Clegg responds - Part I
Peter Hoskin 11:05am
Here are Nick Clegg’s answers to the first 5 questions put forward by CoffeeHousers:
Q: If the Lib Dems hold the balance of power in 2010, which Cabinet portfolios are you after, and who would fill them? – Peter
A: That’s just not something I think about. The Liberal Democrats are an independent party, focused on providing a programme for government across the portfolio areas. Speculating about coalitions is not a game that I am interested in playing.
Q: You have made rather anti-government spending noises recently. Is there a figure for spending as a %age of GDP which you would regard as roughly about right – 35/40/45/50%? - Tim Hedges
A: Where we are able to find savings in public spending we should look to use those savings to cut tax for the most needy rather than simply allocating the savings to other public spending projects. Families are struggling in the current economic environment, and I’m determined to cut taxes for low and middle income earners. But broadly, I think that the current balance is about right. It’s important to tax enough to fund quality public services, but equally important not to tax people so highly that it makes businesses uncompetitive, crowds out job creation, or makes the British economy less competitive.
Q: I am a small "l" liberal. Why should I vote for the Lib Dems rather than the Conservatives? – Syllabub
A: The Liberal Democrats are the only truly liberal party. We alone have the liberal policies needed to make Britain a better place to live: for example, crime policies aimed at reducing the rate of reoffending; health policies that put peoples’ individual needs at the heart of their treatment; and green policies that protect the environment by taxing the polluter, while rewarding hard work.
That is a policy platform that the Conservatives cannot match: underneath their rhetoric, they are still conservative. What’s liberal about making moral judgements about marriage in the tax system? What’s liberal about handing control of the NHS to a quango?
Q: Would you and your wife, under any circumstances at all, send either of your two young sons to your local English comprehensive school? Do you know any of your colleagues who do this? Do you know any of your colleagues who do not do this? Is it, like religion, a matter for the individual conscience? - Fergus Pickering
A: All parents want the very best for their children, and they have a right to expect their local schools to provide that. The problem is there are some very good state schools, and some very bad ones. We need to rebuild our education system so everyone has the power to send their child to a good school.
Q: What would you do to help those on lower incomes currently facing a massive tax hike when the 10% band rises to 20% this month? – BluePorcupine
A: This tax rise is a disgrace – hurting people on the lowest incomes who aren’t entitled to tax credits. If that’s you, your income tax bill will rise this week. I would cut tax for those lower earners. First, I’d cut the government’s basic rate of national income tax from 20 pence in the pound to 16 pence in the pound, funded by increasing green taxes and closing tax loopholes. And second, I’d scrap the unfair Council Tax and replace it with a progressive Local Income Tax – this would slash bills for low earners and pensioners in particular.
UPDATE: For Nick Clegg's answers to the last five questions, click here.
Previous
Comments
Patrick, London
April 3rd, 2008 12:02pmDavid Cameron: We have the highest taxes in recent history.
Ed Balls: So what?
Nick Clegg: The current balance is about right.
Me - the voter: Guess that'll be a tick in the blue box come the next general election then!
Alex R
April 3rd, 2008 1:02pmhow very dull. very disappointing. Am massively wasted opportunity for Clegg to say something interesting.
Madasafish
April 3rd, 2008 1:34pmA local income tax? Instead of rates?
Great . I'd save £2,000pa.
The man's a muppet. Not thought through the implications and the results.. and the admin.
People like me who make untaxed income through spreadbetting or investing in ISAs would be delighted...
Ian C
April 3rd, 2008 1:44pm"What’s liberal about making moral judgements about marriage in the tax system?" is a classic case of creation of a 'straw' man argument, normally put forward by the mushy-left. There is no moral judgement in recognising marriage in the tax system. There is simple tested,common sense because marriage is the demonstrably best way for the next generation to be brought up to be positive future contributors to society. Anything moral in that is coincedental. Typical fatuous politician who pretends moral outrage at no-brainer tried and tested common sense.
Max Kaye
April 3rd, 2008 2:19pmInterestingly, he didn't give a straight answer on 2 out of the 5 questions asked.
I suppose 40% evasion and waffle is par for the course.
Jessica
April 3rd, 2008 3:36pmNick Clegg claims to be an atheist yet sends his children to Catholic school, really principled, NOT.
