But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Imcoming 'but the LDs big mistake in 2015 was not to make more of their part in the coalition'..5..4..3..2..1..
The coalition should have been dissolved at the end of 2014, and I fully expected it would, in order to allow the parties to differentiate themselves before the election. Their big mistake in 2015 was not to invent a time machine and go back to 2010 to negotiate properly. It was reported the Conservatives knew more about the LibDem manifesto than the yellow team.
Their polling collapsed within weeks of joining the coalition. It would have done so had they joined with Gordon Brown as well the other way.
They had accumulated a motley collection of parliamentary seats due to fortunate peaks and troughs since 1992. That was never sustainable unless they never did anything - ever - and even then that wasn't guaranteed. They still probably would have been washed away be the polarisation later in the 2010s.
They need to find a solid base of 15%+ of the electorate and 20+ seats that stick with them through thick and thin under multiple FPTP elections because their MPs do a very good job and they stand for something distinctive and important on the national stage.
It's hard to see what that is at the moment.
Yes but it was more than that. Joining the coalition did not just upset left-inclined voters, with a hypothetical equal and opposite reaction if they'd gone into coalition with Labour. It was a visceral act of betrayal for actual LibDem supporters. First, there was an immediate repudiation of what the LibDems had spent most of their time campaigning on -- student fees and the rest. Then, to rub salt in voters' wounds, Nick Clegg went on telly and told LD voters they were idiots to have believed him in the first place.
All that mattered, it seemed, were red boxes and ministerial cars. Anything else could and would be traded away for the personal ambition of Nick Clegg. Even his price for the coalition were means to that end -- reform of the voting system to cement the LibDems into office.
And it was done so badly. There was no need to give away the crown jewels. It is not as if student fees and loans were an indispensible plank of the Conservative platform. David Cameron was holding no-one's feet to the fire on this. No, the problem was Clegg's team had not even read their own manifesto.
It was all for nothing.
And now look at Nick Clegg, taking a seven-figure salary doing PR and lobbying for one of the worlds most evil companies.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
And for that reason, Boris will not be remotely squeamish about doing all he can to crush the LibDems.
No more Mister Nice Tories....
Good morning Mark Show me a nice Tory and I will show you a lying toerag.
I thought you thought I was a nice tory Malc
G , of course I do , there are lots of misguided decent ones about but I have to generalise on the nasties we see that have climbed the greasy pole and so comment on the worst of the worst. You just need to look at which schools these clowns went to , very few grew up in council houses, silver spoons and privilege are the order of the day for these grasping gits.
Re "grasping gits", my neighbour told me a couple of days ago that he heartily approves of lockdown. He`s enjoying sucking on the tax-payer teat by being paid 80% for staying at home - and he wants lockdown to last 2-3 years "which will get me to retirement".
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
You can be certain they will not soak themselves , the plebs will pay as usual, self interest will be to the fore.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
You can trace the rise and fall of the LibDems to one key moment out of all the others: the decision unilaterally to Revoke Article 50. It even pissed off a lot of LibDems like me. It was incredibly ill-conceived, displaying a breathtaking conceit and disregard both for democracy and the British people.
Step forward Swinson , thick as mince and no talent but ego the size of a planet.
Morning Malc.
Morning Ydoethur,
I imagine your huge organ is not getting much action nowadays.
It’s been fully deflated for weeks.
I can’t even tug out the eight foot horn because the neighbours complain.
The organ that i am familiar with has recently been resored at considerable expense.
FPT I find these false appeals to authority extremely irritating. The fact that he is an NHS consultant has no bearing on his following statement. He has no knowledge about government policy that other members of the public don’t as well. He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, but why should it have special weight?
His Twitter bio describes him first as being founder of a pressure group, which has been retweeting Carole Cadwalladr and others. Quoting him as just “An NHS consultant” is like quoting Bob Crow as “A train driver”.
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
Fair enough, but you won’t be voting once you’ve paid IHT on the grounds of not being alive. Any possible recipients of your estate on the other hand will still have votes....... it’s not particularly edifying, of course, but it pretty much did for one Theresa May, who left IHT alone but stumbled into the disastrous perception that she was going to take people’s inheritances another way.
I think a way will have to be found, all that said, to tap in to some of that cash, given the amount of debt the country will have, but as ever you’ve got to pluck the feathers without the goose getting narked about it. Tough task.
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Hancock is, no doubt, doing his best. What the government needs is a wartime-era Minister of Production who can coordinate manufacture and supply of the tools needed on the front lines. Someone who can ask what the clinicians (and everyone) need; ask where to buy it; then negotiate with those suppliers or find alternatives, even if that means buying IP.
Who would that be though? The senior members of the cabinet were selected solely by the intensity with they could pretend to think Brexit was a good idea.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
And for that reason, Boris will not be remotely squeamish about doing all he can to crush the LibDems.
No more Mister Nice Tories....
Good morning Mark Show me a nice Tory and I will show you a lying toerag.
I thought you thought I was a nice tory Malc
G , of course I do , there are lots of misguided decent ones about but I have to generalise on the nasties we see that have climbed the greasy pole and so comment on the worst of the worst. You just need to look at which schools these clowns went to , very few grew up in council houses, silver spoons and privilege are the order of the day for these grasping gits.
Another cut-out-and-keep post from Malcy. I have quite a collection now. Useful when a visiting foreign family member asks what Scottish people are like!
Stocky, easier just to say cute and cuddly , also warm and welcoming even to Tories , nasty as they are.
There is nothing that says “cuddly” or “warm” like your average Malc post...
