(Cross-posted from here)
This article pretty much sums up what is wrong with the partyâ€™s communication strategy at the moment. Apart from the fact that it has been published roughly four days too late, it repeats many of the mistakes we witnessed last weekend.
Reading it carefully, it is clear what Danny is getting at. But journalists donâ€™t – and often canâ€™t – spend time reading the subtle nuances of every press release and statement. Iâ€™m not sure if the talk about â€˜the vast majority of the â€œspareâ€ moneyâ€™ going on tax cuts is part of a thought out strategy, or a retrofit designed to spare Nick Cleggâ€™s blushes following the Telegraph interview, but its potential to mislead is, well, vast.
Letâ€™s be clear: if the Â£20bn of savings is to be earmarked for existing spending commitments, then that means that only Â£2-4bn will be left for tax cuts. Whichever way you spin it, that is not a â€œvastâ€ amount of money – perhaps a penny in the pound on the basic rate of income tax (which will benefit low income earners not one jot). So why all this talk of â€œvastnessâ€?
Thereâ€™s nothing wrong with admitting that any tax cuts we come up with are likely to be modest – given the current economic climate it is prudent to be prudent. All this talk of â€œvastnessâ€ is an open invitation to misinterpretation.
Several people walked away from the â€œMake it Happenâ€ launch in July under the genuine impression that Clegg had promised Â£20bn in tax cuts (Iain Dale even described that sum in his Telegraph column as a small amount). We canâ€™t keep leaving so much room for confusion and doubt. And that means choosing words much more carefully.
NB My Parliamentary Monitor article, which is related to this subject, is now readable online to all and sundry.