Mediaboss Marketing

In the Colorado tax code, it pays to be rich and its expensive to be poor.

For decades now, thats been the stark takeaway buried inside the 286-page report on Colorados tax system the state Department of Revenue releases every two years: The less you make, the more you spend on taxes, as a percentage of your income.

But despite growing public frustration over income inequality and the states rising cost of living, the tax disparities apparent in Colorados law have drawn little political attention.

That is, until now. After years of defeats at the ballot box, progressive advocates believe theyve landed on a tax plan that can resonate with Colorado voters: making the rich pick up more of the bill.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute in December introduced 35 possible ballot proposals that would advance the idea and ask voters to re-establish a graduated income tax in the state for the first time in more than 30 years. Structured like the federal income tax, graduated or progressive state tax brackets would levy higher tax rates based on how much money residents make.

As written, the proposals could raise billions of dollars for things like higher education, transportation and teacher pay a familiar wish list at the state Capitol. But they would also do something else that some progressives are starting to view as just as important as generating money for public services: chip away at the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

Lets not forget why were trying to raise revenue in the first place, said Scott Wasserman, president of the Bell Policy Center, a progressive think tank. Were trying to raise more revenue so we can ease the cost pressures on an ever-shrinking middle class.

If our challenge is inequality and our challenge is a shrinking middle class thats wrestling with costs that used to be lower because of greater public investment, why not have a policy thats related to that? he asked.

Advocates havent ironed out the details of what would appear on the 2020 ballot, but eliminating the state constitutions prohibition on graduated tax rates is expected to be a top priority.

Complicating matters for the left is Democratic Gov. Jared Polis ongoing support for across-the-board income tax cuts, which many progressives view as a non-starter. Polis and state lawmakers are working separately on legislative tax changes that could be accomplished without voter approval. But it remains to be seen whether they will find common ground in the upcoming session.

If they dont, and Polis doesnt endorse a ballot measure in November, it could be difficult to overcome Colorados longstanding resistance to taxes.

I think the more that theyve lost, the more its like, What dont they understand about fixing the roads or increasing dollars to classrooms without raising taxes? said Michael Fields, the executive director of Colorado Rising State Action, a conservative political group. Theyre getting hurt more each time that theyre trying it.

The push comes at a time of skyrocketing income inequality nationwide, drawing scrutiny not just from the political left that supports Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but also from economists across the political spectrum and the Federal Reserve.

By one analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans captured a staggering 42% of all the income growth in the country between 2009 and 2015, and 59% of the income growth between 1973 and 2007. For context, from 1945 to 1973, the richest 1% accounted for just 5% of the nations income growth, according to the analysis by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

THE UNAFFILIATED: Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Join now or upgrade your membership.

Against this backdrop, taxing the rich has become a popular idea that crosses party lines. In Gallup polls, upwards of 60% of Americans consistently say higher-income people pay too little in taxes, and a 2019 Fox News poll found that 65% support raising taxes on millionaires. Democratic presidential candidates have seized on the issue, floating sweeping rewrites of federal tax policy that include plans to tax wealth, Wall Street transactions and large corporations.

In Colorado, the wealthiest 1% claimed 22% of the states income growth from 2009 to 2015, according to the EPI report. But the newfound focus on income inequality marks a shift for the Colorado political left, which has spent much of the past decade focused on raising revenue for public services even when the costs would fall disproportionately on the poor and middle class.

Over the years, Colorado Democrats have backed plans to raise sales taxes, fees and sin taxes, all of which have a tendency to squeeze middle- and lower-income wallets more so than the wealthy. Even with voters rejecting most statewide tax hikes, Colorados tax code has become more regressive in recent years, meaning people who earn less pay higher shares of their income to the government.

This can at least partly be attributed to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, the constitutional amendment that limits state spending and requires voter consent for new taxes. The status quo during the TABOR era has effectively pitted two Democratic goals against one another. To fund additional public services, state government needs more revenue. But one of the few ways lawmakers can raise revenue in Colorado without voter approval is through fees, which tend to be regressive.

