Comment: Left jab, right jab, but no knockout blow

Comment: Left jab, right jab, but no knockout blow

Tuesday, 16, Sep 2008 12:00

There's something exquisitely painful about Liberal Democrat vision-and-values debates.

They are by turns beautiful and appalling, graceful and grotesque. A room full of Lib Dems choosing their party basics is like watching two heavyweights punch each other in slow motion.

Unlike the other main political parties, the Liberal Democrats award full sovereignty to their conference delegates. Policy is decided on the floor of the conference hall; that's why today's debate was such an important one for new leader Nick Clegg.

And that's why Evan Harris' amendment was such a threat. His claim that he was merely seeking to "clarify" Mr Clegg's comments was a reasonable one, given the confusion which has clouded the issue. What to do with the £20 billion of efficiency savings the Lib Dems are confident they can open up: spend it on their priorities, or pass the money on to taxpayers?

First Mr Clegg was guaranteeing tax cuts. Then he was saying they would only be implemented if, and only if, there was anything left over from the spending spree. Dr Harris was being helpful in raising this, but couldn't help exposing his leader's recent inconsistency.

In the end clarity has been achieved and it is the latter alternative which wins through. Party unity has been preserved: making cuts a "lower priority" was, after all, the aim of those arguing for the amendment. The process of having got there may yet prove a costly one.

It has unearthed, not for the first time, the cracks which exist at the heart of liberal democracy. Most political parties have moved on from debating which side of the 'tax or not to tax' question they are on. Yet that was exactly what happened today, when the broad spectrum of political thought underneath the Lib Dem banner was revealed in its full glory.

Some backed helping out low- and middle-income families by taxing them less. Others pressed the need for state intervention to help out those who earn so little they don't get taxed at all. There was no balance to be struck here, which was why the best arguments pressed the need to move on. "Times have changed – and we need to change with them," as party president Simon Hughes put it.

The party's principles are noble and upstanding but they rest on flawed foundations. That was the spectacle on show during this debate, when the left and right wings of the parties pummelled each other to the ground. "All parties can cut taxes and all parties can put them up," Tim Farron said. Perhaps the Lib Dems should learn they cannot do either without disagreeing with themselves.

Alex Stevenson