Stop the press! Danny Alexander didn’t break the law

Julian

Both Huhne and Cable would be hard pressed
to show a more catastrophic lack of judgement
that either of the men tasked to increase the
taxes and cut the jobs of the less than well off.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

These people are there to form the legislature, to create, abolish and revise laws when no laws exist as a guide. If they do not have the Rule of Law flowing within them, able to know the spirit when the letter is wrong or unclear, then they are unfit for office.

djw2009

Blackburn, it is time you were sacked. If you think the coalition document "Tory", you are clearly not a Tory yourself.

Why are we stuck in tax-and-spend, stuck getting our laws from the EU, stuck with multiculturalism and mass immigration, stuck with hundreds of quangos Dave won't close down - and why can't Fraser get Tory staff for the Spectator?

Cuffleyburgers

I don't entirely agree with the tenor of this article.

Laws is out because he showed a catastrophic lack of judgement and Alexander is under fire, not entirely wrongly, for being as the Italians would say, furbo.

The real question is, why do these gentlemen and especially Laws think they are above the Law? an exceptionally gifted individual, and I am sure unimpeachably honest in his personal dealings, courageous and honourable (he actually resigned immediately!) how could he make such a stupid mistake, and then even worse, not correct it on the quiet last year when the expenses thing was going off all around him?

strapworld

Well, I do hope Mr Alexander takes the Daily Telegraph to the cleaners, Taking the paper, its owners and the editor plus the journalists to the High Court. I believe he has a case against the lot of them, sperately and conjoined.

Simon

Does a little rebellion make you feel better about yourself? You still take the Barclays shilling.

Vulture

The alternatives are not Huhne or Cable.

There is no reason whatsoever why Dave did not use Laws' resignation as an ideal opportunity to put the Tory trained to do the job - Philip Hammond - in, and make a Lib Dem - ideally Norman Baker, who is already a junior Transport Minister - Transport Secy as compensation. Dave is the PM FFS, he should exert a bit of authority.

Nick Clegg would not have pulled the coalition apart over the issue. But Dave is as weak as tapioca pudding and once more got walked over in putting in a useless and inexperienced Scottish PR officer to do the toughest job in Government. Does not bode well.

Adro

DJW2009: Blackburn is a Tory. It's what is generally called broad church party for a reason. If you don't like it, go join Heffer, Hitchens etc in their cave and moan there, because that is all you seem to do on here. No doubt if the Government threw out all immigrants, abolished the NHS, cut taxes immensely and banned all other cultural celebrations but morris men, you would still pull the rubbery horse face of mock incredulity that you no doubt do everytime you read one of Mr Blackburn's submissions and complain that "this is not a proper Tory Government, and I am very very very annnnggrry with it".

Adro

As an addendum to my above post, I apologise to others on this thread for going off topic, but I for one am a little fed up of the commissar contributors on these threads, who demand soviet style ideological purism, or you are 'not a Tory'.

Mycroft

There is a battle going on between the 'old believers' (if one may borrow the term) and the liberal pragamtic conservatives, who have much in common with a certain strain within the LDs, more indeed than they have in common with the more rigorous old believers. The old believers seem honestly to believe that if they bang on about immigration, the EU, multiculturalism, tax-cutting etc. the Conservatives are assured of a majority, and that the hated 'Dave' has deprived them of one, while the liberal pragmatists think that the Conservatives need to follow a new route if they are ever to hold power at all, even as part of a coalition. I think the old believers are utterly wrong, and that this coalition is taking our politics in a new direction, and could make the old dividing-lines that go back to the 80s increasingly irrelevant, if only it can keep going and prove successful. The DT is acting as tribune of the old believers; if it - and they - are allowed to undermine the coalition, they will be taking the Conservatives into the wilderness, not the promised land. This self-destructiveness and shortsightedness is utterly maddening.

strapworld

I forgot. All those bloggers who have libelled Mr Alexander must be quite worried now. You can all be identified you know!

GeoffH

"Alexander avoided capital Gains Tax courtesy of the final relief loophole, since closed."

This is simply untrue as a visit to the HMRC website shows.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm

Your sister papers' behaviour in the past few days has been shameful. You are dangerously close to aping them. That must be something to do with the proprietorial edict, I suppose.

And for that reason it would be pointless, I guess, to ask you to publish just how much UK tax (of any sort) the Monaco-resident Barclay brothers paid last year?

I have cancelled my orders for the DT and ST. Please don't make me cancel my subscription to The Spectator. I've been reading it for 40 years.

Rhoda Klapp

Mycroft, your position puts the team ahead of policy. It seems to say that if the conservatives win, no matter what the policy, that's OK. I would not dream of criticizing such a position, but you should accept that those who feel more strongly about some policy or other will wish to vote for someone who represents their position, whether tory or not. A tory government which embraces the EU, excessive immigration, multi-culturalism overdone, the war in Afghanistan and global warming stupidity, and which has no sensible plan to secure the energy supply of the country, is not very appealing.

