Who's Getting Their Way On Spending Cuts?

Before the general election, all the main parties agreed that the deficit needed to be tackled over the next 5 years. The country couldn't go on spending £1 in every 4 raised just on debt interest.

The IFS scrutinised the deficit reduction plans of the three main parties in the run up to polling day. They calculated that the Conservatives were pledging £96bn of spending cuts by 2015, while the Lib Dems would cut £80bn.

We now know that these two parties would form a Coalition government. In October they announced their Comprehensive Spending Review. Its figures show that the Coalition will cut £81bn from government spending by 2015.

I know my readers are intelligent souls, so I'll leave you to work out whether £81bn is closer to the Lib Dem £80bn or the Tory £96bn.

Let's not forget Labour in this. The IFS calculated they would make £82bn of spending cuts, only the slightest bit different from the Coalition's £81bn. Labour now oppose every single cut the Coalition is making.

Full Text of the Lib Dem Conference Drug Decriminalisation Motion

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

1) That drugs are powerful substances which can have serious consequences for the individual user and society in general; and that it is therefore right and proper that the state should intervene to regulate and control the use of such substances as it does the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and both prescription and over the counter medicines.

2) That the misuse of drugs can blight the lives of individuals and families and the purchase of illegal drugs can help to fuel organised crime.

3) The need for evidence-based policy making on drugs with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction.

4) There is increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised.

Conference further notes:

A. The positive evidence from new approaches elsewhere including Portuguese reforms that have been successful in reducing problematic drug use through decriminalising possession for personal use of all drugs and investing in treatment programmes.

B. That those countries and states that have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs have not seen increased use of those drugs relative to their neighbours.

C. That heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and The Netherlands have delivered great health benefits for addicts while delivering considerable reductions in drug-related crime and prevalence of heroin use.

D. The contribution of the ACMD to the 2010 Drug Strategy consultation which states that“people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences) should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses or possibly other, more creative civil punishment”.

E. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy whose members include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former heads of state of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, the current Prime Minister of Greece, a former US Secretary of State and many other eminent world figures, which encouraged governments to consider the legal regulation of drugs in order to, “undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens”.

F. That the United Kingdom remains bound by various international conventions and that any re-negotiation or new agreements will require international co-ordination.

Conference believes:

i) That individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and that the priority for those addicted to all substances must be health care, education and rehabilitation not punishment.

ii) Governments should reject policies if they are demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving their stated goals and should seek to learn from policies which have been successful.

iii) At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, thereis a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.

iv) That one of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.

v) That the Department of Health should take on a greater responsibility for dealing with drugs.

Conference calls for:

a) The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

b) The Panel should also consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that i) possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence;

ii) possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.

c) The panel should also consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

d) The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

e) The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems. These services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.

Facing Up To The Challenges Of The New Boundary Regime

It's time to dust the cobwebs off the blog, this time merely to suggest that the Liberal Democrats need to significantly reform the way we operate if we are to survive the upcoming national political climate.

THE CHALLENGE

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 could have introduced two major changes to the way general elections. The voting system was subject to a referendum and subsequently rejected by voters, so only the constituency changes are now to go ahead. In summary, the changes are:

• Reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600;
• The electorate in each constituency will vary by no more than 5% (with a few exceptions for islands and sparsely populated areas of Scotland);
• The new boundaries are to be in place for the next general election and will be reviewed every 5 years (and with fixed term parliaments, that means boundary changes between every general election).

This is a big shake-up, and changes a lot about what we currently understand about what a parliamentary constituency actually is. To fit within the strict 5% variation limit, the Boundary Commission will need to radically change the nature of the political map, and change it regularly. Constituencies in your area could well be in a state of complete flux from election to election.

OUR PROBLEM

Article 4.3 of The Constitution of the Federal Party sets out how Local Parties must organise themselves. Basically each Local Party can be either a single parliamentary constituency, or a combination of multiple constituencies. Given these boundaries are liable to change every 5 years, our grassroots will need to reorganise itself every 5 years to fit to the ever changing boundaries.

