Liberal Vision

Two nudges in the right direction

For me there have been two welcome and significant signals from the Liberal Democrat leadership at this year’s conference.

The first is that a Liberal Democrat Leader has finally drawn a philosophical line against any notion the Liberal Democrats are a left-wing party. Nick Clegg’s interview with the Independent on Sunday goes some way to undoing the damage done by rolling out the red-carpet to left factions disaffected with Labour.

“The Lib Dems never were and aren’t a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was.”

The second is the quiet and confident way in which a Party Conference revolt on the government’s free schools policy has been ignored. In his Leader’s speech only hours later the policy was reiterated and the world moved on.

Both these changes in the tone of Leadership are seismic.

In positioning in recent years, Ashdown pursued New Labour, Kennedy flirted with Old Labour, Campbell wanted to part of a Scottish hegemony with Brown. The Campaigns department would have happily welcomed a defection from George Galloway and Bob Crowe if they thought it would help win a by-election. No wonder the left are hurt and confused by the Conservative coalition. All of sudden their liberal suitors are talking about liberalism again like it means something other than reading the Guardian.

It does look as though Clegg is serious about staking a claim to the centre-ground.

The dismissal of Conference was long overdue. The chimera of activist power, that the Liberal Democrat Conference could dictate what MPs did has been shown to be hollow. The schools vote will not change government policy, it will not influence current or future Liberal Democrat team bargaining positions. The outcome of the debate will sit alongside better researched ideas from the civil service and think tanks, and polemics from political actors and newspapers. It will be treated for what it is, a point of view from a pressure group, not a special mandate.

Some will find this distasteful. They will argue that something special and important has been lost, but it has been perfectly clear for sometime that Conference representatives do not represent the wider party well, let alone people minded to vote Liberal Democrat. They are barely accountable to any significant electorate (it is not a mini-Parliament of the party) and the Conference process is not a good way of developing or testing the quality of policy. The leadership can now listen to and consult the party through a variety of channels, town halls, media commentary, on-line polling, special policy conferences and working parties. It does not need a student union AGM to close the deal.

Slowly, carefully, little by little, Nick Clegg’s team is nudging the Liberal Democrat party into a 21st century where liberals don’t just aspire to government, they are the government.

Tax avoider criticises tax avoidance

Tax avoidance is the legal means by which people minimise the amount of money they pay to the government each year by taking advantage of opportunities not to pay. Tax avoidance for example includes paying money into a pension scheme, buying second hand goods, shopping on holiday in lower tax countries, utilising tax-free saving schemes, the capital gains allowance on shares, and charitable donations utilising gift aid. Very few of us are not tax avoiders.

At the conference next week our Treasury spokesperson in the Lords, Matthew Oakeshott, intends to attack tax avoidance as anti-social and poisonous to the concept of the Big Society. This attack is primarily aimed at those individuals wealthy enough to manage their tax affairs in ways the rest of cannot, through non-domicile and non-residency arrangements; but as a general principle it suggests there is a moral element to paying tax that goes beyond the legal and civic duty to make a contribution and requires us to arrange our affairs to maximise that contribution.

I find this puzzling, voluntarily paying more than you must for something is not very rational behaviour, particularly not for something for which your contribution will make little difference to you, and it is not as if the target of his ire is a drain on the public purse, quite the reverse. Even for generous collectivists it makes more sense to give away money to your own choice of charities and trusts than it does to the black hole of government spending, particularly if it’s just going on repaying past waste. Further whether the left like it or not there is a competition between nations for international wealth and talent and the reality of the tax system at that level is that it is a negotiation and balancing act.

I find it particularly puzzling from a representative of an institution that is one big tax avoidance scheme. Their Lordships do not pay tax on their allowances and have voted to keep it that way, even after last year’s scandals. Lord Oakeshott himself was a vocal opponent of the worst abuses, but as a well off champion of the morals of paying more tax than one legally needs to in order to show solidarity and civic duty one assumes that he has been voluntarily surrendering the 31-51% of his allowance that the rest of us would pay on income for a similar part-time job… and urging the same of his colleagues… perhaps he could clarify in his speech?

That aside though I would rather the Government focused on making the tax system simple and low enough that avoidance is less likely, and we are a more attractive destination for international investment. Perhaps they should also follow the logical corollary of  Oakeshott’s argument by thanking the humble tax payer for their contribution occasionally, particularly those who contribute most.

Can I have my super-casino back now please?

If you are kicking your heels before the main event on Sunday (that’s OUR fringe at 20.00)…..Why not pop along to “Can the Coalition crack the “North-South” divide”? 

 Liberal Vision’s very own (sort of) Andy Mayer is offering a free-market view on this( not very tricky) proposition, (Sunday 1815-1930 Jurys Inn).

 I hope with all my heart that somewhere in his short but pithy speech he remembers the “super-casino” debacle we endured under the last regime.

Ok Ok super- casino’s  may not “solve ” the entire problem ….. but  (a) I really really want one and (b) ..I really really want one..

