Even Cable can't defend the Lib Dems' misleading poster
Fraser Nelson 4:35pm
This poster by the LibDems is perhaps the most dishonest one of the campaign so far -
and Vince Cable has pretty well admitted it to Jon Sopel on the Politics Show. Here's the exchange.
Jon Sopel: I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tory’s finances. Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.
St Vince Cable: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.
JS: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked...
VC: "It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument."
JS: Would you rule out raising VAT?
VC: No, I don’t. It’s something –
JS: So therefore your position is no different to them.
Quite. The LibDems poster was so strikingly dishonest that it could have been designed by Ed Balls. We know that HM Treasury wanted to put VAT up to above 17.5 percent - but Balls and Brown blocked them, on the grounds that this would force the Tories to do so. (They reckon, rightly, that the Tories are minded towards taxing consumption rather than jobs). But George Osborne now thinks he has announced all the tax rises he needs to deal with what he imagines will be a £70bn-odd structural deficit. He's not ruling out a VAT increase and, personally, I regard an increase - or the extension of VAT to food and (gulp) magazines - as likely. But the LibDems here are basically lying about the Tory position. They do this locally, but seldom are so brazen as to do so nationally. And even Cable can't defend it.
P.S. for those interested, here is the unedited transcript of the VAT exchange:
Jon Sopel: Let me just move onto something else, which is the poster you unveiled this week, and I think we can show it to you. A reworking of the Labour tax bombshell. This is the Tory VAT bombshell. ‘You would pay £389 more a year in VAT under the Conservatives.’ Where does that figure come from?
Vince Cable: Well it comes from taking some of the spending commitments that the Tories have made in respect of taxation. In other words their Inheritance Tax pledge, particularly their commitment to cut National Insurance which they’ve made a big deal of over the last year. We know from experience that when they’re –
JS: Sorry to interrupt, but the poster says, ‘you would pay,’ not that you might pay. The Tories have said they will not raise it. They’ve got no plans to.
VC: Well it’s a reasonable prediction based on their past form, that when they’re forced to – when they are –
JS: But you pass it off as fact.
VC: We passed it off as a reasonable prediction of the way the would behave -
JS: No, you don’t say – the poster doesn’t say this is a reasonable prediction, this says ‘you would pay.’ I mean I just come back to you want to –
VC: Well I’m trying to put this in fairly simple language. That the Tories have an enormous problem to do explaining how they would cover this big budget deficit which they’ve been talking about incessantly for months, they’ve got no explanation of how they’d do it. They’re now making – let me just finish the argument – they’re now making extra spending commitments. We’re saying on the basis of their past history when they’ve been in government, the way they deal with this is to increase Value Added Tax. That’s all we’re saying.
JS: Would you rule out raising VAT?
VC: No, I don’t. It’s something –
JS: So therefore your position is no different to them.
VC: It is fundamentally different because we’ve taken the view that if you’re tackling the problems of the big budget deficit, you’ve got to spell out - you’ve got to look first of all at public spending and we’ve tried to do that and we’ve identified quite a substantial list of commitments that we would make in public spending which are much more explicit than the Conservative –
JS: But just in election campaign.
VC: Let me just finish the argument. The commitments we would make, the Conservatives haven’t been willing to do that. The problem is if you’re not willing to do that –
JS: And the figure you reach is £389. Not £390, not £388, not £388.50.
VC: But that’s an attempt – it’s obviously an approximation, that’s simple common sense, but that’s the –
JS: but it’s not truthful.
VC: Of course it is. We’re talking about a sum which equates to the gap that they are unable to explain.JS: Sure, but then you are fighting a campaign saying we are not the corrupt politics and you’re using exactly the same tactics. I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tory’s finances. Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.
VC: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.
JS: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –
VC: It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument.JS: Sure, but then it is not clearly absolutely truthful that that is what they would do. It doesn’t say anywhere on the poster this is your conjecture. I’m just making the point that I know that this happens in election campaigns, but the Liberal Democrats are meant to be a bit cleaner, a bit kind of more honest about these things.
VC: If we published the poster with footnotes and notes to editors of what this figure actually means, it would be counted as rather ridiculous, wouldn’t it? We’re trying to get across a basic simple message that the Conservatives have made very large commitments in respect of tax cutting and in respect of spending, which they’re not willing to explain how they’ll do it. That, in our view, is fundamentally dishonest politics. We’ve tried to suggest what in practice that would mean, and it almost certainly would mean a big increase in Value Added Tax. We’re just trying to illustrate it –
JS: It’s a good piece of propaganda.
VC: I would prefer to be talking positively about the things we would do in tax policy in respect to public spending.
JS: Well it’s your poster, this is your first poster.
VC: And it makes a perfectly reasonable point.