This organisational problem is then compounded by research by Democratic Audit, which shows that the Lib Dems are likely to see the biggest proportion loss of MPs to the boundary changes. Unlike the Labour and the Conservatives who win swathes of neighbouring seats in their core territories, our seats are more isolated, so bringing in parts of other seats will generally hurt us harder. This effect is further strengthened when the focus of our campaigning is in our target seats at the expense of neighbouring no-hope seats.

TOWARDS A SOLUTION

So we need a more stable set of boundaries for our Local Parties can build up without having to frequently reorganise, and we need to spread our campaigning beyond the existing rigid constituency boundaries, with an eye on neighbouring wards that could be part of the battlefield for the next general election.

Article 3.3 of The Constitution of the English Party gives us a way forward. It additionally allows Local Parties in London to organise themselves along Borough lines rather than solely constituency lines. This should be extended to all district-level government.

This has numerous advantages: Local authority boundaries are far less fluid, saving a lot of time and energy when boundaries change. They give a reasonably well-established outline of existing communities around which to organise and campaign locally, and naturally give the boundary of a specific council for the Local Party to target at all times. More broadly, tying Local Parties to Local Authorities generally fits better with the Lib Dem commitment to localism, and could cause a small shift in culture away from national politics and towards local issues (not that I feel this is really a problem as things are).

There is one big disadvantage that needs tackling: Whereas constituencies are reasonably constant in size, districts vary massively - from the tiny Isles of Scilly with just a couple of thousand people, to huge Birmingham with a population over a million. There would need to be flexibility in any new rules to allow small districts to merge and large districts to split, but this should be done on other tiers of local authority boundaries.

Another problem is with electing the parliamentary candidate, but this could be the time when Local Parties organise themselves for the general election on the forthcoming election's boundaries, so that the membership is worked out and a candidate elected.

Needless to say there are multiple other issues that would need addressing were this to happen. But the cost of not adapting to the new landscape may mean a lack of coordination and self-inflicted defeat. It's time for the party to start planning ahead and ensure that it is fit for purpose in the future.

I feel this may be the time to draft my first conference motion... Eek!

Ternary Plots of the General Election in England

Here are plots of the top 3 party vote share for most of the English seats from the general election plotted. Seats in the red zone were won by Labour, blue zone by Conservatives, and yellow zone by Lib Dems. The lighter triangle in the centre represents seats won with less than 50% of the vote, so shows the seats that will be affected by AV at a 3 party level.

I've shown English seats only, as results in Scotland and Wales distort the picture due to the additional presence of the Nationalist vote, which would require 3D to show properly. I've also filtered out constituencies where parties other than Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems don't form the Top 3 parties to avoid a misleading picture.

The data comes from this incredibly useful spreadsheet which I come back to time and time again.

2010:

Not shown: Barking, Brighton Pavilion, Buckingham, Cornwall North, Dagenham and Rainham, Devon North, Devon West and Torridge, Thirsk and Malton.

Con: 185 over 50%, 110 under 50%.

Lab: 89 over 50%, 100 under 50%.

LD: 20 over 50%, 22 under 50%.

For comparison, here's the projected result from 2005:

Not shown: Barking, Bethnal Green and Bow, Boston and Skegness, Brighton Pavilion, Burnley, Dudley North, East Ham, Hornchurch and Upminster, Liverpool West Derby, Mansfield, Morley and Outwood, Poplar and Limehouse, Sedgefield, West Bromwich West, West Ham, Wyre Forest.

Con: 101 over 50%, 102 under 50%.

Lab: 146 over 50%, 119 under 50%.

LD: 15 over 50%, 33 under 50%.

In a future post, I'll identify zones on the 2010 chart which I see as having different dynamics at the next election.

AV has Something for Everyone

Another argument from No2AV is that the Alternative Vote is a 'voting system that nobody wants'.

This isn't true. Labour's manifesto [pdf] pledged a referendum on AV on the basis that the system will "ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election".

