Plans for tax breaks for married couples are in the news again as the latest Conservative push for votes. The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, has decried this proposal as 'Edwardian' and rightly so. As a married man with small children I would - like everyone else in my situation - welcome any tax cut but I can also recognise that we are not living in the world of Dixon of Dock Green with old ladies cycling to church and cricket on the green, as a Tory leader of yore famously put it. The simple truth is that society is - and has always been - a bit more complex than some parties would like to make out.
Where is the tax break for the widower bringing up children on his own? Where is the tax break for the woman who has escaped an abusive relationship to protect herself and her family? Where is the tax break for the cohabiting couple which has decided to adopt? Where is the tax break for the grandparents who have taken on parenting responsibilities to help out their children? Where is the tax break for the two loving parents who want to do the best for their children but whose marriage has ended through nobody's fault?
As ever, Conservative proposals throw up more questions than answers. Policies designed to win votes have not been thought through in terms of our wider society and the next five, ten or twenty years.
Why not simply provide a tax break to every person on an average income who is working? Why not raise the tax threshold - the level of earnings at which we start paying taxes - to £10,000, improving the lives of most people in work and in particular those on lower incomes, some of whom will stop paying taxes altogether, allowing them to invest their own money in their families instead of getting costly and bureaucratic handouts from the state.
If you think that's a good idea, have a look at www.libdems.org.uk, because we're the only party promising to make taxes fairer from April 2011 - in other words legislating for such a change this year. And the proposal is fully costed by our Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable so it is affordable now, not at some indeterminate date.
If you want real change, vote for it on May 6th.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Saturday, 10 April 2010
DON'T THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ANY NEW IDEAS
I was amused to hear the other day that, after 60 years of trying, the best idea the Conservatives have for dealing with young people is 'national service'. Now this idea is not necessarily without merit and could be developed but it is hardly new and coming from the Conservatives it does rather smack of desperation - after all, the notion could have come from any Tory leader from about 1930 onwards. Coming from a supposedly progressive leader who supposedly represents change, it seems simply mistaken.
Like Conservative economic plans for uncosted 'efficiencies' to tackle the gaping deficit, their proposal to introduce national service for young people relies on rather too many 'if's, such as if voluntary organisations will be willing to join such a scheme, if there will be appropriate funding for such a scheme and if young people will be persuaded that it is in their interests to participate.
Instead of exhuming 'national service' for an easy headline, what about improving opportunities for all young people through free university education? What about properly funding paid internships with employers? What about ensuring that no young person claims Jobseeker's Allowance for more than three months without a right of access to training, apprenticeships, work experience or specialist advice? What about making the minimum wage - which the Tories opposed - the same for everyone, so that young people can afford to work for a living?
In another example of our Conservative opposition borrowing ideas, I was flattered to be told by a resident in Thame that my photo (see left) in front of the bridge at Henley clearly inspired the Conservative leader, who decided he would copy it for his election campaign launch opposite Parliament. Praise indeed!
Like Conservative economic plans for uncosted 'efficiencies' to tackle the gaping deficit, their proposal to introduce national service for young people relies on rather too many 'if's, such as if voluntary organisations will be willing to join such a scheme, if there will be appropriate funding for such a scheme and if young people will be persuaded that it is in their interests to participate.
Instead of exhuming 'national service' for an easy headline, what about improving opportunities for all young people through free university education? What about properly funding paid internships with employers? What about ensuring that no young person claims Jobseeker's Allowance for more than three months without a right of access to training, apprenticeships, work experience or specialist advice? What about making the minimum wage - which the Tories opposed - the same for everyone, so that young people can afford to work for a living?
In another example of our Conservative opposition borrowing ideas, I was flattered to be told by a resident in Thame that my photo (see left) in front of the bridge at Henley clearly inspired the Conservative leader, who decided he would copy it for his election campaign launch opposite Parliament. Praise indeed!
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
I WANT REAL CHANGE FOR HENLEY, NOT JUST SPIN
At last the election has been called and pretty much everyone welcomes the chance to finally deliver a verdict on the tired Labour government. Perhaps the only group nervous about the coming campaign is the Conservative Party, which has slipped badly in recent months and which has found itself on the back foot as the lack of anything to say has been exposed under media scrutiny. David Cameron wants people to vote Tory because they aren't Labour but that's just not enough.
So, in the spirit I intend to hold to during this campaign I want to set out simply why a vote for the Lib Dems is not only the right thing to do but is the only choice if you want real change, not just a change of image promised by David Cameron.
The Lib Dems propose four steps to a fairer Britain:
1. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket
* The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
* 3.6 million low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
* Paid for in full by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters
2. A fair future creating jobs by making Britain greener
* Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
* Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
* Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure
3. A fair chance for every child
* Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
* Made possible by investing £2.5 billion in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
* Give schools the freedom to make the right choices for their pupils
4. A fair deal by cleaning up politics
* Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
* Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
* Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes
There is no question that Labour have run out of steam and that the Conservatives represent 'more of the same'. If you want real change, vote for it.
I hope you will consider voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th and I am proud to represent the Lib Dems in Henley constituency.