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Great post - chimes with my own point of view - I couldn`t agree more. The rot started when the SDP joined, because it mixed ideologies by introducing quasi-collectivists.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
"They want their own offspring to have it all."
You say that like it is bad thing...
1) The state stealing money off dying people is pretty mean.
2) The state telling dying people they cannot help their children - same issue.
3) It is not an inheritance tax, it is a death tax. Taxing it as income would be fairer.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
OT Matt Hancock's rollercoaster ride has been remarkable. In just two or three weeks, he went from zero to hero, maybe even favourite to succeed Boris, now zero again after looking done in and apparently blaming medics for wasting PPE.
He didn’t, in fact, blame them
He said it was a previous resource. Is that not true? It would be great if there was an unlimited supply of everything. There isn’t. So we need to decide when best to use it.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Less skiing holidays?
Fewer - but very regretfully, possibly yes. Pining for the next one already.
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Good morning and welcome
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
FPT I find these false appeals to authority extremely irritating. The fact that he is an NHS consultant has no bearing on his following statement. He has no knowledge about government policy that other members of the public don’t as well. He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, but why should it have special weight?
His Twitter bio describes him first as being founder of a pressure group, which has been retweeting Carole Cadwalladr and others. Quoting him as just “An NHS consultant” is like quoting Bob Crow as “A train driver”.
The only sensible reason to retweet Carole Cadwalladr is to take the piss out of her.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
Fair enough, but you won’t be voting once you’ve paid IHT on the grounds of not being alive. Any possible recipients of your estate on the other hand will still have votes....... it’s not particularly edifying, of course, but it pretty much did for one Theresa May, who left IHT alone but stumbled into the disastrous perception that she was going to take people’s inheritances another way.
I think a way will have to be found, all that said, to tap in to some of that cash, given the amount of debt the country will have, but as ever you’ve got to pluck the feathers without the goose getting narked about it. Tough task.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
You can trace the rise and fall of the LibDems to one key moment out of all the others: the decision unilaterally to Revoke Article 50. It even pissed off a lot of LibDems like me. It was incredibly ill-conceived, displaying a breathtaking conceit and disregard both for democracy and the British people.
Step forward Swinson , thick as mince and no talent but ego the size of a planet.
Morning Malc.
Morning Ydoethur,
I imagine your huge organ is not getting much action nowadays.
It’s been fully deflated for weeks.
I can’t even tug out the eight foot horn because the neighbours complain.
The organ that i am familiar with has recently been resored at considerable expense.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Less skiing holidays?
Fewer - but very regretfully, possibly yes. Pining for the next one already.
There snow possibility we will be resuming ski holidays any time soon.
Hancock is, no doubt, doing his best. What the government needs is a wartime-era Minister of Production who can coordinate manufacture and supply of the tools needed on the front lines. Someone who can ask what the clinicians (and everyone) need; ask where to buy it; then negotiate with those suppliers or find alternatives, even if that means buying IP.
Who would that be though? The senior members of the cabinet were selected solely by the intensity with they could pretend to think Brexit was a good idea.
Hancock was a remainer.
He`s being treated unfairly - predicably - by having his words twisted to enhance a particular narrative.
I remember well before the coalition, speculating that the worst thing that could happen to the LDs would be electoral success. I based this hypothesis in large part on their willingness to self identify as whatever the local voter was looking for. They were helped in this by a supportive media that let them get away with blatant hypocrisy.
In my then locality they presented themselves as pragmatic Conservatives, worried about efficiency and getting the (local) job done. Elsewhere they were non-loony-leftists, or sandal wearing dope-smokers. I am not sure that is possible for them to return to those green fields of pre-coalition. Voters have been there, and got the scars.
If I were advising them, I would suggest picking a handful of popular issues to own that the two big parties cower away from, and then just banging on about them. Some examples: legalising drugs, legalising prostitution, constitutional reform, localism, hypothecated taxes.
I would also suggest banning the words: Europe, gender, and pan-sexual.
Tbh I'd want to be convinced the average voter cares very much about drugs or prostitution, and the ones who do care have opposing views. Legalising drugs, for instance, would need to be carefully developed and sold on defeating gangs, ending turf wars and county lines, as well as the old liberal line that adults should be free to choose. Otherwise, as a slogan, it risks alienating voters who are afraid of gang violence and its influence on their sons and daughters.
Can the LibDems go back to being all things to all voters? Actually, the Conservative victory might encourage them. Otherwise the problem is not that LibDems are inconsistent as irrelevant. Why vote for the Tories' little helpers, their opponents on either side ask? If you want a Conservative government, why not vote Conservative? If you want Labour, you have to vote Labour because of what happened in 2010. There is no reason to vote LibDem if you have strong views about another party. And if you actually like LibDem policies then so what? You cannot trust them and Nick Clegg said as much in so many words.
It may not be easy but they need to develop a defined position - I’d suggest liberalism - that is distinct from either the Tories or Labour. Otherwise they are “little helpers” for the Tories. Or they have to “cooperate” with Labour. I can see why Labour would like that.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
The real problem with inheritance tax is and always has been that it’s so easy to avoid. The 1st Viscount Rothermere, one of the the UK’s richest men, died penniless according to his tax return. That could be replicated many times over. We keep getting this inane wittering that only 5% of estates are eligible for inheritance tax, when the reality is somewhere between a third and a half are eligible, but only 5% actually pay anything. Not usually the 5% with the most money either.
But the other problem is it so often requires the precipitate sale of the family house to pay for it, which is always deeply unpopular.
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
"They want their own offspring to have it all."
You say that like it is bad thing...
1) The state stealing money off dying people is pretty mean.