Press a No2AV supporter on this and they'll explain that they meant to say is that it wasn't in either of the Coalition partners' manifestos.

This is true. The Conservatives have long advocated keeping the current First Past The Post system, whereas the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a move to the proportional Single Transferable Vote system.

These two systems have two key distinctions:

• FPTP takes place in single member constituencies, where one MP is elected to represent all the people in the area. STV would have multi-member constituencies, where multiple MPs would be elected that would represent a wider variety of views of people over a bigger area.

• FPTP requires the voter to mark their ballot for one candidate only, and the most votes wins. STV allows the voter to rank several candidates in order of preference so that the winners have a bigger consensus.

AV shares features of both FPTP and STV - it has the single winner feature of FPTP and the preferential ballots feature of STV. While AV is not seen as the perfect system for the Tories or the Lib Dems, it has features which both parties like.


Yes, this does make AV a miserable little compromise. But compromise is a good thing when it means everyone getting a bit of what they want. It is blatantly fairer than one side having it all their own way.

Freedom Bill - Now and Then

Two years ago, the Liberal Democrats launched a draft Freedom Bill.

Today, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister announced a real-life Freedom Bill.

Let's go through the 2009 list of measures to see how progress is going:

• Scrap ID cards for everyone, including foreign nationals - Already scrapped by the Coalition, but for British nationals only.

• Ensure that there are no restrictions in the right to trial by jury for serious offences including fraud - In the Bill.

• Restore the right to protest in Parliament Square, at the heart of our democracy - Fail.

• Abolish the flawed control orders regime - Already replaced by 'Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures'.

• Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States. - Fail.

• Restore the right to public assembly for more than two people. - Fail.

• Scrap the ContactPoint database of all children in Britain. - Already scrapped by the Coalition.

• Strengthen freedom of information by giving greater powers to the information commissioner and reducing exemptions. - In the Bill.

• Stop criminalising trespass. - In the Bill.

• Restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers. - Fail.

• Prevent allegations of "bad character" from being used in court. - Fail.

• Restore the right to silence when accused in court. - Fail.

• Prevent bailiffs from using force. - Fail.

• Restrict the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes and stop councils snooping. - In the Bill.

• Restore the principle of double jeopardy in UK law. - Fail.

• Remove innocent people from the DNA database. - The Bill makes good progress, but suspects of serious crimes could still have their DNA retained for three years.

• Reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days. - Permanently fixed in the Bill.

• Scrap the ministerial veto that allowed the government to block the release of cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war. - Fail.

• Require explicit parental consent for biometric information to be taken from children. - In the Bill.

• Regulate CCTV following a Royal Commission on cameras. - No specific mention of a Royal Commission, but further regulation is in the Bill.

So out of 20 items on the original Lib Dem draft Bill, 8 are happening, 3 are happening in a limited form, but 9 have yet to see any progress.

The situation basically looks like this:

There are also several bonus freedoms that are to be restored in this Bill:

• It will be illegal for a vehicle to be clamped or towed away by anyone but the police.

• Restrictions on stop and search powers.

• The Vetting and Barring scheme will be scrapped.

• Old convictions involving consensual gay sex will be stripped from criminal records.

• There will be no more restrictions on the times when a marriage or civil partnership can take place.

And that's still not all. In 2012 the Ministry of Justice plan to introduce a Defamation Bill to reform our suffocating libel laws and a Repeal Bill to remove unnecessary laws from the statute.

Given that the Lib Dems didn't have any of this as their Top 4 priorities in their manifesto (much to my disappointment), I'm delighted we've made significant progress in all these areas. My only concern is that the Your Freedom website had little to nothing to do with any of programme, but perhaps the Repeal Bill will take more inspiration from the public suggestions.

Quantifying and Visualising the Lib Dem Effect in the Coalition

If you're like me your head is spinning with spin. Labour are bellowing that this is a Tory government propped up by sell-out Lib Dems; the Lib Dems are insisting that this is a true coalition government with two parties coming together, comprimising and acting in the national interest. Which is true?