JS: Well if you would rather be talking about the positive message, you could have said, no, no, I’m sorry, let’s have a poster that deals with what we are going to do.
VC: Well, we’re having our Manifesto launched this week and you’ll be able to read all the positive things that we’re going to do and I’m very happy to talk about that.
Previous
NickW
April 11th, 2010 5:01pm Report this commentThe Lib Dems promise to scrap tuition fees and abolish income tax for those earning under £10,000.p.a.
Funded by a mansion tax and an airline tax.
Read all about it on their website.
Who will pay the mansion tax, what will the thresholds be and how much?
Does BA need an airline tax to drive all its customers away and fly internationally from Paris, thereby avoiding airline tax?
How will the Lib Dems prevent blackouts if they are committed to abolishing coal and nuclear generators?
It's Lib Dem tax policy that has more holes in it than a Gruyere cheese.
emil
April 11th, 2010 5:04pm Report this commentTo borrow one of Cable's current favourite words. nauseating, just nauseating.
Gawain
April 11th, 2010 5:06pm Report this commentBless, they were having such a nice time playing at being grown up politicians. Time to unleash Saatchi !!
Robert Williams
April 11th, 2010 5:06pm Report this commentSo the BBC give a high profile to potential Conservative tax rises, but fail to get Cable to provide the audience with the detail & implications of the £17BN of tax rises necessary to fund the increase in the personal allowance to £10,000.
Short the UK
April 11th, 2010 5:09pm Report this commentThe Cable Guy's attack on businessmen who are against the NI hike is another example of his economic illiteracy.
He really is a twerp, he's the Anatole Kaletsky of politics.
BTW there is a very sound economic piece in today's Indie by Chris Watling:
"Brown's approach of spend today, consolidate tomorrow will be greeted, if he wins power or some semblance of power-sharing, with weakness in gilts (rising yields), for several reasons. First, he has no economic credibility – this is after all the Chancellor who promised every year since 2002 to balance the Budget within three years or so, yet has delivered deficits now for nine consecutive years. Second, Labour, having turned its back on the City, is now primarily funded by the unions – as such, any attempt to cut government spending is likely to be challenged by its paymasters. Third, for any government, cutting the failures among one's own policies is never easy. And fourth, historically, most major fiscal consolidations that place the burdenon tax rises rather than spending cuts have been shown to fail. Look at Ireland in the early 1980s, and Britain in the late 1960s. The reason is simple: raising taxes reduces the economy's productive growth potential – thus undermining your attempts to grow out of your problem.
So while there's no easy or pain-free way out of a financial crisis, recent precedents would support the view that there really is only one free lunch in economics: productivity driven by innovation that in turn is driven by the private sector. One of the few principles in economics is that while governments can support economies in their hour of need, in and of themselves they have no wealth-creating ability. Within reason, the less government, the better, as that frees up resources in the rest of the economy with which the private sector can innovate, drive productivity and create wealth. On this, I'm afraid, Brown is wrong, Cameron right."
Dan
April 11th, 2010 5:11pm Report this commentCable was exposed for what he is: A totally overrated muppet.
Robert Saintfield
April 11th, 2010 5:19pm Report this commentVincent Cable plays Uriah Heep - ever so hummle - but does he really think that Brown will give the promised reward of power in his dreamed-for coalition?
He's heading for a big let down whatever the outcome of the vote, and even if his deception happened to work he'll even more quickly discredited than his chum Broon.
Bill Kristol-Balls
April 11th, 2010 5:27pm Report this commentHow is this any different to the Tories and their Death Tax / Tombstone poster which wasn't Labour party policy but was under consideration.
Raising VAT is not Tory party policy but it is being considered.
Moraymint
April 11th, 2010 5:45pm Report this commentThis story ties in with both Janet Daley's and Christopher Booker's pieces in today's Telegraph, namely that telling lies - or at the very best, being economic with the actualite - is now endemic within our political class.
Our democracy is as good as shot at the moment. Therefore, the outcome of this election will, by definition, be undemocratic.
It makes me despair to think that over the course of the next parliament (at least) our nation will not be governed, as such, but rather we shall be buffetted by events outwith the control of the party of government.
If the Labour Party regains power, it is inevitable that the economy will finally tank; we live in a phoney economy right now.
If the Tories gain power, they will do so without a mandate for the ruthless scaling back of the state that is now needed if our insolvency isn't to become full blown bankruptcy.
Perhaps a hung parliament would indeed be democracy working as it should be: sending a message to our politicos that unless and until they come clean with us, the governance of the nation will remain in limbo.
I want a clear voting choice between Marxism and private enterprise; between state control of my life and personal freedom; between laws imposed on us from a closed bureacracy in Brussels and the sovereignty of parliament; between unfettered immigration and secure borders; between deceit and truth.