2) The state telling dying people they cannot help their children - same issue.
3) It is not an inheritance tax, it is a death tax. Taxing it as income would be fairer.
No, I said it merely as a statement of fact.
The arguments both for and against IHT are very well-rehearsed. Personally, I am on the side that regards hacking a slice off an estate (not taking the whole lot, by the way) after the owners are safely dead and can no longer enjoy it, as one of the most harmless forms of taxation.
If you are going to describe taxation as an act of theft perpetrated by the state, rather than a scheme of necessary, if perhaps regrettable, payments which are needed to keep society functioning for the mutual benefit of everybody, then surely if some of the money is stolen from corpses who can't use it (so that less is stolen from living people who can) then this can only be a good thing?
you can tax assets or income. that is it. incomes are going to be highly depressed for some time. you can tinker with the long needed NI/Income Tax merger and do away with all the absurdities. but to raise the huge slabs of cash needed they will have to go after assets.
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
I’d challenge that assumption. I don’t think the Lib Dem’s prospered at all under Blair
Sure they won a bunch of seats and some individuals had remunerative careers.
But they achieved nothing and did not advance their cause or strategic position
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
When you are in power or may be (ie Tory and Labour) that fact alone preserves you from having to be clear or consistent. Power and its prospect is compelling. The LDs are not in that position, nor shall they be in the foreseeable future.
You can state in a few words the raison d'etre of the SNP, PC, the Brexit Party, the CPGB, SWP and the other outfits that are not going to run the UK. But I have no idea how to state in a few words the USP of the LDs. In fact it is easier to do so for the Tories and Labour.
They should find one, tell us what it is, and then decide whether to be a party campaigning as if they are serious about power or stop being a party and become a campaign/policy wonk/pressure group.
There is an empty space in politics for old fashioned freedom of thought liberalism.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
The real problem with inheritance tax is and always has been that it’s so easy to avoid. The 1st Viscount Rothermere, one of the the UK’s richest men, died penniless according to his tax return. That could be replicated many times over. We keep getting this inane wittering that only 5% of estates are eligible for inheritance tax, when the reality is somewhere between a third and a half are eligible, but only 5% actually pay anything. Not usually the 5% with the most money either.
But the other problem is it so often requires the precipitate sale of the family house to pay for it, which is always deeply unpopular.
Indeed, and leads of a lot of perverse and unwanted behaviours as middle-class retirees go out of their way to arrange their affairs to avoid it. As you say, the very rich do this already, with property and shares held in family trusts or companies.
It's also an emotional thing, people work their whole lives so they can give something to their children, it's visceral human nature. Telling them that they have to give half of it away when they die just doesn't seem reasonable, when they've already paid a huge amount of tax during their lifetimes.
(Oh, and I wasn't in the walking club, the only walking I ever did was from across campus to the Union bar, or on RAG trips.)
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards are IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
"They want their own offspring to have it all."
You say that like it is bad thing...
1) The state stealing money off dying people is pretty mean.
2) The state telling dying people they cannot help their children - same issue.
3) It is not an inheritance tax, it is a death tax. Taxing it as income would be fairer.
No, I said it merely as a statement of fact.
The arguments both for and against IHT are very well-rehearsed. Personally, I am on the side that regards hacking a slice off an estate (not taking the whole lot, by the way) after the owners are safely dead and can no longer enjoy it, as one of the most harmless forms of taxation.
If you are going to describe taxation as an act of theft perpetrated by the state, rather than a scheme of necessary, if perhaps regrettable, payments which are needed to keep society functioning for the mutual benefit of everybody, then surely if some of the money is stolen from corpses who can't use it (so that less is stolen from living people who can) then this can only be a good thing?
IHT is amongst the most redistributive of Taxes. It was how the old aristocracy was broken a century ago, before they reinvented new ways to dodge it. I understand how Tories loathe it, and am in line for a decent inheritance myself.
The implicit, and occasionally explicit pledge of the election was redistribution of wealth. Away from London and the South East and to the struggling Brexity cities and towns of the North and to the younger generations. I thought it cant at the time, but we will see soon if the Tories actually meant it, or whether they will just shaft their new voters while doing a bit of flag waving.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
Killing half a million people would be far saner.
And if immunity doesn't last very long we can carry on killing a few more hundred thousand every year.
But it will be well worth it to maintain the standard of living of the survivors!
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
I’d challenge that assumption. I don’t think the Lib Dem’s prospered at all under Blair
Sure they won a bunch of seats and some individuals had remunerative careers.
But they achieved nothing and did not advance their cause or strategic position
As early as 2003, David Dutton was expressing misgivings about the Liberal Democrats’ electoral prospects, noting that 58% of their voters were former Tory voters and it seemed unlikely they would be willing to vote for an avowed centre-left party for ever, or even for very long.
And he was right. Whether the coalition detoxified the Tories to the extent their former voters felt comfortable voting for them again, or simply by giving them the lead in taking power made people realise how irrelevant third parties really are in our system, or some mixture of the two, the vital story of 2015 was the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote and the consequent shift of almost half their seats to the Conservatives (27, compared with 12 to Labour and 10 to the SNP).
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
On topic, that was in the last LD manifesto as I recall. It is where all good ideas start before they are stolen by other parties.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
The real problem with inheritance tax is and always has been that it’s so easy to avoid. The 1st Viscount Rothermere, one of the the UK’s richest men, died penniless according to his tax return. That could be replicated many times over. We keep getting this inane wittering that only 5% of estates are eligible for inheritance tax, when the reality is somewhere between a third and a half are eligible, but only 5% actually pay anything. Not usually the 5% with the most money either.
