Boris's Johnson, Liberalism, The BBC - it's all here..

[onebatmother]

Anyone want to continue the sick-at-heart/flushed-with-triumph thread.

We were just discussing the BBC and liberalism.

oh, the 10p tax band and shitting is such a canard, I think.

As far as I can work out their 'natural constituency' was going to be better off. It was spectacularly mis-handled though, PR-wise.

Policyw - I'm not uncritical of the Tories. It's a great shame they are arrogant enough to feel their love of the free market is sufficient political philosophy. It's shouldn't be. However, I feel the size of the state needs to be reduced (as a matter of urgency) and I feel they are best placed to do it. Pope Pius XI said capitalism and communism are united in their satanic optimism.

btw Left wingers don't have the monopoly on conscience. Really they don't.

oh piss off swc - you have absolutely no idea of my personal circumstances and I'm astonished that you are happy to make such a thoughtless and potentially insulting assumption.

Oh, and I love the idea that principles shift according to income bracket. Not for me they don't, but please feel free to expose your own morality.

Swedes - was that post in response to something I'd said? I don't think I've implied that Tories don't have consciences, have I? I certainly don't think it.

Policyw - No that part not at all directed at you. That bit was for general thread consumption. Sorry, I should have made it clear. You a Green with very very good grace. You read a shite paper though.

Interesting response Wonk, I did have you wrong. But you've answered my question -- that you think it's a general, persistent and long term failure to understand.

My problem with that is that it evokes the Thatcherite motif adopted by Blair "We're not doing anything wrong but we're not getting our message across, so people don't understand". (cue expensive PR campaigns but that's another story).

I hated this theme in the 80s and 90s and was depressed when Labour took up the cry.

I think people often do understand, quite acutely, even without the advantages of education that others have had. My own background is educated old fashioned working class, miners strike supporter, Labour voter. "Other people don't understand but we do" strikes me as middle class sophistry. Please don't be cross about that as I think we are all on this thread operating in good faith.

You're right of course, people understand the issues to a greater or lesser extent, and I'm sure you wouldn't claim to understand them all -- I certainly don't. But when at a loss I think it's entirely right to vote for a change, a kick up the arse, to prevent complacency and corruption getting their knees under.

smallwhitecat, I am certainly not an economist, and I am quite prepared to be pulled up on my figures, but as far as I can work out, the 5.3 million figure is an estimate of those who would be worse off "by £1 a week or more". So while a £1 is a £1, the figures for those seriously affected by the removal of the band is far lower than that.

In any case, the 2008 budget has largely pulled in the two key groups who were badly affected by the 2007 budget when the 10% band was abolished (poorly paid who weren't eligible for Working Tax Credit, and pensioners between 60-64) - by expanding the WTC, and the Pension Credit.

The 10% tax was abolished bcs over 80% of the people who were benefiting from it were in the higher and basic rate tax band, and not the poorest paid.

This latest budget has pulled another 1million children out of poverty. I do not see either the Lib Dems or the Tories proposing to restore the 10% band, precisely because it didn't work.

"it's a lot easier to be "principled" re taxation when you're well off and it's a relatively low proportion of your income that goes in tax." That may well be, I couldn't possibly tell you, since we are on a low income ourselves. I've more frequently remarked that it is the wealthy who find their principles 'under pressure', and that the poor are more likely to hold principles relating to economic justice and the support of the most impoverished section of society.

"i'm concerned about the fact that it's the low paid who bear the greatest psrt of the tax burden in the uk. that's my morality, and i'm happy to defend it."

Then you will be voting Socialist Party at the GE? Or for the Tories, who are less.. noted for their commitment to the equitable spread of the tax-burden?

Onebat - If the abolition of the 10p rate is of little consequence to so few people one does have to wonder why it was introduced.

Good point Swedes. However, if governments weren't allowed to adjust their policies once their efficacy had been tested in 'real life', then ...

Left wingers certainly don't have a monopoly on conscience. The right always is happy to admit that but never the left. We do need to cut back the state hugely. It's got far too over blown, so many quangos, so much money wasted on consultants. It's a massive gravy train we cannot now afford but neither of the parties has any stomach for anything radical.

The 10% tax band was a labour invention after the tories had simplified tax down to 2 bands when we used to have 6 or more. The simplicity is a huge gain.

The tories will win the next general election but I am not sure they have any good radical policies that was sorely needed. Could we merge national insurance and tax, raise tax from 20% to 25% in consequence? That would be a good simplification for a start.

why is the simplicity a huge gain, Xenia, and for whom?

Complexity in the tax system leads to waste of money and effort. It leads to more accountancy advice needed. It means time spent working out what is complex. Simple straight tax rate / rates saves money and therefore benefits everyone and NI is fake anyway - the money has never been set aside into a pot for your retirement. It all just goes into the general public purse anyway so it's ridiculous to differentiate it from tax.

it's true that a simpler tax system is more efficient (I think they shoudl abolish NI too. especially as that would mean abolishing the upper cieling)

but it's not necessarily true that we need to "cut back on the state". they could cut down on cosultants, yes. and they could plan large projects better too. but fundamentally, I think the ratio between tax and public spending in the uk is about right. they have lower taxes in the US, but shit services, and festering inequality. they have higher taxes in scandinavia, but I don't think that model would necessarily work in the uk. though it might. maybe we should try.

Onebat - "I've more frequently remarked that it's the wealthy who find their principles 'under pressure', and that the poor are more likely to hold principles relating to economic justice and the support of the most impoverished section of society."

Doesn't that make both groups (wealthy and impoverished) completely self serving? Also following your model, does it mean an impoverished man who becomes wealthy will find his principles under pressure?

I don't agree with you at all.

It may well be more efficient, with resulting savings across the board - but it is not necessarily more just.

I'm not even sure it's true. What about the grand old tradition of the solid working class Conservative, matched by wealthy chattering class Labour supporter.

don't you think though, swedes, that morally, "I would like everyone to have as much money as him" is not quite the same as "I want to keep more of my money, even if that means that those people have less"

I agree both positions are self serving, although there are "tax the rich" rich people, but funnily enough, not many "equal taxes for all" poor people.

what tradition of the solid working class Conservative would that be then?

Are you serious, Senora?

Surely anything that saves the public purse is more just.

OK Swedes, I wasn't clear. What I meant to say was that the poor-ER are more likely to hold principles relating to economic justice and the support of the MOST impoverished section of society. Not necessarily because these principles benefit themselves materially, but from a sense of duty to support those who are struggling.

"does it mean an impoverished man who becomes wealthy will find his principles under pressure?"

My point was intended as a particular and specific response to SWC's insistence that the wealthy can easily afford to have principles of equality, etc. She assumed that I belonged to this group, which I don't.

And as an aside, I remarked that I hadn't noticed this group of wealthy socialists around much, but I had noticed the less wealthy caring how those in worse positions than themselves are supported..

In fact I belong to the group which SWC was saying would struggle to hold these principles of equality. I wanted to disassociate myself from the idea that if one is oneself adversely affected by a certain policy, one is likely to be against that policy, regardless of whether one believes it is right in principle.