Instead Labour just impose more and more stealth taxes, ‘green’ taxes and of course fines, and new offences to fine people more.

The wish to cut taxes was foremost of the Conservative Party’s views in 1979-1997, and the Labour Party’s success in 1997 was down to them establishing at least a wish to cut taxes. No major political party, apart from the Liberal Democrats at the time of “1p more income tax for education” has been explicitly in favour of higher taxation.

Neither is there any major organ of the press which is explicitly in favour of higher taxation. The Guardian runs commentary that way sometimes, but it is beaten by the many who always run commentary strongly the other way.

The idea that British politics is dominated by politicians and commentators whose main line is “higher tax please” is, I think, rather silly. It is obviously not so.

That tax turns out to be harder to push down than they suppose is another issue. To be sure, look at all those newspapers who push the lower tax idea in their commentary, and then run loads of “why oh why don’t they do something?” articles elsewhere, to which the answer is “because it costs tax money”. But newspapers don’t have to balance the books, elected politicians do.

Its no secret Mark wants to turn the Lib Dems into a the Pro European Tories rather then a true libweral party thankfully here are others other then myself who can suss out his spin from a distance.

B****cks has politics been dominated by people that want to cut taxes! Is that why total taxation in the UK comes to close to half of GDP? If politics was domainated by people that wanted to cut tax then we wouldn’t be paying that much tax would we?

It’s not a bad thing for some people to be richer than others. It’s good. Some people will always be more successful than others – we don’t all have equal abilities in everything. And if someone is rich then they can do one of two things with their money:

1. Spend it
Spending money keeps the economy rolling, and naturally redistributes wealth. Rich person buys a nice new expensive car, keeping the car manufacturer in business, the employees in work and benefits the 1000s of suppliers that the manufacturer uses.

2. Save it
Rich person puts lots of money in bank. Bank lends lots of money to businesses to invest/expand (= more jobs) and to individuals to improve their quality of life in some way (whether it’s to buy a house, car or a stack of porn).

These are the market’s ways of redistributing wealth, and when the government interfered by taxing ‘bad people’ then it helps no one other than the fake charities, quangos and companies like Capita.

When you increase tax on the rich, then guess what they do – they move! Prime example: Tony Blair – I wouldn’t bet on him being in the UK for more than 90 days a year while the tax rate is at 50%.

Whether this does anything to undermine my arguments int he actual articel is doubtful though!

Well, I have written elsewhere on what I think our party should be doing to rise to what people want from politics and to gain the support it should be gaining now we have seen that much of what we have been told by leading politicians first in the Tories since 1979 and them from Labour since 1997 is lies and rubbish.

But since my point is that our politics has been over-dominated by the rich, and that the sort of “cut taxes and we’ll all prosper” or “city financiers are geniuses who are making money for us all” lines have proved wrong, it is somewhat harder for me, or people who think like me, to get easy openings into the press than people like you and your group.

Yeah, people that are more to the right are willing to put their own money into cause that they agree with, whereas those on the left want to use other people’s money to achieve their aims.

Well, people who have a lot of money have more of it to be able to push their own viewpoints. That’s what I am saying, am I wrong there?

My point, therefore, is that they are likely to pick and promote as commentators people who agree with them. So this is somewhat going to skew politial discourse, isn’t it?

Where am I wrong here in what I am saying?

Does this have any bearing on why it seems that Matk Littlewood and people who share his aims for Liberal Democrats seem to find it very much easier to get a public platform than people who don’t have that sort of viewpoint?

Our call for UK’s military to be properly equipped should also appeal to the same constituency (as well as being right!).