Comments on: Is Nick Clegg about to ditch local income tax?

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:42:32 +0000

If you suggest any policy change in any political party you risk members being up in arms over it; the policy making process is a red herring.

But half the party? Most party members don’t give a fig about party policy; in any case electing the leader is pretty much the only way in which all members, as opposed to just conference delegates, get to set the direction of the party.

If a candidate wants change they must signal it; the reason they don’t has nothing to do with the policy making process and everything to do with a political calculation.

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:53:20 +0000

I dare say if either candidate did promise to scrap a policy, half the party would be up in arms at the threat to the democratic policy making process.

And perhaps this is why we don’t have a more interesting policy-led debate over the leadership.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:42:08 +0000

I’m sorry but that is a hopelessly confused position. Where is the sense in announcing a new permanent tax to cut another one temporarily? And this will mean that local government will be even more dependent on centralised funds - in the face of established Lib Dem policy.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:30:30 +0000

but the non-doms measures would apparently be temporary.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:29:06 +0000

Not according to this story in the Guardian.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2206732,00.html

“Mr Clegg added that he is committed to replacing council tax with a local income tax, but that he wants to cut council tax for low- and middle-income families by introducing a progressive tax on those living abroad. [sic -means non-doms].

He plans to raise £1bn from non-domiciles to fund council tax cuts for millions of households. His proposals include taxing non-domiciled taxpayers at 10% on their overseas income, in a system similar to that used in the US.

“We should reject Labour and Conservative proposals to make a flat ‘charge’ for all non-domiciled taxpayers. I believe it is unfair charging a couple on £60,000 the same as a multi-billionaire.”

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:08:17 +0000

Well that’s disappointing and makes no sense. It will take time to introduce a non-dom tax as well and if it’s going to take that long, he might as well replace CT with SVR. The whole objection to SVR is that it will take a while to introduce.

By: Pete Roberts

Pete Roberts — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:37:16 +0000

To be fair to Nick, and I’m not leaning his way, he mentioned this in the context of LIT at the Cardiff hustings. His line was, and I paraphrase, LIT will take a little while to put in place in the mean time I want to help those in band A+B so I plan to take this immediate action.

By: Tom Watson MP » Blog Archive » Does Nick Clegg want to scrap the local income tax?

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:48:59 +0000

[…] Lib dem blog of the year reveals that Nick Clegg may want to scrap their commitment to a local income tax. […]

By: Jock

Jock — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:18:14 +0000

Yeah - I spotted that too and wondered. The Oxfordshire LVT/SVR study did show that we could take As & Bs out of local taxation entirely using a so called “homestead allowance”.

The only response I got to my quest for more information about Nick’s supposed mention of LVT/SVR after the Queen’s Speech was from one Paul Tyler (and I think it was the Paul Tyler by the looks of it) who wrote, slightly confusingly that:

“The answer to your question: at the latter end of yesterday’s BBC1 coverage of the State Opening Nick made an excellent case for more effective tax incentives to get more, cheaper and browner land for housebuilding, but reference to LVT/SVR.”