“I am resigning because of a chronic failure of political leadership. If liberal principles are to mean anything, a liberal’s duty is to challenge excesses and concentrations of power, particularly concerning the State.
However, for reasons which are still entirely unclear, the leadership of the Liberal Democrats has chosen to ignore hundreds of party members, ride roughshod over party policy, overlook reasoned argument, and rely instead on shoddy logic and misleading arguments to support this unfair, unnecessary and unbalanced Bill. The leadership has chosen to protect secrecy and abuses of power over openness, accountability and freedom. I cannot support such a leadership.”
Tag Archives: Liberal Democrats
IF Labour have any sense, then Ed Miliband will sit this one out; let the Tories and Lib Dems fight among themselves. UKIP, if Nigel Farage stands, will be a dark horse for the seat. A brutal, bloody and vicious by-election will enfold in this Tory-Liberal marginal.
Chris Huhne only has a 3,000 majority and Eastleigh is on the Tories target list.
Cameron will want to win. So will Clegg and Farage will want to do maximum damage to the Tories.
As part of preparation for this year’s Budget negotiations, Lib Dems are looking to introduce a minimum tax charge on multinationals based on their global profits.
It is near impossible to do this without international cooperation; firstly, the European Union most certainly would not favour unfair taxes aimed at non-British corporations. Nor will the Americans, too. The G-20 might become a hostile place for British ministers.
Secondly, Tim Farron fails to mention the 10,000′s of individuals employed by Starbucks and Amazon in the United Kingdom (who pay both Income Tax and National Insurance). Creating jobs and expanding business costs money – it does not magically appear out of thin air; ensuring a business pays less tax helps to provide the environment to hire and invest.
Economic protectionism is the last thing the economy needs; or a potential trade war, either. Pandering to the mob and the politics of envy is not a wise formula to base a taxation policy on. It will likely effect investments in the United Kingdom and potentially lead to capital flights i.e France under Hollande.
Unsurprisingly, Vince Cable does not seem too keen on the idea. A Business Secretary is not going to support a tax, which has the potential to destroy jobs. It’s utter madness.
If we wish to construct a fair taxation policy, then focus on Land Value Tax – the only true fairest form of taxation.
Probably the most bizarre thing the Liberal Democrats have done; either you’re in government or not – a party cannot try to exist in both government and opposition. I struggle to see how it was a “mistake”. Government tax policy is both Tory and Lib Dem; neither side can pass the blame or claim direct credit. It’s a unified effort.
In future, it might be wise not to attack a government statement, which Nick Clegg signed off.
I never thought I see the day, where a leader of a liberal party would endorse basic statutory regulation of the press. It is truly a sad day for liberalism. The press are far from perfect, but their freedom – especially from Parliament – is vital for a healthy democracy.
Granting Parliament the power to recognise and authorise a self-regulatory body – without constitutional protections – opens a dark road towards potential abuse and censorship. This current Parliament might believe in a independent free press, but we have no idea what the successors desire.
And this is the major worry; we cannot predict the future.
Liberalism, rightly, is about balancing freedoms – but you don’t do it by undermining others.
I joined the Liberal Democrats to actively defend freedom, democracy and liberty; not undermine the freedom of the press. You’re entitled to disagree with my opinion, but I stand by my position.
Vince Cable, one of the most senior Liberal Democrats, is expected to say young people over 18 should not go straight on to welfare “unless there’s a really compelling need”.
Remarkable; the most left leaning man in the Cabinet wishes for a tougher stance on benefits – more than the Tories. His idea is based on the Australian “learn or earn” system, which prevents young people going straight onto benefits after education. Ending the welfare trap, and ensuring its not a lifestyle choice, should be fundamental to any government – left or right. It is not affordable to have 500,000 young people in neither education, employment or training schemes.
There is hope for Vince after all.
Sabre rattling by Vince Cable and an “opposition within” approach in government is undermining the ability of the Department for Business to work productively across Whitehall, Labour’s Chuka Umunna has claimed.
Umunna added: “People I speak to in government tell me that Vince Cable’s sabre rattling – his “opposition within” persona – has compromised the ability of BIS [the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills] to work productively across Whitehall. This is disastrous for a department whose work is so cross cutting.”
He’s right, regardless of what you personally think of Chuka and Labour. Vince seems to be more interested in creating arguments, blocking ideas and criticising the Prime Minister than doing his job.
An example will be deregulation, which was an important part of the governments growth strategy – which Vince keeps blocking. Coalition governments are meant to operate as a single unit, but one lonely figure is hell bent on opposing absolutely everything just to make a political point.
The grassroots acknowledge the impracticality to continue to recommend abolishing tuition fees; it would stink of hypocrisy and failure to understand the dangerous reality of popular policies. More importantly, abolishing tuition fees is too expensive.
The manifesto for 2015 will be based on genuine, authentic and affordable aspirations – not cheap rhetoric.
Like always, Mark delivers yet another interesting post about the state of the party. This paragraph (similar to what I keep writing about) is well worth sharing;
As for a liberal society, I’m all for one. But what is a liberal society? It’s open to a myriad of interpretations, and the experience of the Liberal Democrats in government hasn’t helped winnow them down to a clear understanding, communicated to the public, of what it means to the party.
THAT is the key point. What will this liberal society actually look like? Nick keeps advocating it, yet voters are unsure what it will contain. Tories have the Big Society, Labour have One Nation and we still assume the public will automatically understand our message.
Our rivals articulate quite coherently an alternative future for Britain; why do we still continue to fail at this basic task?
It is time to give a full explanation of what a liberal society is and how it would benefit Britain.