Tuesday, March 01, 2005
LibDem Tax & Spend
The IFS has done a very good analysis of the LibDem Spending Plans announced yesterday. CLICK HERE to have a look at it. I understand Vincent Cable was demolished by Paxman last night. They are obviously going after the Old Labour 'tax and spend' vote. Can't see how it will appeal to many natural Copnservatives. I keep being told by people in North Norfolk that they feel the LibDems are getting a bit left-wing, although it has to be said it didn't stop the good people of Horning voting for them last week, bless 'em!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Iain - yes it is an interesting analysis which confirms Lib Dem claims that the tax burden would shift under their proposals from the least well off to the best off, and that only the top 1% of eaners would be affected by their new top rate income tax.
Interestingly it doesn't list anywhere near the 40 'new taxes' you claim on your website but have so far been unable to justify.
Perhaps you could answer the specific points raised in the earlier thread.
You don't give up do you? As you well know, the 40 taxes are listed on a document I mentioned in a previous reply. You don't like it so you keep on and on and on. I never said the IFS document listed the 40 taxes so please don't imply I did. If the LibDems wish to appeal to the Old Labour Tax & Spend vote that's up to them. Don't think it will get them very far in North Norfolk, which is presumably why you are so anxious to rubbish these claims.
I can see this helping the Tories at the election nationally, but not benefit you in North Norfolk. There is a small minority of "bleed the rich dry" voters who are currently disillusioned with Labour's moderate fiscal policy, if the Lib Dems can take those voters away from Labour, that will give the Tories a great change at winning the suburban seats. I don't think it will harm the Lib Dems because no-one sees them as a realistic government anyway.
I'm confused. I thought that the whole point of the Lib Dem tax plans was that they weren't raising revenue from taxation, merely shifting the burden from the have-nots to the have-a-lots. My interpretation of the IFS analysis (but I am not an economist I must confess) was that the Lib Dem policy of having good reserves had been vindicated and buffered their spending plans against the downturn in potential tax revenue.
I also thought that the Lib Dems were planning to spend less than the Tories - on the basis that many of the savings identified in the James report were bogus and therefore there was less money to spend than the Tories claimed.
Your comments about the "good people" of Horning, "bless 'em" are patronising. Just because they didn't vote for you doesn't make them stupid.
Metaphorically patting people on the head in that way isn't a vote winner...
Keith
Keith, no reasonable person could possibly have implied from that comment that I was calling the people of Horning stupid. I'm sorry you have chosen to deliberately misrepresent the point I was making. Not that you are the first on this Blog to do so - and I suspect you won't be the last!
Dear Iain
Any reason why you responded to Keith and not to my comments about Lib Dem tax proposals?
Is it because I'm right...? We'll make a nice reasonable Liberal of you yet. You might even enjoy it!
Anonymous
Anonymous, apologies. Didn't mean to ignore you. I believe you are wrong in your interpretation. Yes, some people will gain but many will lose, including many people who you could not describe as well off. Did you see The Politics Show oN Sunday when they had people typing into the LibDem website what they would be paying under a LIT. They were horrified, and these were not people who were rich.
I don't follow your logic on the James report. Even the LibDems agree there is a lot of waste in Government. Inded, Charles Kennedy said so today when asked by Balir where the £5 billion was coming from to pay for one of their spending commitments.
Now, prepare yourself for a shock. I was a member of the Liberals once. indeed, I still regard myself as an old-fashioned liberal of the Gladstonian ilk. Today's Liberals are anything but. Although the authors of The Orange Book have some interesting ideas.
Iain, no, I don't give up.
My understanding about politicians blogging is that a blog gives the politician a chance to put their case, and others the chance to argue with them, challenge etc.
I think this is a good thing.
I have attempted to challenge you over your claim that the Lib Dems plan 40 'new taxes' which you base on the Tory Party document you have a link for on your site.
I have challenged you to explain how, for example, two of these 40 relate to changes in the Council Tax which the Lib Dems plan to abolish. Lib Dem policy is to replce Council Tax with Local income Tax, yet according to the Tory document this counts as 'three new taxes'.
I am more than happy for you to argue the merits of the Tory proposals on the Council Tax with the Lib Dem policy of Local Income Tax. There are arguments both ways. I am disappointed that you seem happy to propogate a Tory Party document which is at best very inaccurate if not deliberatly misleading.
I assume you have looked at the document? If so - do you think each of the 40 examples stands up to scrutiny?
Post a Comment