There are no new politics. I wish the coalition well, as far as they do the right things. I see, as we all do, that the time will come when that is under strain. I hope they can deal with it. But there is no brave new dawn going on here, it is the same old game.

John Richardson

"The old believers seem honestly to believe that if they bang on about immigration, the EU, multiculturalism, tax-cutting etc. the Conservatives are assured of a majority, and that the hated 'Dave' has deprived them of one,..."

David Cameron had a twenty point lead in the polls.
Eventually, he failed to achieve a majority in Parliament.
This is not success, but instead failure.
Who's responsibility can this be if not Mr Cameron's himself ?
Worse still, it is now emerging that from Commons MPs to Tony Blair, enough Labour elements were savvy enough to know they were better off out of Office this time.

Cameron is a part of a Lib. coalition that Labour rejected.
Strangely, Labour MPs seem to think that allowing the Conservative Party to implement cuts & tax rises will suit them in the medium term.
Cameron failed to win when the Lib Dem.s lost votes and labour was far from certain it wanted to win.
Some achievement, after spending all that money.
Thankfully, Conservative Party 'loyalists' know better, do they not ?

"This self-destructiveness and shortsightedness is utterly maddening."

No it is not.
Honest people are more than used to it by now.
Next, you will be wondering why we are not grateful for the new 'Green Taxes'.
Or 40% CGT.
The 'promised land' ?
Grow up.

Rhoda Klapp

"It's what is generally called broad church party for a reason. If you don't like it, go join Heffer, Hitchens etc in their cave and moan there,"

When the broad church slams the door in the face of those who built it, it isn't surprising if they refuse to believe in its breadth anymore. There is nothing desirable in having no choice but progressive-centre-leftish policies, selected by focus group. Especially when there is no money for them.

stephen

I for one am getting utterly fed up with the DT IMHO its activities are no longer in the public interest why could the hacks at the DT[who now think they are Gods] not have privately sent a dossier to the Parliamentary Commissioner for him and him alone to decide if the wretched Lawss had done anything wrong?

JohnPage

What happened to "all the news that's fit to print"? Is it Spectator policy that the Telegraph should only break stories that fit its political stance?

If so, what is the Spectator's policy about its own coverage?

chris as usual

Let's say it again:

ALL members of the government must repay all their dodgy expenses claims (however defined) and ALL of the profit already made or made in the future on their 2nd homes at the taxpayers' expense. NOT just the capital gains tax they dodged, but the whole of the profit. When they do this they can serve in the government.

This was LibDem policy at the election.

Once they have done it, they can get ALL the MPs to do this.

Once they have done this, they may get some of the people they want to fleece in the budget to treat them as anything but hypocrites.

This is what the Telegraph is about, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. What short memories some people have.

TGF UKIP

Stop bleating about the Telegraph you lot and celebrate that it's currently doing what has been for too long left undone by the media - namely the stripping of the holier than thou mask from the LibDems.

First came their secretive double-dealing in the coalition negotiations, on Saturday came Laws, today Alexander and given Huhne's love of money I expect him to follow sometime soon. Stir into this the new media hunt for the LibDem who fingered Laws and they begin to look the tawdry, unsavoury lot they've always been but pretended, successfully, not to be.

A point that was excellently made over the weekend (I forget who made it) is that their internal loathings and machinations have largely escaped public attention because none of the leading polotical pundits are immersed in them as our own dear Editor and Political Editor are immersed in the internal doings of the Cameron Green party.

TrevorsDen

The telegraph is a bunch of effing bastards - it has been for years and i have been saying it for years.

Who writes for the telegraph (and is he some sort of associate editor?) why just Simon Heffer. twat.

What might be the outcome of an investigation into the Barclay brothers?

chris as usual

@Mycroft

I agree 100% with your analysis, that the 'believers' are wrong. However, it is incorrect to blame the Telegraph for exposing hypocrisy. For the coalition to work, and I hope it does, the 'new' politics which Cameron, and Clegg in particular, must involve transparency and the truth.

If the Telegraph can be shown to be 'selective' in their strategy, then I would condemn it. But this would not alter the argument.

taxpayer

Your article is wrong is saying the final years relief is a "loophole" which is now "closed". Every taxpayer in the country remains entitled to benefit from the rule which says you do not have to pay CGT on the sale of a second home if it has been your principal private residence within the last 3 years. I've benefited from it myself, and I certainly don't feel I have behaved immorally or should pay retrospective taxes. Check your facts!

perdix

It's not clear to me what the DT's motives are.Thet may be just making a tabloid-type campaign against CGT.If they claim to be Conservative-supporting then undermining the coalition will also damage the Conservatives, perhaps in the long term as Mycroft suggests.
My theory is that just to sell newspapers they have become schizophrenic by pandering to people like Heffer and other UKIP fruitcakes together with the pathetic Liebour apologist Mary Riddle and articles by Ed Balls FFS. "The perogative of the harlot" comes to mind.

Rhoda Klapp

taxpayer, did you tell one side, HMRC, that this home was a first home, whilst telling the other, the HoC fees office, the opposite?

