The new ginger group Liberal Vision - which to all intents and purposes appear to be an entryist brand of the libertarian pressure group Progressive Vision - published a pamphlet this week called ‘The Cameron Effect’ (pdf). As regular readers of Guido Fawkes will know by now, this report makes the startling claim that two in three Lib Dem MPs ‘could’ lose their seats at the next election unless the party introduces a policy of cutting tax cuts, including cuts aimed at high-earners.

Rumour has it that the reaction of at least one MP to this report was to push its co-author Mark Littlewood into a hedge. While I don’t condone violence, I have to admit I can empathise (sp. I can’t believe I wrote emphasise last night!). But for me, the real problem with this pamphlet is not that it is unwelcome (publish and be damned) but that it is a spectacularly poor piece of research.

Let’s take the psephology for starters. Littlewood and his co-author David Preston have this pearl of wisdom about first past the post:

“Under Britain’s byzantine electoral system - it is not just absolute vote share that matters but relative vote share.”

Hmmm… not sure about that. I notice there are no footnotes. Relative vote share certainly does matter in d’Hondt elections, but where is the evidence that is the case for FPTP?

Problematically for Littlewood and Preston, the example they cite doesn’t support their argument. It IS true that if you look at the average ratio of Liberal:Conservative votes in the 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections and compare it to the average ratio of LD:Conservative votes in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, the ratio does indeed change from roughly 1:2 to 2:3. But if you compare 1992 to 1997, during which period the number of Lib Dem MPs leapt from 20 to 46, the ratio goes from a bit under 1:2 to a bit over 1:2. The 2:3 ratio cited only emerges once you factor in the 2005 General Election, when we made significantly fewer gains. If this analysis were correct, surely the ratio would be higher in the year of our great breakthrough?

But of course the difference between 1992 and 1997 was not some quasi-mystical change in relative vote share but a dramatic shift in the way the party targeted resources. This is just the first instance in which ‘The Cameron Effect’ fails to take into account the Rennard Effect.

The pamphlet goes on to examine how each constituency is likely to fare in the next election. Helpfully, it provides us with a neat little bar chart showing us what will happen in each constituency once you apply a uniform national swing based on an average of 30 opinion polls taken in the summer.

Even if we disregard the fact that the Lib Dem vote share will almost certainly be higher (and the Tory share will be lower) than the polls suggest this summer, this is a ridiculously crude mechanism to apply for three reasons:

a) It assumes that public opinion is constant across the UK with no significant variations. Yes, that probably means that in the South and East we are likely to struggle even more, but it also means that in the North and West we are likely to have an easier time gaining Labour seats.
b) Even Baxter allows you to factor in a tactical vote these days. Littlewood and Preston work on the extraordinary assumption that not a single voter will behave in this way, despite the fact that every single Lib Dem leaflet they receive will be urging them to do so.
c) In several of the seats listed as being at ‘measurable’ and ‘high’ risk (i.e. the seats which their press release lists as likely to go Tory) even the statistics they cite appear much rosier than they claim. Harrogate and Knaresborough is cited ad being at ‘measurable’ risk despite the fact that there has been a swing against the Tories locally and the uniform national swing would have us win. There’s a similar story in Kingston and Surbiton while in Solihull the massive swing locally, we are assured, counts for nothing.

While these factors appear to over-egg the claim that we are especially vulnerable to the Tories, they downplay our chances at gaining seats off Labour. They assume that not a single Tory voter in a Lib Dem/Labour constituency is squeezable. They talk about the sort of swings that we typically got in 2005 as being ‘exceptions’ to the point of being accidents - once again, the fact that in each of our target seats we are to have a campaign on the ground is completely downplayed.

In short, strip away the ‘we’re all doomed’ hyperbole and the prospect doesn’t look anything like as bad as Littlewood and Preston would have us believe. Don’t get me wrong: my prediction is that we will remain fairly static in the next election, losing some to the Tories and gaining some from Labour. And stagnation is something that I personally find extremely depressing. But the sort of wipeout predicted in this paper is simply wide of the mark.