Since the measure was adopted in 1992, fees have exploded, while state income taxes have fallen. And as state funding was squeezed, many local governments turned to sales taxes of their own to pay for neglected public services like transportation.

In 2015, the last year state income tax data was available, the poorest Coloradans spent 19% of their income on state and local taxes and fees, while the wealthiest paid 7%. That same year, those making under $15,000 paid 2.7 times the effective tax rate of those making more than $100,000, up from 2.5 times in 2014.

The biggest gap between the rich and the poor is at the local level, largely due to the impact of sales taxes. But the inequality in state taxes reveals something more troubling the extent to which tax breaks for the wealthy play a role.

Overall, Colorados state taxes lean regressive, but the disproportionate burden on the poor is neutralized somewhat by the state income tax. Colorado has a flat income tax of 4.63%, meaning everyone should theoretically pay the same rate regardless of their income. But low-to-moderate income people qualify for certain tax breaks like the Earned Income Tax Credit that higher income people dont, reducing their effective tax rate.

(The income tax rate for 2019 is temporarily lowered to 4.5% because of tax revenue that exceeded the TABOR caps.)

However, its notable what happens at the highest income levels: Those making more than $200,000 actually pay lower effective income tax rates, on average, than households that make between $100,000 and $200,000. The reason: higher-income people qualify for more tax breaks than much of the middle class, such as the deduction for pass-through business income and a number of credits for qualifying investments..

Wasserman believes theres an obvious solution to address tax fairness and income inequality and boost funding to public services in one fell swoop: Tax the wealthy at higher rates, as most other states and the federal government do. And, he believes this tactic could have more success than last years failed attempt to eliminate taxpayer refunds owed under TABOR.

Were not trying to raise taxes for the folks for whom a $60 TABOR rebate is a significant amount of money, Wasserman said. Were talking about the upper 10% of Coloradans and asking for a modest increase in the share they pay.

Colorado had a graduated income tax from 1937 until 1987, with a top rate as high as 10% at one point. But the legislature switched to a flat tax in the 1980s, and then in 1992, the adoption of TABOR prohibited lawmakers from switching back.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute has proposed three new tax brackets that would raise taxes incrementally on joint filers making more than $250,000 or individuals making more than $187,500. It includes a top tax rate of 9.85% on taxable income above $1 million.

Wasserman said hes also open to cutting taxes on lower incomes as part of the new brackets, but none of the 35 initial proposals would do so.

In public polling, how you define wealthy matters a lot when determining whether such an idea would win public support. While 65% of respondents in the Fox News poll support raising taxes on millionaires, support drops to 44% for those making more than $250,000.

Critics believe installing graduated income tax brackets in Colorado would lead to tax hikes for working families, in addition to the very rich. What most people consider middle class families are going to see their taxes go up, said Fields, the conservative advocate.

In its proposals, the Colorado Fiscal Institute states that a fair and just tax code would have all taxpayers paying similar percentages of their income in total taxes.

But whats fair depends greatly on your point of view. While the rich pay lower effective tax rates that is, the total percentage of their income that is paid to the government they still pay significantly more taxes on average if you just look at raw dollars spent.

In 2015, only 6.8% of households made more than $200,000, but contributed 33% of total state and local taxes, according to the state tax report.

I dont think that the current system is unfair at all, Fields says. Instead, he credits the states flat tax with attracting wealthy residents and good-paying jobs that have helped Colorados economy thrive.

If you think that tax rates do impact behavior, then you have to think if you raise taxes youre going to impact that (economic) activity, Fields said. We want to keep the people who are well off in our state.

A look around the region shows a wide range of approaches when it comes to taxes. Six of 11 nearby states have graduated income taxes, with the highest rates ranging from 4.54% in Arizona to 12.3% in California, according to the Federation of Tax Administrators. Only Utah has a flat tax, at 4.95%, which is slightly higher than Colorado. Nevada, Washington and Wyoming have no state income tax.

But comparing tax rates alone can be misleading. Colorado, for instance, is tied with New Mexico for the most generous standard deductions, meaning people here pay taxes on a smaller share of their income than most surrounding states. And income taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. Colorado has among the lowest property taxes in the country, according to the conservative Tax Foundation, and anyone weighing a move for tax reasons would likely take factors like that into account.

