Clegg's narrow victory on the 50p tax rate shows how divided the Lib Dems are

Lib Dem delegates voted by a majority of just four (224-220) not to pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate as Clegg and Farron divided.

After his victories on nuclear power, tuition fees and 'Osbornomics', Nick Clegg's winning streak has continued. In line with the leadership's position, Lib Dem delegates have just voted not to reintroduce the 50p tax rate and to maintain the 45p rate, albeit by a margin of just four (224-220).

While party president Tim Farron had called in my interview with him for the party to back the higher rate both to raise additional revenue and to demonstrate that "we are all in it together", Clegg said this morning: "To drive home the message of tax reform I think changing one very specific symbolic tax rate is not really the key part of the matter." The key intervention in the debate came from Vince Cable, who reminded delegates that the party's previous policy was to support a 40p rate alongside a mansion tax and argued that excessively high taxes on income could have negative economic effects.

Had the party voted to back the 50p rate it would have been an unambiguous assertion of its centre-left character, but the result will be seen as an acceptance of the more economically liberal path pursued by Clegg. (Although it is worth remembering that the party previously voted to abandon support for the 50p rate under Ming Campbell's leadership in 2006.) But the narrowness of the victory shows how divided the Lib Dems remain about their ideological direction. While Orange Bookers such as David Laws and Jeremy Browne would probably like to see the top rate reduced to 40p, Farron and the party's left have demonstrated the support that exists for a more social democratic approach.

Should the Lib Dems be presented with a choice of coalition partner after the next election, with both Labour and the Tories winning enough seats to form majority governments with their support, it is these two groups that will be pitted against each other in a battle for the party's soul.

Liberal Democrat president Tim Farron, who called for the party to support the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Leader: Mourning in Manchester

Yet another attack shows we are going to have to get to used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state.

Children are murdered and maimed by a suicide bomber as they are leaving a pop concert in Manchester. As a consequence, the government raises the terror threat to “critical”, which implies that another attack is imminent, and the army is sent out on to the streets of our cities in an attempt to reassure and encourage all good citizens to carry on as normal. The general election campaign is suspended. Islamic State gleefully denounces the murdered and wounded as “crusaders” and “polytheists”.

Meanwhile, the usual questions are asked, as they are after each new Islamist terrorist atrocity. Why do they hate us so much? Have they no conscience or pity or sense of fellow feeling? We hear, too, the same platitudes: there is more that unites us than divides us, and so on. And so we wait for the next attack on innocent civilians, the next assault on the free and open society, the next demonstration that Islamism is the world’s most malignant and dangerous ideology.

The truth of the matter is that the Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Ramadan Abedi, was born and educated in Britain. He was 22 when he chose to end his own life. He had grown up among us: indeed, like the London bombers of 7 July 2005, you could call him, however reluctantly, one of us. The son of Libyan refugees, he supported Manchester United, studied business management at Salford University and worshipped at Didsbury Mosque. Yet he hated this country and its people so viscerally that he was prepared to blow himself up in an attempt to murder and wound as many of his fellow citizens as possible.

The Manchester massacre was an act of nihilism by a wicked man. It was also sadly inevitable. “The bomb was,” writes the Mancunian cultural commentator Stuart Maconie on page 26, “as far as we can guess, an attack on the fans of a young American woman and entertainer, on the frivolousness and foolishness and fun of young girlhood, on lipstick and dressing up and dancing, on ‘boyfs’ and ‘bezzies’ and all the other freedoms that so enrage the fanatics and contradict their idiot dogmas. Hatred of women is a smouldering core of their wider, deeper loathing for us. But to single out children feels like a new low of wickedness.”

We understand the geopolitical context for the atrocity. IS is under assault and in retreat in its former strongholds of Mosul and Raqqa. Instead of urging recruits to migrate to the “caliphate”, IS has been urging its sympathisers and operatives in Europe to carry out attacks in their countries of residence. As our contributing writer and terrorism expert, Shiraz Maher, explains on page 22, these attacks are considered to be acts of revenge by the foot soldiers and fellow-travellers of the caliphate. There have been Western interventions in Muslim lands and so, in their view, all civilians in Western countries are legitimate targets for retaliatory violence.

An ever-present threat of terrorism is the new reality of our lives in Europe. If these zealots can murder children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, there is no action that they would not consider unconscionable. And in this country there are many thousands – perhaps even tens of thousands – who are in thrall to Islamist ideology. “Terror makes the new future possible,” the American Don DeLillo wrote in his novel Mao II, long before the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 September 2001. The main work of terrorists “involves mid-air explosions and crumbled buildings. This is the new tragic narrative.”

Immediately after the Paris attacks in November 2015, John Gray reminded us in these pages of how “peaceful coexistence is not the default condition of modern humankind”. We are going to have to get used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state. “The progressive narrative in which freedom is advancing throughout the world has left liberal societies unaware of their fragility,” John Gray wrote. Liberals may not like it, but a strong state is the precondition of any civilised social order. Certain cherished freedoms may have to be compromised. This is the new tragic narrative.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496