The conferences are over – the three main party leaders have spoken. As I write just two party leaders\u2019 speeches are available in text form, Miliband\u2019s and Cameron\u2019s.\u00a0 Nick Clegg finished speaking an hour ago, but currently his isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Being something of a cynic, I tend to rank politicians in inverse proportion to their use of the word \u201cfair\u201d or derivatives of it. Everyone wants \u201cfair\u201d, \u201cfair\u201d is the ultimate Utopia, but as we all know, it\u2019s also completely meaningless.\u00a0 The more a politician relies on it, the less that politician can be relied upon.<\/p>\n
I was pleasantly surprised by the infrequent occurrence of the word. Cameron used it just once, Miliband four times.\u00a0 As to Clegg, I didn\u2019t listen to his speech, I\u2019ve no text to hand, just a few tweets to go by \u2013 but any politician whose party website includes the term \u201cfairer society\u201d automatically starts with a bonus count of ten, so according to my interpretation Miliband is more reliable than Clegg but ranks below Cameron.<\/p>\n
On one level that result surprises me. To me, the extent to which a politician talking about his plans for the country\u2019s future should be believed depends entirely on how well he\u2019s explained the funding for those plans.\u00a0 And as Miliband\u2019s delivered speech made no mention whatsoever of the deficit, he demonstrated, perhaps subconsciously, not only that he regards it to be of no importance, but also that his plans cannot be taken seriously.\u00a0 Because if the existing deficit is of no importance, the implication must be that he\u2019d pursue his agenda until \u2013 suddenly, and to his undoubted astonishment \u2013 the country was broke.\u00a0 And then it would be cap in hand to the IMF again.\u00a0 And his agenda would be blown out the water.<\/p>\n
Nick Clegg\u2019s speech appears to have been an exercise in defensiveness. Yes, there\u2019s a tax give-away, but the man and his party have some credibility based on their years in coalition.\u00a0 It\u2019s undoubtedly arguable the deficit would be significantly lower today had the Tories been in sole charge from 2010, but the LibDems are entitled to some credit for participating in government at a most difficult time economically.<\/p>\n
Of course every party has its giveaways. The main one from the Tories, as my colleague has pointed out, is a tax band adjustment by 2020.\u00a0 My colleague regards this giveaway as a cynical ploy to buy votes today for a tax hand-out five years down the line.\u00a0 I disagree with my colleague \u2013 cynical it would be were it promised to kick in before the deficit were dealt with. It wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Labour doesn\u2019t really do tax give-aways, it just finds new ways of spending money. Miliband identified several of those. And he identified a way to fund a part of it, by means of Vince Cable\u2019s \u201cMansion Tax\u201d that\u2019s no longer supported by Vince\u2019s own party.\u00a0 Whether or not it\u2019s possible to impose such a tax is open to serious doubt, but were it to be introduced, the concern will be that the threshold will be lowered over time from \u00a32m, to \u00a31.5m, perhaps to \u00a31m.\u00a0 Appealing, perhaps, to Labour\u2019s core vote in Warrington or Bootle, but a worrying prospect indeed for anyone living in their own home within commuting distance of London.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The conferences are over – the three main party leaders have spoken. As I write just two party leaders\u2019 speeches are available in text form, Miliband\u2019s and Cameron\u2019s.\u00a0 Nick Clegg finished speaking an hour ago, but currently his isn\u2019t. Being something of a cynic, I tend to rank politicians in inverse proportion to their use[…] <\/p>\n