So the LibDems can't jump up and down and stop a government proposal to access private emails? So much for their liberal instincts. Without such instincts being in play any vestige of pretence that they differ from the Tories has gone.
Surely they will suffer the biggest decline in the fortunes of a UK political party in proportionate terms recorded in modern times? That though will be no bad thing. Once the SDP tried to make the mould. The demise of their successors may just do that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The death of liberalism in its broadest sense is not something to be celebrated. The Tories and Labour have both advocated state surveillance on a breathtaking scale. Is it alarmist to say we are moving ever closer to a police state? It increasingly seems the only conclusion.
In the longer term when the consequences play out there may be a renaissance of liberal values in society but I think we may have to go through some very dark times before we get there.
I am most certainly not celebrating it
I consider myself a liberal on civil rights issues and share your concerns
It was a major point of disagreement with New Labour for me
They (the LibDems) won’t care, they’ll all be too rich (cash from grateful sponsors) to have to worry about it.
Britain desperately needs a space where other points of view can be inserted into the public discourse. Since the end of World War 2, the two major parties have colluded in setting the terms of debate.
It is unfortunately that only the electorates in Brighton and Oxford were sufficiently perceptive as not to reject the opportunity for change that was offered in last year’s referendum.
I despair.
The only policy the LibDems seem keen to talk about is the raising of the income tax threshold. They bang on about this helping the poorest in society. Why does the media not challenge them on this? My understanding; if you pay income tax then no matter what your wealth, millionaires included, you benefit from this new bar. If you still earn less that the threshold then you benefit proportionately less. Why then can the LibDems credibly claim this is a policy for the poor? Surely it is no more than a policy for people who actually pay income tax.
You are exactly right
@Rachel Walker
Some economists argue that the INCIDENCE of income tax is on the employer. From another perspective it forms part of the poverty trap. There can be no doubt that the shape of the income tax system has an effect on employment especially at the margin, since it affects the different between out-of-work benefits and gross labour costs to the employers.
The right use this as an argument for reducing benefit but unless you believe in driving people into penury that line will not run. On the other hand, an increase in income tax thresholds does reduce what in the 1980s was called the tax wedge. The argument that all taxpayers benefit from a higher threshold could be countered by an increase in the standard rate to compensate, and such a charge really would take the burden off the poorest.
As a general guide, income tax should not be payable by anyone earning the statutory minimum wage and working for 40 hours a week. That would be a reasonable rule of thumb. For the rest, the chancellor should decide how much is to be raised from income tax and set the rates accordingly.
ignoring the other factors, what you are saying, people at the low end choose work based on whether they are better off than on benefits. There are two ways for the Government to skew people towards work. Reduce benefits so that the same wage becomes more appealing. Reduce the tax threshold so, providing originally above the threshold, more money is kept from that same wage. Net impact on employer, nothing. Or is it better for the employer if no income tax it payable?
You mention that the higher threshold could have been countered by an increase on the standard and higher rates. This did not happen, instead the highest earners got a tax cut.
It remains that it feels disingenuous for the LibDems to claim this policy helps the poorest in society when they have made no ground up on anyone else’s income except highest standard rate payers who now have some earnings taxed at the higher rate. The 150+ still get this rise as well as their other tax cut.
To me, it’s a bit like constantly putting tax on petrol and diesel, on the face of it a good idea. Tax the car owners. But it doesn’t solve the problem. I still need to go to work, whether by car, bus or train, they all require fuel. I still need to eat and wear clothes and own things, and all these items still require transportation. People without cars end up paying just as much as everyone else.Â
I agree with your last paragraph, but this threshold rise in isolation is worth very little. The other end of pay gap needs to be addressed. If footballers’ wages keep going up, then turnstile prices have to keep going up to pay them. etc. etc.