So much for the psephology; what about the policy? Well, if the confident predictions of our demise seem unlikely, then the proposed cure-all is even harder to swallow. Let us assume for a minute that we really are in the ditch that Littlewood and Preston claim we are. Is a single change in policy really likely to make any difference? And that’s before you consider that the sort of tax cutting agenda they propose would by neccessity mean cutting several of our existing spending commitments (Littlewood and Preston decline to say which ones) and our opponents will almost certainly seek to present this in as poor a light as possible.

The entire argument for how promising tax cuts would make the party massively popular is based on a single opinion poll commissioned by the Taxpayers’ Alliance 13 months ago (before the credit crunch). Seriously. If that is really the best they can come up with, the only rational conclusion is that they must be wrong.

Their argument about cutting taxes for higher income earners is even more spurious. As a matter of fact (unrecognised in the paper) the Lib Dems don’t have a policy of clobbering the rich. Our policy is to close loopholes and exemptions only available to the rich. To argue, as they do, that what the average person in a low income really wants is special tax breaks for the rich so that, if they ever become rich, they’ll be able to get out of paying tax as well is taking the ‘aspiration’ argument beyond the point of absurdity. No-one is suggesting a return even to the 50p rate of income tax, so where did this nonsense suddenly come from?

In fact, I could probably make a better case for the popularity of tax cuts for the rich than Littlewood and Preston can. Far from being in the grip of ‘craven caution,’ when it comes to offering tax cuts, the Tories’ climb in the opinion polls began when George Osborne announced an intention to exclude all but the very richest from inheritance tax. So it is fair to say that some tax breaks for the rich are popular. But it is wrong to say that there is an opening in the tax debate. Lackadaisically calling for tax breaks for the rich won’t make us sound distinctive - they’ll make us sound indistinguishable from the Tories. And why should voters support Conservative copies when they can have the real thing?

Overall then, pretty much every single aspect of this pamphlet is poorly researched and ill-thought out. Mark Littlewood is a master of publicity and has managed to make a big splash with this pamphlet, but the fact that it is so, well, stupid, is cause for hope that Liberal Vision will prove short-sighted.

The vigil is over. Lembit’s website has been launched. It, er, isn’t exactly Web 2.0.

From what I’ve seen of the site (and this may have changed by now), it features endorsements from those famous triplets “Ordinary Member,” “Ordinary Member” and their brother “Ordinary Member.”. Just to ensure that Lembit is taken seriously, he also claims to have endorsement from a senior politician. Boris Johnson.

Congratulations Lembit - it may have taken you two weeks but you finally got there. And I’m sure that, if you are elected president, your office will be the slick sort of operation we’ve seen over the last couple of weeks. At the very least we can expect all the Federal Executive to have gained their Segway Proficiency Badges by 2010.

Dear Nick,

I thought I would follow up our brief conversation yesterday [Saturday]. I was sorry you were expecting me at your Saturday morning ‘bloggers’ meet’ and were disappointed at not being able to arguing out my ‘trenchant views’ - it is nice to hear you actually read my stuff! Since our chat I have spoken with the organiser, Richard Flowers, and he confirmed that I was not invited (the meeting, he confirmed, was restricted to finallists in the blog awards and I was a judge). If, as you say, you expressly asked for me to be there that wasn’t conveyed to Richard for some reason.

No matter, but if you are so keen for me to interview you, and try to thrash out our differences, I would be happy to work around your busy schedule - let me know when you are next available (although bear in mind that I’ll be at Labour conference all next week).

For the sake of balance, let me emphasise that I’m not wholly negative about your performance as leader - indeed I’m frequently slagged off for defending your record. On public services reform, including your recent announcement about allowing people to pay ‘top ups’ for medical treatment, I’m pretty relaxed. Have you considered how moderate social and economic rights, as argued for by the Joint Committee on Human Rights this summer, might be a useful tool to address some of your critics’ concerns and ensure that the ethos of universal health care might be kept safe? I couldn’t be more happy with your narrative about ‘broken politics’ - it is fundamentally true, deeply resonates with the public (if only we had been saying it in 2005!)and contrasts us clearly from Cameron and his fear-mongering talk about society being broken.

