Spread it around

 Taxing inheritances. 

I understand the Tories are  about to discuss inheritance tax today

Many years ago I heard  a suggestion, I can’t remember from whom, but probably the Liberal Party, which  I found it very attractive. 

The proposal was that inheritance tax should be charged not on the estate leaving the bequest but on the recipients receiving the bequests (note the plurals.) The recipients would be able to inherit modest amounts tax free, but pay tax on big bonanza inheritances, or a multitude of modest ones.

Thus, if we define a “modest amount” as, say, £50 000 (though that’s beyond the dreams of avarice of many people) then an estate of, say £1 000 000, not all that unusual nowadays, given the price of houses, would not be taxed at all if the bequests were in 20 different bundles of £50 000, but would pay the current rate (40%?) if the whole million went to one lucky recipient.

This would go some way to reducing inequality in our society, and probably increase the level of happiness.  It would also probably encourage innovation, as potential entrepreneurs would have the wherewithal for start-ups.

The sun still shines on PM Burnham

 The Labour Party has had a successful Conference, burnished by a very successful speech from Andy Burnham.  Next week we shall endure the Tories tarnishing the shine with predictable scorn and cries of unaffordability, unjustified optimism and Death Taxes, with no mention that it is largely their 14 years of misrule that has brought the country to this sorry pass (along with 40 years of multi-party acquiescence to misguided neo-liberal policies.)

I hope we Liberal Democrats will confine ourselves to constructive suggestions rather than knee-jerk opposition for the sake of opposition.   It is refreshing to have a prime minister who speaks honestly about the country’s problems and seems cheerfully confident of finding solutions

In that vein, here are just two caveats.

(I do no know why the next paragraph is in bold)

First, on the abandonment of the Triple Lock.  This is a Liberal Democrat policy which we introduced during the Coalition of 2010-15.  At the time the UK’s State Pension was a mere 16% of median earnings – not enough to maintain an acceptable  standard of living for those for whom it was the sole source of income.  The aim of the Triple Lock was to raise the basic State Pension gradually to bring it up to a viable minimum level  of about 40% of median earrings. 

It is succeeding  but not there yet: the current level is about 30% of median earnings, and is about £12,000 (roughly €13 000.) – still well below the basic state pensions of our nearest “big” European neighbours, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, where basic state pensions range between       €17 000 and €19 000. 

 

Politicians are very fond of talking-up Britain as “World Leading.”  I’d be content in the pensions  area to see us reach the average, and believe the Triple Lock should stay in place until then.  Given that Labour’s abandonment of  it doesn’t come into effect until 2030, maybe there’s still a chance.

Secondly I’m delighted to see Mr Burnham’s continued commitment to proportional representation, but disappointed, though not surprised, that:

1.     We are to have yet another Commission.  

 The Electoral Reform Society (founded in 1888) has spent over a century pondering this and unhesitatingly recommends Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member Constituencies. (bold a deliberate choice here.) That’s it, full stop.  Nothing further to discuss.

The Guardian reports, however, that we are likely to retain single member constituencies because “the PM sees the link between MPs and their constituencies as vital.”  

 The disadvantage  of this is that a desperate family needing help may have no choice but to plead with an unsympathetic Tory.  Similarly an entrepreneur  wanting help to set up a business may be limited to a Labour MP committed to collective ownership (maybe that’s not a bad idea.) 

Multi-member constituencies give choice.

 Modern communications also make larger constituencies perfectly viable.  We are no longer in the days of the carrier pigeon and the horse.

 Much is made of the emotional  link between the individual MP and her/his constituency ( reminds be of “the mystical union between Christ and His church.”).  More nonsense.  MPs swap them around like handbags (Makerfield!) and they change their size and shape with every boundary change.  The house where I live has been in thee different ones in my lifetime: the Spen Valley when I was born, Batley and Morley when I first voted, Batley and Spen for about half the rest of my life, and now back to the Spen Valley with Batley abandoned to Dewsbury.

2. I’m also disappointed that we are to wait until the next parliament for the legislation to be presented. We didn’t wait for a mandate to pass the Reform Bills, give Votes for Women, lower the voting age to 18, demand photo ID in order to vote.  

