At this year’s Lib Dem Spring Conference in Birmingham, we will be holding our first general meeting to agree the organisation’s constitution.  Anyone who is a member of the Liberal Democrats and agrees with our aims and objectives is welcome to attend and have their say.  The proposal from the current executive committee (to be confirmed at the meeting) is to make membership free, at least for people who are happy to receive all their communications online.

We will be publishing the draft constitution on the SLF website in the next day or two and the final document will be amendable at the meeting.  But we don’t just want the general meeting to be about constitutions and standing orders – we also would like a general discussion about where people would like to take the organisation in the future.  Hopefully we will also have some exciting news about our first post-general election project.

Joint fringe with One Society Campaign
Saturday 13th Lunchtime 13.00 – 14.00
Crowne Plaza, Room 8

The One Society Campaign has been launched by the Equality Trust, the think tank established by the authors of the best selling The Spirit Level: Why Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.  We’ve delighted to be co-hosting this event which will also be used to promote A Wealth of Opportunity a new pamphlet published by Demos, also in association with the One Society Campaign, exploring equality through a Liberal Democrat perspective.

As well as speakers from Demos and the Equality Trust, Jo Swinson MP will be speaking and the meeting will be chaired by SLF Director Matthew Sowemimo.

I look forward to seeing you at both events!

Firstly, the name “Robin Hood Tax”. On LabourList, Sarah Hayward has already suggested that inviting comparisons with your tax and thievery may not exactly be a great idea. But more to the point, it just isn’t accurate. This isn’t a case of robbing from the rich to give to the poor; it is a case of robbing from the banking system – which we, the companies we work for and the pensions we hope will look after us in old age all participate in – and giving to the government. I don’t wish to sound like a swivel-eyed libertarian, but I need to hear a stronger argument for how that would be genuinely redistributive before I sign up. There is certainly an issue surrounding bankers awarding themselves unjustified bonuses, and you might call that a reverse Robin Hood effect, but it is by no means clear how this tax will tackle that.

Secondly, my old sparring partner Andy Mayer makes an interesting point on his Facebook page:

The figure for global banking profits comes from the campaign website itself $788bn and refers to the year 2006, at the height of the boom. Using the same source as the campaign more recently, the 2008/09 profit figure is just near $120… hence this Tobin tax, if implemented, would be akin to a special corporation tax of between 50-350%.

In the last 8 years I there would only be 3 years where the industry could have afforded to pay it from profits. In the last year it would have had to have been taken direct from bail-out funds, a somewhat circular exercise for government.

Now the Robin Hood Tax is not a tax on profits so there is a danger of comparing apples with oranges here, but the simple fact is that a charge has to go somewhere. It either cuts into profits or it gets passed on to the customer. I’m not, I have to confess, entirely clear what would happen precisely – there are lots of variables – but the Robin Hood Tax website doesn’t seem to want to enlighten me. Perhaps the 0.05% level is too high? Perhaps there should be other restrictions? I have an open mind and would like to hear a debate; instead I’m just being asked to add a mask onto my twitter profile pic.

Thirdly, and this is where I really start to get nervous, the Robin Hood Tax is not the same thing as a Tobin Tax. James Tobin’s proposal was intended specifically to attack currency speculation – not to raise revenue. The Robin Hood Tax, according to their own blog is intended to do the exact opposite.

Why does that make me nervous? Well because when it comes to taxes, I’m highly dubious about taxes on economic activity. Economic activity is a good thing: it gives people jobs (and meaning). Markets aren’t perfect and can create all sorts of anti-social problems but it isn’t the economic activity itself which is the problem but, generally, monopolisation and speculation. Taxing all financial transactions equally won’t tackle bad economic activity any more than the good – it’s just another way of screwing money out of the rest of us. What’s worse is that unlike the Tobin Tax, this idea isn’t about discouraging what is arguably a bad economic activity but profiting from it. Speculation just ruined your economy? Dont worry, here’s a sticking plaster courtesy of the Robin Hood Tax.

Let’s introduce taxes that don’t create perverse economic incentives (such as land value taxation) before creating new ones that do.

Fourthly, there is the Richard Curtis factor. Okay, maybe it is a bit harsh to pick on Curtis, who does seem to mean well, but there’s something about his “love, actually” world view that makes my skin crawl. To promote the campaign, he’s made this video starring Bill Nighy:

Like most of Curtis’ films, on a basic level it is harmless enough but as soon as you start thinking about it the more pernicious you realise it is. Ooh, what a nasty greedy banker! Boo to him! This from the man who gave us the all white Notting Hill (which has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy courtesy of David Cameron and his pals).

Okay, maybe that last point isn’t a particularly strong one, but it is this sort of superficial, anti-intellectual marketing that has got the world in the mess it is today. Is the Robin Hood Tax a brilliant idea? Feel free to try convincing me, but spare me your celebrities, your claims that you can get money for nothing and your *gag* guerilla marketing exercises (a protest at 4am? Edgy!).