And why can’t a Liberal-Conservative Coalition get this one up and running in a matter of weeks?   Let big business come in and spend its money. Most of the hard work on this has been done (though the idea that there should be an artificial limit on the number of huge vibrant pulsing casino’s is borderline madness).

The arguments were had – glorious huge casino’s – and at least one super-duper casino –  were on their way! Then “poof” Gordon had a moment of Scottish puritanism… or whatever it was – and my dream was shattered. .

The site in Manchester ,where the first Las Vegas style super casino WAS to be built, is still a wasteland and is only now being “made ready for development” . Who by ?  The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), Manchester City Council, the Northwest European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA). Yep that’s right.. Taxpayers.  They say it is “only” costing £8million (for stage one of the “readying”) …but the cheapness, or otherwise of the project is hardly the point…

Think how many people could be employed – would be being employed right now – had the super-casino project gone ahead…without any cost to the taxpayer…..building it, fitting it, running it, cleaning it, guarding it..feeding and entertaining the crowds, moving the customers from airport and station to hotel…. etc etc etc. Glorious tourist-filled casinos offering all manner of delights,  acting as a beacon to fun-seekers worldwide.

If they allow Manchester  (or Blackpool or wherever) to become Las Vegas, (well one tiny bit of it anyway)  I’ll be there… and where better to hold a Liberal party conference? So Andy if you get the chance to talk to anyone from “the government”  when you’re there, please ask then if I can have my super casino back, please.

Tags: North-South divide, super casino

Lib Dem Conference Event: Lembit Opik, Guido Fawkes, Jeremy Browne, Richard Grayson, Stephen Haseler…

So…

This is the week we’ve all been waiting for. Waiting, patiently. Silently. Waiting.

Then waiting some more.

Yet suddenly HARK! IT STARTS!

Yes, that’s right – the Liberal Democrat Conference 2010 begins this Saturday. I can almost feel your auricles fluttering from here.

If you’re going to conference, come to this:

“Coalition, Cuts and Conservatives: an attractive agenda for the Lib Dems?”

It features:

• GUIDO FAWKES!
• JEREMY BROWNE MP!
• LEMBIT OPIK!
• PROFESSOR RICHARD GRAYSON!
• STEPHEN HASELER!

And me.

Mark Littlewood, now head of the IEA, chairs the event.

It’s on Sunday 19th September, 8pm – 9:15pm.

Location: ACC Liverpool, Hall 11C

It’s free, but get there early to avoid disappointment. It’s inside the venue, so you need a conference pass.

Also, if you would like to HELP Liberal Vision during the conference, drop me an e-mail with “Help! You need somebody (me)” in the subject line. I know, I know. I have my coat and am heading for the door. I can only apologise.

And finally… young Liberal Democrat Niklas Smith has been doing valuable work critiquing the free schools motion. You can read his excellent evidence-check against the motion here: http://ldv.org.uk/20890

But for now adios, and we’ll see you in Liverpool.

Tags: coalition, Conference 2010, Cuts and Conservatives, Guido Fawkes, Jeremy Browne, lembit opik

Sound Money & The 10 Minute Rule Bill

If you haven’t heard of the Cobden Centre then I strongly recommend you check them out.

Named after Richard Coben, one of the most significant Liberal Party figures of the 19th Century, the Cobden Centre is a pressure group that lobbies for honest money and banking reform.

The Cobden Centre is also enthusiastically dedicated to providing education and resources for those interested in Austrian Economics subsequently their website is a treasure trove for any inquiring mind.

Founded by entrepreneur Toby Baxendale earlier this year, the centre has gone from strength to strength rapidly and is certainly a group to watch. Earlier this week Baxendale delivered some hard truths to the bankers whilst speaking in support of the Ten Minute Rule Bill: “Bankers have behaved like Welfare dependents. They exist on £ billion handouts – to fix a credit bubble they had a big role in creating. To preserve free market economics, we need to rediscover honest money.”

The Ten Minute Rule Bill would require banks to obtain consent from depositors before using funds in what critics regard as little more than a legalised pyramid scheme: the lending of the same money up to 35 times in the UK. Mr Baxendale said:

“A survey commissioned by the Cobden Centre this summer showed that a clear majority of people believe they own the money they have deposited at the bank. They do not. In fact, we are creditors to the bank’s debts, not depositors of our money for safekeeping.

“It is this sleight of hand by the banks which allows the public to be misled about the true state of our banking system. In fact, the banks are insolvent the moment we decide to withdraw ‘our’ money. This excellent Private Members Bill would force banks to ask account holders if they want their funds lent out for risky ventures or simply held on deposit.

“Since the credit crunch hit us, economists have often struggled to explain how and why it happened. Conventional wisdom is still trying to blame so-called “market failure” or insufficient regulation. Now is the time to listen to those economists who argue that the credit crunch was caused by the credit glut that preceded it. And that oversupply of credit was caused by the ability of big banks – crony capitalists – to treat other people’s money as their own”.