Failing to vote for a mansion tax would be another Lib Dem betrayal

The Lib Dems have a simple choice – either they back their flagship policy by voting for Labour's motion or they don’t.

The Lib Dems have repeatedly said they support a mansion tax. Today they have a chance to vote for one.

This isn’t just a bygone pledge from their now notorious 2010 manifesto. Nick Clegg has made it the centrepiece of his leadership in the last few weeks. Kicking off the Eastleigh by-election last month, he called for "taxes on mansions, tax cuts for millions".

He said: "the mansion tax is an idea whose time has come" and that opponents of it should "join with the Liberal Democrats and the chorus of voices seeking to make our tax system fair." So it would be astonishing if Nick Clegg and his MPs today failed to back a straightforward motion supporting their long-held policy of a mansion tax on properties over £2m.

As Vince Cable himself said: "If it is purely a statement of support for the principle of a mansion tax, I'm sure my colleagues would want to support it."

And that's exactly the motion we tabled last Friday:

That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals at the earliest opportunity.

Is there anything in this motion that Liberal Democrat MPs disagree with? Asked this very question by Andrew Neil, the Lib Dem party president, Tim Farron, said: "none of it." And as Vince Cable’s friend Lord Oakeshott said last month: "If they [Labour] move a core Liberal Democrat flagship policy like that why wouldn’t Liberal Democrat MPs support it?"

That is a question every Lib Dem MP should ask themselves today. Because the government amendment today in the name of the Prime Minister is pure political fudge - it simply notes that "parts of the coalition" support a mansion tax and others don't.

So Liberal Democrat MPs shouldn't kid themselves that voting for David Cameron's amendment means they have voted for a mansion tax or done anything to help secure one. The Lib Dems have a simple choice – either they back their flagship policy by voting for today's motion or they don’t. No amount of wriggling or contortion can get them out of that simple choice.

At a time when the flatlining economy, cuts to tax credits and higher VAT means millions of working people are seeing their incomes squeezed like never before, there is a clear case for asking the wealthiest to make a greater contribution.

And Labour believes the funds raised should be used to introduce a new lower 10p starting rate of tax - putting right a mistake made by the last government. This would mean a tax cut for 25 million people on middle and modest incomes struggling with the rising cost of living.

After supporting a Tory tax cut for millionaires, a failing economic plan, a VAT rise and a trebling of tuition fees, we will judge the Lib Dems on what they do, not what they say.

Chris Leslie is Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury

Nick Clegg makes his keynote speech at the Liberal Democrat spring conference on March 10, 2013 in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

Chris Leslie is chair of Labour’s backbench Treasury Committee and was shadow Chancellor in 2015. 

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496