I haven't read all of the Liberal Democrats' new statement of aims and values. These documents all have instantly forgettable titles. I have instantly forgotten this one. Whatever Works or something. (It's Make It Happen: I've just looked.) (For some reason I keep thinking David Cameron's Conservative equivalent was called No Rough Edges, but it was in fact called Built to Last.)
But I am impressed by one thing. Nick Clegg has realised that there is no future for the Liberal Democrats in being positioned to the left of Labour, which is where Tony Blair tried to put them - and they let him.
So now the Lib Dems are the party of tax cuts - albeit progressive ones. That means cutting the overall burden of tax, but bigger tax cuts on the poor than increases on the rich, and bigger green tax cuts than green tax rises.
Smart positioning, although the details are distinctly odd. Clegg told the Today programme this morning that he was not going to restore the policy of a 50p income tax rate on those earning more than £100,000 a year:
We did our sums, as did others, it worked out it didn't raise as much as we initially thought it had - we felt it was better to look at the tax system as a whole.
So now he plans to increase taxes on the better-off by ending tax relief at the standard rate on pension contributions and some other changes that I've instantly forgotten. Hm. That'll work.
But it was fun to listen to George Osborne, outflanked by a tax cutter, protest that the Lib Dems can say what they like because they won't have to do it. Careful, George, you could need Clegg's votes in a hung parliament.
It is disgrace how can they cut taxes on the rich. Those eanring over 100,000 should pay higher taxes where is the sense in someone whop eanrs 40,000 a year paying the same tax as someone 100,000 a year. Who is this policy supposed to help?:
Posted by: Wossy | Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 10:49 PM
Your mum. If she's rich.
Posted by: Shawcross | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 01:11 AM
Increasing the tax rate from 40p to 50p makes little sense if the person concerned simply claims it back as a tax relief on their pension. The new policy is much better. Far better a 40p tax rate that people pay than a 50p tax rate they avoid.
Progressive tax cuts that help those on low and middle incomes are neither left or right but Liberal.
What a shame the comentators are still stuck in the terminology of the 1950's.
Posted by: Tim | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 05:11 AM
There is only one thing Clegg should be thinking about and that is how to get power. There is only one way for him to get power and that is to get pally with the Tories.
The rest is nonsense.
Posted by: john problem | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 08:08 AM
I agree with Wossy I to think it is criminal and rediculous to have someone who earns £40,000 plus is taxed the same as someone earning over £100,000 plus! Where is the fairness in that seems to me the rich get richer and those least well off are left on the scrap heap to fend for themselves!
Posted by: Beverley Coxhead | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 12:56 PM
The Lib dems havge sold out to the elites. Who is the party of the poor now?
Posted by: Bob | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 03:11 PM
Shawcross why does your one pays your bills.
Posted by: Mickey | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 03:16 PM
Yes, it would seem that all three parties are merging, similar politics, hazy policies, but one thing in common - DON'T TAX THE RICH!.
There has been a growing divide between rich and poor since NewLabour took the throne. They have abandoned any ideas of Proportional representation, and subsequently, the Liberal Democrats have been shunted to one side, without putting up a fight. Nick Clegg is another "image man" gets paid handsomely, and probably doesn't need to work too hard. He will doubtless pick up a directorship or two in the future, and will not have to worry about his pension.
With so many people on minimum wage, and hundreds of thousands more not counted as unemployed, how is the average wage calculated? As Bob has said "Who is the party of the poor now?".
We need a change in this country, because many millions are in danger of slipping into poverty, and the main political parties are not concerned, they are too busy lining their own pockets, and looking forward to retirement.
Posted by: AndyUK | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 04:19 PM
If you want a party committed to genuine redistribution of wealth and a progressive tax system, the only national choice now is the Green Party. The Greens see social justice as both ethically and practically essential to create environmental sustainability in a world of finite resouces. Their "Manifesto for a Susatainable Society" calls for 60p tax on higher earners and a Citizen's Income for all adults regardless of whether or not they are in work. The Green conference in September will also debate a call for a maximum income of 10 times the national minimum (which they want increased on the current paltry amount). So forget the Lib Dems, who are a busted flush on claiming to support the less well off, and Labour, who have presided over the widest gap in wealth between rich and poor in modern history - go Green!
Posted by: Adrian Cruden | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 06:09 PM
Adrian, I would see nothing wrong with a maximum wage, because we now live in a totally immoral society. Why should a footballer be paid 260 times the salary of a research scientist, who has an MSc? (£100000 a week against £384 a week). The current people in charge of the country, fail to place restrictions on the elite, but constantly bring in legislation to place the poor further in debt.
Why does anyone earning less than average wage, bother to vote for any of the main parties?
The unions, have this week sent a list to Gordon Brown, of objectives which they think should be met. They are workers rights - YES, RIGHTS - which were eroded under Maggie Thatcher, and by Tony Bliar, the man who admired her so much. Gordon Brown, has reputedly rebuked the unions, asking them if they want to return to the 1970s. Well, at least in the 70s, workers had more rights, there were less people in poverty, we had some industry, and we weren't being ripped off by the banks and privatised utilities. I seem to remember that people from that era had decent pension schemes, and one wage was enough to run a household.
Things have changed for the worse, but a lot of people don't realise it, or aren't aware that they can change things, by protesting, or showing dissent by demonstrating.
Posted by: AndyUK | Friday, 18 July 2008 at 08:54 PM