Nick Kaplan
April 3rd, 2008 7:30pmI would be interested to know how Mr.Clegg came to believe that his party is a ‘Liberal’ party, calling themselves Liberals, he and his party have committed one of the most significant abuses of political vocabulary I can imagine. Clegg asks “What’s liberal about making moral judgements about marriage in the tax system?” Well, I ask him, what’s liberal about his parties support for; higher taxes on drinking, the all encompassing smoking ban, a local income tax (that punishes rather than rewards hard work), the ‘current balance’ of tax as a percentage of GDP (which is currently at its highest level since the socialist post-war consensus), interference and moralising under the guise of ‘environmentalism’, and worst of all his inability to trust the British people in a referendum on the Lisbon treaty? I thought Liberalism was about smaller government, trusting individuals and less interference/ nannying. Unless Clegg has a very strange interpretation of the words Liberty and Liberal, I cannot possibly see how he can maintain his response to question 3.
thomas
April 3rd, 2008 11:51pmLiberalism is about balancing the principle of 'help' against the principle of 'harm' across all areas of life, be it individually or socially.
The ultra-libertarian 'smallest-state' ideal would see no state and no system of justice except that which is inflicted by nature and the mob - we'd have the disorganised chaos that allows the strongest criminals to succeed at the expense of all, rather than the organised complexity that enables opportunities to be created for all individuals - but at least taxes would be lower, you say!
I know which I prefer.
You have nothing worth conserving unless you have your liberty!
thomas
April 4th, 2008 12:14amNick Kaplan - The LibDems do not support universally higher taxes on alcohol, but creating a relationship between the amount of tax and the product based on dealing with the consequences of it, as has been made clear in various statements over recent months. This includes a reduction on duty for whisky for example, despite accusations that supporting local interests is some sort of electoral scam.
The LibDem support for the smoking ban was not unilateral, but because -on balance- the costs of not supporting it outweighed the restrictions on our freedoms.
Local Income Tax (LIT) is about introducing fairness into the tax regime, because this removes the unaffordable burden placed upon large numbers of the population by simple dint of calculations based upon the house you live in. Furthermore there is vibrant debate within the party about creating a fairer and cheaper local taxation scheme which goes even further by balancing a standard rate with LIT and a form of Land Valuation Tax.
On the other points you complain about I can understand your confusion, even if I do not share it.
Perhaps you should investigate more, rather than making wild suppositions based upon your own ignorance.
The key point is that liberty is not an absolute - there are no absolutes because you can't take anything for granted.
IanC - The argument about common-sense morals is simply ridiculous even when emblazened by rhetorical flourishes - what is common-sense is just not necessarily good-sense.
Cousin Octavia
April 4th, 2008 3:54amPatrick: Erm... read what Clegg says about tax there. Yes, he said the overall tax take is about right, but he also said he'd cut the basic rate to 16p. No matter how hard you look, you won't find Cameron promising that. To vote Tory based on a wish for lower taxes looks like a pretty odd decision to me.
Jessica: Clegg is an atheist, but his wife isn't. Does she get a say in this? Or would you rather he stick to some kind of "principle" by simply imposing his will over all decisions to do with the raising of their children?
Nick Kaplan: Higher taxes on drinking are a response to the public's sense that something needs to be done in this area, and is a damn sight more liberally preferable to confiscating the property of young people by siezing their booze. In the face of public demands that something be done, sometimes liberalism is simply about picking the option which curtails freedom the least.
The smoking ban is easy: You may do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. Smoking harms others, via passive smoking. End of.
Local income tax: No, agree there, that one isn't liberal, Land Value Tax would be a much better option. However, there's no obvious reason why the tax based on the value of land should be the one which funds local government.
The current balance of tax is a shade high; which is why Clegg is the only party leader to have started to make noises about giving savings back to the taxpayer, rather than this "sharing the proceeds of growth" bollocks.
Interference and moralising under the guise of environmentalism, you say? You're going to have to be more specific on that one, I'm afraid.
The Lisbon treaty is a big technical document, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the votes of the vast majority of people would be motivated by anything other than their feelings towards the EU more generally. This being the case, it is completely sensible to take the Lib Dem line, which was to call for a referendum on being in or out of the EU. If we want to be in it, we can't be forever trying to cock everything up by putting obstacles in the way of any progress being made to reform the EU.
Liberalism isn't necessarily about *smaller* government, but I agree with trusting individuals and not interfering. Government doesn't have to be smaller, but it does have to be more local, and less coersive.