More progressive taxes arent a panacea for income inequality, either. With a top rate of 12.3%, plus a 1% millionaire tax, California has the most progressive tax code in the country, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. It is also the seventh most unequal, with the wealthiest 1% making 30 times the average income of the other 99%, according to EPI. (Colorado ranks 16th in progressiveness and 20th in inequality, by the same metrics, with the wealthiest 1% earning around $1.3 million on average. Thats 21 times more income than the bottom 99% make on average.)

The ballot isnt the only option for tax reform.

In an op-ed published in The Colorado Sun, Polis called on lawmakers in both parties to work with him on making permanent a temporary income tax cut triggered this year by TABOR.

It is my hope that we can reduce the special interest tax subsidies that force all Coloradans to pay an artificially high income tax rate, and provide additional income tax relief to all individuals and businesses in Colorado, he wrote.

To pay for it, Polis wants to target certain special interest tax breaks, including the 20% federal deduction for pass-through income that was enacted in President Donald Trumps 2017 tax bill. The beneficiaries include sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations that are taxed through their owners individual income tax returns. Examples include legal, accounting and consulting firms as well as many hedge funds and private equity firms. It also benefits many self-employed Americans that make much less.

Getting rid of it would make the tax code more progressive, because the benefits are skewed to higher incomes. But to many in Polis own party, using it to pay for an across-the-board tax cut is the wrong approach.

State Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat, is working with Sen. Julie Gonzales on a bill to eliminate the Trump tax break for pass-through income, but wants to use the money to expand two tax breaks that are targeted to the poor and middle class: the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Care Tax Credit.

What Sen. Gonzales and I are aiming to do is to make our tax code fairer in Colorado, so that we are delivering the economic relief to those who actually need it, Sirota said. The way we see this philosophically is why should we be treating wage earners income different than (business) owners income? This is not a tax policy that Colorado asked for or passed.

Because they wouldnt raise taxes overall, both Polis and Sirotas efforts could likely be done without voter approval, sidestepping the single biggest hurdle to graduated tax brackets.

To the political right, the lefts newest tax push is likely to fail at the ballot for one of the same reasons past ones have: Voters simply dont trust the state to spend the money wisely. Election after election, Coloradans have approved local tax hikes and rejected statewide ones, even when theyre earmarked for the same sorts of services, like schools or roads.

Wasserman, though, believes a tax measure will fare better with the 2020 electorate than the low-turnout 2019 contest that elected to keep TABOR refunds by defeating Proposition CC. For one thing, taxes would go up on less than 10% of earners, as opposed to Prop. CC, which sought to eliminate refunds for everyone. And, it sidesteps an even bigger challenge that Prop. CC and other efforts have faced: the question for voters is a lot simpler.

I think one of the benefits of talking about a graduated income tax is were not in TABOR-land, Wasserman said. When we get stuck in TABOR-land it becomes this very technical, political, charged, obscure conversation that most Coloradans feel very lost in.

The new conversation may be easier to digest. But it should also sound familiar: Whether Colorado voters think the state needs more money to spend.

This reporting is made possible by our members. You can directly support independent watchdog journalism in Colorado for as little as $5 a month. Start here: coloradosun.com/join

Read this article:
Colorado progressives have a new target in their pursuit of a tax overhaul: the rich. Here's why. - The Colorado Sun

Close

Congressman Ben McAdams (left) stands with U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez (Courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Congressman Ben McAdams (left) stands with U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez (Courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Congressman Ben McAdams (left) stands with U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez (Courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Many centrist Democrats are facing progressive challengers in 2020, inspired by the wins of progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rep. Ben McAdams has attracted a challenge from progressive Daniel Beckstrand, a first-time political candidate. I applaud the guts it takes to run for any office, but Beckstrands campaign has highlighted the need for progressives to focus on local positions rather than solely looking to coveted high-profile races, especially when it may undermine national progress.

