[Politics] The Liberal Democrats

[davywavy]

There was a point, about a year ago, when the Liberal Democratic Party were the hippest, most jivingest party in the country. Bouyed by Nick Clegg's failure to make a complete tit of himself on national television, LibDem supporters were jubilant, opinion polls briefly put them in second place in the election, and "I agree with Nick" was a catchphrase for, oooh, the best part of a week.

Speaking personally, I've never really considered voting for the LibDems. I always thought they had some really good ideas, but they also had far too many policies which read like they'd been written by someone who'd been kicked in the head by a horse - and it looked like most of the electorate agreed with me, because come the election they'd slipped back to their usual third place. It's arguable that the defection of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative partty to UKIP had a greater effect upon the outcome of the last election* than did any agreeing with Nick, but thanks to the vagaries of the electoral system we ended up with a Liberal Party in government for the first time in as long as anyone who is young enough to still have all their marbles can remember.

Since then, I've been generally impressed by how the coalition has worked out. I didn't vote for either of the parties involved, but overall I've come to the conclusion that of all the possible outcomes of the election they've turned out to be probably the least worst. George Osborne's economic shortcomings have been bolstered by David Laws and Danny Alexander telling him what to do, whilst the more 'kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse' LibDem policies have been curtailed by David Cameron laughing until he cries every time they're mentioned. Moreover, the LibDems have got several policies through which most certainly wouldn't have happened under a solely Conservative majority - the raising of the tax threshold to 10k (which is a brilliant policy and will do more to get people into work and out of the poverty trap than Labour managed in 13 years and with all the tax credits you can eat. I'm hoping the economics of raising it to 14k will be in place before the next election), and the ending of the detention of migrant children, for example. Additionally, they've got a shot at their dream of electoral reform.

Despite their successes, the outright rejection of the LibDems by their voters has been impressive to watch. If I'd been a LibDem supporter before the last election, I'd be pretty much delighted at this stage of procedings but it appears I'm missing something about the Liberal Democrat Supporter mindset - and it's what I'm missing that I want to explore. Y'see, I'm generally an optimistic, glass-half-full sort of chap and I find that the world goes my way so rarely that I'm delighted when it does. The outrage from Libdems that their party hasn't been able to acheive their ideal world in eight months flat as part of a compromise government just leaves me baffled, and I'm starting to wonder what the average Liberal Democrat actually wants...
Nick Clegg once said something to the effect that the Libdems weren't a party of government, but their role was to act as the conscience of government and that comment makes me wonder if the LibDems (or their supporters) really ever wanted to get into power, with all the compromises and failures which being in power entails. As I didn't vote for either of the two current governmental parties, I'm aware of the smug self-satisfaction which comes from being able to believe anything I like whilst never having to engage with the consequences of seeing those beliefs enacted or challenged - and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion that the LibDems were the party for people who wanted to feel like that.

It's all really blown up over the pledges, signed by many Libdem candidates, to oppose university tuition fees. Pledges which, in the event, many of those who are now MPs have been unable to keep, to their obvious distress. Higher tuition fees have been coming ever since Polytechnics were allowed to start pretending to be universities in the early 1990s, Tony Blair decided that anyone can go to university no matter how thick they are and finally Gordon Brown getting the economy alone in the changing rooms and saying it had a real purty mouth. It really strikes me that blaming the Libdems for having to break that promise is like being angry that someone who promised to buy you a pint turned up at the pub having been mugged and their wallet stolen. Like Vince Cable wearily said - he's having to live in the real world now.

But this is a serious question to all my Libdem-supporting pals out there. What are the Liberal democrats? Or what did you think they were? Are you a political party, with politics being 'the art of the possible', with all the the grubby compromise that entails? Or were you just the biggest pressure group in the country all along who happened to get unlucky and find yourselves in over your heads when it came down to it? You've got more of your policies enacted in coalition than you otherwise ever would in a million years - why aren't you happy? What were you expecting to happen? What would you like to have happened?
What, in other words, did you actually want in the first place - because I'm darned if I can figure it out from your reactions.

^{*There are twenty seats where the number of UKIP votes exceded the number of votes which would have swung them to the Conservatives. If Cameron hadn't gone back on his EU-referendum promise, I reckon we'd've had an outright Conservative majority.}

Comments

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

The tax system rarely runs of the back of a single person. There'd be data available.