That is the basis of the fiddle. Ordinary folks cannot do that, and in any case their ability to avoid the tax as you did (perfectly legally) is arbitrarily based on their circumstances. Tax is not supposed to be a matter of bad luck, but should be fairly applied to all. If MPs are to be differently treated in tax terms, it should be to pay more, so as to concentrate their minds on their responsibility.

GeoffH

"When the broad church slams the door in the face of those who built it"

But the Heffers and Hitchens and others so affronted by Cameron never built the church. The Conservative Party survived through two centuries as the dominant party of government because of the pragmatists such as Cameron and Osborne, not the dogmatists, like Heffer. Or you Ms Klapp.

Cat Fancier

All this carping on about such small sums in so pathetic. MPs pay should be at least trippled given the responsibility they have. Further, MPs who have shown the financial literacy and nouse, to avoid paying tax should be held up as role models, not condemned. Big problems in this country include massive personal debt racked up by people without the first understanding of finance, not MPs practicing tax avoidance, which is the only sane an rational thing to do. Indeed, if you were to employ a financal advisor or investment manager to look after your wealth, and they did not seek to avoid tax on your behalf, they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty to you. This is becuase tax avoidance is both legal, and in the individuals best interest. We need more people like Laws and Alexander not less.

Nicholas

"It seems to say that if the conservatives win, no matter what the policy, that's OK"

No, it is about flexibility and pragmatism, which for 13 years has been missing. Don't wish the kind of mindless, dogma-infused cant that is so redolent of socialism on the Tories. What are conservative principles if not comfortably at ease with equitability and tolerance?

When I read the hard core here droaning on about their conservative principles and how they have been betrayed I don't think of Tories but rather hard left socialists, hidebound by ideological principles before all else and determined not to give up ground which has already been lost. My advice - go and form a new party. Oops! Silly me. I forgot, you already have one - the highly successful (for socialists) UKIP. Remind me again how many MP's they have?

john henry

I am having a marvellous time reading the blogs on this site. Tories tearing themselves apart, ALREADY, because they entered into a ridiculous coalition with the "holier than thou" fools called the Lib Dems. I just love the new term for the coalition "Con Dem". Very apposite.
Dave has sold you down the river. He was desperate to grab power at all costs and has squandered a marvellous opportunity to implement the Conservative Programme. Now we get "New Politics" and the utterly ridiculous, coined on the hoof term "liberal conservatism" Excuse me!!
As said by someone above, Labour rejected coalition with the Lib Dems and as it has turned out,quite right too. A bunch of closeted, opportunistic, fraudsters. The Tories will end up destroying the Lib Dems and Vice Versa. The Tories are probably looking at another long spell in opposition as a result of Dave's selling of the Tories down the Swany. I give the coalition 2 years max! and then bllod will be flowing down Whitehall. Goodbye!

Chuck Unsworth

The Telegraph has not been a Conservative newspaper for many years.

Adro

@Rhoda Klapp Sorry? Those who built it? I think you'll find that the Conservative Party has been maintained by many more people, with many more opinions, than just the so-called 'Tory Right'. They don't have ownership of the party, no one does. The problem is that the more disgruntled among us are becoming increasingly paranoid, accusing anyone who questions them of not being 'proper' Conservatives. Thing is, there is no such thing as a 'proper' Conservative. The whole reason that we have survived for so long, and have been the most potent electoral force in any Western democracy, is quite simply because we are able to adapt to a very broad set of circumstances and viewpoints that fall into the category of being 'centre-right'. We are successful when we appeal to a wide range of people, everyone from rural pearls and twinset blue-rinsers to young metropolitan workers who aspire to do well in life. I am not arguing that the leadership is any better than anyone else, but the sheer lunacy of the ideological narrowness displayed by some is ridiculous. It is that kind of strategy that kept us away from power for 13 years. Britain is a relatively pragmatic country, and the party is best when it is pragmatic too.

Before you say it, I do realise that criticism of the party is necessary, indeed vital, to maintaining a decent Government. But the problem is that the constructive criticism of individuals like Fraser Nelson is all too often drowned out by men like Heffer or Hitchens, who actually don't offer anything constructive at all, just a combination of attacks and intellectual rigity that defies belief, and all too often reality too.

What we need is a combination of flexibility, constructive criticism and an ability to recognise that the party is a 'big tent' rather than a narrow, ideologically pure structure.

Daryl_S_London

Alexander was the perfect choice for his previous job as Laws was for this one. It's a terrible shame that this has happened.

JONNY

I have to laugh long and hard at the argument that:
because at one time Cameron had a 20pt lead in the polls and ended up with just a 7 pt one, he somehow 'lost the Election.'
It has more holes in it than the BP pipeline. I thought everyone understood that mid-term polls mean bugger all. The only ones that count are the ones a week or two befre voting, when voters must seriously confront the issues. And make up their minds for real.

adrian harper

so you seem to be saying if its the condem coalition then tory papers should suppress the truth. interesting

Mycroft

@Rhoda Klapp
I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I would approve of anything that would enable the Tories to get power; I do think that with immigration, for instance, the agreement allows for all that is practical, with a cap on non-EU immigration, and referenda will become mandatory for the yielding of any further powers to the EU. Even before the election the Tories were not proposing a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan (they supported the Iraq war!), or any shift on climate matters. On the latter I personally have an open mind, I have yet to be entirely convinced by either side. Is the agreement really a wish-washy centrist document? It seem to me to be quite radical in some respects.