While I am all for challenging incumbents who arent the right fit for their districts, I am wary of challenging a moderate Democrat like Ben McAdams in such a conservative district. McAdams is the closest thing to representation that liberal-leaning Utahns have had since 2015. Primary opponents should challenge incumbents who are not representing their constituents well, like in the case of Ocasio-Cortezs challenge against former Rep. Joe Crowley. McAdams represents a district that leans Republican by 13% Ocasio-Cortezs district leans Democratic by 29%, Omars district leans Democratic by 26% and Tlaibs district leans Democratic by 39%. For a district as conservative as Utahs fourth, a moderate Democrat like McAdams is the best ideological fit for his constituents.

In Ocasio-Cortez, Talib and Omars districts, the primary rather than the general election is going to effectively decide the districts next member of Congress. Their elections are unlike McAdams 2018 election, when he barely defeated incumbent Mia Love in the general election. Considering the partisan leanings of the 4th District, it is too risky to primary McAdams. It was hard enough to get a moderate Democrat elected in Utah. Just imagine the difficulty of electing a less-experienced, more progressive Democrat to such a conservative seat

I dont agree with McAdams on everything, but I do agree with him on some of the things most important to me. McAdams is the only member of Utahs current Congressional delegation who truly advocates for the rights of LGBT+ Utahns. As a gay man who grew up in Utah, it matters to me that McAdams cosponsored and voted in favor of the Equality Act and that the Human Rights Campaign supported his election. He is the only member of Utahs congressional delegation who has ever advocated for my rights as a gay Utahn. It is important that Utahs voices in Congress advocate on behalf of all of their constituents. I am not willing to give up on a representative who passes some things I want when the alternative is another Republican representative who will never fight for the issues important to me.

Some of the best ways to bring change are local, where many laws can have the greatest effect on peoples daily lives such as the tax reform bill that has become so unpopular in recent weeks. While some might argue that if progressives cant win large races they would not be able to win locally, that is entirely untrue.

Salt Lake County has progressive local representation with Salt Lake County Councilmember Shireen Ghorbani. She sought two different positions before successfully winning her current office. First, she ran to unseat Rep. Chris Stewart. She was more than qualified to represent Utahs 2nd Congressional District, but Ghorbani was unable to win as a progressive in a deeply conservative district. As a county council member, she has been able to fight for progressive goals and continues to be a great advocate for her constituents. For example, Ghorbani was able to work with her fellow council members to commit Salt Lake County to the goal of using net-100% renewable energy by 2030. This would not have been had been possible she tried to pass a similar bill in Congress. Ghorbanis track record shows that progressives can win locally, and their actions can make a great difference in their community.

Utahns are governed by a state legislature with a Republican supermajority. In the long-term, this supermajority can and should be broken. In 2018 Utah Democrats held on to their seats and flipped a fair amount in the process. Utah Republicans did not flip a single seat. On top of these losses for conservatives, Utahns voted in support of three progressive ballot initiatives. Conservative ideas do not always have a death grip on Utah politics like it sometimes seems. Progressive legislation can pass in Utah. But first, we need to elect more progressives to the offices that can propose laws.

Progressives in red states, like Beckstrand, should focus on offices in city, county and state government. One of the points in Beckstrands policy platform is raising educators wages, something most often addressed at the state and municipal levels rather than the national level. Beckstrand could most effectively pursue his policy solutions by running for state or local office in Utah instead of aiming for a seat in DC.

There has been a lack of change coming out of DC for a while now. Progressives who have been clamoring for change should not solely focus on trying to overcome Republican and moderate Democrat congressional majorities. First, they should focus on creating grassroots community coalitions that work to make a tangible change for the constituents they wish to represent.

Progressives have always used grassroots methods to bring power to the people. If progressives build support locally, they can move the political needle to the left and eventually surpass city, county and state offices to reach the national government. Making changes in your own community will have a far greater impact on Utah than running to join a hyper-partisan, gridlocked Congress. Change has never come overnight. It has always been slow at coming, but that doesnt mean there is no hope for a progressive future. All progressives, including me, need to start building the community we wish to see.

