Universal Basic Income
How could we pay for a meaningful Universal Basic Income?
Fact Check – Conservatives’ Plan for the Economy
I saw this advert and it frankly made my blood boil because it showed that the Conservatives still want to outright lie and misinform the electorate. As such, I thought I would analyse their various claims and indicate why I think that the claim is wrong to make, even the ones that are technically correct. Here’s the offending poster, which I have annotated to indicate where I think they lose marks for honesty: All kinds of lies and deceptions. Biggest ever increase to the National Living Wage This is one of those “technically true but deeply deceptive” claims. Yes, this might well be the largest increase to the National Living Wage, but it conveniently ignores the fact that the National Living Wage is a relatively new feature brought in within the life of the Conservative premiership of the UK, meaning no other parties have had any impact on the National Living Wage. So this is essentially a statement that this year they have uplifted this minimum more than they themselves did in previous years. The fact that this is their headline, their best statement, is genuinely telling – it’s utterly meaningless. On top of that, the increase might be the largest in terms of pounds and pence, but as we all know there is a cost of living crisis going on at the moment, exacerbated by Conservative mismanagement of the economy for the last 12 years. As such, this “increase” represents a real-terms decrease due to the ravages of inflation. Fact check conclusion: not quite a bald-faced lie, but highly dishonest to claim this as a positive for their party. £11bn extra funding for the NHS and schools Again, technically true, but highly misleading. The NHS for example has a budget of some £170bn a year, so increasing this by some £3bn represents a pretty meagre 1.8% increase in the NHS budget, far below inflation (that again, the Conservatives have had a large hand in exacerbating if not causing). In essence, this is a stealthy way to slash their budget rather than support it. Fact check conclusion: again, not quite a bald-faced lie, but definitely completely dishonest to ignore the impact of inflation and 12 years of Conservative budget cuts. Helping every household with their energy bills This one really made my blood boil because this is both a lie and a denial that Labour and before them the Liberal Democrats were calling for help with the energy bills funded by a windfall tax on the profits of energy companies. Again, this is technically true in some respects, but it deliberately hides the fact that the Conservatives initially did nothing, then introduced a scheme whereby taxpayers would defer, not reduce, the amount they owed for energy (with no indication of where this would ultimately be paid from), then finally scrambled to work out how to offer that support in a fiscally responsible way. Finally, this is not a plan for the economy. It is a cost to help mitigate their woeful management of our energy infrastructure over the last 12 years. Ultimately this is an entirely vacuous claim that should make whoever drafted it hang their head in shame and leave politics forever. Fact check conclusion: Utter, utter lies. Protecting the triple lock Considering there is only one government which suspended the triple lock (the Conservatives) and since they refused point-blank to confirm that they would support this until Hunt’s Autumn Statement, this genuinely is a baffling inclusion to this document, as it only serves to highlight how indecisive the Conservative leadership has been over the last year. As far as I am aware, the triple lock was under threat from no other parties. Fact check conclusion: No idea why they would include such a self-burn in this poster. Labour has no plan for the economy This definitely falls into the “outright lie” category, as Labour has been arguing for things like a windfall tax for most of this year, a sovereign wealth fund to reduce our reliance on foreign-sourced energy and funding their plans from taxes on the wealthiest people and companies in the UK. I don’t agree with everything they propose, but they certainly had a fully-costed manifesto going into the 2019 election and they have continued to amend their position in light of changing circumstances. It seems that this is a very lazy alternative to actually criticising their policies, i.e. pretending that they just don’t exist. Fact check conclusion: This is without question one of the biggest outright lies on the poster, and frankly it is utterly pathetic to see. Only the Conservatives have a plan for a stronger economy Following on from the last point, this is just heinous levels of dishonesty. If the argument is that they cannot see any plans for a stronger economy from any party, then I can only conclude that the author of the poster has not read any manifestos from any other parties, has no idea that there is no historic evidence that Conservatives do better with the economy than anyone else, and should not be allowed anywhere near informed political discourse again. For the record, both the Liberal Democrats as a party and I personally have manifestos which specifically include plans to unlock the great potential of the UK economy. Every party does, with the possible exception of the Conservatives, as their plans were announced on 23 September 2022, unwound over the next month, then completely amended by the new government. If this is a plan, then I am a fish. Fact check conclusion: Desperate lie from someone that presumably thinks it would be clever to ignore alternative plans rather than address them. Final Conclusion Frankly this entire poster is nonsense. The only truly factual thing the authors managed to include was the name of their political party; the rest is either outright lies or a very dishonest interpretation of facts. Anyone sharing this should be ashamed of themselves, they are part of the reason why the electorate
Challenge Accepted!