TomTom

No he did not break the law. The Law is the only morality. Those found guilty at Nuremberg did not break German Law either. What he did was to use a loophole that Liberal Democrats wanted to end - that those who had moved without selling their homes could sell if they designated it primary residence within 3 years. LibDems opposed this.

Alexander used this to avoid CGT. Fine so long as your party does not intend to increase CGT..but since the Coalition has no plans to increase CGT it is not offensive in the least.

It was good of Osborne and Cameron to leave CGT at 18%

addenough

The Daily Telegraph seems to have been taken over by Mathew Hopkins and his acolytes.

DavidDP

"When the broad church slams the door in the face of those who built it, "

As a One Nation type Tory, Cameron is arguably more within the traditions of those who "built" the Troy broad church than the johnny come lately Thatcherites like Heffer et al, who, incidently,appear to be the ones trying to pull down the foundations at the moment.

DavidDP

Mycroft,

You appear to have read the coalition plan. Would that others would do the same. It's hard to believe that someone who says, for example, it accepts mass migration when it actually puts forward the cap proposal, has actually read the thing.

GeoffH

"taxpayer, did you tell one side, HMRC, that this home was a first home, whilst telling the other, the HoC fees office, the opposite?

That is the basis of the fiddle."

There WAS NO FIDDLE (my caps for emphasis). You are clearly being obtuse for the sake of it.

Alexander's London home was designated his second home for expenses only when he became an MP when he bought a house in his constituency. He spent more time in Inverness than London, therefore to claim the other way round would have been a fiddle.

Since he sold his London home within the three-year window allowed by the CGT rules, it matters not the slightest how it was designated for expenses purposes, its sale simply was not liable for CGT.

Indeed, it matter not the slightest whether he claimed or did not claim expenses, since the CGT position remains exactly the same; sell within 3 years and there is no liability.

The period of double home ownership was a mere 18 months.

He now has a second London home on which, presumably, he claims second home expenses. How that might be treated when it's sold will depend entirely on his status and the CGT rules at the time.

He sold his London home

Petros

It's time we moved on:
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/05/telegraph-fiddles-while-britain-burns.html

Judy

Strangely contagious thing, amnesia. So many defenders here of house flipping seem to have forgotten how deeply unimpressed the public was with the repeated cries of "it was all within the rules".Lots of older people with low yielding interest on savings, now facing huge CGT hike on a buy to let house bought to supplement low pension feel a lot less indulgent towards Alexander. And are not right wing Tories or Telegraph fans. Hope coalition fans of which I am one avoid starting to sound like Michael Martin.

Barry

Why is there not a rule in Parliament that simply says 'You cannot claim expenses on a home you have told the tax man is your main residence'? Then no taxpayer funded flipping could ever occur.

Dimoto

How much editorial freedom do the proprietors allow the editorial staff of the DT ?
This campaign must be damaging the DT circulation.
The proprietors would only allow it, if it suited their political interests.
They are not right-wing Tories.
Sniff, sniff ... is that coffee ?

GeoffH

"Lots of older people with low yielding interest on savings, now facing huge CGT hike on a buy to let house bought to supplement low pension feel a lot less indulgent towards Alexander"

Who says and on what grounds?

As has been pointed out umpteen times, Alexander sold within the three year period allowed by HMRC rules and there was no liability to CGT. No liability. Not an avoidance. Simply no liability.

As it happens, when I worked for a multi-national and moved house to different postings, my company-sponsored moves left me with ownership of two houses on four occasions for an overlapping period varying between two and six months. There was never any question of liability for CGT then, nor was there for Alexander.

And those older people with a buy-to-let face no CGT until they realise the gain - even if there is one in today's property market. Meanwhile they enjoy their rental income to supplement their pension.

The rest of us with savings in deposit accounts continue to pay tax on the pitiful interest earned at marginal rates of 40% or 50% when the higher rate starts. CGTers have been let off easy at 18%.

mackem mike

Well,well,well. The telegraph IS a tory rag.
It despises the libdems as it is ultra right
wing and wishes to have a minority tory govt.
If this westminster farce could only be played out in full ,it would be funny.
However this is to serious to laugh about and all three major parties are guilty of,still conning the "gullible"public. A curse on all of there houses.

Barry

GeoffH said: "Since he sold his London home within the three-year window allowed by the CGT rules, it matters not the slightest how it was designated for expenses purposes, its sale simply was not liable for CGT.

Indeed, it matter not the slightest whether he claimed or did not claim expenses, since the CGT position remains exactly the same; sell within 3 years and there is no liability."

I think you've misunderstood or been distracted by the 3 year thing - Alexander had owned the property since 1999.

