Will students lynch Nick Clegg?

[Harryprice]

That is true but is only part of the picture. There could be a problem with your 'pragmatic taxation', in that it would encourage pushing up VAT (very easy and cheap to collect, very hard to avoid) and other sales taxes e.g. on cars and fuel, which would be regressive, hitting the poorest the hardest. In fact, it would generally encourage the government to increase the burden on the great mass of ordinary people who lack the ability of the rich to employ tax avoidance advisers to find legal ways of dodging their obligations.

I was just considering how to get the maximum tax revenue. I never said it would fair.

Too much taxation also kills entrepreneurial initiative. There was a fascinating programme on TV a while back concerning the economic history of Hong Kong. Its huge economic growth in the 1960s is largely attributed to the actions of a civil servant who was Financial Secretary at that time, John James Cowperthwaite, who decided on a low regulation, low taxation policy to boost growth. The result was phenomenal, and Cowperthwaite is now revered there. Of course, to cut taxation in the hope that it will result in more growth and therefore more tax income in due course is one heck of a gamble, which most governments are reluctant to take.

Compare this with Ireland in the last decade with its very low corporation tax. It goes to show that you don't always get the outcome you expect!

[Tony Williams]

Compare this with Ireland in the last decade with its very low corporation tax. It goes to show that you don't always get the outcome you expect!

As I understand it, Ireland's problems have nothing to do with a low rate of corporation tax; just too much risky borrowing (or risky lending by the banks).

[Harryprice]

As I understand it, Ireland's problems have nothing to do with a low rate of corporation tax; just too much risky borrowing (or risky lending by the banks).

I don't think you can split the two so easily. The low corporation tax stimulated economic activity and brought net immigration into the country. This fuelled the demand for housing which was definitely linked to their current problems.

[Croydon Bob]

Interesting: that means that the only two declared LibDem voters here so far (BrianP and myself) both regard the current government as the least bad outcome following the last election.

Yes, but now Bindeweede's post has upset that.

I think it is the floating voters who voted Lib Dem in the 2010 election who are more important here. Why did they switch to the Libs, why have they switched away? And why have some of them switched from Lib Dem to Tory?

I might have voted Lib this year if I'd been in a different constituency, but the reality was that I was in a marginal Lab/Con constituency where the Lib was expected to come a distant 4th place.

So I think that my, and Bindeweede's, floatiness makes our opinions more relevant to the Lib Dem's current crisis than the continued support of a hardcore Lib Dem voter.

[Croydon Bob]

They've got a programme designed to take five years: it seems a little impatient to expect it to produce results in a few months.

My point is that even the very earliest attempts at cuts are being scrapped or diluted. Some of the targets seen as easiest wins are turning out to be impossible to deliver. Grand announcements are already proving to have been exaggerated nonsense. This will only continue.

A recent report suggested that private sector employment is currently increasing at a faster rate than expected - which is, of course, the desired outcome.

It seems a little impatient to expect changes to take place before they've actually cut any of the public sector jobs. The UK does, already, seem to be recovering. Massively increasing unemployment is going to slam it back into recession just as we have seen in Ireland, Spain and elsewhere.

but while the experience of six decades ago is certainly interesting, it isn't necessarily the best guide to what should be done now.

The best guide being a strategy that has failed every single time and place it has ever been tried?

[Croydon Bob]

Absolutely not. As I understand it, you can only strike in furtherance of a dispute with your own employer. Political strikes are outlawed as are sympathy and secondary strikes.

Erm, that doesn't contradict what I said. If council workers are striking against cuts to council services on the same day that hospital workers are striking against cuts in the NHS, etc, on the same day that students are protesting, etc, then that is just a bunch of different strikes that legally happen to coincide. This coordination of strike action has already occured several times in the UK on a small scale (Unison and PCS, public sector workers and Civils Servants against different employers over different issues on the same days). It is very likely to occur much more in the coming year.

And, as I said, at the end of the day people may choose to strike illegally anyway. It is how workers rights were established in the first place, it may be needed to wrestle them back again.

[Tony Williams]

I think it is the floating voters who voted Lib Dem in the 2010 election who are more important here. Why did they switch to the Libs, why have they switched away? And why have some of them switched from Lib Dem to Tory?

The curious point is that the LibDem share of the vote was only 1% up from the previous election, which is not what one would expect if they had gained a large number of floating voters.

Given that we are in an entirely new political situation, I think it is impossible to predict with any confidence what will happen next. The government is bound to be unpopular when the cuts bite, but that makes it less likely that the coalition will break up early (the LibDems would need a death wish to precipitate that). Assuming the government runs its full term, what happens at the next election will all depend on the state of the economy in 2015.

As to what happens to the economy in the interim, we'll have to wait and see. As I have observed before, we do not live in a bubble and any government would be foolish to take actions which would diminish the confidence of the international finance markets.

[brianp]

Erm, that doesn't contradict what I said. If council workers are striking against cuts to council services on the same day that hospital workers are striking against cuts in the NHS, etc, on the same day that students are protesting, etc, then that is just a bunch of different strikes that legally happen to coincide. This coordination of strike action has already occured several times in the UK on a small scale (Unison and PCS, public sector workers and Civils Servants against different employers over different issues on the same days). It is very likely to occur much more in the coming year.

Yes, as long as none of the union leaders even hint at co-ordination.

And, as I said, at the end of the day people may choose to strike illegally anyway. It is how workers rights were established in the first place, it may be needed to wrestle them back again.

Illegal strikers would have no protection from sacking and no immunity from civil action. Their employers and perhaps anyone financially affected by the strike could sue the strike organisers - the unions and individual union leaders could have their assets seized. It might even leave the strike leaders open to "conspiracy" charges.

[DrS]

Yes, but now Bindeweede's post has upset that.

