That’s not what was said. What was said is that your figures are wrong (i.e. how it will effect those it effects) and that your statement about it not helping those that don’t pay tax is obvious (as it’s a tax cut). So your analysis can be wrong and obvious at the same time because your analysis covered more than one statement.

I will try to make my response as balanced as possible.

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that I believe if all Lib Dem tax and benefit changes are taken into account the results are much more progressive than those proposed by any other party. This you have not disputed (at least not yet!)

Such an evaluation may not have been your goal, but the headline on the ‘Left Foot Forward’ website was “Lib Dem tax policy fails the fairness test”, which I think most people would take to imply you are discussing (at the very least) Lib Dem tax policy as a whole. This is certainly the impression that most of my Labour friends got. And, if I’m honest, I believe was the impression that ‘Left Foot Forward’ were trying to give.

Even if you ignore my issues regarding benefits. The Local Imcome Tax remains a key aspect of Lib Dem tax policy and, I believe, would address your concerns about the middle benefiting too much.

I also think James’ point about the real income differentials being much greater between the fourth and fifth quintile than between the lower quintiles is also a very important point to emphasise. Even taking just the aspects of the Lib Dem Tax changes you discuss in your paper, Lib Dem policy does address what appears to be the greatest inequality.

Secondly, I would also still contend that the graphs you produce are misleading. The graphs (unlike the text) do not show the effect of the tax changes on the wealthiest. If you view these changes as worthy to inclusion in the, it should be in the graphs – especially the headline graph on the website. Such graphs would have shown all lower deciles benefitting except the very top – again giving a very different impression to the casual reader.

However, all that said, I do accept your central point that the £17 Billion the Liberal Democrats intend to raise from the wealthiest members of society could be spent better to help the poor and the poorest. I argued this myself at the time the policy was passed and have continued to argue it ever since.

Like I said, personally I find a Citizen’s Income policy very attractive – which would ensure that those at the very bottom got a good boost. £17 Billion could fund a citizen’s income of around £450 per year per person to the country’s working age population. Other ideas, like more funding for public services would also be extremely worthy… and even, dare I say it, tax credits, if anyone could get them to work without messing up many people’s lives with complication, confusion, overpayments and clawbacks.

Nevertheless, current Lib Dem policy does help those on low incomes at the expense of the very top. Sure it is not in the best way possible. And there is a case to be made for addressing the difference between the bottom and the middle.

Your comments in isolation are good… but presented in the way they are is bound to mislead people about the Lib Dem policies as a whole.

I’m not sure why so many Lib Dem activists think this is illegitimate (such as James Graham at Social Liberal Forum).

More smears? That isn’t what I wrote at all. Perhaps, rather than knocking down your own Straw(sic) men, you might want to address the three main substantive points in my article:

1. Raising personal allowance will be pro-jobs and help reduce inflationary pressures on wages at a time of economic fragility – this benefits the low waged most of all.

2. The difference in wages between the first four quintiles is significantly lower than the difference in wages between the fourth and fifth quintile. It makes sense to build solidarity between people on middle incomes and low incomes.

3. It represents a shift away from taxes on income and onto taxes on wealth, thereby addressing the even bigger problem of wealth inequality.

A side point: in your article in the Guardian this week, you criticise Nick Clegg for “praising Margaret Thatcher.” In fact, his comments were limited to her attack on vested interests, drawing parallels between the unions of the 70s and the banks now. On that basis, how can you remain the member of a party lead by a man who not only takes tea with Maggie but states that:

“I think Lady Thatcher saw the need for change.

“And I think whatever disagreements you have with her about certain policies – there was a large amount of unemployment at the time which perhaps could have been dealt with – we have got to understand that she saw the need for change.

“I also admire the fact that she is a conviction politician … I am a conviction politician like her.”

Since you are at pains to emphasise how this is not a partisan attack, where is your vociferous attack on him, or on the Labour policy a couple of years ago to cut income tax by 2p and to scrap the 10p rate?