But the other problem is it so often requires the precipitate sale of the family house to pay for it, which is always deeply unpopular.
Indeed, and leads of a lot of perverse and unwanted behaviours as middle-class retirees go out of their way to arrange their affairs to avoid it. As you say, the very rich do this already, with property and shares held in family trusts or companies.
It's also an emotional thing, people work their whole lives so they can give something to their children, it's visceral human nature. Telling them that they have to give half of it away when they die just doesn't seem reasonable, when they've already paid a huge amount of tax during their lifetimes.
(Oh, and I wasn't in the walking club, the only walking I ever did was from across campus to the Union bar, or on RAG trips.)
Bother, would have been funny if you, Hyufd and I had all been in it.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
I really don't see why not.
The vision for the welfare state etc was created in some of the dark days of WW2, so I think that this may well be the point where change and a new direction could be defined.
Off topic, the comments on this thread are probably the most on-topic that I can recall for an article about a niche issue in years. Well done, Alastair.
On topic, as others have pointed out, the LibDems were not doing badly in the polls in the summer and autumn of last year. But Swinson's revoke policy, and her idiotic decision to back a general election which was obviously more likely to result in a Parliament that would get Brexit done than the previous mess, doomed them to a very disappointing result.
Going forward, and looking beyond the judgement of an individual leader, their fortunes will I think be determined by what happens to the Conservatives. Even more than Labour, they have to hope the government screws up somehow.
None of the other three strategies seem hopeful:
- They won't break through against Labour - even under Corbyn, they couldn't. - Trying to win target constituencies one by one is a grind, much more suited to council elections than general elections, when the media's attention and that of most voters is focused on national issues - As for finding a single issue to develop a unique approach to, I doubt they will ever have a more promising on than Brexit and that didn't work. If they develop a popular position on a major issue, one of the other parties are likely to nick it.
The only time they have achieved major gains in the last two decades has been when the Conservatives were at the bottom of their unpopularity in the last few years of the last century. They have to hope that history repeats itself. Of course, the danger then is that when the Conservatives recover, they will lose those seats.
But the road for a third national party in a FPTP electoral system will always be hard.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
APD is an even worse targeted tax. It should be levied per aircraft journey based on emissions, not per occupied seat. You want to be encouraging planes to be efficient and full, not flying around half empty.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
To be honest, I would far prefer to see VAT abolished than IHT. It’s the most regressive, vicious, unpleasant tax going.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
Killing half a million people would be far saner.
And if immunity doesn't last very long we can carry on killing a few more hundred thousand every year.
But it will be well worth it to maintain the standard of living of the survivors!
That half a million figure is utterly bogus as you well know. It has been disowned by the man who made it, a man who will not even open the 13-year old methods he uses to arrive at his predictions to scrutiny.
Watching the video again to remind myself, I’m afraid one of the problems was Swinson. Unfortunately she just didn’t have “it”. I understand what she was going for - a grown up between Corbyn and Johnson, trying to promote a sense of decency. Unfortunately, the “grown up” style came across as hectoring and people just couldn’t reconcile this attitude with the pledge to immediately cancel Brexit. Presentationally I think she was very poor. A shame as I think perhaps in different times she could have had a good stab at being leader, but these were exceptional times and she wasn’t the right person for the job.
Often I prefer to listen to the views of people who have no interest in politics rather than those who consider themselves wise old sages; there are tens of millions more of them and people can only vote once.
The Gogglebox verdict On Swinson was she looked like the kind of person who would force you to dance at a party no matter how much you said you didn’t want to
With nighthawks back on PB, it can only be a matter of time before the return of the fondly remembered and very popular unauthorised 'late night IHT forum' that I convened within it circa a decade or so ago....
On the wider impact on Covid 19 on the death rate (including those in the community and of poorer treatment of unrelated diseases), the ONS's dataset here is very helpful to complete some simple analysis on (limited to England and Wales):
This period only has c.650 deaths attributable to Covid 19, so clearly the blue line will trend upwards as subsequent data is released. What will be interesting is the difference versus the average of the previous period, which is rising more sharply than the 650 deaths attributed to Covid 19. Clearly there is some natural variance (see the first few weeks), so we'll see whether this balances out over time or forms a trend:
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
The real problem with inheritance tax is and always has been that it’s so easy to avoid. The 1st Viscount Rothermere, one of the the UK’s richest men, died penniless according to his tax return. That could be replicated many times over. We keep getting this inane wittering that only 5% of estates are eligible for inheritance tax, when the reality is somewhere between a third and a half are eligible, but only 5% actually pay anything. Not usually the 5% with the most money either.
But the other problem is it so often requires the precipitate sale of the family house to pay for it, which is always deeply unpopular.
So make it a gift tax, and abolish the 7 years before death exemption. That, not the tax itself, is the anomaly.
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Good morning and welcome
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
I disagree.
There is a good number of people in this country who won’t vote Labour because, whatever Keir does, there will always be a RLB tendency in some position of power to terrify people.
These people are not cultists, though, and decidedly uninterested in cultist totems (revoke), wannabe cult leaders (Swinson), or lost causes (EU re-entry).
There is a niche for LIBERAL politicians who believe some or more of the following: - Our democracy is imperfect - Our judicial system discriminates against those without time, money or existing power. - The country is grotesquely over-centralised - Digital monopolies are out of control - Society is now engineered to discriminate against working people and young people especially. - Green technologies will power the next industrial revolution...but windmills can be an eyesore. - The UK’s obsession with housing has perverted the economy etc
If the Lib Dems can become the party for digital geeks, mums from St Albans, national park conservers, and Cornish nationalists — then they can recover.