So, in the spirit I intend to hold to during this campaign I want to set out simply why a vote for the Lib Dems is not only the right thing to do but is the only choice if you want real change, not just a change of image promised by David Cameron.
The Lib Dems propose four steps to a fairer Britain:
1. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket
* The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
* 3.6 million low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
* Paid for in full by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters
2. A fair future creating jobs by making Britain greener
* Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
* Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
* Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure
3. A fair chance for every child
* Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
* Made possible by investing £2.5 billion in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
* Give schools the freedom to make the right choices for their pupils
4. A fair deal by cleaning up politics
* Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
* Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
* Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes
There is no question that Labour have run out of steam and that the Conservatives represent 'more of the same'. If you want real change, vote for it.
I hope you will consider voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th and I am proud to represent the Lib Dems in Henley constituency.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
SUPPORT THE TORIES? ER, NO
A recent press release sent out in response to a bizarre invitation from local Conservatives to support them. I had difficulty writing this as I was shaking with laughter so much.
TORY EMPTY PROMISES FAIL TO TEMPT LIB DEMS
South East Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats have ridiculed overtures from local Conservatives to support them. Conservative claims to stand for Liberal Democrat principles are as empty as Tory policy pledges.
Responding for South East Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats, spokesman Andy Crick said: “I am gratified that local Conservatives are worried about the election – they should be. I am confident that Lib Dem voters know better than to trust Tory promises. David Cameron tried this ploy when he became Tory leader in 2005, it fell flat then and it has now.
“Why would Lib Dem supporters support a party which centralised most of our local services in the 1980s and which hobbled Councils with the hated Council Tax in the 1990s – a tax the Conservatives still support but which penalises pensioners and people on lower incomes disproportionately?
“Why would Lib Dem supporters vote for a party which has opposed measures such as the Human Rights Act and which voted enthusiastically for the war in Iraq, a war which has set millions of people around the world against our country, threatening our safety?
“Why would Lib Dem supporters who care about the environment vote for a Tory Party in which 9 out of 10 candidates don't even believe climate change is man made?
“I am confident that Liberal Democrats in Thame, Oxfordshire and across Britain will resoundingly reject the Tories who have failed to convince voters that they have changed at all and instead seem to be relying on 'not being Labour' to try to win the election. As the countdown to polling day continues, the Tories are increasingly exposed. They have nothing to offer people worried about our country, our economy and our environment. If residents want real change for Henley, Thame and South East Oxfordshire, I hope they will give their vote to the Liberal Democrats.”
*The Conservatives abolished metropolitan authorities and the Greater London Council in the 1980s. They reduced powers for local authorities, cut the amount of money Councils raised locally and introduced a range of new QUANGOs to run local services, taking decision-making away from local residents.
*The Conservatives introduced the Council Tax in England and Wales in 1992 (1991 in Scotland) to replace the disastrous Poll Tax. Council Tax was designed by Michael Heseltine as a stop-gap measure until a better system could be introduced. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have any plans to abolish Council Tax, which takes up a far higher proportion of the incomes of those on lower incomes. Liberal Democrats have called for a fair local tax based on the ability to pay.
*A Populus poll of Conservative MPs and PPCs in February 2010 found that 91% do not believe in man made climate change.
TORY EMPTY PROMISES FAIL TO TEMPT LIB DEMS
South East Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats have ridiculed overtures from local Conservatives to support them. Conservative claims to stand for Liberal Democrat principles are as empty as Tory policy pledges.
Responding for South East Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats, spokesman Andy Crick said: “I am gratified that local Conservatives are worried about the election – they should be. I am confident that Lib Dem voters know better than to trust Tory promises. David Cameron tried this ploy when he became Tory leader in 2005, it fell flat then and it has now.
“Why would Lib Dem supporters support a party which centralised most of our local services in the 1980s and which hobbled Councils with the hated Council Tax in the 1990s – a tax the Conservatives still support but which penalises pensioners and people on lower incomes disproportionately?
“Why would Lib Dem supporters vote for a party which has opposed measures such as the Human Rights Act and which voted enthusiastically for the war in Iraq, a war which has set millions of people around the world against our country, threatening our safety?
“Why would Lib Dem supporters who care about the environment vote for a Tory Party in which 9 out of 10 candidates don't even believe climate change is man made?
“I am confident that Liberal Democrats in Thame, Oxfordshire and across Britain will resoundingly reject the Tories who have failed to convince voters that they have changed at all and instead seem to be relying on 'not being Labour' to try to win the election. As the countdown to polling day continues, the Tories are increasingly exposed. They have nothing to offer people worried about our country, our economy and our environment. If residents want real change for Henley, Thame and South East Oxfordshire, I hope they will give their vote to the Liberal Democrats.”
*The Conservatives abolished metropolitan authorities and the Greater London Council in the 1980s. They reduced powers for local authorities, cut the amount of money Councils raised locally and introduced a range of new QUANGOs to run local services, taking decision-making away from local residents.
