I have blogged some of the main points at Next Left
http://www.nextleft.org/2010/03/why-libdem-tax-threshold-plan-would.html

I don’t really understand the idea that this sort of policy scrutiny is illegitimate, and the charge of partisan shilling doesn’t stand up. We often made common cause with the LibDems over the 50p top rate when that was their policy, which the Fabian tax commission had advocated too. We mobilised a broad coalition of civic voices to defend inheritance tax, criticising the government as wellas the opposition on that issue, when publishing Stuart White’s pamphlet and holding events on this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/15/tax

We also had some success there, getting a threshold freeze accepted
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/12/iht-freeze-was-it-newsnight-wot-won-it.html

So I think we can show that we have consistently advocated progressive tax changes and opposed regressive tax changes, whoever is making them. I think there are many things to admire about the LibDems, but this policy spends £17 billion in a way that increases inequality and relative poverty, so people interested in fairness in the tax system might want to think about whether it is the best way to achieve it.

But the tax analysis is serious. Its a 30 page report modelling the tax proposal’s distributional impact: its co-authored by our research director Tim Horton and Howard Reed, who used to run the IFS tax models and developed the ippr’s simulations. I don’t think the facts are challengeable, and the analysis is not shrill. It praises the pupil premium too, and the higher taxes at the top.

I am sure LibDems with expertise in the area – most obviously Steve Webb – would agree with it. David Willetts has made similar points in the past when Lord Saatchi was proposing tax thresholds.

I frequently praise the LibDems (electoral reform, civil liberties) when they lead progressive arguments, and challenge them (child trust fund) when we feel they don’t. This sort of policy scrutiny is very valid and legitimate – and in my view can only help to inform policy and political debate.

Similarly with Labour: we were pretty vocal on an Iraq inquiry, for example. And we have frequently offered detailed tax analysis and critiiques of Labour too, as well as on child poverty, inequality, etc

This was some pre-2005 advocacy challenging Blair’s flagship tax pledge. If they’d listened and left it out of the manifesto, they wouldn’t have had to break a promise
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-grice/the-week-in-politics-tax-the-threeletter-word-labour-dare-not-speak-558014.html

I’ll look at LFF tomorrow, but if you’ve somehow managed to show that taking large numbers of people on the minimum wage completely out of the tax system somehow makes them worse off, I’m very interested; I know you can prove anything with statistics, especially if there’s a partisan point to be made, but living as I am below the official poverty line currently, it’ll make my family a lot better off.

I a) haven’t been able to read the Speccy and b) am unable to contact people in Clegg’s office as they’re at Conference and I’m not (for financial reasons, shame, I’ve got stuff to vote on while there), so my response is delayed.

When he told me when I interviewed him that there were some people (naming two Guardian journalists specifically) who would never be happy regardless of what he did, I thought it was hyperbole. Looks like he was right.

And the Lib Dems who’ve refused to contribute to my proposed article as Labour partisans would twist everything, especially those who’ve carfeully built up a rep for fairmindedness, may actually have a point.

Do you really mean to come off as a partisan attack shill? It’s something of a volte face from your usual demeanor.

“They have four conditions from which they will not deviate: a pupil premium for poor children; a pledge to raise the personal tax threshold to £10,000; reform of the City; and reform of the political system.

But are they chimeric and difficult to pin down, with different slants put on policies for different political audiences? In an interview with the Spectator Clegg says their tax allowance rise is something Nigel Lawson could be proud of, while in this interview he spent 13 minutes arguing vociferously against research by the Fabian society that shows this policy to be regressive“.

If you want to know why he’s wrong about that …. Left Foot Forward will publish our detailed analysis of the tax threshold plans overnight.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/

Current debates and legislation surrounding the digital world and copyright are totally dismal. Rights holders cannot, within themselves, come up with a coherent strategy on how to protect intellectual property creators. That’s before you consider acceptability of such a strategy by ISPs (the digital postal workers) or consumers.