If they become the party of EU die-hards, trans rights campaigners, angry Guardian columnists, and “fiscal conservatives” - then they will fail.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
You mean tax the beneficiaries but still have a separate regime with its own rates and banding?
If you are going to describe taxation as an act of theft perpetrated by the state, rather than a scheme of necessary, if perhaps regrettable, payments which are needed to keep society functioning for the mutual benefit of everybody, then surely if some of the money is stolen from corpses who can't use it (so that less is stolen from living people who can) then this can only be a good thing?
As we are talking policy choices this morning, the issue is that the "corpses" have many years of voting before they reach that final state. Promising to steal voters money when they die is not going to be popular, however logical you personally find it.
Oh and most taxation is theft. legal and (probably) necessary theft, but I would rather we were all honest about it. It would be possible to move some state income to various forms of society membership fee, but (cough) poll-tax...
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Good morning and welcome
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
Thank you 😊. I think if you like to view politics as a battle for executive power or the ability to steer the tiller of the nation then that's a very valid question.
However there's a world of politics beyond that and I think there should be a place for smaller parties who don't need to keep as tight a rein on their MPs as aspiring parties of government need to do. There are select committees that need committed members, wiredos and the desperate to champion, single issues to persue, private bills to champion etc etc. Of course there are many Labour and Conservative MPs who do that but often they have more calls on their time.
I rather miss the days when some strange eccentric got elected as a Liberal or Lib Dem and then was suddenly given a national platform to bang on about their own obsessions. It occasionally went badly wrong (see Smith and Freud) but sometimes it allows something important to be aired.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards are IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
Done properly can see the sense it that. Currently a multi millionaire can receive lots of tax free amounts of £325k, whereas others will be paying 40% on a single amount above that. The wrong person is taxed at present.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Are we really that much more indebted though? There was an announcement last week that the Bank of England is going to expand the Ways and Means Facility from £370m to an unlimited size
Not a lot of happy thoughts there for me this morning, but I think our one-time lurker to be on the right track. I was Labour as a student, and early, then switched to the Liberals in the early 60's because they seemed to have a more individual yet caring approach to politics. And I liked their pro-EEC (etc) attitude, although officially it was very much the Tory line too. When the SDP come along I initially welcomed it, especially because of their pro-Europe attitude, and the influence of Roy Jenkins, although I did have some sneaking sympathy with Cyril Smith's view...... it should have been strangled at birth. In the constituency where I lived, worked and had been a prominent member of the Liberal Party we were more or less told that this was SDP territory now and they would run the show. So I started switching my vote back, at least sometimes, and was rewarded in 1997 when Labour won the seat. Admittedly I was encouraged to vote Labour then by what I saw as a need to defeat a particularly odious Conservative MP. The I moved and old loyalties weren't as strong, although I still called myself a LibDem. Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell deserved, I felt, support
However reflection on Clegg and the Coalition years have really pushed me back to Labour. I recall arguing on here that the Coalition should have ended well before the election, to ensure a difference in the public mind; it didn't and the LD's were crushed by a particularly vicious and targeted campaign by the Tories. I remember thinking after the election that it was a pity Clegg kept his seat; poor Farron had the ghost of Christmas past sitting beside him. And when there was a bit of a recovery Cable's ship had clearly sailed, Jo Swinson was out of her depth and there doesn't seem a good reason now for voting LD.
To date Starmer and his team look like hope for the country.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards are IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
Done properly can see the sense it that. Currently a multi millionaire can receive lots of tax free amounts of £325k, whereas others will be paying 40% on a single amount above that. The wrong person is taxed at present.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
You mean tax the beneficiaries but still have a separate regime with its own rates and banding?
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
And for that reason, Boris will not be remotely squeamish about doing all he can to crush the LibDems.
No more Mister Nice Tories....
Good morning Mark Show me a nice Tory and I will show you a lying toerag.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
If Boris countenances that, he will spend the rest of his premiership trying to deal with one thing.
The gargantuan economic hit for Coronavirus. There will be nothing else. He will still be explaining to the electorate when we go to the polls in 2025.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
you can tax assets or income. that is it. incomes are going to be highly depressed for some time. you can tinker with the long needed NI/Income Tax merger and do away with all the absurdities. but to raise the huge slabs of cash needed they will have to go after assets.
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Are we going to tax public sector final salary pensions in any such windfall at their proper current actuarial value not the lower fictional sleight of hand that they’re valued at now?
Mr. Meeks, it wouldn't exactly encourage our dire savings rate to rise if we tax those with the temerity to save.
My income's certainly at the lower end (arguably the lowest) of regular PBers, but I do have some small savings.
The idea I should pay more for being responsible with my money does not sit well with me.
There's a bigger problem for those who like the idea of taxing assets rather than income. Assets can be moved, generally. But even more important than that is that income happens year after year, so you can use it to fund annual expenditure. Assets can rise and fall. Taxation, of course, encourages them to fall. So if you shift to an asset model (which is quite medieval) then what do you do if people start spending even more and saving even less?
Your tax brings in less money.
And people are less secure even than they are today, because fewer have savings, and those who do have less savings.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
That half a million figure is utterly bogus as you well know. It has been disowned by the man who made it, a man who will not even open the 13-year old methods he uses to arrive at his predictions to scrutiny.
It is completely and utterly discredited.