[emailprotected]

@theisaacreese

See the article here:
Reese: Progressives Need to Think Local Before Taking On Moderates Like McAdams - Daily Utah Chronicle

It seems that people who identify themselves as progressive democrats are hellbent on solidifying a tendency which I continue to resist despite the seeming avalanche of proofs which they and their democratrepublican limiting mentalities continue to shove in my face. The most prominent message within and as a result of these unwanted assaults is their desperately dissolute and unrelenting insistence that you can be in two places at once. Their cynical lie and delusional belief which they continue to shove in my face consistently elicits a laugh out of me because I have no way to comprehend how they say so many ridiculous variations of the same, tiring, corporately-enabling joke.

I really want to continue to be sympathetic and I really want to believe that most so-called progressive democrats are trying to find and support integrity. The problem for me however is that they are more than willing to be enablers of what they say they oppose and that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

There are a few very recent events by which so-called progressives have once again led me to the precipice of cynicism and I am responding because I do not want to be pushed into that hole which they and those they say they oppose have continued to enlarge. I have no hope that my words will change anything in their corporately capitalized system of militarized disintegration, but despite this, I would want these words to be used to help us all find integrity. I address this mainly at those who identify as progressive because, unlike the majority of so-called americans, they seem to be somewhat capable of comprehending how the corrupt corporate church of Wall Streets Washington and its allied predators are unrelentingly driving us all toward Hell on Earth.

With the current display of bickering and unsubstantiated accusations between Elizabeth Warrens campsite and the campers who cling to Bernie Sanders, the echoes of Warrens multiple embraces of Wall Streetian talking points have been arising from my memory. The memories of Sanders repetitions of some similar talking points are less pronounced, but they are also resurfacing. Both of these candidates are lacking the necessary distance from the triangulating deceitfulness and warmongering of their chosen party. How many times does Bernie Sanders need to be stabbed in the face by people he prefers to label as his friend and why do he and his devotees insist that they must have allegiance to what is obviously a predatory corporate front party? Living in the 1930s democrat image as if it is a current reality is a form of self-sabotage.

After the blatantly corrupt charade debate wherein the whores at CNN clearly tried to destroy the message which Sanders has done the most (among the D.C. power lust infected) to promote as a calling card, there has been a sort of troop surge where the leaders of so-called progressive organizations are insisting on unity within the followers of Warren, Sanders, and their party of choice. These leaders are making it abundantly clear that they believe that their supposed nation is on the verge of 2016. I would argue that every election has been a repeat of 1980 and that, as long as they cling to the democratrepublican pretense of opposition parties, 1980s mindgames will remain the dense mass of dead weight which will keep us all drowning and on fire.

The only message that the democrats have at this point is the same message that they used in 2016 to help elect Donald Trumps corruption.

They insist that defeating Trump is their highest priority and that this is why and how the democrat pretense must unite in promoting some lousy candidate who has as much in common with Trump as they can posses and simultaneously try to give the impression that their candidacy is somehow a breaking away from what they are a part.

Another troubling aspect of recent events is that the glaring lack of integrity which is Michael Moore has now resurfaced and is appalled at the bleeding which the democrat side of the GMO whale of corporate domination has deliberately inflicted on itself.

There remains one possible impossibility.

This is where I remove myself from the gaping cynicism of exceptionalist crap which infuses the democratrepublican lousiness. Those who consider themselves to be progressive MUST repudiate both the fraudulence which is the republican party and the fraudulence which is the democrat party.

Staying within either side of this freakish bipartisan monstrosity will only keep us all swirling around and into the sucking hole of 1980s deceits and dissolution and it is this which will keep humanity and the planet burning as we drown.

Refuse to put up with the crap any more and unite behind an effort to build a real opposition party. Doing so will help us all escape the cynical, debilitating, deceitful, arrogant lousiness which are the democrats and the republicans. Those who tell you that you can be in two (or three or more) places at once are not trustworthy. Winning for your team at whatever costs and forming dubious unions has never been a sign of integrity.

I am sure that some will accuse me of numerous derogatory and totally unfounded affiliations because of their rampant desperation, but that is to be expected by people whose claims of being progressive are also unfounded when they allow themselves to succumb to the power of corporately owned fraudulence under what they reduce to being a guise of being 1930s democrats.

