Richard

I refer you to David Wearing's comment, partially copied below, it's under attack because it isn't all that it is made out to be.

• the measure would do nothing to help the very poorest, who don't have income large enough to pay tax;

• only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost (6 per cent) actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax;

• households in the second richest decile would gain on average four times the amount than those in the poorest decile; and

• the policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.

I agree with the article in the sense that finally Lib Dem voters can be pleased with the leader.

So much since May 2010 has been a disappointment the baseline is quite low.

Yes it is perhaps the best day but it is still not a great day

The powerful and elite are waging a terrible war on the poor and vulnerable. There is real suffering and death going on right now (homelessness is up and there have been at least 11 suicides where the coroner has implicated the work fitness assessment as the cause).

We know the Tories would do this. We know Labour just didn't care after their decade of neo-conservatism. Many turned to the Lib Dems because they were promising they were more progressive and compassionate than Labour.

They took those votes in good faith and used them to gain a sniff of power, turning their back on their voters, their promises, and everything they claimed to have stood for.

The ONLY way they can even be considered as a possible political movement again is to end the coalition before things get any worse.

Luddite, your stupidity knows no bounds. Let me spell out your idiocy to you.

Firstly, you scream "bullshit", without actually disagreeing with me at all. 80% support it? Ok, even if that were true (it isn't according to the Spartacus report), that doesn't actually mean the assertion the war against the poor isn't going on, it just means said war has public support.

Next.. "and Sir Michael there's no great appetite for another Socialist government in [England] Mick do you live in a bubble?"

I didn't say there was. You are completely missing the point, because you are stupid.

The Lib Dems stood on a platform of progressive politics. They all signed a pledge to not increase tuition fees, to not have VAT at 20%, and various other things. They've formed part of a government, tripled tution fees, and put VAT to 20%. That is an afront to democracy.

If the Tories were elected on a platform of reducing unemplyoment benefit by 20%, and then after they were elected they raised it by 20%, wouldn't you feel disenfranchised as a voter? Wouldn't you ask whether or not the publics participation in election process - the only time we actually get a say - was meaningful at all?

I don't care if a socialist or capitalist government is elected, as long as the choices are clearly and honestly presented to the public before voting. I don't care if Labour don't get elected, as long as they offer the country a real and credible alternative to the Conservatives, not just neo-Conservatist opportunism.

I don't care if the Conservatives get elected to run the country and do make these sorts of changes, as long as the effects of these changes are honestly presented in the media.

Democracy has been undermined by the corporate media, by the coalition and by Blair, Brown, and Miliband toadying to the right wing. Be as loud and beligerant as you like - your vote counts for nothing either. It just so happens that you agree with what these people are doing, but make no mistake they are doing it all for their own benefit, not for yours.

Luddite, people here are "real people working hard in the real world". Were government policy based upon "what Luddite thinks people said in polls of his mates" I do think that would possibly be even worse than what we have now, but that aside...

The point, again Luddite, has passed you by. I will try to educate you one more time...

It isn't about socialism.

Socialism, is not what this is about.

Socialism is not part of the argument.

Socialism plays no part in this point.

Socialism != part of this.

Got it? Good...

The point is the democratic process.

The point is choice, a fair choice, an honest choice, presented to the voters at a ballot box before they cast their vote.

The point is that vote is supposed to represent your own view as to which direction the country should run. If you cast your vote for it to run in one direction, and the person you voted for takes that vote and runs in a completely different direction, your vote is effectively quashed.

When that happens, your democratic right to have a say has been violated.

As I said, if you voted Tory on the basis they were going to reduce welfare, and then they doubled it, would you feel disenfranchised?

THAT is the point.

The raising of the income tax threshold is a gimmick if it is to be done apart from a wholesale restructuring which, among many other things, guaranteed everyone a tax-free income of at least half national median earnings at the given time.

When Sir Michael protests that "They've formed part of a government, tripled tution fees, and put VAT to 20%" it's the first clause that really upsets him. Damn Liberals getting above their station. All the rest of it is just bluster.

Sorry, you lied to get into power, and are supporting a failing government bent on attacking the most vulnerable people in society.

So ... sling your hook.

The progressive credentials of this policy are on a par with the progressive credentials of the party that produced them. As shown here
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/lib-dem-tax-policy-fails-the-fair...

• the measure would do nothing to help the very poorest, who don't have income large enough to pay tax;

• only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost (6 per cent) actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax;

• households in the second richest decile would gain on average four times the amount than those in the poorest decile; and

• the policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.

Perhaps this is aimed a little more than people who used to vote LibDem than at people who most urgently need the help.

Sounds like exactly what it is.

Pish

How about reversing the regressive and inflationary increase in VAT which hits the poorest hardest?

This article sums up why I will never vote Lib Dem again.

I've written this elsewhere, regarding this 'differentiation strategy' and your reference to differentiating yourselves from the Tories over tax (by the way, one swallow doth not a summer make); when you are actively taking part in the destruction of the welfare state, the education system, the NHS, the legal and judicial system, the public sector, the economy, and so many more willingly; how can you stand up and claim to be different, distinct from?