No, it hasn't and it isn't. What is your figure? Please back it up with references to published sources, including assessment of the effects of hospital overloading.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
Of the top 20 LD target seats most are in wealthy Tory London or Southern Remain voting seats like Winchester, Wimbledon, Esher and Walton, Hitchen and Harpenden, Wokingham, Cheltenham, Cities of London and Westminster, Finchley and Golders Green, Lewes etc.
The best message the LDs can have to win them then is one combining fiscal conservatism and opposition to hard Brexit and on that basis Ed Davey is the best choice and so should move from interim to permanent LD leader.
If the Tories lose their majority at the next general election and there is a hung parliament with the LDs jolding the balance of power they could then pitch themselves as a moderating influence on a Starmer led Government
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Such times are a good time to trial new ways of operating and thinking. Though I'm not one who supports just ditching many of the procedures and traditions, as a lot of the time ditching them is the point, without any actual improvement.
Slightly archaic procedures dont make a parliament unfit for purpose. It taking 15 minutes to do a vote is an example of something which could be easily sped up, although I dont know what harm is caused by it (once eventually social distancing is done). But many other suggestions just dont like the way things are done and act like any modernisation is an improvement, hence a phrase like 'bringing it into the 21st century' which presumes a change is automatically preferred.
It can change its operations. There are areas it should and areas it could. But its history and traditions are important symbols and if where they do no harm they can remain as idiosyncrasies of our system.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards are IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
I agree - though probably wouldn`t tax it as income. Current Inheritance tax isn`t an inheritance tax. IHT is a death duty. Like you, I`d prefer a proper inheritance tax.
Done properly can see the sense it that. Currently a multi millionaire can receive lots of tax free amounts of £325k, whereas others will be paying 40% on a single amount above that. The wrong person is taxed at present.
How does one do this :-) ?
In the sense that you might be worth ten million already, but if you have five aunties that all leave you 325k you pay no tax. On the other hand you might be worth zero but then have the good fortune to have one aunt leave you 1625k ( ie the same amount) and you pay 520k tax. Now if you have nothing and suddenly you have over a million I’m sure you’d probably see the cup as well over half full, but it’s a bit of an absurd tax situation compared to the first example.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Mr. Meeks, it wouldn't exactly encourage our dire savings rate to rise if we tax those with the temerity to save.
My income's certainly at the lower end (arguably the lowest) of regular PBers, but I do have some small savings.
The idea I should pay more for being responsible with my money does not sit well with me.
There's a bigger problem for those who like the idea of taxing assets rather than income. Assets can be moved, generally. But even more important than that is that income happens year after year, so you can use it to fund annual expenditure. Assets can rise and fall. Taxation, of course, encourages them to fall. So if you shift to an asset model (which is quite medieval) then what do you do if people start spending even more and saving even less?
Your tax brings in less money.
And people are less secure even than they are today, because fewer have savings, and those who do have less savings.
You want to encourage people who can work to work. At present the tax system penalises high income low wealth people at the expense of high wealth low income people - other groups can be ignored for present purposes. This is exactly the wrong way round. And you want to equalise wealth much more than income.
NB if this switch were made now I would have been clobbered both on the way up and on the way down, but that’s life. It would be a lot fairer and give a lot more people an equal chance in life.
The Lib Dems immediate future goal is to get 20% of the vote, get around 30-50 seats, and get back their place as the established 3rd party of British politics from the SNP. Unlike Labour, it's not trying to get around 40% of the vote and to get into Downing Street anytime soon. And much of the WWC vote they got in 2010 in places like Burnley and Redcar isn't coming back. Leavers aren't going to forget 'Bollocks to Brexit' and 'Revoke A50' anytime soon, and time spent chasing after their vote will probably be a wasted effort. Whether you think going fanatically Remain was a good idea or not, Lib Dems have made their bed when it comes to Brexit and need to lie in it. Everyone knows they think Brexit is a catastrophic mistake which should be reversed ASAP, and any attempt at now pretending otherwise will simply not be believed. So, I think they need to be honest, and campaign for Britain to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity. That likely means they have to write off some seats in the SW, but it'll help them in remainy Tory-Lib Dem marginals, and they could even possibly win back some of the urban progressive vote from Labour, if hardcore remainers get frustrated by Labour's unwillingness to campaign to rejoin the EU.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Me too. My feelings towards IHT are akin to true love. Love at first sight too, since when I first discovered it at age 12 I was smitten immediately. Been that way ever since. It's an absolute fiscal star.
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
Problem is trusts. For example, a trust is set up that can pay school fees for children. That’s not income for the parent or the child.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Hancock is, no doubt, doing his best. What the government needs is a wartime-era Minister of Production who can coordinate manufacture and supply of the tools needed on the front lines. Someone who can ask what the clinicians (and everyone) need; ask where to buy it; then negotiate with those suppliers or find alternatives, even if that means buying IP.
Who would that be though? The senior members of the cabinet were selected solely by the intensity with they could pretend to think Brexit was a good idea.
Well, yes. Boris has spoken in the past of recruiting "stooges" and #ClassicDom openly holds politicians in contempt. But in this case, the job is not particularly difficult: it is about organisation and negotiation, not advanced molecular biology. There must be several Conservatives with some sort of background in production.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Comments
True, he is a Tory though.
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
I think a way will have to be found, all that said, to tap in to some of that cash, given the amount of debt the country will have, but as ever you’ve got to pluck the feathers without the goose getting narked about it. Tough task.
And thank you for a great contribution.
You say that like it is bad thing...
1) The state stealing money off dying people is pretty mean.
2) The state telling dying people they cannot help their children - same issue.
3) It is not an inheritance tax, it is a death tax. Taxing it as income would be fairer.