So when Parliament gets it wrong, blame the people (experts, blah!) who should be framing the argument. On this occasion, I do not think that LibDem peers Razzall and Clement-Jones got it wrong. I think that they were playing with the bill for their own reasons.

Yeah, but how many Lib Dem MPs are there? 63? Because there are so few of them, it makes much more of a difference when say 20% of them decide not to turn up. There’s no escaping that they really dropped the ball on this one. Saying Labour and the Tories messed up is no excuse: no one expects anything of them anyway.

Apologies for the slow response, Mat. I think that Clegg got thoroughly mugged by the Spectator, expecting the interview reporting to be more respectful when he went off official message. Perhaps it would have been better if he had learned the lesson earlier in his leadership.

Even though we live in unusual times (again), Clegg is the first LibDem or Liberal leader in my lifetime who has shown serious interest or understanding of economics. So there are going to be occasions when the leader, Vince Cable and official party policy differ. More lessons need to be learned at Cowley Street about how to patch up differences and to explain that principles are more significant than detail. Circumstances change so often that detailed hypothetical policies are meaningless.

Eww, I can’t believe I just compared Thatch with the Velvets…gonna listen to Sister Ray for half an hour now.

It’s also a bit rich to blame the woes of the climate change bill on the Lib Dems when they turned out in the same kind of proportion of their total party as both Labour and Tories. 20% of Tory MPs didn’t turn up that also could have won the vote, how about 8 of the 50 or so Labour MPs that didn’t turn up?

All parties failed to pass the bill, it’s ridiculous to single out a single party, especially one of the parties that actually did stand up for it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/take-thats-mark-owen-reveals-battle-with-the-bottle-1920411.html

While various parts of the Thatcherite revolution had theoretical merit (as Clegg recognised in the interview which we should really be talking about) the whole, taken as a whole, can now be assessed historically. The main result of her Premiership is that the newly arrived middle classes from the Baby Boomer generation were persuaded to pull up the ladder behind them.

Every cohort born since 1970 (which includes me) has had less chance of upward mobility, let alone each generation. The last generation of people who had a realistic chance of dying wealthier and better-educated than their parents were born before the Beatles split up.

“The chances of a child from a poor family enjoying higher wages and better education than their parents is lower in Britain than in other western countries, the OECD says”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

A summary of the OECD’s recommended policy reforms for the UK is here:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/36/44652687.pdf

The Thatcher comments are mainly fluff and symbolic positioning, whether sensible or not.

To me, it looks more like a debating tactic. You’re giving an interview with the Speccie, and the Speccie worships Thatcher. They’re also somewhat pro-Cameron. So what do you do? Pointing out that if one accepts Thatcher’s reforms as being a good thing, one has to question why Cameron does not show similar reforming zeal with regards to the banking sector (which could be claimed to be a much bigger problem for Britain in 2010 than the mining sector was in the 1980s). I don’t think that this equates to ‘praising Thatcher’.

Come on, we get debates like this all the time on blogs: “If you think X is such a good idea, why aren’t you in favour of Y?” is a fairly common rhetorical question to ask, and does not imply that the person asking it is in favour of X themselves.

“A female pornographic film director has been selected as the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Gravesham, Kent, it has been announced.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8563214.stm

Thanks. Interested in any clarification you get. This was why I made the comparison with ‘savage cuts’ I also think its new, and my reading is that it is leadership kite-flying.

My guess/prediction is we will see both some challenge and some (perhaps limited) softening of this along with a shift in that direction: it is an important substantive policy debate (in a way that the Thatcher language simply isn’t). That might look tricky for him if there is a reaction, but this preference for a lower ‘tax burden’ is something I think he does want to drive within the party.

My personal guess we may hear Cable say not entirely ruling out backing tax increases in all circumstances – but strong balance of preference against them where spending cuts can be identified. Clegg will use language about hitting the limits of taxation; wants party to be party of lower taxes, tax freedom and smaller but smarter/fairer state, there is waste there(but perhaps tempered with a wait to see the books, difficult circumstances, etc).