I was campaigning yesterday and when we were done, we retreated to a local pub to unwind, debrief and, of course, discuss politics. As part of this I approached the barkeeper, who indicated that I have almost no chance of getting elected in the constituency because “there are too many rich people” and “you need to come back when the Lib Dems have some actual ideas”. OK, I thought, I can do that. So here’s a list of five major policy ideas that the Lib Dems have (note that these are not necessarily exactly in line with my personal manifesto, which is open and transparent already, but represents the motions that the party has agreed at Federal level). 1. Electoral Reform The Lib Dems support democracy, in that we believe that all voices need representation at government level, not just the least unpopular party in a constituency. In practice, this means that it is necessary to introduce proportional representation so that everyone’s vote matters and safe seats are a thing of the past. This has a knock-on effect that political parties will need to get much better at co-operation, negotiation and long-term views, as coalition governments will become the norm rather than an exception. 2. Healthcare Lib Dems believe that everyone in the UK has a right to good quality healthcare free at the point of service and funded by taxes paid by everyone (see below). This includes ambulance services, which are currently atrocious, and social care, which has the potential to take all assets carefully acquired over an entire life of work and taxes. 3. Education Lib Dems believe that everyone deserves a quality education, and that as a society we are better off educating as many people as far as possible. As such, the party centrally support the abolition of university tuition fees, increases to the funding of schools in general, and the creation of an educational fund which encourages people beyond normal university age to take up some form of education to improve their overall knowledge base. 4. Immigration Without question, the Tories have doubled-down on the idea that immigration is a crime rather than a cry for help. The Lib Dems believe that the UK isn’t doing anywhere near enough to help asylum seekers, and on to of that the plan to ship migrants to Rwanda is frankly disgusting and economically prohibitive. Instead the Lib Dems believe that immigration is generally a positive for the country, in that immigrants often do jobs that those in the UK do not want to do, e.g. fruit-picking, cleaning, etc. Frankly these individuals should be welcomed, not demonised. 5. Taxes We Lib Dems acknowledge that the current tax system is designed to be unfair. Capital – or wealth – is taxed at a much lower rate than income, meaning we effectively reward those who already have their fortunes while penalising those who work to build a similar fortune. The idea of a progressive tax system is to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the largest load, but our progressive system utterly falls apart for the highest levels of wealth, where often almost no tax is paid at all on the largest of estates in the form of either capital gains tax or inheritance tax. As a first step to redressing this, the Lib Dems believe that harmonising capital gains tax with income tax is an improvement in fairness and will capture more wealth, taking some of the burden off income-earners. As an aside, I believe this doesn’t go far enough, and I would like to see further harmonisation with inheritance tax, the abolition of most allowances and tiers, and the introduction of the universal basic income to provide the progressiveness. Bonus: Housing Conservatives have failed miserably when it comes to house building and infrastructure required to support that. Part of the increased tax take from the ultra-wealthy above could easily be used to build more housing, which in turn would take a lot of pressure off the immigration system. As part of this, we would need to acquire some of the 30-50% of the UK currently owned by landed gentry, but this seems less of a problem if said estates are required to actually pay tax like normal individuals. Summary This wasn’t really much of a challenge. Frankly, the Lib Dems have a huge number of policies, and it is only by listening to the Conservatives or their client media that you could ever think that this wasn’t the case. In fact, looking at the last General Election, it is quite possible that the Conservatives had the fewest ideas with the least amount of actual analysis, resulting in a very short wishlist of ideas that had no analytical backing whatsoever (oddly reminiscent of the “true Tory Budget” announced by Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor which had to be almost wholly walked-back by Jeremy Hunt). I imagine there are criticisms that could legitimately be levied against the Lib Dems, but lack of ideas is definitely not one of them. So yes, next time you feel like announcing that the Lib Dems don’t have ideas, think again. We do. Lots of them.
Requesting OBR Forecasts – Part 3
This attempt to actually get the Government to share its analysis of the projected impact of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-Budget in ongoing. Today I had a response to my request for an internal review, which was as follows: I think it is fairly clear from this that the Treasury is desperate not to share this information with the public. As I already argued to them, the OBR forecasts for Kwarteng’s statement represent statistical information which should have been used to make informed policy decisions. The fact that the projections were only requested after the date of the Statement does not change the fact that the policy in question was, at that time, finalised and announced, meaning s35(1)(a) cannot possibly apply. I have referred this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for their view on the matter, and I will continue to post updates as and when I receive them. Story so far: Part 1Part 2
Episode 3 – Dad and Electoral Reform
A slightly delayed episode of Family Politics in which I chat to my dad about electoral reform – what is it, why is it needed, and how does it relate to cake?
Is the UK a Failed State?