He said it was a previous resource. Is that not true? It would be great if there was an unlimited supply of everything. There isn’t. So we need to decide when best to use it.
That’s a statement of fact, not blaming.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1249253335330414592?s=21
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
He`s being treated unfairly - predicably - by having his words twisted to enhance a particular narrative.
Aye, sad that the Liberals have lost to the SDP.
But the other problem is it so often requires the precipitate sale of the family house to pay for it, which is always deeply unpopular.
Actually three:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceredigion_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_North_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southport_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
The arguments both for and against IHT are very well-rehearsed. Personally, I am on the side that regards hacking a slice off an estate (not taking the whole lot, by the way) after the owners are safely dead and can no longer enjoy it, as one of the most harmless forms of taxation.
If you are going to describe taxation as an act of theft perpetrated by the state, rather than a scheme of necessary, if perhaps regrettable, payments which are needed to keep society functioning for the mutual benefit of everybody, then surely if some of the money is stolen from corpses who can't use it (so that less is stolen from living people who can) then this can only be a good thing?
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Sure they won a bunch of seats and some individuals had remunerative careers.
But they achieved nothing and did not advance their cause or strategic position
However I would abolish it. The fact is that people - including those who will never have to pay it - hate this tax with a passion and because the objection is visceral not rational, they cannot be reasoned with. It's a lost cause.
So, abolish it. Do not tax estates. Instead tax the beneficiaries. Tax as income in the normal way that income is taxed. What you pay depends on how much you are left by your benefactor and what your overall financial position is. A person of modest means who is left a modest amount will pay little or nothing in tax. A person of affluence who receives a large sum on top of that affluence will pay quite a lot.
I want to see this in Labour's next manifesto.
You can state in a few words the raison d'etre of the SNP, PC, the Brexit Party, the CPGB, SWP and the other outfits that are not going to run the UK. But I have no idea how to state in a few words the USP of the LDs. In fact it is easier to do so for the Tories and Labour.
They should find one, tell us what it is, and then decide whether to be a party campaigning as if they are serious about power or stop being a party and become a campaign/policy wonk/pressure group.
There is an empty space in politics for old fashioned freedom of thought liberalism.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
It's also an emotional thing, people work their whole lives so they can give something to their children, it's visceral human nature. Telling them that they have to give half of it away when they die just doesn't seem reasonable, when they've already paid a huge amount of tax during their lifetimes.
(Oh, and I wasn't in the walking club, the only walking I ever did was from across campus to the Union bar, or on RAG trips.)
The implicit, and occasionally explicit pledge of the election was redistribution of wealth. Away from London and the South East and to the struggling Brexity cities and towns of the North and to the younger generations. I thought it cant at the time, but we will see soon if the Tories actually meant it, or whether they will just shaft their new voters while doing a bit of flag waving.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
And if immunity doesn't last very long we can carry on killing a few more hundred thousand every year.
But it will be well worth it to maintain the standard of living of the survivors!
And he was right. Whether the coalition detoxified the Tories to the extent their former voters felt comfortable voting for them again, or simply by giving them the lead in taking power made people realise how irrelevant third parties really are in our system, or some mixture of the two, the vital story of 2015 was the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote and the consequent shift of almost half their seats to the Conservatives (27, compared with 12 to Labour and 10 to the SNP).
https://twitter.com/JamesGleick/status/1249161804527415297
One thing a developer is very good at is identifying the loopholes in the law
Not that I went on many walks.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
The vision for the welfare state etc was created in some of the dark days of WW2, so I think that this may well be the point where change and a new direction could be defined.
On topic, as others have pointed out, the LibDems were not doing badly in the polls in the summer and autumn of last year. But Swinson's revoke policy, and her idiotic decision to back a general election which was obviously more likely to result in a Parliament that would get Brexit done than the previous mess, doomed them to a very disappointing result.
Going forward, and looking beyond the judgement of an individual leader, their fortunes will I think be determined by what happens to the Conservatives. Even more than Labour, they have to hope the government screws up somehow.
None of the other three strategies seem hopeful:
- They won't break through against Labour - even under Corbyn, they couldn't.
- Trying to win target constituencies one by one is a grind, much more suited to council elections than general elections, when the media's attention and that of most voters is focused on national issues
- As for finding a single issue to develop a unique approach to, I doubt they will ever have a more promising on than Brexit and that didn't work. If they develop a popular position on a major issue, one of the other parties are likely to nick it.
The only time they have achieved major gains in the last two decades has been when the Conservatives were at the bottom of their unpopularity in the last few years of the last century. They have to hope that history repeats itself. Of course, the danger then is that when the Conservatives recover, they will lose those seats.
But the road for a third national party in a FPTP electoral system will always be hard.
It is completely and utterly discredited.
The Gogglebox verdict On Swinson was she looked like the kind of person who would force you to dance at a party no matter how much you said you didn’t want to
surely....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
This period only has c.650 deaths attributable to Covid 19, so clearly the blue line will trend upwards as subsequent data is released. What will be interesting is the difference versus the average of the previous period, which is rising more sharply than the 650 deaths attributed to Covid 19. Clearly there is some natural variance (see the first few weeks), so we'll see whether this balances out over time or forms a trend:
There is a good number of people in this country who won’t vote Labour because, whatever Keir does, there will always be a RLB tendency in some position of power to terrify people.
These people are not cultists, though, and decidedly uninterested in cultist totems (revoke), wannabe cult leaders (Swinson), or lost causes (EU re-entry).
There is a niche for LIBERAL politicians who believe some or more of the following:
- Our democracy is imperfect
- Our judicial system discriminates against those without time, money or existing power.