At the moment I see no real distinction between the parties: they all embrace socialism in some form or another; they have no policies for de-legislating our society; they all say Europe is good for us; they all say that we're racist bigots if we speak up against immigration; they all lie to us.
For as long as this state of affairs exists, our quality of life in the UK will get steadily worse and our status in the world will be junk - if it isn't that already.
Thirteen years of shamefully unopposed Marxism has got us into this unprecedented and lamentable mess.
logdon
April 11th, 2010 5:46pm Report this commentWould you buy a used car from him?
Scene at Honest Vince's Car Mart.
Punter. Is that car over there only £389?
VC: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.
Punter: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –
VC: It’s a ball park estimate.
Punter: Well how much is it, then?
VC: It's what it would require to fill the gap in our profits and it seems a reasonable way to express the argument.
Boudicca
April 11th, 2010 5:49pm Report this commentCable was squirming on The Politics Show. The poster was indefensible and Cable made a very poor attempt to justify it.
That's the second time Sopel has shown up the LimpDems and their lack of credibility. When Clegg was on recently answering questions from an invited audience, he got in a right mess trying to explain their immigration policy.
Anyone considering voting for them should go and lie down in a darkened room.
jayke
April 11th, 2010 5:51pm Report this comment'ang on a mo. £400 in vat is an extra spend of £2000. Seems to me, if that's all its going to cost me next year, the tories have 1 more vote.
Colin
April 11th, 2010 6:35pm Report this commentCable is nothing but an old fashioned, opportunistic, lefty fraud.
He's up against a very good Tory candidate in Twickenham, I hope at the very least he's given a fright.
The sight and sound of this chancer being taken to pieces by serious, journalists like Jon Sopel and Andrew Neil are joys to behold.
Osred
April 11th, 2010 7:15pm Report this commentThis should be called the Smokescreen or Camouflage Election because all 3 parties are intent on obscuring the size and nature of the truly gigantic pile of turds we are about to step into. We can smell it but all 3 are desperate to convince that a couple of Kleenex (of a choice of colours) are going to do the job of cleaning us up.
Austin Barry
April 11th, 2010 7:15pm Report this commentMany years ago I was climbing in Yosemite with a group of slightly mad post-hippies from San Francisco. When the exigencies of nature called, they would advise that they were 'going to lay some cable'.
What amazing prescience.
Dan
April 11th, 2010 7:25pm Report this commentPerhaps it's just me, but he also comes across as a bit doddery.
Simon Stephenson
April 11th, 2010 7:33pm Report this commentShort the UK : 5.09pm
"One of the few principles in economics is that while governments can support economies in their hour of need, in and of themselves they have no wealth-creating ability."
Mmmmm. This is a bit sweeping, isn't it? By this token, banks and finance have no wealth-creating ability, but the truth, surely, is that anyone with the power to determine allocation of scarce resources has the power to affect the amount of wealth being created.
Now if you were to argue that there's little evidence for governments being much good at producing "sellable" wealth, I'd agree with you. I'd also agree that it's unproven that governments are the best people to produce "unsellable" wealth, such as health and education.
But where governments do have a part to play is in countering some of the market failings that prevent Smith's invisible hand from functioning very well. In particular, what needs to be recognised is that competition is light-years away from being perfect, and that left unchecked the power of the suppliers will swamp the interests of the demanders, or consumers. We already see massive resource misallocation brought about by artificially created demand for valueless products. Worse are the pointless obstacles put in the way of genuine wealth creation that do nothing other than drawing off nourishment to feed the leeches - nourishment paid for in the price of the product to the final consumer. These obstacles derive from both the public- and private-sectors.
Short the UK
April 11th, 2010 7:51pm Report this commentHi Simon Stephenson,
Tis a sweeping statement and not complete.
I think the basic premise of his MSM piece is that sustainable productive growth can best be engineered by a reduced tax burden and wealth creation in the private sector.
Tankus
April 11th, 2010 8:24pm Report this commentIt looks like that we are going to elect the party that appears to be the least incompedant,or deceitfully stupid !.
Not which is the "best" or "outstanding" .
Just what happened to us that our democracy has so utterly failed us ?.
Was it Windscale fallout ?, Chlorine in the water,? Certain E numbers in foods ? , Lack of milk as children ? Lizards ?
What ?
Dirty Euro
April 11th, 2010 9:58pm Report this commentRaising VAT is evil. VAT is paid by everyone, poor, unemployed, disabled, sick, ill, charities buying stuff, so that a bunch of rich elites can have their taxes cut.
This is unchristian immorality of the highest order.
You talk about consumption as if it is a sin. Let us cut the consumption of the richest not the poorest. You want to increase poverty.
