A false dichotomy and a butterfly

I thoroughly recommend the LibDem Voice members' survey which is accessible over at the LibDem Voice members' forum. The questions are very intelligent and relevant. However, one question, with its two possible alternative answers, had me having to contain an episode of apoplexy:

And do you think Make it Happen's tax-cuts pledge is a tactically smart thing to promise, regardless of whether you agree with the policy?

Yes – the party is right to promise tax cuts as it makes the party distinctive from the Tories, and might help secure Lib Dem seats in southern England.

No – we should seek to replace Labour as a progressive left-of-centre party committed to state-funded public services, focusing on winning Labour seats.

Of course, this is a ludicrous question and answer grouplet. It is possible - and the party should certainly be straining every sinew - to do both the tasks outlined in the answers. The two alternatives present a completely false dichotomy.

What particularly galls me is the assumption that tax cuts are only attractive to voters in soft Tory seats in the South of England. How dumb is that assumption? Our four pence basic rate cut is aimed at lower and middle income individuals and families, and we have a whole slew of fiscal policies aimed at helping the poor. Just because "Make it happen" proposes a £20bn spending cut doesn't alter that.

I particularly don't buy the assumption that you can't be committed to state-funded public services and aim to cut overall spending. With government spending projected to rise to £678billion in 2010-11, it is not particularly far-fetched to propose a 3% cut in this figure. Any business would see this as a reasonable goal. Most business aim to cut costs by figures such as 5% per year while improving customer service. Anyone who has managed a business knows that, in fact, you can make enormous progress with nil net investment or even under an overall environment of net cuts. Pressure on costs often instigates a culture of innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention. For example, the NHS and is the largest corporate employer in the world save for the Chinese army and the Indian railways. No one can sensibly say that no efficiencies, and improvements in service, can be achieved in such a sprawling organisation.

Of course, the LibDem overall tax-take cut proposal would not have been relevant or feasible in 1997 after 18 years of Tory stinginess. Labour have been relatively generous with public spending. Where they have failed is to spend it wisely, or more correctly, to allow it to be spent wisely through more local devolution of spending decisions.

So why haven't the Tories proposed such tax cuts as the ones in Make it Happen? Is the question always posed. If they did, they know they'd give Labour an open goal to criticise them for planning cuts in public spending. That criticism doesn't quite work with us given our very well established commitment to public services.

And let's face it, no LibDem conference is going to approve cuts in public services. Nor should there need to be any to achieve the £20bn tax take reduction. I certainly wouldn't agree to any cuts in hospitals, police, schools etc.

This whole argument depends on where the savings will be made. We should also bear in mind that a net reduction in spending still allows for some increases in spending in certain areas, offset by efficiencies and innovation in other areas. Innovation does take years to put into practice. It's a long term task. It's not about short term swingeing cuts. It's about intelligent management. Look at the examples of continental health systems which Nick Clegg often cites (and indeed, about which he has co-written a book).

The current examples cited by Nick Clegg are sensible ones. Reducing the number of MPs - Hoorah! Abolishing unnecessary government departments and divisions such as the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory reform - hoorah!

And the most under-rated of all the proposals is moving civil servants out of London. This frees up expensive real estate, reduces salaries and expenses and enhances the quality of life for civil servants, thereby potentially increasing productivity. The move would also help to reduce unemployment in the very Labour voting areas mentioned in section 2 of the answer to the question above.

There is also the political side of this. We risk being drowned out by the other two parties. Our four pence basic rate reduction was our best kept secret for a year. The brilliant wheeze of Mr Clegg to stick a cherry on top of this proposal (i.e the £20 billion tax take cut) has metamorphosed our 4p tax cut from a little known caterpillar into a beautiful political butterfly.