i took body building up - seldom do i get shit anymore as people know they might not come off as well as they hope! Not all black people are agressive etc but their seems to be a preponderance in this group suseptibal to anti-social behaviour. Whilst i have been offered out by an asian lad about 15 years ago in Stoke-on-Trent, I don’t tend to find asian males as intimidating.
Are there odds available on Sean falling in love with a Thai girl and wanting to bring her back to blighty with him?
245 - “Clegg has opened up a real rift with Lib Dem footsoldiers”
As has Cameron with Tory footsoldiers? No? Well there you are then.
And its not a “conversion” to reduced income taxation - this was the policy under Ming.
239 I feel pretty bullish about Burnley after the locals (which also suggest to me that Sheffield and region could provide more gains for the Liberal Democrats.
But you can’t really pin down individual seats without knowing the overall story. This could be: tory flood - Labour coming level with or behind the lib dems (45/23/23); Tories ahead but Labour looking more competitive as the election approaches38/30/22); all parties (35/30/25) looking more even as the election approaches (tories trending down/lib dems and labour both picking up some support.
Or something unexpected (war with Iran?) that makes the PM look like a statesman again…(30/35/25).
Anything is possible.
Even Hacidic Jews have their moments, when I lived in Stoke Newington there was one day a year when the children came knocking on the doors and running away - some religious festival or other I suppose.
238. That article seems to be merging the “West” with the “Southwest”, which are culturally different regions in terms of ideology, population density, and ethnic mix. The Southwest is certainly viable for Obama, and I’m next to certain he’ll pick up Colorado and New Mexico, and I think Nevada is also very likely, for a total of 19 EVs. Against another candidate he might take the more valuable Arizona, but McCain has home state advantage here.
The West (actually the North-centre and inland Northwest) is also looking favourable, however the attitude to gun ownership might see Obama’s recent gains reversed under a GOP ad blitz. It’s also worth noting that even if Obama achieved the remarkable feat of winning the Dakotas and Montana he would only take 9 electoral votes. If you compare this to Virgina’s 13 and North Carolina’s 15, it’s clear the Atlantic South has richer pickings.
If Brown took us into war with Iran (supported by Cameron) then 0/20/70 is possible!
250. not necessarily Thai - really this story will only be complete when an EU directive enables the marriage in some way
253 - Hassidic (or sometimes Hasidic), not Hacidic!
Which reminds me, I once saw a comedy act claiming to be the world’s first hassidic rock band, who called themeselves ‘Guns and Moses’.
True story.
I thought I’d follow Mike Smithson’s advice and have a look at attitudes to political issues by party ID. These are just from recent Yougov polls.
EU Constitution, Conservatives opposed by 61/10%, Labour in favour by 36/29%, Lib Dems in favour by 32/30%.
“Most people on benefits have chosen not to work” Conservatives agree by 46/37%, Labour disagree by 56/30%, Lib Dems disagree by 56/32%.
“Private Sector Involvement in the NHS is beneficial” Conservatives agree by 41/34%, Labour disagree by 31/43%, Lib Dems disagree by 21/52%.
42 Day detention. Conservatives in favour by 48/44%, Labour by 70/24%, Lib Dems opposed by 42/50%.
Taxes are too high (as opposed to about right, or too low) Conservatives agree by 72/21%, Labour agree by 51/42%, Lib Dems agree by 65/28%.
Middle Income people pay too much tax - Conservatives agree by 71/28%, Labour disagree by 32/65%, Lib Dems are evenly split on 48/48%.
Taxes should be cut even if public services are cut/stay the same, be increased to fund public services.
Conservative 58%/16%/13%, Labour 16%/35%/41%, Lib Dem 26%/26%/26%.
EU: Conservatives are vastly more eurosceptic than Labour or Lib Dems, whose supporters are quite close to each other on this issue (but NB similar large minorities disagree with their party on this issue).
Benefit Claimants: Labour and Lib Dems’ responses almost identical, and well to the Left of the Conservatives. A large minority of Conservatives also disagree with most of their party, as do substantial minorities of Labour and Lib Dems.
NHS: Lib Dems well to the Left of both Labour and Conservatives. Their hostility to the private sector marks them out.
42 Day detention: Both Conservatives and Lib Dems are far closer to each other than Labour on this one.
Tax: Conservatives firmly on the Right, Labour firmly on the Left, and Lib Dems bang in the middle.
252 - You sound like you know Sheffield quite well - where do you expect the Lib Dems to do well apart from Central? I suppose P*nistone and Stocksbridge is their next target after that - though in a very good Tory year that might just turn blue too.
257 - The correct Hebrew spelling is Chassid I believe.
256 - is that so he can eat at any restaurant he chooses?