The London property was said to be Danny Alexander's main residence, which automatically excludes it from CGT.

If Alexander had told the taxman in 2005 that the London property was now his second home he would have a liability when he sold it in 2007 that was the gain from 1999 to 2004.(ie excluding the final 3 years of ownership as the home had at one time been his main home.)

Alexander claimed to the taxman it was still his main home yet the home *was* his second home as his Parliamentary expense claims demonstrate.

What this furore demonstrates to me is that the tax system is needlessly complex. It pushes all the advantages towards high income earners who can afford an accountant. A much simpler tax regime could have lower rates as there would be far less scope for avoidance let alone evasion.

GeoffH

Barry said: "I think you've misunderstood or been distracted by the 3 year thing - Alexander had owned the property since 1999."

No, I've not been distracted at all. Look at the HMRC web site. It allows for an overlap of up to three years in selling when, because of market other circumstances, an individual ends up owning two homes.

Imagine inheriting your parent's home. It takes you a year or so to sell it. You are not liable for CGT and IHT combined.

When he first purchased the house is irrelevant.

FergusPickering

What is it that a 'pure' Tory does other than hang on to his money like grim death. I'm a Tory too. Pay your taxes you rich bastards and shut up. Anyone earning over say £50,000 a year is rich in most people's books. Anyone earning over £100,000 is FILTHY rich. If you wanted to save for your pensins why didn't you buy ISAs at the rate of £7,000 a year? Because speculating in property paid so much better. Well, you speculated and you didn't win quite as much as you thought you would. Hard cheese. Now pay up. Nigel Lawson says it makes sense and that's good enough for me.

Tiberius

Well if you're baffled by the DT's current strategy, David, what hope is there for the rest of us?

They do seem to be attempting self-justification, particularly with the ludicrous assertion that they did not seek to bring Laws' sexuality into the story.

What they have not attempted to answer is why they are running the story now, having not done so months ago. It is perhaps noteworthy they have not said something to the effect that they "only got to that part of the DVD last week", which was a justification that Ben Brogan put out at the start of the revelations when he was asked why the information was being drip fed.

Rhoda Klapp

I understand Cameron to have said, at the press conference, that he was capping net immigration. Is that true?

Are there really five items in the coalition plan which are in fact not allowed under EU rules and/or ECHR? Perhaps those who have read it could explain.

And why do all the broad church pushers reject anyone too far to the right, as if they were traitors? Including people who do not even pretend to be tories, like Hitchens, who has stated that he wants the party destroyed, and therefore should not be lumped in with those who merely think it too centrist. The idea would be to keep people IN the church by catering to all the congregation.

Oh, and what is the number of the immigration cap? And the EU component? Is it really a net figure they mean? does the document say?

NickW

It was my understanding that Damian McBride has and had long standing links with the Telegraph.

It would seem that Mc Bride is now using the Telegraph to undermine the Government, and the idiots in the Telegraph are providing every assistance to him.

Paul Wakeford

So the Telegraph is determined to reduce its circulation? Those the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Barry

GeoffH said: "When he first purchased the house is irrelevant."

It is not irrelevant. How would you know when to start and stop considering the capital gain? With Alexander's London home as his main residence there was no CGT to pay. Had he instead told HMRC it was his second home (as his expenses claims indicate) the gain to be taxed would be the increase in value from 1999-2004. It is only to 2004 because there is an automatic 36 month relief from capital gains on any home that has been your main residence.

This is explained here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm under the "Working out the relief" section.

Could you point out where on the HMRC site it explains there is an overlap of 3 years please as I can't seem to find it.

The Revenue themselves explain the most tax effective way of disposing of an inherited home: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/inheritancetax/tax-when-you-inherit.htm#3

If you live in the home you inherit and then sell it you'll have no CGT to pay.(As it is your main residence) If the inherited home becomes a second home for you and you sell it without ever living in it and nominating it as a main residence you *will* have CGT to pay if it has increased in value since you inherited it. When the number of homes you have changes you have a two year grace period in which to inform HMRC which one is your main residence.

My dislike of this wheeze is not the flipping. Anyone with more than one home is perfectly entitled to do this and minimising your tax liability is a hobby everyone should have. It is not even the expenses. It is that he told the Revenue one thing and told Parliament another. I do not see how the two can be squared. If he wanted it as his first home for tax purposes he should not have claimed any expenses on it and instead have been claiming for his constituency home costs.(And I would not balk at that.)

The Green Book rules state "Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else"

IMO Alexander's Schroedinger's Home, both a first home and a second home depending who is doing the asking, fails that.

In fact, I'd go even further than that. The preceeding rule says "It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source."

Alexander told the Revenue it was his main residence and as such was claiming primary residence relief. He should not have got any expenses on it.

Barry

"Private Residence Relief" obnoviously.

djw2009

No, Adro. Blackburn is not a Tory. You could say he was a big-C Conservative (anyone who supports the Conservative Party is, in the same way that all members of China' ruling party are big-C Communists, even though they have dropped the communism).

