Lib Dem Lies: Are They Using These Fibs Nationwide?

Part of the small rain forest of mendacity received from the Lib Dems this morning was a letter to my partner about "Labour's Tax Hike". This was strikingly misleading and signed in a childish hand by the candidate who appears on the top in a polka dot dress. Not an obviously well qualified commentator on Labour tax changes.

But let's not make this a personal attack. The leaflet enclosed with the letter has the air of being something Hywel "Rifleshot Leaflets" Morgan and the other clowns at Cowley Street have dashed off for cut and paste around the country. Even badder than one of Hywel's cut and paste one-shape-fits-all bar charts.

It carries a small table with five different categories of victims of "Labour's tax hike hitlist":


Not one line in this table stands up to even cursory scrutiny. Two of them are particularly outrageous. No-one wants to lose on a tax change. But it looks impossible to lose anything like the amounts quoted down the right hand side whatever exact income one has.

Single, No Children If you are single, no children and earn £17,999 you don't lose £300 as the table states. In fact on the back of an envelope basis you might be £10 or so better off. And the worst case is about £90£180 worse off.

Childless Couple, One Working If you are a childless couple with one working, earning "under £8,000" you could stay the same or perhaps lose a little. Perhaps around £90£180. But the famous back of the envelope basis does not reveal a single case which could possibly be £232 worse off.

Family with Children, Both Parents Work, Combined Income £8,000 The third scenario is quite frankly the most ridiculous of the lot. If you are a family with children where both parents work and with a combined income of under £8,000 you are more than £2,000 shy of paying any tax at all. Never mind a ludicrous £446 worse off.

Retired Women 60-64 on £8,000 The fourth one is just a tiny bit closer to the truth. But don't rely on it. One would lose about £100 on the first £2,000 after the individual allowance. And gain about a couple of pounds on the balance. Again it's about £90£180 at worst.

Early Retiree on £8,000 This fifth one also computes I think to about £90£180, not the £232 quoted by the lying Lib Dems.

The table ignores benefits completely. And the £90£180 maximum potential losses on the back of my envelope do too. Also that Gordon Brown has promised to fix these unintended consequences. Which he could do with an extra £500-£1000 individual allowance for those affected and/or by extending benefits to them. UPDATE: The latter being more attractive as it would be hard to justify an extra £1000 allowance for these groups alone.

Could Lib Dem Finance Spokesman Vince Cable MP and the mischievious idiots responsible for this catalogue of scaremongering fibs make an immediate and vociferous apology for such a pile of Lib Dem arithmetic nonsense?

It is bad enough for people to lose £90 a year at these sorts of incomes - even if presented as "no longer gain an extra £90 bonus" and even if largely compensated by benefits and rebates - but there really is no excuse for such ridiculous misrepresentations as these.

If they actually believe the figures themselves it is not difficult to see how Lib Dem Liverpool have got into a situation where a 5% Council Tax Hike and £62 Million of cuts in public services are needed to "balance" their budget.

Could anyone who has seen the same table reproduced in their area leave a comment or send an email to idea@mcr1.poptel.org.uk. Scans welcome. Thanks.

Here's Lie-Anne's sign off. You couldn't make it up. Well you could actually. And she actually has. What a cheeky fibber she is.



UPDATE: Apparently the Daily Mail ran the very same lies as Lie-Anne on the tax losses. And Hywel Morgan has never worked at Cowley Street and played no part - for the party centrally - in this election. Though he did write Lib Dem campaigning manuals about Rifleshot Leaflets, Barmy Bar Charts, Lying and Cheating in Elections and the like. Apologies Hywel.

UPDATE TWO: Having reviewed both The Daily Mail figures and the back of my own envelope I come to this conclusion, posted there as a comment:

The figures in your table are UTTERLY WRONG surely? There is no loss at all for a couple earning £8000 between them. And while the maximum loss for any of the other four categories is perhaps £200 a single worker earning £18,000 would lose nothing or come out slightly ahead in fact.
Rough workings: Lose £200 by extra tax on income between £5300 and £7400 ... gain £2 per £100 thereafter. So £10,000 later - approximately £17400 - quits. Thereafter start slowly but surely to gain.
The gimmick of not factoring in benefits and rebates is pretty pathetic too.

On that last point it is the case that The Mail's table is clearly marked that the figures don't account for benefits. The Fib Dems one however carries the same howlers - particularly on the single worker, which is grossly exaggerated, and the couple with combined £8000 which is completely wrong - but the warning about Benefits has been redacted. The Fib Dems also fail to acknowledge their utterly unreliable source.

Meanwhile I must concede that ignoring benefits the other three categories could lose somewhere between my optimistic £90 and the very pessimistic Lib Dem/Daily Mail figures. I needed a bigger envelope to scribble on it seems.