Withholding judgement

[andrewducker]

I'm waiting to see what the Lib Dems and Conservatives have agreed.

If they have managed to get the bottom end of Income Tax raised to £10,000 through, prevented the rise in Inheritance Tax exemptions, and stopped the ridiculous marriage giveaway then that's a good start. If they can get a referendum on voting reform in, then I'll actually be happy.

The Lib Dems were never going to get a majority. And that means working with one of the other parties in order to get some of what they wanted. Labour were refusing to negotiate (last rumour I heard was that ID cards were a major sticking point), so if they can get what they want out of the Tories then I'm right behind them.

The Tories cannot pass _anything_ without Lib-Dem backing. I'm hoping that this takes the worst edges off of them. If it doesn't - if they just back the Tories irrespectively and don't get electoral reform, then they deserve to go down in flames.

Now to wait for the details...

(Some stuff here, and Robert Peston's take here)

Comments

[andrewducker]

If nothing else, I'd like to see a parliament where there has to be a negotiation between parties - where compromise is necessary. I'm fed up with "strong governments" which can just run roughshod over anything they feel like. I want a balanced government, which reflects a spectrum of opinions.

[draconid.livejournal.com]

I don't know the full ins and outs of the Labour/Plaid coalition here, but it seems to work, so I have some hopes that two parties working together can improve things.

I'm disappointed it's Tory rather than Labour that the Lib Dems are siding with, but if ID cards was a sticking point I'm so glad they didn't give in.

I think we'll just have to wait and see.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

I remember at the 2005 (I think) election one of the Labour bigwigs saying that it'd be a disaster if they didn't get a sizable majority. This translates directly as "We want to be able to ram through our legislation even if a significant number of our own people disagree". I'm glad we're past that, at least.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

It's right to withhold judgement until the details are made public. I am, however, cheered by this report from Michael Crick:

The clincher for me though was a Lib Dem MP who is pretty sympathetic to Labour telling me this morning that a deal with the Conservatives was the only viable option.

"I can't believe how much they've offered us," he said. "The Tories have basically rubbed out their manifesto and inserted ours. We'll have to cope for four or five years with our flesh creeping, but still."

Heartening stuff, only slightly diminished by the certain knowledge that Michael Crick is a twat.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

The Queen's Speech on May 25 will reveal exactly what legislative program the two parties can agree on. What will be chopped is another matter; a lot of the more odious stuff NuLab has pushed through over the past decade after the older Labour Party bods got sick of the Blairites and departed doesn't require statutory legislation to get rid of (ID Cards, the sus laws etc.) There's also the future Trident program expenditures, the Afghanistan adventure and the expected round of cuts to spending programs to revisit now that Lord Mandelson is no longer running things.

[andrewducker]

Yeah. My flesh may creep, but I voted LD to get Liberal and Democratic things done. If this gets them done then I'll live with it.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Lovely quote :)

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Agreed with every word.
Incidentally, looks like all the policies you name will be implemented...

[star-tourmaline.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with this. But have posted, more on the emotional side of assimilating an experience like this.

[ayia.livejournal.com]

Interesting; I didnt realise that Lib Dems had to agree with everything before it gets passed... this must be a good thing. Also glad to see they are getting rid of the marriage incentive. Personally I am all for the inheritance tax threshold being up'd; after all the value of houses has increased dramatically in recent years - my view is why should someone have to be forced sell a house they were left from their parents just to pay more tax when no doubt the deceased has been paying tax all their lives? Its an extortiante amount too - like 40%. Be interesting to see what they come up with re the loopholes in rich folk getting away with paying no income tax tho!

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Huh; why on earth should people get large untaxed inheritances just because their parents were prudent or happened to live in Chelsea?

But the reason for increasing inheritance tax thresholds is more pragmatic -- this is a tax that overwhelmingly falls on stupid and/or unlucky people. Anyone with any degree of organisation in their personal finances sets it up so that no inheritance tax is paid. With the result that the *only* people this tax hits are outrageous hard cases; it collects zero money from the truly rich.

[anef.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's true that only disorganised people pay inheritance tax. However it is true that rich people have wealth that is much easier to pass on to to future generations. If your assets comprise a house that you need to live in, and some savings that you need to live off, your chances of being able to pass those on tax free are very low.

[ayia.livejournal.com]

There are loopholes regarding income tax but Im not convinced there are ways around the paying inheritance tax. I may be wrong tho regarding the truly rich - I haven't investigated it. From a personal example my mother and her 2 brothers had to pay inheritance tax on the sale of their parents Edinburgh home; giving them no option but to sell it. Might I add they had to pay the tax BEFORE they had even sold the place or got any money from the estate...

[zz]

because if the inheritance is mostly or all a house, you can't pay some of a house, you have to sell it. houses are so difficult to buy these days, and can have sentimental meaning unlike cash, forcing people to part with them seems unfair.

[andrewducker]

Doesn't seem unfair to me. It wasn't their house.

[zz]

I don't see how that's relevant. If you grow up in a house, you don't own it but may still form an attachment to it and the memories that happened there. And given house price salary ratios these days, inheritance may be the only way a lot of people will ever own a house without uprooting to a different (cheap) part of the country.

[andrewducker]

Having an emotional attachment to something does not entitle you to it. You didn't pay for it, someone else did.

And yes, it's hard to afford to buy houses - which is a good reason to tax people who have more money and redistribute it to people who have less - which is what inheritance tax contributes towards.

[zz]

Being given something entitles you to it. You don't own something more because you suffered for it. You own it or you don't.
Also, if gifts are not income taxed, why should inheritance be different? I don't really understand that.

If the inheritor already owned a house, then fair enough, they don't need another one and can pay tax on it.

it's hard to afford to buy houses - which is a good reason to tax people who have more money and redistribute it to people who have less

part 2 doesn't fix part 1.
i suppose i don't consider a first house as "money". it's an investment, yes, but it's a special case. with one you have somewhere secure to live, without it you're either homeless or at the whim of a landlord. i have no problems with cash, shares/etc, chattels being taxable. and because of rising house values, inheritance tax is and will continue to encompass more people, it's not just keeping the super rich in check.

[andrewducker]

Also, if gifts are not income taxed, why should inheritance be different? I don't really understand that.

Gifts are taxed - if the person dies within 7 years of giving it to you.

The idea behind inheritance tax is to prevent some people (those with parents worth more than £325,000) from automatically doing far better than others. That's still significantly more than the average house price in the UK, and the tax only kicks in at that level, so if the home is worth £350,000 then the tax only applies on the last bit of it.

It currently hits the richest 6% of the population - and that levels seems absolutely fine to me.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

The Guardian's live blog has a full list. On the ones you mentioned

£10,000 is an 'aspiration' -- but with immediate steps towards it followed by annual steps -- not suprising given fiscal position;
rise in inheritance tax limits is scrapped;
Lib Dems are allowed to abstain on marriage allowance (but note that they're not allowed to vote against, and abstention won't do to stop it -- Cameron & crew must really have wanted this one)

You may assume that anything in the new 'mini-manifesto' will be on a 3 line whip for both parties.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

But my strong sense is that both sides are up for giving it a go - in the "national interest", according to my sources, and not simply to taste the elixir of elected office.

I've read enough about Cameron that I have difficulty believing that Preston could write that statement with a straight face. With luck, the Libs will keep the Tories from too much vileness. Your nation has my sympathies.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Lib Dems don't have to agree everything, only those changes requiring primary legislation. Most things don't as they're achieved through the Secretary of State in the relevant department having been previously enabled to act without consulting Parliament.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I guess refusing to back down on scrapping ID cards is one of the very few things I could forgive them for.