Rachel Sylvester in the Times, writes an interesting piece basically saying we should jump into bed with Labour or Conservatives. It has been said before, but I'll continue to disagree with it. If people want a Liberal Democrat Government, vote for a Liberal Democrat Government. If they don't then they don't. It may sound a bit too sanguine, but some correspondent shouldn't suddenly make us forget who we are.
I particularly like her extremely misleading paragraph:
Mr Clegg says he wants to replace Labour as the “dominant force of progressive politics”. But politically he looks increasingly confused. One minute he outflanks the Tories to the right by advocating “savage” public spending cuts, the next moment he outflanks Labour to the left by proposing a tax on homes worth more than £1 million. The coalition he holds together is under strain.
Well, this is something which, as I said in my previous blog post, annoys me massively. Media people (who, let us be sure, should be well-educated in political matters, or at least they say they are) should know very well that "left" and "right" is more than about "cuts" and "spending". But alright, let's grudgingly accept that "cuts", and "lowering taxes" are tools of the right, and that "spending" and "raising taxes" are tools of the left.
I am still unsure as to why this means we are confused. Really, I think the media are confused. It is very, very simple in my head. Here's my summary:
The Liberal Democrats are a social democratic party, also committed to liberalism. As a party, we have always championed the idea of a fair society. Therefore, we have finally decided to call the Conservatives' bluff. For years and years and years, they have talked about tax cut after tax cut, to help "ordinary people". Labour too, promised the same. Neither did it. People on lower pay, pay more proportionally than those on higher pay. Is that right? The Liberal Democrats do not think so. So, we're showing the way forward. We are taking the "tools of the right" in "lower taxes", and adding to them the "tools of the left" of "higher taxes". What does this mean? It means that people in middle to lower income families would be around £700 better off under a Lib Dem Government. There is not some great ideological split. It is merely the fact that the media cannot seem to cope with the idea of tax cuts for ordinary families and the closing of tax loopholes for the rich.
Then we have the latest (brilliant) idea from Vince Cable, judged by some a "mansion tax". At this point, I had to laugh at Andrew Neil. This guy, (no, let me be clear, this vile, jumped-up media hack) clearly fancies himself as the next Paxman. But whereas Paxman asks probing, serious questions, Andy Neil thinks he's Paxman and tries to ask probing, serious questions, but ends up revealing his own bias. I would never guess who Paxman does or does not vote for. With Neil, I knew he wouldn't be voting Lib Dem.
Why? Because, when asking Vince Cable about the plan to increase tax on people who live in house worth over £1 MILLION, Mr Neil said something like (and I paraphrase, because I cannot find the interview): "But what about an old lady who no longer works, who has managed to scrape together to afford a house?"
I'll be generous to Andrew Neil. No, actually, I won't. I wonder why a journalist who was apparently taught economics by Vince Cable, would try to needlessly obfuscate the facts? Why would he pick up on one of the most unlikely scenarios imagineable, that someone who cannot afford it, would have a £1 million pound house. I mean, we are not talking £500,000, nor £250,000, all of which are extremely expensive houses in their own right. We are not even talking around £100,000 - £200,000 which lots of people tend to live in, or £50,000-£100,000 which more people live in. We are talking £1,000,000. That's not expensive, that's luxury. A luxury that so, so many people cannot even dream of. Vince Cable actually gave the figure of 1% of people it would have an impact on.
I'm tempted to submit a Freedom of Information request to see how much Andrew Neil's house costs. He is a man a bit like Richard Littlejohn. A man who says he is "one of us", but whose entire demeanour screams that, in his head, he is thinking that he isn't "one of you". He is a man who professes to speak for the people, when in actuality, he is one of the cancers of a closed, almost secret elitist society designed to perpetrate the same failed policies that have kept this country edging along on the sidelines of decency.
I am also amused by many other editorials and columnists talking in similar hyperbole about the mansion tax. I expect to see the Sun screaming, "THEY'LL ROB YOU!", along with all the vile casters of hate in the paper claiming that the Liberal Democrats are going to "steal the houses of the middle classes". Or "tax the rich so benefit cheats can get a tax cut".
It upsets me, that the media of this country cannot even try to remain impartial. It saddens me that the very people our tax policies will help will be whipped into opposition by misguided reports.
It also annoys me that Rachel Sylvester makes a weakness out of healthy debate:
No sooner had Mr Clegg suggested that child benefit might be means tested than Steve Webb, the party’s work and pensions spokesman, declared that there should be no change. “Leaders of the Liberal Democrats don’t always get their way,” said another MP, Evan Harris, on the subject of student tuition fees.
Erm... what's wrong with that? Look, I know you journalists are used to rubbish Labour Conference where people are drafted in to give obeisance and worship to a big clunking shit - sorry, fist. Look, I also know you journalists are used to entering the shrine of Ashcroft and listening as his young Anakin Skywalker apprentice Darth - I mean, David - Cameron sets out what Ashcroft wants. Look, I know you don't expect or like debate at Conference.
But you are trying to turn a strength of the Liberal Democrats into a weakness. In our Party, I, me, Oliver Townsend, has just as much of a say and a vote in our policy, as Nick Clegg or Vince Cable does. Fine, I'm not stupid enough to believe I could sway that many people with my arguments, and they are given freedom to speak about policies they'd like to see. But at the end of the day, if I had an idea on how to get us out of the economy, I could get my policy adopted by Federal Policy Committee, then sent to Conference, then debated, then voted in.
It is a democratic mechanism that very few other parties possess. Labour is still dominated by unions, it still gives its MPs more say. A member of the Labour Party is only allowed a third of the say a Lib Dem member has. As for Conservatives, I'm not even going to go there. David Cameron is losing his members in droves, as a result of listening more to Papa Ashcroft than his members.
So please, don't start turning the fact that the Lib Dems believe in democracy against us. Let Evan Harris and Steve Webb disagree with our leader. During conference, they are members of the Lib Dems as equal as myself, or any of my friends. If they want to argue against one policy or another, let them! It's not the end of the world.
Journalists who are incredibly erudite and clever when analysing the issues faced by Gordon Brown for some strange reason suffer an intelligence and normality bypass when it comes to the Liberal Democrats. I find it odd. Or rather, it makes me wonder what has happened to the days when journalists understood what it was like in the real world?
We have a political class removed from the daily struggle of life. We now have a journalistic class also removed from the struggle. No wonder then, that in their media coverage, these journalists act more to protect themselves from a mansion tax, than in reporting carefully and giving an accurate argument about what the Liberal Democrats mean and stand for.
Convenient, huh?
0 comments:
Post a Comment