Ian C
April 4th, 2008 9:35amThomas - which philosopher wrote this? "The argument about common-sense morals is simply ridiculous even when emblazened by rhetorical flourishes - what is common-sense is just not necessarily good-sense." Are you sure that you got the English translation? Pleease find the real planet to live on.
Fergus Pickering
April 4th, 2008 4:40pmSo my question about schools was a complete waste of space. Cleggy's not going to say anything about it and send his children to Catholic schools hiding behind his wife's pious skirts to do so. By the way, where's my tee shirt, eh?
Nick Kaplan
April 4th, 2008 7:58pmThomas, your understanding of Libertarianism seems to be derived from your own “wild suppositions based upon your own ignorance.” The minimal state is an end-state aim for Libertarians, nobody seriously believes it is currently achievable; it’s just something to work towards. Your comment that the minimal/ smallest state “would see no state and no system of justice except that which is inflicted by nature and the mob” firstly is self contradictory (if there is a “smallest state” then there is not no state) and secondly a straw man, you have strangely attributed the anarchist position to Libertarians. Libertarians, who have maintained the only true definition of Liberal rather than distorting it like the quasi-socialist Modern ‘Liberals’, would not advocate a system in which there was no state, just a state that plays a restricted “nightwatchman” role, if you think the original meaning of Liberalism was anything but the view that the state should be minimal you are in desperate need of a history lesson. The state by necessity infringes Liberty; its tool is one of coercion, not one of voluntarism. Coercion is the enemy of liberty, lack of opportunity is just a bad which has little to do with Liberty (when liberty is understood in its proper original sense rather than the distorted version). This is why the state should be ‘minimalized’. This is not to say that the state does not play a vital role, it must be there to enforce rights and prevent individuals coercing each other, as you rightly say, there is no absolute liberty, it must just be extended as far as possible. Thus the state is needed to enforce contracts, tackle crime and protect its borders. What’s more it seems unfair to compare a highly pessimistic assumption of the Libertarian end state, with a highly optimistic assumption of the statist view, if we were going to be fair we would compare optimism with optimism in which (I would say) the Libertarian case is preferable, or pessimism with pessimism, and the pessimistic end of the statist situation is Stalinist Russia, given the choice “I know which I’d prefer.” I’m struggling to understand how you conclude that the Local Income Tax is either fair or Liberal. All research done on this proposal has suggested that many average families will end up paying far more in tax, I believe the most poignant example came up in the last election where it was explained 2 cohabiting public sector workers say a Teacher and a Policeman would end up paying significantly more tax. You assert that the confusion is mine, but I can assure you I am not confused at all, I understand what the term Liberal means, the confusion (or should I say delusion) that you and your party are suffering is the result of a deliberate attempt by a group of closet socialists, led by T.H. Green, to redefine the word Liberal and popularise a leftist agenda in freedom loving countries. I suggest you read Isaiah Berlin’s “Two concepts of Liberty” so that you may be set straight on this issue and comprehend its dangerous implications.
HJ
April 4th, 2008 9:20pmThis was a huge disappointment. Surely a true liberal can't believe that the government spending 43% of GDP is right? In any case, the government is having to borrow huge amounts to do this, which is not sustainable. So taxes will have to rise substantially if this is to be maintained. Is Clegg really saying that he wants taxes to be permanently much higher than they are now? Is the government spending so much of our money 'liberal' (in the classical sense of the word? Aren't Liberals supposed to be in favour of individual freedom?
On education, he totally ignores Fergus Pickering's question in favour of a NuLabour-type bland assertion about making every school a good one (and who doesn't want that?), without even a hint of how he'd go about it.
John Ionides
April 5th, 2008 12:40amWhat a boring set of responses. They read as though they have been fully lobotomised by half a dozen over-eager Cowley St committees.
thomas
April 7th, 2008 8:26amNick Kaplan - not my party. I'm not partial, but I'm an interested spectator.
Liberalism is about freedom, pure and simple, but there are limits on liberty as nothing is absolute. You've just got to ask yourself how do you go about finding them unless you accept the need for balancing different pressures.
Libertarianism is just one strand within the wider liberal tradition, so if you want to get doctrinaire about things then you've lost any chance of convincing me.
Maybe we should form a study group on Berlin's masterful work!