Further reading:

• Freethinking Economist: The curse of nef: Tobin Taxes
• Jane Watkinson: Tobin or not Tobin…

The campaign is rooted in the fact that the Labour government is considering a charge on the estates of people after death to pay for social care. While we would obviously want to interrogate the £20,000 figure quoted, the fact that social care has to be paid for somehow is not – surely – in dispute. The Tories’ policy of an £8,000 voluntary “insurance premium” would only pay for nursing care (i.e. not care in an individual’s home) and is yet to be fully explained; it certainly couldn’t be used to match the costs that Labour is talking about here.

We are finally starting to have a serious debate in this country about the cost of elderly social care but, based on Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, it looks as if the Conservative front bench are determined to wreck it. Contrast this with the silly argument a decade ago where Tony Blair’s ill advised pledge in 1997 to end the practice of people in care from being forced to sell their homes became a stick his opponents beat him with, without actually coming up with a workable policy themselves. The Lib Dems must accept their share of the blame here; their success in delivering free personal care in coalition in Scotland proved a somewhat pyrhhic victory as the costs of the scheme have increased massively in recent years.

A flat fee on estates may not be the ideal solution: it would wipe out the estates of some people who didn’t up needing social care while being a mere pinprick on the estate of a millionaire who did. It would presumably suffer from a lot of the same problems we see with the existing inheritance tax (passing most of the value of an estate onto children years before, etc.). But it surely ranks as a better solution than merely taking the cost out of general taxation – and thus working people’s income taxes.

What this boils down to is a question of where you want the burden of taxation to fall: on income or wealth? The Tories have set themselves against the latter and their history shows that while they favour lower income taxes it is always the taxes of the rich they cut first, with the sort of disastrous social consequences we are only now beginning to appreciate. The Lib Dems are now arguing for the opposite approach, although admittedly I would like to see them go further (a point echoed in Demos’ recent pamplet A Wealth of Opportunity). Labour, as usual, simply can’t make its mind up.

Image credit: MyDavidCameron.com

A concern with inequality lies deep in liberal DNA. More than a century and a half ago, John Stuart Mill argued for a cap on inheritance so that wealth might be more fairly distributed in society. His views jarred with Victorian attitudes. Would they be more accepted now?

This pamphlet argues for a renewed liberal equality agenda, based on evidence of the divisive impact of inequality on society and recent findings of the central role that financial security and access to resource plays in life chances and child development.

The Liberal Democrats face a unique opportunity: concern for economic inequality has never been more fashionable or higher in the public mind than in this post- recession era and following the double-scandal of MPs expenses and bankers bonuses. In the wake of the Labour government’s failure to effectively tackle inequality, a radical agenda focused on redistributing resource, capitalising disadvantaged families and improving services would cement the reputation of the Liberal Democrats as the vanguard of the contemporary progressive left.

The book makes three main policy recommendations for the Liberal Democrats to adopt:

• Tax wealth via land value taxation and replacing inheritence tax with an acquisitions tax.
• Introduce a capabilities boost to benefits and services by increasing benefit and tax credit levels for the working poor, additional resources for early years education for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and focusing Sure Start on programmes with a proven impact on child well-being, capability development and parenting.
• Capitalise low income families by raising the minimum wage, entitling low income families to a £500 lump sum on the birth of a child, refocusing child benefit so that it is higher for younger children and encouraging people on low incomes to save via a system of matched funding.

The pamphlet can be downloaded for free on the Demos website.  You can also download their pamphlet aimed at Labour, Society of Equals and the Conservatives, Everyday Equality.

It also carries an interview with Conservative leader of Barnet Council Mike Freer and his “easyCouncil” model (as a Barnet resident, I was interested to see that my council tax was spent on clearing up all the grit on the pavement on Monday and putting back more grit on Tuesday – value for money FTW!).

The Tories have been attacked for publishing misleading crime statistics in such a way that makes a couple of cock ups by the IPCC look insignificant. Chris Grayling is unreprentent.

And finally, Gordon Brown announced a range of intended constitutional reforms yesterday in a speech to the RSA. Most of the coverage has focused on his plans for a referendum to reform the electoral system, but more radically he also announced his intention for the UK to have a written constitution by the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in 2015. Exciting stuff but given Brown’s track record, could he deliver?

Okay, it ever so slightly over-eggs the pudding, but it is good fun nonetheless.

The Social Liberal Forum will be running a joint fringe with the Equality Trust at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in March. More details soon.

Meanwhile, a man not especially reknowned for his valuing of science, Pope Benedict, has been condemning UK equality laws.  Some people are more equal than others in the eye of God, it would seem.