The most objective way of assessing the coalition at this early stage is the coalition agreement. An analysis of this text and the roots behind each policy would give the best description of how this government is formed.

Happily the Guardian have done exactly this analysis and provided it as a spreadsheet. It list each commitment and gives the party of origin behind it (as well as their view of whether it is on track to be delivered - something I have ignored for this post). I have taken this spreadsheet as Gospel, so any inaccuracies in it are down to the Guardian not me.

This spreadsheet gives the following results: of the 399 policies in the agreement, 174 are solely from the Conservatives, 91 are solely from the Lib Dems, 80 were policies of both parties, and 54 are of unknown origin.

So that's 44% Tory, 23% Lib Dem, 20% both and 14% unknown.

I know what you're thinking - what's that done to the pie chart?


And ignoring the policies of unknown origin, here's a little Venn diagram showing how much is Tory, how much is Lib Dem and how much was agreed by both parties:


Looking at those percentages and comparing them to the vote shares at the general election (36% Tory, 23% Lib Dem) you could argue that the Tories have got too many of their own policies through. Then again if you split the policies shared by both parties between them, the Lib Dems start to look like they have more influence then our vote deserves us.

But compare this to previous terms of government, like the previous five years where Labour got 100% power from just 35% of the vote. The coalition is emphatically a more democratic outcome than what Britain is used to.

UPDATE 19:45 - For those of you who prefer your Venn diagrams circular, have this bonus graphic:


Finally, here is a full list of lines from the coalition agreement that wouldn't be there without the Lib Dems in government (according to the Guardian):

We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We want the banking system to serve business, not the other way round. We will bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We will take steps to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this will take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.

We will impose ‘sunset clauses’ on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed.

We will find a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic.

We will seek to ensure an injection of private capital into Royal Mail, including opportunities for employee ownership. We will retain Post Office Ltd in public ownership.

We will seek to ensure a level playing field between small and large retailers by enabling councils to take competition issues into account when drawing up their local plans to shape the direction and type of new retail development.

We will review the range of factors that can be considered by regulators when takeovers are proposed.

We will reinstate an Operating and Financial Review to ensure that directors’ social and environmental duties have to be covered in company reporting, and investigate further ways of improving corporate accountability and transparency.

We will ensure that Post Offices are allowed to offer a wide range of services in order to sustain the network, and we will look at the case for developing new sources of revenue, such as the creation of a Post Office Bank.

We will end the so-called ‘gold-plating’ of EU rules, so that British businesses are not disadvantaged relative to their European competitors.

We will introduce a Freedom Bill.

We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.

We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

We will restore rights to non-violent protest.

We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

We will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with an efficient and democratically accountable system that provides a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects.

We will maintain the Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and other environmental protections, and create a new designation – similar to SSSIs – to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities.

We will explore a range of measures to bring empty homes into use.

We will promote ‘Home on the Farm’ schemes that encourage farmers to convert existing buildings into affordable housing.

We will phase out the ring-fencing of grants to local government and review the unfair Housing Revenue Account.

We will require continuous improvements to the energy efficiency of new housing.

We will introduce stronger consumer protections, including measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges.

We will take forward measures to enhance customer service in the private and public sectors.

We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier, and how each household’s energy usage compares to similar households.

We will seek to extend protection and support to ‘off-grid’ energy consumers.

We will seek to spread information on which policing techniques and sentences are most effective at cutting crime across the Criminal Justice System.

We will have a full review of the terms and conditions for police officer employment.

We will make hospitals share non-confidential information with the police so they know where gun and knife crime is happening and can target stop-and-search in gun and knife crime hot spots.

We will promote better recording of hate crimes against disabled, homosexual and transgender people, which are frequently not centrally recorded.

We will review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed.

We will maintain the independence of the BBC, and give the National Audit Office full access to the BBC’s accounts to ensure transparency.

We will maintain free entry to national museums and galleries, and give national museums greater freedoms.

We will examine the case for moving to a ‘gross profits tax’ system for the National Lottery, and reform the National Lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and heritage.