Labour should do it now, while they (and we, Liberal Democrats and Greens, maybe even Reform still)  have a whopping majority. 

FASCISM?

  

 The weekend’s Guardian (Saturday 19^th September) contains a review by Daniel Trilling of a book by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor called “End Times Fascism.”   According to Trilling the purpose of the book is to warn us of a convergence of three  interests which are in effect encouraging the climate crisis rather than working to prevent it.  

The book focusses chiefly on the United States and identifies the  three interest as the “Religious Fanatics” ( the Christian Right who look forward to the Rapture and the end of the World, when the righteous will be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air,") the “Tech  Barons,” expecting to exploit AI and the “Political Entrepreneurs” who are anxious to “turn their nations into bunkered garrison states . . . in an increasingly aggressive scramble for natural resources.”

These three groups together are working towards what the book defines as  “End Times Fascism.”

If climate change is the biggest danger to our way of life (or even human life itself) then the second most serious danger we face is surely to Liberal Democracy, which I believe to be threatened by the same or similar forces.

Google defines fascism as  “a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that places the perceived interest of the nation or race above individual rights.”

It  describes Fascism’s features as:

1 Dictatorial Leadership

2 Extreme Nationalism

3 Suppression of Opposition

4 Militarism and Regimentalism;

. . . and finally

5 Rejection of Liberal Democracy: Opposes pluralism, individual liberties, equality, communism, and socialism.

The first four features are very much in evidence in British Politics today, fuelled and encouraged by wealthy sources, some of them foreign.

If our political class is alert to the danger there is as yet not much sign of it. 

The Conservatives, probably in cohorts with Reform and Respect, seem likely to go along with it. Labour alone lacks the backbone to fight it (no cap on donations to parties, restriction on the right to protest, further drilling in the North Sea still on the cards, BBC fighting desperately for funding.)

 The principal raison d’être of the Greens is to halt and even reverse climate change, the principle raison d’être of the Liberal Democrats is to preserve, improve and extend Liberal Democracy. 

Both are desperately needed, in alliance with “one nation Tories, (of which there are, apparently , a number recently converted and attending the Liberal Democrat conference,) in government with Labour to preserve and improve and spread our way of life.

Assorted Maxims

 

Today is my birthday, a traditional time for reflection.  Here are a number of maxims on how we conduct our lives (and politics) which I find of interest.

1.     1. This is from a talk by a humanist which I I heard on the radio some years ago.  I can’t remember the speaker’s name or the title of the broadcast.  It can’t have been “Thought for the Day” as humanists weren’t allowed on that and maybe still aren’t.

 

Beyond our physical needs for safety, warmth, shelter, drink and food everyone has three psychological needs:

-        that someone cares what happens to them (usually a partner, parent, offspring, relation or friend);

-        that someone or something benefits from their having lived;

-        that they pay their way.

I believe all three, and especially the third, to be true.  I think no-one actually enjoys being a “sponger” or passenger.” Some, forced into that position (benefits scroungers?) may  try to save face by pretending to boast about it, but would really like a job with a decent income and the ability to “pay their whack.”

 

2.     2. The Religion of Usefulness.

-        Happiness is the only good;

-        The time to be happy is now;

-        The place to be happy is here;

-        The way to be happy is to make others happy.

                                                 Robert G Ingersoll, 1833-1899.

I believe this was once displayed on London busses under the heading “There is no God”  (Ingersoll was a well-known American agnostic)  but I feel that agnosticism or atheism are not a necessary conditions for the statements to have value. Though essentially selfish they are rather more positive than the worst interpretation of religions: put up meekly with the inconveniences of this life in the hope of a better one in the next (or oblivion.)

 

3.     3. The Church (-es, and Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, Chapels and whatever. . .)

-        My attachment to Catholicism  ows much more to a sense that it is a good  guide to this life  rather than to any conviction that it is a passport to the next.  Edward Stourton, BBC presenter, 1957- 2026, quoted in a recent obituary in the Guardian.