There are beliefs that are essential to Toryism. As I have said before (and I weary of having to explain again and again to cretins), can you imagine a Green Party that supported pollution? Environmentalism is at the heart of green politics, such as they are. In the same way, preserving the national culture and supporting self-rule and a small state are simply the heart of Toryism. That Blackburn is a tart who shills for the British Establishment, which has dropped those values, simply means he is not a real conservative.

Barry

GeoffH,

Sorry.

I was wrong and you are right on Private Residence Relief so ignore all the bilge I've been typing.

David Bouvier

Barry - thankyou for that decent acknowledgement of error - a rare and delightful thing on t'internet. (and saves me digging out chapter and verse!)

David Bouvier

djw2009 - There are at least four general uses of the word Tory. You seem to want to pick the traditional values / Monday Club constitution version, but (assuming the succession to Charles II is not your burning issue, and we are trying to use it as other than as a generic nickname for Conservatives) it also covers classic Disraelian one nation conservatism (hence TRG and groups like that). In both cases it counterpoints Whiggism I suppose.

You may think that fighting over the nickname is interesting; I don't if that is the issue will not bother you any further.

If you suffer the common delusion / fantasy that your personal political preferences would - if only given a proper airing in the media - lead to you personal hero (John Redwood, Norman Tebbit, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Ken Livingstone, whoever...) being carried into Downing Street by a massive majority then you have taken leave of mainstream politics and are heading off to live with the nutters.

If you avoid that trap you will realise that real politics is pragmatic, complex and difficult and that testing your shibboleths to weed out "Splitters!" is not a productive activity.

Your final sentence by he way is rude and looks ill of anyone claiming adherence to "traditional" values.

Rhoda Klapp

David Bouvier, do you intend to say that the virtues djw claims as shibboleths are not essential constituents of 'toryism'? Small governemnt? National values of some sort (to be determined no doubt)? Some degree of independence? I am not seeking to argufy here. I know where I stand. I do not quite know where those in charge of the party and their supporters stand. I wouldn't mind some 'transparency'. I am perturbed by those who would make electability too much of a priority if it contends with what they believe. I observe some people using the supposed unpopularity of opposing policy to push what in fact is their own preference disguised as the only way we can win.

So, what does the party believe in? Don't talk to me about Disraeli, we do not live in his world. Don't tell me about one nation and say in the next phrase that my idea of what is right is excluded.

What does it believe in? What set of beliefs could we unite around? The fewer out-of-context historical references the better.

Greenslime

The Telegraph's apparent schizophrenia is driven by one thing: the need to create headlines to drive circulation. They can paint it up as public service journalism but the bottom line means that deep down this paper is as shallow as any of the red tops.

Rhoda Klapp

You shouldn't blame a newspaper for acting like a newspaper. Far better one that goes after all politicians than one which gives those it likes a pass.

(I hold no brief for the telegraph per se, haven't bought a copy in years, too lefty for me).

David Bouvier

Rhoda - djw2009 brought in the question of the real meaning of Toryism and started defining who can and cannot belong to his exclusive club.

Most of the people here will believe in liberty and the rule of law, limited government and strong community, limited taxation and personal responsibility, preserving our evolved constitution, etc. But that covers a lot of different approaches and huge differences in priorties.

But Conservatism is a broad church and it is not up to djw2009 or Heffer to decide who is a 'true' Conservative.

Like you it seems, I would like to be able to debate here the different nuances of these beliefs, and the different viewpoints people have within Conservatism.

Declaring other Conservatives to beyond the pale, "not a Tory" and "a tart who shills for the establishment" is in my view unhelpful extremism and deserved my attempted rebuke.

I agree it is not yet clear where Cameron's 'core' is - though I think that like Thatcher we will only know when he grows into the role. When of course the die is already cast.

My biggest worry is that he seems weak on taxation issues and he - or others - simply do not understand the implications of what they seem to have accepted from the LibDems - but I love his seeming seriousness about liberty, fiscal rectitude and the "Big Society" (hate the name though). There is a real attempt going on it seems to educate the electorate away from "something must be done" kneejerk government action.

So on balance I think there are some truly fundamental issues that Cameron is strong on that if successful will help turn the country around. Which leads me to cut Cameron slack on some of his ham-fisted party management, and "progressive" preachyness.

Rhoda - please expand on your point view ...

Rhoda Klapp

Oh, yes, apropos of nothing, anybody remember when the Spectator didn't understand what the fuss was about over expenses? Well ye ken noo.

Rhoda Klapp

David, it seems we are both on the same hymn book, but we have different favourite hymns, so we don't always sing from the same sheet. Enough stretched metaphor?

Like you, I find Cameron occasionally says something I like. I am not convinced of his sincerity, and I think the balance of pragmatism vs principle is leaning too far to the centre. Now I would be willing to be seen to be to the right of the party (if I claimed to be in it at all, which I don't) excpet there are some in the pragmetic wing who want the rest of us to shut up lest we frighten the horses. Now that is not a broad church any more, if some may sing and others must just sit quietly at the back. Oops, metaphor again.