*The Conservatives introduced the Council Tax in England and Wales in 1992 (1991 in Scotland) to replace the disastrous Poll Tax. Council Tax was designed by Michael Heseltine as a stop-gap measure until a better system could be introduced. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have any plans to abolish Council Tax, which takes up a far higher proportion of the incomes of those on lower incomes. Liberal Democrats have called for a fair local tax based on the ability to pay.
*A Populus poll of Conservative MPs and PPCs in February 2010 found that 91% do not believe in man made climate change.
A VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH
News that science writer Simon Singh has had his appeal against a libel action brought against him is welcome if you support free speech. Mr Singh criticised the claims of some chiropractors about the range of problems their treatments can help and he was subsequently sued for his comments by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). Today's Appeal Court ruling found that the comments of Mr Singh were 'opinion' rather than 'facts' so the claim of libel was not correct.
I have used a chiropractor in the past and I am very happy with the treatment I received so I would not seek to damn a whole group of health practitioners. The fault here lies with the BCA and the judge, Mr Justice Eady, who ruled on the original claim against Mr Singh.
Today's ruling is quite simply a defence of free speech and the right to question, criticise and condemn. This is a cornerstone of a free society and the original decision was an assault by an over-mighty legal system against such freedoms. The worry with all such libel cases is that individuals and journalists will be increasingly silenced in the face of threatened actions by organisations with deeper pockets. Mr Singh was lucky to be a high profile case who received a lot of support from a number of groups and people in the science community (apologies to any Private Eye readers for this phrase) but others might not be able to call on such support.
The law must defend citizens, otherwise it is not fit for purpose. It has succeeded today in righting a wrong but a question may be asked about how many other cases of free speech being threatened have not been so successfully resolved.
I have used a chiropractor in the past and I am very happy with the treatment I received so I would not seek to damn a whole group of health practitioners. The fault here lies with the BCA and the judge, Mr Justice Eady, who ruled on the original claim against Mr Singh.
Today's ruling is quite simply a defence of free speech and the right to question, criticise and condemn. This is a cornerstone of a free society and the original decision was an assault by an over-mighty legal system against such freedoms. The worry with all such libel cases is that individuals and journalists will be increasingly silenced in the face of threatened actions by organisations with deeper pockets. Mr Singh was lucky to be a high profile case who received a lot of support from a number of groups and people in the science community (apologies to any Private Eye readers for this phrase) but others might not be able to call on such support.
The law must defend citizens, otherwise it is not fit for purpose. It has succeeded today in righting a wrong but a question may be asked about how many other cases of free speech being threatened have not been so successfully resolved.
ENDORSEMENT FOR THE LDS FROM THE USA
There is a striking piece on the BBC news website in which former US Presidential candidate Howard Dean says he believes that Nick Clegg could win the election on May 6th. Well, that's pretty much why I'm doing what I am doing so it is wonderful to hear such an endorsement from someone with a good political pedigree who is outside of the debate. Dean compliments Clegg as a 'young, dynamic leader' and says he believes that there is such uncertainty that the LDs could come out on top at the election, especially if Clegg is boosted by the televised leaders' debates. For this reason I expect the love-in from David Cameron and Gordon Brown to abruptly come to a halt during these contests as they turn their fire on the candidate with the most to gain and the best policies by far.
This endorsement from Howard Dean echoes the simple, undeniable fact that the LDs got more votes than Labour at last year's Council elections and that 1 in 4 voters support us. If we can increase that number to 1 in 3 we're on the way. Plus, the poll rating for the two old parties has see-sawed for months but ours has been a pretty constant 17-20%.
Things are looking good for us. As Dean says: "I know the Liberals, I know Nick Clegg very well, and he intends to win this and I think they could."
This endorsement from Howard Dean echoes the simple, undeniable fact that the LDs got more votes than Labour at last year's Council elections and that 1 in 4 voters support us. If we can increase that number to 1 in 3 we're on the way. Plus, the poll rating for the two old parties has see-sawed for months but ours has been a pretty constant 17-20%.
Things are looking good for us. As Dean says: "I know the Liberals, I know Nick Clegg very well, and he intends to win this and I think they could."
CAMERON DOES WELL ON NI PROPOSALS - BUT WHERE WAS OSBORNE?
There was a good interview on the Today programme this morning in which Conservative leader David Cameron gave as good as he got on the issue of budget cuts and the National Insurance proposals from the Tories. This was one of those interviews which was well balanced and Sarah Montague is to be congratulated for addressing Mr Cameron's responses rather than simply continuing with pre-prepared and lengthy arguments which some of her colleagues tend to resort to.
Two points struck me about this interview. First, Cameron's quote from last year, read back to him, that 'efficiencies' were not a serious proposal for anyone considering savings was quite simply unanswerable. Mr Cameron did well but he was forced to defend a 180 degree handbrake turn, which is never easy.
The second, damning point was that it was David Cameron defending Tory budget plans, not the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. Why could this be?
Two points struck me about this interview. First, Cameron's quote from last year, read back to him, that 'efficiencies' were not a serious proposal for anyone considering savings was quite simply unanswerable. Mr Cameron did well but he was forced to defend a 180 degree handbrake turn, which is never easy.
The second, damning point was that it was David Cameron defending Tory budget plans, not the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. Why could this be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)