It is that context which explains why I’ve found the debate about tax cuts so infuriating over the past few weeks, and in particular over the last seven days. Part of me enjoys the prospect of a Bloody Big Row, but even if it was your intention this is no ‘Clause 4 moment’ for the simple reason that no-one seems very clear what the argument is actually about. I’ve just read Liberal Vision’s new pamphlet telling us we’re all doomed unless we embrace a much more ambitious tax-cutting agenda which will benefit the wealthiest in society (who apparently we all aspire to be); I’m not convinced of either their psephological analysis or their prescription (which appears predicated on nothing more than a single anything-You-want-Gov opinion poll question commissioned by the Taxpayers’ Alliance over a year ago before the Credit Crunch started to bite). I’ve also been reading Paul Holmes’ various articles claiming that the NHS is as cash strapped as ever and not a penny can be spared - I’m not convinced of that either. Yet somehow this debate has become a deathmatch between Paul and Mark Littlewood, leaving the rest of us out in the cold. That shouldn’t be happening and frankly it is your cock up.

There is a case to be made for cutting unneccessary government spending and passing on some of those savings in the form of tax cuts; I agree with the basic thrust of what you are saying. But this emphasis on words like ‘vast’ and ‘big’ seem to be mistaken on at least three counts:
1) It doesn’t reflect what you’re proposing, which appears to be tax cuts in the region of, at most, £4bn (or £75 for each man, woman and child to use figures that actually mean something).
2) It doesn’t reflect the rhetoric in the Make it Happen paper or the motion (which only talks about big tax cuts to those most in need and says nothing about the overall burden). We aren’t been given an opportunity at this conference to debate this shift in policy, either in principle or in detail.
3) In the current economic climate, talk of ‘vast’ tax cuts sounds brash. What about the PSBR, for one thing? People become small-c conservative at times of recession. Combine that with the fact that for the party this represents a vaulting 180-degree u-turn and it smacks of opportunism. It lacks authenticity, which in turn will make it harder to sell.

It strikes me that we have a perfectly sensible position to sell of prudent, modest tax cuts, focused on the least well off, on top of our existing, fully-funded proposals. A commitment to raising personal allowance still further would be fantastic. But there is little benefit in over-egging it. If - that’s if - Vince Cable manages to find tens of billions of pounds of extra Labour spending we can safely shed, by all means let’s review at a later conference. But if you can only find around £20bn and we have spending plans in the region of £16bn (no-one is seriously disputing that are they?) then your language needs to be held in check.

I have to admit, since we’re on the subject of tax, that your job isn’t helped by the fact that our tax policy is currently over-complex. What is the point in telling people we will drop 4p off the basic rate of income tax (a tangible sum) if we propose piling almost all of it back on in the form of a local income tax? I’m not suggesting you drop our commitment to LIT but perhaps you should consider using it as a way of meeting our goal of increasing the amount local authorities raise themselves (from 25% to 50%) instead of replacing council tax? That would simplifly our message on tax and strengthen our message on localism at the same time; it’s win-win. We could still replace council tax with a fairer tax based on site values in the longer term, which is broadly in line with existing party policy.

Anyway, that’s my tuppence worth.

Trenchantly yours,

James

Blogging is light at the moment until I can find decent WiFi in Bournemouth. Still no news of Lembit’s actual campaign - even the dejected-looking staff member collecting signatures has disappeared. lembitforpresident.co.uk has a new holding page. Someone sent me a picture of Lembit whizzing around on his (yawn!) Segway which I will duly publish as soon as I can blog using something other than an effing BlackBerry. And when I talked to Lembit myself this morning, he appeared to be a little hoarse - whether that was revellry or disease-related is currently unclear.

Serously. This is starting to go beyond simple disorganisation and look pretty contemptuous of the electorate. So a message to Team Lembit: send me an email to confirm your candidate is actually standing and to give me a launch date: semajmaharg{at}gmail{dot}com. It is time we heard from you!

Reports of Lembit’s demise have been greatly exaggerated!

Quaequam Blog! has had reports that Lembit arrived at the Bournemouth International Conference Centre resplendent on his Segway. And QQB! has personally been asked to sign Lembit’s nomination papers.

Team Lembit, it has to be said, look at bit less impressive than Team Ros, with their ‘Ipik Opik’ address labels on their lapels. But at least they’re now doing something. With any luck, we might even see a campaign website soon.

Text your Lembit sightings to 07966 237550 or Twitter @jamesgraham.

More Lembit news today, but none of it is very good.