- The country is grotesquely over-centralised
- Digital monopolies are out of control
- Society is now engineered to discriminate against working people and young people especially.
- Green technologies will power the next industrial revolution...but windmills can be an eyesore.
- The UK’s obsession with housing has perverted the economy
etc
If the Lib Dems can become the party for digital geeks, mums from St Albans, national park conservers, and Cornish nationalists — then they can recover.
If they become the party of EU die-hards, trans rights campaigners, angry Guardian columnists, and “fiscal conservatives” - then they will fail.
Oh and most taxation is theft. legal and (probably) necessary theft, but I would rather we were all honest about it. It would be possible to move some state income to various forms of society membership fee, but (cough) poll-tax...
However there's a world of politics beyond that and I think there should be a place for smaller parties who don't need to keep as tight a rein on their MPs as aspiring parties of government need to do. There are select committees that need committed members, wiredos and the desperate to champion, single issues to persue, private bills to champion etc etc. Of course there are many Labour and Conservative MPs who do that but often they have more calls on their time.
I rather miss the days when some strange eccentric got elected as a Liberal or Lib Dem and then was suddenly given a national platform to bang on about their own obsessions. It occasionally went badly wrong (see Smith and Freud) but sometimes it allows something important to be aired.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
£370m to an unlimited size
https://www.ft.com/content/664c575b-0f54-44e5-ab78-2fd30ef213cb
What that means is that the government is literally creating money. That’s not real debt.
When the SDP come along I initially welcomed it, especially because of their pro-Europe attitude, and the influence of Roy Jenkins, although I did have some sneaking sympathy with Cyril Smith's view...... it should have been strangled at birth. In the constituency where I lived, worked and had been a prominent member of the Liberal Party we were more or less told that this was SDP territory now and they would run the show.
So I started switching my vote back, at least sometimes, and was rewarded in 1997 when Labour won the seat. Admittedly I was encouraged to vote Labour then by what I saw as a need to defeat a particularly odious Conservative MP.
The I moved and old loyalties weren't as strong, although I still called myself a LibDem. Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell deserved, I felt, support
However reflection on Clegg and the Coalition years have really pushed me back to Labour. I recall arguing on here that the Coalition should have ended well before the election, to ensure a difference in the public mind; it didn't and the LD's were crushed by a particularly vicious and targeted campaign by the Tories.
I remember thinking after the election that it was a pity Clegg kept his seat; poor Farron had the ghost of Christmas past sitting beside him. And when there was a bit of a recovery Cable's ship had clearly sailed, Jo Swinson was out of her depth and there doesn't seem a good reason now for voting LD.
To date Starmer and his team look like hope for the country.
The gargantuan economic hit for Coronavirus. There will be nothing else. He will still be explaining to the electorate when we go to the polls in 2025.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
My income's certainly at the lower end (arguably the lowest) of regular PBers, but I do have some small savings.
The idea I should pay more for being responsible with my money does not sit well with me.
There's a bigger problem for those who like the idea of taxing assets rather than income. Assets can be moved, generally. But even more important than that is that income happens year after year, so you can use it to fund annual expenditure. Assets can rise and fall. Taxation, of course, encourages them to fall. So if you shift to an asset model (which is quite medieval) then what do you do if people start spending even more and saving even less?
Your tax brings in less money.
And people are less secure even than they are today, because fewer have savings, and those who do have less savings.
He also has some fascinating data on how deaths from respiratory diseases are lower in 2020 than in many previous years.
This is hard data - not predictions
Blows up my claim to always read all of the GE manifestos before voting Labour.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
--AS
You are stopping me from retreating to my sunny garden.
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
Of the top 20 LD target seats most are in wealthy Tory London or Southern Remain voting seats like Winchester, Wimbledon, Esher and Walton, Hitchen and Harpenden, Wokingham, Cheltenham, Cities of London and Westminster, Finchley and Golders Green, Lewes etc.
The best message the LDs can have to win them then is one combining fiscal conservatism and opposition to hard Brexit and on that basis Ed Davey is the best choice and so should move from interim to permanent LD leader.
If the Tories lose their majority at the next general election and there is a hung parliament with the LDs jolding the balance of power they could then pitch themselves as a moderating influence on a Starmer led Government
Slightly archaic procedures dont make a parliament unfit for purpose. It taking 15 minutes to do a vote is an example of something which could be easily sped up, although I dont know what harm is caused by it (once eventually social distancing is done). But many other suggestions just dont like the way things are done and act like any modernisation is an improvement, hence a phrase like 'bringing it into the 21st century' which presumes a change is automatically preferred.
It can change its operations. There are areas it should and areas it could. But its history and traditions are important symbols and if where they do no harm they can remain as idiosyncrasies of our system.
‘We always had a lot of swords on the table in the Sudan. We always gave those [REDACTED] a fair trial before we shot them.’
NB if this switch were made now I would have been clobbered both on the way up and on the way down, but that’s life. It would be a lot fairer and give a lot more people an equal chance in life.
Whether you think going fanatically Remain was a good idea or not, Lib Dems have made their bed when it comes to Brexit and need to lie in it. Everyone knows they think Brexit is a catastrophic mistake which should be reversed ASAP, and any attempt at now pretending otherwise will simply not be believed. So, I think they need to be honest, and campaign for Britain to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity. That likely means they have to write off some seats in the SW, but it'll help them in remainy Tory-Lib Dem marginals, and they could even possibly win back some of the urban progressive vote from Labour, if hardcore remainers get frustrated by Labour's unwillingness to campaign to rejoin the EU.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.