“I’m sorry Sir, you can’t come in here without a Thai.”*
*with apologies to Morecambe & Wise
246- Nah.. they wont loose Falmouth and Camborne,it will take a massive swing to the right to dislodge mzzz.Goldsworthy..for the simple reason that the view expressed by a large section of the crowd at Redruth RFC during a presentation by said member was ‘nize aarse’….that counts for alot down here me ansom!The previous labour incumbent mzzz.Candy Atherton,I’m afraid was constantly followed by a bloke in a rowing boat with a harpoon…the clue is in her name and its link to confectionay!
Those Liberals sound a sensible lot Sean - thanks!
242. No. You get me wrong. I am literally gobsmacked at the fact it is black people doing this. Whatever the racist media may claim, the fact is blacks kids - the boys especially - are normally very law-abiding. This is due, I think, to the calming presence of mature and responsible role models on the paternal side.
So when I first read the piece I thought: ho hum, just another bunch of spectacled Japanese engineering students, you know what they are like. Always biting police officers.
But.. black kids? Weird.
254-Read another day an article about the South, how Obama won’t win Mississippi,Georgia and North Carolina, but he can win Virginia. The author defends that even if Obama can increase the black vote, he will have to gain a fair amount of the white vote to win those states.
Tabbers -you are closer to Glasgow than I am (Nottinghamshire as opposed to Leicestershire) - how is it going?
258 - Sean, so it looks like Clegg’s got it right on tax then.
266 - but I spend half my time in the village on the Thames!
267 Personally, I think he has it right that taxes should be reduced. But those figures suggest his party is more divided on tax than the other two are.
265. I’d agree that Georgia and Mississippi are out of reach. North Carolina, while certainly an uphill climb, isn’t beyond him however. It’s not just the increase in black vote (which has a lot more potential increase relative to Virginia, as African Americans haven’t been historically organised here), but the white vote trending liberal also. This is partially because of rich Northerners buying second homes on the beautiful Carolina coast, but also the burgeoniing academic community in the research triangle - one of the fastest growing populations in the nation.
269. I get the impression the Lib Dem activist base and the voter base have quite different views on issues like tax.
If anyone plays the football markets you can get 20/1 on Man U taking the title with Berbatov prem top scorer on skybet. If you ask me, thats a great price.
As for the Clegg backdrop, think it’s pretty obvious Labour are dead in the water isn’t it? Makes perfect sense.
Is this article below a counter attack?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2307065/The-Conservatives-are-now-the-party-of-the-poor.html
according to Oliver Letwin….
In the same way as Count Dracula likes virgins.
272 - as in “the father was poor, the mother was poor, the butler was poor …” ?
Guido has a great Friday Caption photo today aptly entitled the (The men in suits). If anyone has the cojones and experience to final put paid to Brown’s premiership, its these three! Forget people like David Miliband (Labour’s very own Nick Clegg), it will be the old guard would sew it all up.
212. The redrawn Bradford East
259 I get there now and again and keep in touch with a few locals. P and S looks the most promising to me.
Afternoon all another working week over , share prices up again , oil down to lowest since the beginning of June , it is a good job that we don’t have the buffoon Osbourne as CofE putting up the tax on oil .
Reading the hysterical comments of some Conservative posters on here earlier re the rise in PSBR reminds me of the mentality and thinking of my great aunt to economics , she did not believe in borrowing a penny to buy anything on tick and would not even switch money temporarily from her milk money jar to her coal money jar . Whilst criticism of GB is fair in that he did not do enough to reduce the PSBR in the good years it is sensible to increase it when the economy is in a downturn .
New thread up, you monkeys.
@258:
Have there been any Tory attitude surveys to 42 days since Davis’s male menopause?
I suspect we might have seen a marked shift.
278.”Whilst criticism of GB is fair in that he did not do enough to reduce the PSBR in the good years it is sensible to increase it when the economy is in a downturn.”
Fair enough when that is an affordable option, but what do you do if personal and public debt is already at unsustainable levels?
GOVERNMENT TO CONSOLIDATE ALL ITS DEBTS INTO ONE LOW MONTHLY PAYMENT
Scary when a spoof article like this starts mimicking reality!
Speaking of long term financial mismanagement, I see that my old council has now revised it’s savings from about 27 million to almost 50 million.
Council leader not standing down
“Prof Richard Kerley, a local government expert, said he believed the financial situation at Aberdeen was one of the most serious of its kind in the UK.
He said: “There really aren’t any examples in Scotland, or England or Wales, where this kind of hit has been coped with without taking pretty drastic action.”
A critical report from the Accounts Commission earlier this year said that Aberdeen City Council faced “extremely serious” challenges.”
To be honest the country has had enough money thrown at the public services by Labour and we agreed(Lib dems) with them at the time(1997)but enough is enough.Its time reduce Tax and for smaller government.We have all had enough of big brother knows best thanks.Nick Cleg spot on thats what the country wants and we can help deliver that as part of the next government or just pushing the argument now for low tax
264 - of course none of those things are true of any other racial grouping, whites perhaps?