Now I think our relationship with the EU is quite important. Immigration and multi-cult too. I'd like the Afghan thing to be stopped this afternoon, don't wait till tomorrow or until Obama tells us we may leave. I sense that the coalition is handling the easily agreed things first, and that some day there will have to be difficult choices in areas where policy is irreconcilable. I wish them good luck. But my issues, on most of which I am in agreement with about half the electorate, will not go away.

These are they:

The EU costs us far more than it benefits and is anyway undemocratic and institutionally evil.

Multi-culturalism is too big an experiment to run without check on my nation without my permission.

Excessive immigration ditto.

Destroying our economy in the name of a doubtful AGW theory is folly.

The Afghan war. The price is too high, the reward even if we won is nothing worth having.

The conservative party is on the wrong side of every one, yes even immigration until they explain their plans a little more.

djw2009

If conservatism is so broad a church that it encompasses those who do not believe in the nation state and the national culture, then it is just the same as a Green Party that supports oil slicks. Whether a Conservative party that supported genuine conservatism would get elected is an interesting question - the proposition hasn't been tested for a long time - but what is certain is that the Conservative Party is no longer conservative. This is nothing to do with being or not being a broad church, but about the basic fundamental point of conservatism. The Green Party is probably a broad church - but if they supported oil slicks, it would be fair to say it had lost its point as a party. If a Conservative Party can win election by junking conservative values, that merely means that its election is of no interest to conservatives, because it won't achieve anything conservative. There is no difference between Cameron's government and a genuine majority government of Lib Dems. Even if it is conceded that they have gained government, they have not done so as conservatives and in order to implement conservatism. Blackburn's political views are all those of the far left - various forms of egalitarianism. How can the Coalition govt commit itself to "fairness"? As Enoch Powell said, "there is no such thing as social justice". There simply cannot be, and it is wrong to try to achieve it - you simply end up empowering an embezzling bureaucracy that uses this agenda to feather its nest.

David Short

Can any one make sense of this foggy prose?

David Short

"FergusPickering
May 31st, 2010 7:33pm

Report this comment

What is it that a 'pure' Tory does other than hang on to his money like grim death. I'm a Tory too. Pay your taxes you rich bastards and shut up. Anyone earning over say £50,000 a year is rich in most people's books. Anyone earning over £100,000 is FILTHY rich. If you wanted to save for your pensins why didn't you buy ISAs at the rate of £7,000 a year? Because speculating in property paid so much better. Well, you speculated and you didn't win quite as much as you thought you would. Hard cheese. Now pay up. Nigel Lawson says it makes sense and that's good enough for me."

Fergus Pickering, you confuse stocks with flows. An income does not make you rich, because it can be cut off almost immediately. One is rich if one has a large stock of money. However that much equates to being rich is a matter of opinion. I earn considerably more than 50,000 and luckily for me it is tax-free, but I am not rich.

David Bouvier

djw2009 - I will endeavour to engage with the meat of your point. Repeating a poor analogy about the Green Party does not help. (Are you suggesting there are sane people who do support oil slicks, or that for anyone to disagree with you makes them as nutty as someone who does support oil slicks?) You might want to ponder the circumstances which are leading some greens to support nuclear power - which must be a "clause 4 moment" for them.

Your points seem to be that the Cameron Conservative party:

"does not believe in the national culture"
"does not believe in the nation state"
"endorses fairness"
"junks conservative values"

I suspect there are specific concrete issues you have in mind for these, which if addressed would lead to a productive discussion. Generic assertion just leads to shouting.

I take "national culture" to be opposition to multiculturalism - which combined some good things - openness, tolerance - and some poisonous things - ranking groups by victimhood, low expectations, apartheid like definitions of community membership, trying to destroy opposition with claims of racism, enforced 're-education'.

But I doubt you are asking us to go back to a 'national culture' of "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks". I suspect multi-culturalism has peaked in influence, and I hope that this government will seek to separate positive things - tolerance, genuine organic cultural diversity - from the bad - race quangos, witch-hunts, group victimhood politics.

I take your nation state point to be a complaint about the EU. Cameron's manifesto included strong pledges on the EU, he pursued and completed the pledge to form a new European Parliament group against significant institutional opposition from within the party and without - but which in a few years will be transformative. There is a real prospect of him using accession treaties and other situations to make a real difference to the UK experience of Europe. You may prefer an exit referendum but that is not the only acceptable conservative position.

I don't think you are suggesting that "unfairness" is a core conservative value. I agree that social justice is a meaningless phrase. Actually if the Lib-Con coalition can replace that with fairness it is much more open to procedural interpretations as well as end-state interpretations so provides an opportunity to shift political debate - but also of course it is widely recognised that fairness is in the eye of the beholder and there is scope for much debate on - for example - the fair distribution of emergency tax rises.

Now, where exactly is the junking of all things true and conservative. Possibly of course you have other policy areas in mind - if you perhaps you will enlighten us...

David Bouvier

Dear Coffeehouse - my conversation with Rhoda and djw2009 is getting seriously off topic - should we take it elsewhere?