Talking of equality, Gordon Brown appears to have finally come off the fence when it comes to electoral reform.  The Alternative Vote system isn’t proportional but it would mean all MPs would have to command a majority and it would mean fewer wasted votes.  The Lib Dem response, as Stephen Tall points out, has been a “stinging welcome“.  It would appear that the government will be announcing support for a whole host of amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill today, including ones regarding Lords reform and excluding non-doms from Parliament.

The latest ComRes/Independent poll confirms that the gap in support between the main parties has narrowed in recent weeks, with the public deeply confused about what passes for David Cameron’s economic policy.  Interestingly, Tory support amongst men is currently much higher than Tory support amongst women.

Nick Clegg is spelling out today how the Liberal Democrats propose to pay for its flagship ‘pupil premium‘ policy for education.

David Cameron is continuing to confuse over both the economy and human rights.  Despite the Tory policy of making immediate cuts, we are now to understand they won’t be ’swingeing’.  Meanwhile, he has asserted that burglars lose their human rights as soon as they set foot in someone else’s property, suggesting he is not so much in support of ‘have a go heroes’ as ‘have a gimp heroes’.

Head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri’s position is looking increasingly untenable with the revelation that he sat on the discovery that one of the IPCC’s claims about melting glaciers was without foundation before the Copenhagen summit. Other claims are being disputed as well.  With the scientific community still reeling from the University of East Anglia email hacking scandal, it is clear that a concerted effort needs to be made to ensure that climate science is seen to be robust and open to scrutiny.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

The Social Liberal Forum executive has undergone some significant changes over the past couple of months.  Sadly, Richard Grayson and Alison Goldsworthy have resigned from the executive.  Alison has had to leave due to other work commitments while Richard is working hard on the party’s Federal Policy Committee and Manifesto Working Group.  We wish them both the best of luck and would like to take this opportunity to thank them for helping to get the SLF on its feet during its first few months.

The remaining executive members – Director Matthew Sowemimo and Secretary James Graham – are being joined by David Hall-Matthews and Peter Kunzmann.  David is a respected academic and a former Lib Dem candidate (Leeds North West, 2001) who readers of Reinventing The State may recall contributed a chapter on international development.  He takes over from Richard as the Chair of the organisation.  Peter has worked for the party and a number of MPs over the years and has a special interest in using public policy to promote happiness.

The one thing our change in personel has highlighted is the need for the SLF to get itself on a firmer democratic footing.  This has always been part of our plans after the general election, but we have decided to bring these forward.  Watch this space for more information.

MANIFESTO PRIORITIES

The new Social Liberal Forum executive has published a joint statement on what we see are the key priorities for the next Liberal Democrat manifesto.  These include:

• A firm commitment to reduce income inequality over the course of the next Parliament;
• The richest in society should take a greater part of the strain in reducing the budget deficit and we should present ourselves as the party of fair, redistributive taxation;
• A low carbon economy and a global climate change agreement based on the principles of contraction and convergence;
• Youth unemployment should be another priority – the party is right to stick with its commitment to scrap tuition fees.

The full statement can be found here.

SOCIAL NETWORK

Many thanks to the dozens of you who have joined our Social Network over the past few weeks.  If you have not done so already, please do: http://socialliberal.ning.com/

Although only early days yet, this Social Network is set to be crucial tool for coordinating our activities.  Please join so we can keep you better in touch.

Cheers,

James Graham
Social Liberal Forum

• The party should commit itself to the goal of reducing income inequality over the next parliament. Proposals to reduce public spending should be assessed in terms of whether they further that objective.
• Tax increases for the richest members of society should take the greater part of the strain in reducing the budget deficit in order to protect vulnerable users of public services, like housing, health services and social care. In 1993 the Clinton Administration faced with a big structural budget deficit expressly chose to use tax increases rather than spending cuts as the major means of deficit reduction.
• We should be the party of fair, redistributive taxation. We welcome the proposal to include a 0.5% property tax on mansions over £1 million and see this as an addition to our reconfirmed policy of replacing the Council Tax and replacing it with a Local Income Tax.
• Immediate action to further the transition to a sustainable, low carbon economy is essential and this goal should substantially influence tax and spending policies. A global climate change agreement should be based on the principles of contraction and convergence.
• Reducing youth unemployment should be another priority for the next government. Academic evidence has shown that youth unemployment generates serious losses in lifetime earnings that can persist up to twenty years after a period of unemployment. In the last two recessions large numbers of people out of work for long periods became stigmatized, depressed and hard to place – a phenomenon known as ‘scarring.’
• The abolition of tuition fees is important so that students from working class communities do not face the re-imposition of barriers at university level. Our policy on fees has been reaffirmed at the Harrogate Conference and by FPC. The policy is right and is popular.

We believe applying the principles outlined above to policy development would make a reality of calls for progressive austerity.

The Social Liberal Forum Executive