 

I feel very much the same about my attachment to the C of E, and especially to its ceremonies, liturgy and music.  I suspect it applies to most if not all the major religions.  At best, religions exist to promote “the good life.” At worst they are used as tool by governments and bigots to control the lives of others. We must strive for the former and fight against the latter.  Maybe that’s the search of the “via media.”

4.    4. Taxation

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers and the billionaires pay politicians/political parties.

George Monbiot, The Guardian, St George’s Day, 2026.

I’ve long believed we should adopt a different terminology about taxation, drop the description “burden of taxation ” and adopt “the privilege of paying  taxes.”  That’s not as daft as it sounds.  Many working men, my father included, where very proud when their pay packet (as they were then) reached the level when they "qualified” (another term deliberate chosen) for income tax.  If that’s a step too far, let’s talk about taxation as our  “subscription “ for membership of an ordered educated and secure and cultured society.  Accountants who advertise their services for “tax efficiency” (ie maximum avoidance) should be scorned, tax evaders boycotted and their directors  sentenced to lengthy community service   

5.     5. Political Canvassing

-        Understand that “feelings” don’t care about your facts.                   Matthew D’Ancona, Prospect Magazine, September, 2023.

A tough one, this.  We need to reverse the concept that “Media Studies” are some sort of Micky Mouse degree, and teach them from the infant class upwards.  From the very earliest ages children should be taught to distinguish between fact, opinion, blatant distortions and propaganda, as I believe is already done in Finland.

Funding Political Parties

 

 

The shine on Andy Burnham’s reputation as a progressive willing to co-operate with other parties to transform our politics in the UK continues to become more tarnished.  His latest U-turn is to shy away from his proposal that  limits should be placed on the amounts individuals can contribute to their preferred political parties.

 For years it has been a  commonplace  that political office in the US, including the Presidency, is “up for sale.”  Advertising and other expenditure on campaigns at all levels in the US far exceeds anything contemplated in the UK.  But we are moving in that direction.

Expenditure on  general  election campaigns has been very disproportionate since the war, with the Tories , funded by big business, at the top, followed by Labour, funded largely by the trade Unions, and the Liberals and (and now the Greens) trailing at the bottom, now outspent by Reform. (Who or what funds them?)  

 The situation is rapidly worsening, with rich individuals, not all of them resident in this country  deliberately trying to influence our  politics. 

In this situation I find the limit per individual of £5,000 formerly proposed by Mr Burnham, absurdly high, even if its meant to be for a lifetime rather than per year. (I don’t know which.) I would suggest a limit of £500 per year per  individual or corporate entity to be far more appropriate.  That would still leave the parties unduly beholden  the “comfortably off” rather than those struggling to make ends meet.

Be that as it may, the situation is urgent and limits of some sort should be introduced to restrict the sale of political influence in the UK now, before the next general election.

Years ago a professor whose name escapes me proposed in the now defunct “Liberal News” the following method of financing our political parties.

 1.     Parliament would decide at regular intervals the total amount necessary  periodically for the funding of our democracy.

2.    2. This amount would then be divided by the total number of people on the electoral registers. Let’s say, for simplicity’s sake, that it is £20.

3.    3. Vouchers for  £20 would then be issued periodically  to all eligible voters. 

4.    4. The vouchers could only be cashed by a registered political party.

It was expected that the system would operate in this way:

1.     1. Party members and political nerds would promptly send their voucher to the HQ of their favoured party.

2.      2. Party canvassers would be incentivised to knock on doors and try to persuade the voucher holders of the merits of the party and hand over the voucher to send to their HQ (or ask the voter to do it themselves, having provided the address.) The alienated would be free to thrwo the voucher away if they wished.

 3.    3. Other financial contributions to political parties would either be strictly limited or forbidden.

Such a system would  encourage a closer examination of the policies of the parties  on a regular basis rather than the present concentration of sloganising at election time.

 Above all, it would be fairer.

I’ve mentioned before that my very first lecturer in what as then called “British Constitution “ at A level, a Mr Chekanovski (that spelling may be incorrect: it was a long time ago) cited “the British tradition of fair play” as one of the pillars of our system. 

 Come on Mr Burnham - fair play!