Rhoda Klapp

It's OK David, we are on page 2 as I write, so nobody is looking anyway.

Rhoda Klapp

David, let's address your points.

Multiculturalism. Good or bad? It is spoken of as a good thing in all westminster politics. I believe our parliament has a responsiblity to avoid the worst aspects of multiculturalism, and it has failed to prevent enclaves and ghettoes where one can live in a foreign culutre for ones entire life. Not multi, in terms of appearing not to accept any native culture. Without getting into the tiber flowing with blood, surely that is not desirable. (Here I go with the feminized speech again). Anyhow, some cultures are not delivering much in terms of the restaurants and music which is supposed to justify the whole deal.

THe EU. Tory policy in this has been not to have an actual position except to avoid having a position. The 'in europe but not ruled by europe' thing is just ludicrous. Yes I want an in/out referendum. It is, to me at least, an issue of sovereignty. The policy of the tory party in coalition is..what? The party grouping to which they moved after a long delay may not even last more than a month or two, it is under severe pressure due to EP rules if it loses, I think, two members. The LDs sit in a different group. This is one of the irreconcilable differences. I really do not care to elaborate on Dave's referendum conditions at the moment, because as you no doubt know, Lisbon can be stretched to pretty much any size, and any move against an accession treaty would be (quite fairly) treated as an assault on some joining country's chances for domestic political reasons.

Fairness? It's not the concept of fairness, it's the use of it as a word for victims to set themselves up. The word is as the word culture was to that german chap with the Browning. 9mm, I suppose, not gravy.

djw2009

>>I suspect multi-culturalism has peaked in influence

No. Rubbish. Er, tripe, actually. We are actually at the beginning of a process that will see English people turned into a minority in their own land.

>>But I doubt you are asking us to go back to a 'national culture' of "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks".

Well, we ought to go back to a national culture where there is freedom of association (see the points made by Rand Paul in the USA).

>>There is a real prospect of him using accession treaties and other situations to make a real difference to the UK experience of Europe. You may prefer an exit referendum but that is not the only acceptable conservative position.

No, you are wrong. Cameron is just an opportunist using a pretence of patriotism to cover his back. The fact is we already get 80% of our laws from Brussels, and ought to get 0% from that source. What % are you claiming your approach would produce?

>>fairness.

I am not speaking up in favour of "unfairness", but in favour of "freedom" - political and economic liberty. Let the chips fall where they fall in society. It is lame to even think that state sponsorship of fairness has increased social fairness. It hasn't. It has morally destroyed the working class and produced an overclass of arrogant quangocrats.

David Bouvier

djw2009 - so to review: national culture, nation state, fairness and values

So by national culture, you actually mean restricting immigration not multiculturalism though your comment conflates the two.

Equally you have no actual problem with decent interpretations of "fairness". Given we start from a rather large state and need emergency tax rises and cuts in state spending there is no "let the chips fall where they fall". Decisions have to be made that can be considered more or less fair.

You don't like much of what is claimed to be "social justice" which is a different issue. That some conflate the two means that a switch to fairness makes it easier for the arguments to be shifted onto more conservative territory.

And if we believe in fairness needs requires that we do decide for example what constitutes fairness in the allocation of tax rises and spending cuts.

Again it is clear you don't like the EU and seem to think exit the only option, but fail to explain why no conservative can in good conscience disagree.

But it is not clear from your reply even what you believe, let alone what the basis is on which you presume to tell half the authors on this site that they have no business considering themselves conservatives.

When you have made clear what the rules are by which you so confidently consign them to the conservative inferno we can critically consider your criteria.

As I have made clear I think you are rather silly for making such pronouncements. I would commend the phrase "I disagree", preferably followed by a reasoned explanation that assumes other party is fairly well-intentioned and moderately competent.

David Bouvier

Rhoda - as you say, we seem to have a common 'conservative' point of view with some differences in approach and priorities.

I think there is little disagreement on the excesses of the "Big M, Big C" multiculturalism which is given cover by bland assumptions about "being excellent to one-an-other" (c) Bill & Ted. Classic leftist playing with word meanings in a shifty manner.

Equally there are opponents of immigration who hide a dislike of ethnic minorities per se.

There is plenty of room for decent conservatives to genuinely disagree on immigration, the need for acculturation, and the problems caused by bad welfare policy integrating with bad immigration policy.

On the whole I am pro-moderate immigration, anti-multicultural ghetto politics. For the record I work for a firm with (NRI) Indian founders and a workforce from many different countries.

I agree that EU policy to date has been "don't show any disagreement" but the message has got through that most of the country, let alone Conservatives have big issues with the status quo.

Cameron has actually followed through on the institutional points re the EPP etc, and seems to take the issue seriously. I am optimistic - and it will be the tacking on the Irish opt-outs to the accession treaty that will provide cover for a Conservative veto.

A agree about the number of words that are deserving of a round or too, but fairness is a good thing and presents an opportunity to reclaim the good for the conservative party. Fairness is abused as a term but the common understanding is richer than the political abuse of it.

Anyway,... all I have time for now...