More here:
Uniting Progressives Instead of Democrats - CounterPunch

The House of Representatives recent impeachment hearings, and their vote passing the two articles of impeachment were spectacular shows of partisan politics, pure political theater, and represented, in stark terms, the dictionary definition of dishonesty.

Hillary Clinton represented the progressives highest hopes and expectations to assume the mantle from Obama, and to push further the progressives government can do it all agenda. Lose the 2016 election? Lose to Donald Trump? Youve got to be kidding, ha ha ha. Hillary has got this in the bag. The tiara she so obsessively wanted and felt she deserved will finally be placed on her head, hail Hillary. Then the unthinkable happened. The earth trembled, Hillary will not take the oath of office. That honor will be bestowed on who? Donald Trump? This just cant be.

The voters made an unforgivable mistake, and it must be corrected post-haste. Before Trumps inauguration, i.e., just two days after the election, progressive talking heads and politicians began talks of possible impeachment, conjuring up theoretical scenarios in which Donald Trump could be removed from office. Impeachment was always their goal. New York magazine reports, the operatives in charge of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included a question about support for impeachment in the private national poll they ran every month to inform their strategy.

Trumps call to the president of Ukraine never cited a quid pro quo. The article of impeachment assumes he did. The prior Ukraine government was corrupt, and Joe Biden and his son may have illegally profited from this. Progressives apparently think that because Joe is running for the Oval Office, Trumps scrutiny into possible corruption on Joes part is to gather dirt on his opponent for personal gain. So, because Joe is running for office, he is off limits? Does this place him above the law? The progressive left seems to think so. Incidentally, Joe Biden, as vice president, boasted, (weve all seen the video), of actual quid pro quo which may have uncovered corruption on his part and that of his son. How is it that he is still in contention for the Oval Office? His quid pro quo is OK?

And obstruction of Congress? The courts are to decide if Trumps exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. Obama could have been impeached for the same reason when he invoked executive privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal. If President Trump had defied a court order to turn over documents, this would make for a stronger case. But that hasnt happened. Progressives have harmfully lowered the bar for impeachment to the level of we simply dont like this presidents policies and him personally. So we will impeach. This is not government of, for, and by the people.

The ludicrous and most dishonest aspect of this whole affair is when the progressives so solemnly cloaked themselves with the Constitution, and the homage they paid to our founders. This is the party that rejects the principles of our founding because our Founding Fathers were white men and slave holders. This is the party that wants to amend the First Amendment in order to outlaw hate speech, cripple the Second Amendment or abolish it altogether, eliminate the Electoral College, or implement the National Popular Vote initiative, eliminate equal States representation in the Senate, stack the Supreme Court, install living Constitution minded justices. Recall Nancy Pelosis response when she was asked if the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional? Her response? Are you kidding, are you kidding. Progressives invoke the Constitution when it serves their purpose, otherwise they do all they can to circumvent it at every turn. What they want to accomplish will eviscerate the Constitution. They are authoritarian.

Recall Lois Lerners silencing conservative voices during an election season with the illegal use of IRS powers. Samantha Powers unilaterally unmasking, on a daily basis, hundreds of names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election season. Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, refusing the carry out President Trumps immigration order. Hillary Clinton and the DNC using foreign sources to fabricate dirt on her opponent in order to influence the election in her favor. And the most egregious of all, the unlawful use of our national intelligence and law enforcement powers against a duly elected president. The Obama Administration was corrupt through and through.

Power is the progressives North Star. Their need to grab the handle, and move the levers of power is just as profound as the need for all of us to breathe.

Manny Montes lives in Auburn.

Here is the original post:
Manny Montes: Power is the progressive's North Star - The Union of Grass Valley

Back in the 1980s, my A-level politics essays were all about whether we would ever see another Labour government. Then Labour won three general elections. In the early 2000s, the Tory party was called a busted flush now the Conservatives have a large parliamentary majority.

The conclusion: nothing is certain, and there must be a future path back to a non-Tory government. This will involve luck, but also a decent amount of design.