Are the relevant groups investing in particular types of assets ( I like the LD proposal to bring income and capital tax into line - would limit a housing bubble)?

Shifting income to other counties/offshore assets?

Taking pay as various types of work benefits?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

One of those suggestions is along the right lines. Whilst you think about it, I'll throw you another one to ponder. It's a good one.

Empty commercial properties used to be excempted from 50% of business rates due to them being empty and so not generating any revenue. One of Brown's tax changes was to remove this excemption, so you paid full rates whether your property was let or empty.

As a result of this, revenues from rates on empty buildings fell. Why?

If you're making the case for higher taxes you need to be able to explain why when taxes go up, actual revenues can fall.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Because owners pull down properties.

Regarding your second point, I do understand the laffer curve. But I think 50% at the right level can yield more revenue - I think at this point we need actual evidence rather than just argument.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Nope, last time I checked they're still standing there.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Demolition seems to be part of the BFP argument against the removal of the former exemption.

Regarding the other point, I'd say there'd be more evidence. However, I'm interested how you'd avoid a 50% tax on 65k

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There's far easier ways around it than calling the bulldozers in. Dunno who the BFP are, but they're not very imaginative.

I'm interested how you'd avoid a 50% tax on 65k

I know you are. I'm interested in how come you can propose changing the tax regime without understanding how and why people will react to it. I mean, we just had a decade of that and look where it got us.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.
[info]hareb_sarap
2010-12-17 03:42 pm UTC (link) DeleteTrack This
British property federation - you still run a construction mag?

`re the the 50% tax
New Labour were hardly so bold, preferring to introduce stealth taxes...

I like to base opinions on evidence - so want to look at comparisons etc, like I said. As long as people can't get away, you can change the law and its not a disincentive you should be able to raise more tax through a 50% rate.

At the moment your argument seems to be "trust me I know a lot about economics" and "wouldn't you like to know" - pretty weak to be honest.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Ah, you typed BFP, not BPF so how was I supposed to know?

My argument isn't that at all. You're saying that you'd raise a 50% rate. I'm asking what you'll do if it doesn't work, as I don't beleive it will. It's a fair question. If I'm wrong I pay 50%. If you're wrong, you indebt my grandchildren (again). You can see why I'm keen to know what your plan B is.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Raise a 50%, it exists already! But tax incresases aren't Plan A. More generally thinking outside the cycle lower taxes for those on lower incomes, less NIC and slightly higher incomes taxes att he higher end.

Plan A would be to pursue a less auster economic plan, and try to promote growth in both public and private sector. Public money into the private sector, construction, outsourcing etc... but also by cutting NIC.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The 50% currently has as yet (as I understand it) failed to cover the cost of its administration, as - get this - nobody is paying it. That one is hearsay, though.

The big problem of public money into projects is that there isn't any puiblic money. All of that's already been spent and what's being spent now is my childrens money, which they're going to have to work for and then be taxed off them. Speaking personally, further indebting the unborn to pay for my standard of living now isn't something I'd care to get involved in.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I wasn't really wanting to give any clues. I like to make people who want higher taxes justify how they're actually going to enforce them, as the speed they usually turn into boss-eyed police-staters to get their 50% tends to be comical.

I thought Matt was doing quite well so far, actually.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

You have to remember Dave that I've had a couple of lines of Employment: Corporate insolvency, I sacked people for a living and "helped rstructure companies" etc, and corporate lobbying... I am aware of commercial arguments.

I've even, like yourself, done some ad selling.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Like I say, I was impressed you hadn't turned into a boss-eyed fruitcake to justify your position. It may be a first, in fact, and that's a genuine compliment.

When I try this one with Grim he turns purple and bursts in a most entertaining fashion.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Ha!

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Laffer curve.

I think you'r right to look at international comparisons. However, we're not HK... it'd be useful to look at EU examples of tax and take.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the level of tax would have to be, and what sort of employeement the a person would have to be to "bugger-off"/
. Without evidence, I'd imagine they'd have to be pretty high paid 100K and work in finance.. a Local authority CEO is unlikely to be able to exit the country.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, nobody else would employ 'em for that sort of money.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

yup. Certainly not the private sector.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So why is the public sector doing so?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

what are the comparable rates of tax on the continent? I think we could "get away" with higher rates.