First of all, the Western Mail reports that senior Welsh Lib Dem politicians are “snubbing” Lembit in favour of a “little-known candidate from England” (which is apparently a small place somewhere east of the Marches). Yet Lembit is apparently still standing, stating that:

“Party members can vote for whichever candidate they like. It’s called democracy and I support that. Ros Scott may have some supporters in Wales, but I have lots of people backing me in England.

“I believe I am the right person to become president. I am already the senior vice-president and chair meetings of the executive, of which I have been a member for 17 years.

“If people want a president with experience and determination who is inspirational, I believe they should vote for me.

“I travel round Britain to see members of the party all the time, which is why my car has 380,000 miles on the clock.

…

“I am standing in this election not on what I say I will do in the future, but on the record of what I have been doing in the party and will continue to do.”

But in a sign that he is a little irked about his lack of support, how’s this for a pout?

“I have done all the training for candidates within the party since 1990. I remember Kirsty Williams coming to a course I ran in the mid-1990s in the early stages of her career.

“I’m sure she is grateful for the help I gave her.”

Ouch. I’m sure she feels suitably put in her place now. Bloody girls.

Meanwhile, it appears that it isn’t just the Welsh who are less than sympathetic to Lembit’s cause. For the second month in a row he has come bottom of Lib Dem Voice’s Members’ Poll on the Shadow Cabinet:

Sarah Teather -14.6%
Roger Williams -14.6%
Michael Moore -20.8%
Nick Harvey -23.9%
Lembit Opik -35.4%

(Cross-posted from here)

This article pretty much sums up what is wrong with the party’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 don’t - and often can’t - spend time reading the subtle nuances of every press release and statement. I’m not sure if the talk about ‘the vast majority of the “spare” money’ going on tax cuts is part of a thought out strategy, or a retrofit designed to spare Nick Clegg’s blushes following the Telegraph interview, but its potential to mislead is, well, vast.

Let’s be clear: if the £20bn of savings is to be earmarked for existing spending commitments, then that means that only £2-4bn will be left for tax cuts. Whichever way you spin it, that is not a “vast” 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 “vastness”?

There’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 “vastness” is an open invitation to misinterpretation.

Several people walked away from the “Make it Happen” launch in July under the genuine impression that Clegg had promised £20bn in tax cuts (Iain Dale even described that sum in his Telegraph column as a small amount). We can’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.

No Lembit news today, so I thought I would just link to the launch of Kirsty Williams’ campaign to succeed him as Welsh Leader instead.

I’ve only just spotted this, and feel a bit foolish for not noticing it earlier, but have you noticed that the new Lib Dem website is Creative Commons? I’ve just checked and neither Labour nor the Conservatives have gone down this route. The Green Party has an inconsistent policy: a Google search shows that a lot of local parties are CC, but their (also new) website has a little, ugly copyright symbol at the bottom.

It makes a lot of sense for political parties to be CC. They are in the business of connecting, so why get precious about intellectual property? By going CC, members are free to use the resources on the website how they want and this of course fits in with the new ethos of the website which integrates FlockTogether (resulting in me receiving a phone call about Liberal Drinks yesterday - it works!).

And of course, to a small but growing hardcore, it also says something about the party’s values. We aren’t always as consistent on IP as some of us might like, but it certainly puts down a marker.

All in all, a job well done by the Innovations Team. Onwards and upwards!

Spooky. I wrote this post earlier but it disappeared.

For those of you beginning to despair that there is nothing to write about Lembit Opik other than his obsession with odd looking bicycles - rejoice! Lembit’s campaign for President may still be failing to launch (despite the fact that Kirsty Williams is about to launch her campaign months before her election is due to take place), but at least we may now have an explanation.

Eagle eyed readers of the Guardian this morning have pointed out that in their handy guide to the Large Hadron Collider at Cern, one of the vital components is called a “Lembit Opik decay hole facilitator.” Even more intriguingly, operating the LHC appears to be dependent of a “mouth harp” and “kazoo.” Lembit is of course a dab hand with such instruments (it is a little known fact that Lembit performed the harmonica solo in Culture Club’s Karma Chameleon).

So, clearly Lembit has had other more important things to worry about than mere internal elections for Federal Party President. And can I just say that, given the possibility that the LHC might wipe out a major section of this quadrants of the galaxy, I can’t think of a single person I would rather trust with its operation?