Two main obstacles block that path.

First: the Scottish problem. The last Labour government held 41 Scottish seats; today the party has one. The SNPs rise has helped the Tories in two ways. Tory opposition to independence detoxifies them for unionists; and more importantly, the SNPs strength in Scotland blocks a UK Labour majority. The Tory trump card is that the only alternative to a Conservative majority is a ragtag Labour-led coalition, with the nationalist tail wagging the dog and demanding the dismantling of the UK.

Lets call the second obstacle the rural problem. Labours brand is toxic in much of the West Country, city commuter belts, rural Wales, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and most constituencies centred on market towns with a rural hinterland. This toxicity is tied to a sense that Labour cant be trusted on the economy or is too extreme to be in power.

In the right circumstances, the Liberal Democrats could win these seats (in North Cornwall, Lewes and Hazel Grove); after the 2019 election results, we are again second place in many. However Labour, pursuing an unattainable majority, fought them with sufficient energy for the Conservatives to slip through the middle. Until the Tories become vulnerable in these places again, they will keep winning.

The Scottish and rural problems are gifts granting the Conservatives a clear message and strategy for maintaining a majority for years to come. These two problems require, I believe, three solutions all hard to achieve. Lets start with the hardest: defeating the SNP.

I really like many of the SNPs MPs at Westminster. Indeed, Labour and Lib Dems in England tend to think broadly warm thoughts about the Scottish Nationalists, who are largely centre-left social democrats. But to achieve a non-Tory UK government we must defeat them comprehensively.

Might Scottish independence solve the problem? If Scotland leaves the UK, the Tories can no longer frighten the electorate with talk of an SNP-driven coalition of chaos. But for people who love their country and want to preserve our union this is unthinkable and would hand a huge advantage to the Tories (given that at present 53 of Scotlands 59 MPs are non-Tories), possibly paving the way to eternal Conservative rule.

I havent got an oven-ready plan for beating the nationalists. I simply say, progressives in England and Wales must recognise the SNP is Boris Johnsons secret weapon. Perhaps the plan starts by seeking to convince progressives in Scotland that they are vital to stopping the Tories, and they can only do that within the UK.

If you are a Scottish non-Tory, join the fight and ditch the SNP wholesale. Stop being tempted by the rickety lifeboat and help us achieve a mutiny that wrests lasting control of the ship from the evil Tory captain!

The second solution: detoxify Labour. At present, Labours brand is so terrifying that it pushes voters into Conservative arms (which is one reason why the Lib Dems also struggled to win seats in 2015, 2017 and 2019).

Solving this rests on the character and image of Labours new leader. Party members must overcome their obsession with ideological purity at the expense of winning power. I, too, am repulsed by the notion of power without principles: but if you care about people in need, you cant fixate on principles without power. Labour must learn how to win again. For the sake of the country.

The third solution I hope I can affect: deploy the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems dont currently look like displacing either big party, still less like a government in waiting; but despite the election disappointment, we are in our healthiest position for a decade.

In 2015 and 2017, along with most of our seats, we lost vote share to the extent that we slipped from second to third place or worse in dozens of constituencies. Our 2019 silver lining is our return to second in around 100, mostly Conservative, seats. If we win many of those, then the Conservatives lose their majority. The path to a progressive majority is clearer.

The three solutions are connected. The Lib Dems chances of winning these seats are hugely enhanced by the SNPs defeat and Labour detoxifying.

Bluntly, the enemies of a progressive, united Britain are the nationalists and the Tories. To fight them we need to develop humility and self-awareness and learn to work together.

Lets start with my party. The Lib Dems must accept that Labour provides the main vehicle for defeating the Conservatives in most areas. Labour must accept that their brand is a huge asset to the Conservatives, and that, across swathes of the country, the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of defeating Conservatives.

Labour and the Lib Dems need to accept that co-operation is necessary and desirable. We must then collectively deploy a ruthless will to win, in order to do the good we can only do in power.

Tim Farron is the Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He led the party between 2015 and 2017

Read the rest here:
The three things progressives must do to defeat the Tories in the next election - The Guardian