Not exactly a pleasant though, but has the UK failed as a whole? Wikipedia lists the following as general categorisations for a failed state: Of these, I would argue that the only one we have not satisfied is the first, in that we have not (yet) lost control of any territory nor have we (yet) lost any of our ability to call upon the armed forces. Looking at the other categories though: Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions Without question, the current government has almost done its best to delegitimise their authority. After all, we are on the third Prime Minister in the span of a few short months, and I have lost track of the number of scandals that have caused ministers to resign or be sacked. It is genuinely hard to accept that the current government has any mandate to lead, and in addition to this they have demonstrated time and time again that they do not have the collective character to do so. Inability to provide public services Sewage is being dumped into our waterways without treatment, doctors and nurses have threatened strike action for the first time ever, utilities have spiked in price, transport workers have repeatedly had to strike, several councils have had their refuse collections go on strike, education authorities have been brought to their knees with continuous budget cuts. Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community Brexit. Need I say more. We chose as a country to fulfil this particular requirement, and we can blame the Conservatives for blindly following a narrow advisory referendum into economy and diplomatic disaster. Conclusion The more I think of it, the more I think that we are presently a failed state. Our leaders do not have a mandate to be in charge, they do not have the confidence of their electorate to do the right thing, and the continuous changes in leadership show that they do not even have confidence in themselves. Hopefully this government is in its dying throes and we will not see significant additional harm before we can kick them out as voters.
Episode 2 – Tim and Wealth Distribution
A discussion between Ian and Tim, a long-standing friend, about wealth distribution in the UK. The topic meanders its way through various taxes and benefits and concludes that the current system is wholly broken.
Requesting OBR Forecasts – Part 2
Avid followers of this blog (all one of you) will know that I recently made a Freedom of Information request to obtain the OBR Forecasts provided ahead of Kwasi Kwarteng’s disastrous mini-Budget, and without any surprise whatsoever this request was rejected. Full details of the rejection are included below: In essence, they have relied on three sections of the Freedom of Information Act to reject this claim, namely sections 35(1)(a), 29(1)(a) and 29(1)(b). Dealing with these in order: 35 Formulation of government policy, etc. (1) Information held by a government department or by [F1the Welsh Assembly Government] is exempt information if it relates to— (a) the formulation or development of government policy, Freedom of Information Act 2000 At its surface, this seems to apply, but it is important to note that this exemption only covers the formulation or development of government policy. As the then Chancellor made an announcement on 23 September 2022, it is fair to say that, by that time, the policy had finished its formulation and development stage. As such, the exemption cannot apply. Secondarily, the following section says the following: (2) Once a decision as to government policy has been taken, any statistical information used to provide an informed background to the taking of the decision is not to be regarded— (a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), as relating to the formulation or development of government policy, Freedom of Information Act 2000 This confirms that once a policy decision has been reached, the exemption for formulation and development can no longer be used. 29 The economy. (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice— (a) the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom, or (b) the financial interests of any administration in the United Kingdom, as defined by section 28(2). Freedom of Information Act 2000 I have grouped these two together as my response is almost identical, namely that it is hard to see how the economic or financial interested of anything in the UK could be affected by information that was used to support (or not) policies which have almost entirely been rescinded. Overall, this reads like an attempt to protect the Conservative party, not to protect the UK as a whole, which would, I feel, be far better off knowing what information was used to make a disastrous decision regarding the country’s fiscal position. I have stated my case in reply and will keep pushing for further information.
Thanks for the Recession!
It looks like the current forecasts are for the UK to enter recession in the near future, and as things go, it’s going to be a very deep, very long one. It’s fair to say that this is very unlikely to be a good thing, and it will be used as an excuse by the government for further austerity measures, which in my view will only make things worse. Why? When a government spend money on services, that’s not the end of the story. Take the NHS as an example. The immediate benefit of funding it is obvious – a well-funded NHS means that people are generally healthier for longer, which can only be a good thing. However, those same pounds used to fund the NHS are then paid to staff and spent, meaning the effect of the payment is magnified. In essence, this is “trickle up” economics, a way to genuinely introduce capital into the system and have it move gradually to all strata of society. In other words, what the Tories claim to want to achieve, but this way actually works. It’s impossible to completely attribute the coming economic woes to the Conservative party, but they have done very little to prepare for economic hardship, being much more focused on delivering short-term benefits to the wealthy. In my view, a responsible government should have been: In my view, the Conservative governments of the last 12 years have wholly failed to meet any of these objectives, let alone all of them. Would the opposition have done any better? Possibly, but Labour have already been in power a number of times in recent decades and have not left a stable country behind. What we need is a new approach, and that comes back to my favourite topic, namely Electoral Reform. More voices need to be involved at government level, and long-term compromise is essential to achieving the goals above, and Labour’s leadership is as yet officially opposed to proportional representation. Without this change, we are all-but guaranteed to have another Conservative government in future, and that will be another opportunity for them to squander the resources that our country has to hand.