Dirty Euro
April 11th, 2010 9:59pm Report this commentRaising VAT is evil. VAT is paid by everyone, poor, unemployed, disabled, sick, ill, charities buying stuff, so that a bunch of rich elites can have their taxes cut.
This is unchristian immorality of the highest order.
You talk about consumption as if it is a sin. Let us cut the consumption of the richest not the poorest. You want to increase poverty.
AN EXTENSION OF VAT TO FOOD IS EVIL CRUEL AND IMMORAL.
You will be hitting the poorest so rich people can have their taxes cut.
Liz Roberts
April 11th, 2010 10:01pm Report this commentWhy do the Lib Dems and Vince Cable in particular concentrate their efforts on attacking the Tories as though they were in power and responsible for the woeful state of affairs?Opposition parties are supposed to attack GOVERNMENT policies, not each other.There is an unholy alliance developing here.Obviously Labour are courting the LibDems like mad,even advocating tactical voting.They obviously don't have confidence in winning fair and square so have to cheat,as in all else.The Libdems and playing Labour along in the hope of a place at the table.Sickening behaviour from them both.Vince Cable has made a name for himself as a guru,but is greatly overrated as an economist and can say and promise whatever he wants to knowing that LibDems will never be elected.
Turn you attentions to labout Mr cable-THEY are the culprits-not the Tories.!!And don't LIE in posters.This big fib could come back to bite you.
That's News
April 11th, 2010 11:03pm Report this commentCan I suggest that Austin Barry be given a special award for his comment? It certainly made a good point and it made me laugh!
Nick
April 12th, 2010 1:33am Report this commentVince Cable is a failed candidate Labour MP twice and a member of the Fabian Society. There is no way he would work with the Tories in a hung parliament. A Liberal vote is a Labour vote.
So the poster is based on an assumption, and if in power the Liberals cannot rule out the same outcome. Well done Vince, complete farce.
BGarvie
April 12th, 2010 8:13am Report this commentFraser was absolutely correct to point out the hypocrisy of Vince Cable. Actually, Vince FABLE has become a legend in his own lunch hour.
The fact he admitted plucking the £389 out of thin air and refusing to rule out they could possibly raise VAT, destroys their credibility. FABLE as a former Glaswegian Labour Councillor has lost face here. They must stop treating the electroate as fools.
Holly ......
April 12th, 2010 9:25am Report this commentI don't think Cable is treating us as fools
as such, he is over rating himself.
Gary Williams
April 12th, 2010 10:26am Report this commentHolly,
You say that Cable is over-rating himself. This is unsurprising - it would be difficult for someone to under-rate him.
Frank Leader
April 12th, 2010 10:35am Report this commentNow Gordon Brown doesn't rule out increasing V.A.T. Even though the Labour Manifesto says they will not. The Manifesto is out of date before it's issued. Just another Labour tissue of lies.
Nicholas
April 12th, 2010 11:18am Report this commentSurprisingly I find myself agreeing with The Dirty Euro. VAT is not the way to go, for any party. It is a pernicious tax on disposable income and, if applied to essential commodoties such as food, for people on low or no disposable incomes it is both cruel and unfair.
No Sales Tax should be allowed to exceed 5% and it should only be levied on non-essential luxury goods.
Nicholas
April 12th, 2010 11:20am Report this commentMr Cable's similarity to Yoda is unsettling. Fortunately his sentence construction is not as eccentric, although it does have its moments.
YouCannotBeSerious!
April 12th, 2010 11:24am Report this commentVince Cable's policies get turned over by the BBC, and yet only on this website, can this be transformed into another example of BBC anti-Conservative bias. Quite incredible.
michael
April 12th, 2010 3:27pm Report this commentWhat Damage'n'Strain the Libdem Brain brothers haven't figured out yet is that VAT, in 'pricepoint' Britain, is likely to hit business whilst they adjust specifications/quality so that margins can be maintained at the corresponding pricepoints eg 99p £9.99 £99.99.
Of course consumers pay the tax but the impact would be largely psychological.
Ron Whitehand
April 12th, 2010 4:33pm Report this commentAs usual the Fib Dems have been caught ou lying. Here in Woking they do it all the time. Latest example is an election leaflet sent to every household quoting a news article in support of their candidate. What it doesn't say is that the candidate wrote said article in the first place. An offical complaint is beig made about this one.
I also noted that Ming Vase told a few porkies on Question Time last week and was not corrected by the ever impartial David Dimbleby.
BGarvie
April 13th, 2010 5:26am Report this commentThere is no doubt Cable has lost credibility and so has Brown AGAIN. Labour's manifesto launch yesterday was pathetic. The only future they can guarantee is leaving a legacy of debt and despair.
Waffle
April 16th, 2010 2:00am Report this comment"Basically lying" in the sense of saying what is almost inevitably going to happen is going to happen.
Riiiight.
Back to top