... I might have voted Lib this year if I'd been in a different constituency...

So I think that my, and Bindeweede's, floatiness makes our opinions more relevant to the Lib Dem's current crisis than the continued support of a hardcore Lib Dem voter.

Add me. If we had been in the UK I would almost certainly have voted Lib Dem even though I have usually voted Labour. Would never switch to Lib Dem again after this though.

[Pebble]

I was sorely tempted to switch to lib dems, given the appalling performance of GB. Decided after much thought that their promises were undeliverable, not just in theory but in practice given the calibre of those who would have to deliver, so stuck with labour (very much against my wishes). In retrospect seems not to have been a bad decision after all.

[Tony Williams]

Well, the students (or the predictable hangers-on) seem to be trying their very hardest to alienate public support.

On the more general issue of coalition politics, and in the light of the feelings expressed in this thread that the Lib Dems have sold out to the Tories, I have been amused to hear from Tories who are furious about the unwarranted level of influence that the LibDems are having on coalition policy, given their small number of seats. The view you have depends on where you are looking from...

[Croydon Bob]

Well, the students (or the predictable hangers-on) seem to be trying their very hardest to alienate public support.

Obviously I oppose all violence, criminal action, etc, mumble mumble...

But the violence and Prince Charles incident have probably helped the cause. Thatcher only did something to mitigate the deprivation in some inner-city areas when they rioted in the early 1980s. Poll Tax protests only really kicked off long after the legislation had been passed, on the weekend we actually began being expected to pay Poll Tax in England, when there was rioting and violence in London. It got everyone's attention and inspired a campaign that brought down both the tax and the Prime Minister. Peaceful protests can be ignored - a million of us marched peacefully through London against the Iraq War. It got us nothing, we should have trashed the place.

The view you have depends on where you are looking from...

Yes. I've spoken to a Tory Junior Minister and he very much sees things that way. Loony sandal wearing hippies diluting down his Thatcherite ideals. But he's wrong and I'm right.

[Tony Williams]

But the violence and Prince Charles incident have probably helped the cause. Thatcher only did something to mitigate the deprivation in some inner-city areas when they rioted in the early 1980s. Poll Tax protests only really kicked off long after the legislation had been passed, on the weekend we actually began being expected to pay Poll Tax in England, when there was rioting and violence in London. It got everyone's attention and inspired a campaign that brought down both the tax and the Prime Minister. Peaceful protests can be ignored - a million of us marched peacefully through London against the Iraq War. It got us nothing, we should have trashed the place.

Possibly, possibly not. The inner city deprivation was (and remains) a disgrace, there would have been general concern about addressing the problem. The Poll Tax affected everyone - there was general anger. Blair had staked his future on Iraq, and wasn't going to be put off by some riots.

The problem the students have is their popular image (deserved or not) as boozy/druggy layabouts doing nothing much (except shagging) for three years at the taxpayer's expense. While the parents of children coming up to university age will be concerned, the sympathy of other adults is probably limited - and will have been reduced by the violence.

Yes. I've spoken to a Tory Junior Minister and he very much sees things that way. Loony sandal wearing hippies diluting down his Thatcherite ideals. But he's wrong and I'm right.

The problem we have is the complete lack of experience at the national level concerning coalition governments. So instead of recognising that coalition = compromise, therefore any agreed programme will contain some elements which will be distateful to one side or the other (with the smaller party having less influence) people are focusing on the bits they don't like. It's ridiculous for LibDems to expect that the government will reflect every important aspect of LibDem policy - and almost (but not quite) as silly for the Tories to feel the same. They need to get over it and get on with it, since the alternative would be serious political instability which would have a major impact on the credibility of any government to steer us through this financial crisis - and that would be bad news for everyone.

[Harryprice]

But the violence and Prince Charles incident have probably helped the cause.

A lot of people were affected by the poll tax. Only a tiny percentage of the population are affected by the student tuition fees. If students continue to cause violence, damage and disruption, the rest of the population will lose patience with them and happily see tham carted off to jail. We are ALL going to be losing money because of the cuts but only one section of society is causing trouble.

[brianp]

But the violence and Prince Charles incident have probably helped the cause. Thatcher only did something to mitigate the deprivation in some inner-city areas when they rioted in the early 1980s. Poll Tax protests only really kicked off long after the legislation had been passed, on the weekend we actually began being expected to pay Poll Tax in England, when there was rioting and violence in London. It got everyone's attention and inspired a campaign that brought down both the tax and the Prime Minister. Peaceful protests can be ignored - a million of us marched peacefully through London against the Iraq War. It got us nothing, we should have trashed the place.

I think you are completely wrong. Last night's appalling violence, especially the attacks on the royal car and on that mounted policewoman, and the disgusting antics at the Cenotaph and at Churchill's memorial, will mark the end of public support for the student case and probably the end of any hope of other groups taking sympathetic action.

Rolling news coverage was such that the blame for the violence can be firmly placed with the demonstrators, in most cases at least. Student protestations that the police caused the violence was shown to be patent nonsense in several well-covered incidents. This was deliberate violence and mayhem by a sizable proportion of the protestors - it may have been a minority, but it was a large minority.

The NUS leadership will have questions to answer, not least over their apparent disregard of agreed routes and locations, and they may well have serious problems getting police approval for any future marches or demos.

And as for the riots bringing an end to the poll tax and to Thatcher - they may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but the end of both was already a foregone conclusion when the riots took place because of dreadful opinion polls and major by-election shocks. In yesterday's Independent Steve Richards put forward the argument that in the UK marches, demos and riots have never resulted any any policy change by any government - and makes a very good case. From the CND marches of the 60s (which I took part in) to the fuel protesters to the million who marched against the Iraq war - all were ignored, none resulted in any practical change of government policy.