We will use cash in dormant betting accounts to improve local sports facilities and support sports clubs.

We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music.

We will look at whether there is scope to refurbish Armed Forces’ accommodation from efficiencies within the Ministry of Defence.

We will support defence jobs through exports that are used for legitimate purposes, not internal repression, and will work for a full international ban on cluster munitions.

We will hold a full Spending Review reporting this autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.

We will introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.

We will refuse permission for additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.

We will replace Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight duty.

We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

We will work towards full compliance with European Air Quality standards.

We will investigate measures to help with fuel costs in remote rural areas, starting with pilot schemes.

We will extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on how best to do so.

We will undertake a fair pay review in the public sector to implement our proposed ‘20 times’ pay multiple.

We will press for the European Parliament to have only one seat, in Brussels.

We will maintain the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020.

We will reform the administration of tax credits to reduce fraud and overpayments.

We will publish serious case reviews, with identifying details removed.

We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.

We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.

We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications.

We will support efforts to establish an International Arms Trade Treaty to limit the sales of arms to dangerous regimes.

We will review what action can be taken against ‘vulture funds’.
We will support reform of global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in order to increase the involvement of developing nations.

We will explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drugs offenders.

We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.

We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust (PCT). The remainder of the PCT’s board will be appointed by the relevant local authority or authorities, and the Chief Executive and principal officers will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the advice of the new independent NHS board. This will ensure the right balance between locally accountable individuals and technical expertise.

We will give every patient the right to choose to register with the GP they want, without being restricted by where they live.

We will make the NHS work better by extending best practice on improving discharge from hospital, maximising the number of day care operations, reducing delays prior to operations, and where possible enabling community access to care and treatments.

We will prioritise dementia research within the health research and development budget.

We will seek to stop foreign healthcare professionals working in the NHS unless they have passed robust language and competence tests.

Doctors and nurses need to be able to use their professional judgement about what is right for patients and we will support this by giving front-line staff more control of their working environment.

We will encourage NHS organisations to work better with their local police forces to clamp down on anyone who is aggressive and abusive to staff.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011, with a ‘triple guarantee’ that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%.

We will commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long-term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will explore the potential to give people greater flexibility in accessing part of their personal pension fund early.

We will establish five-year fixed-term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

We will review the control and use of accumulated and future revenues from the Fossil Fuel Levy in Scotland.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

We will help schools tackle bullying in schools, especially homophobic bullying.
We will simplify the regulation of standards in education and target inspection on areas of failure.

We will ensure that all new Academies follow an inclusive admissions policy. We will work with faith groups to enable more faith schools and facilitate inclusive admissions policies in as many of these schools as possible.

We will reform Access to Work, so disabled people can apply for jobs with funding already secured for any adaptations and equipment they will need.

We will increase the personal allowance for income tax to help lower and middle income earners. We will announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes.

We will further increase the personal allowance to £10,000, making real terms steps each year towards meeting this as a longer-term policy objective. We will prioritise this over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax.

We will reform the taxation of air travel by switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty, and will ensure that a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We will seek ways of taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

We will review the taxation of non-domiciled individuals.

We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel.

We will ensure that public funding mechanisms for university research safeguard its academic integrity.

Lib Dem Facebook Attack Group Fisk

I'd like to rebut the strange claims made about the Lib Dems on this Facebook group. The original text is black; My comments are green.

Tricky Nicky and his U-turns, flip flops and budget black holes is hardly something we can afford. Before now Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have said whatever you want to hear, and been able to get away with too little scrutiny. We want scrutinising! We want people talking about us and our policies. We've been systematically ignored for too long. In 2010, nothing's changed. Huh? Did you see the newspapers on Thursday? They were full of "scrutiny" (if that's the right word for the smears and 'Nazi' slurs Nick Clegg was attacked with). They'll still say anything to get your vote in the hope they wont ever have to deliver. Erm, we hope to get in power. That's the whole point of a political party. Just take a look for yourself:

-Flip- flopping on the Euro: Before the recession, they wanted us to join the Euro. Now it appears they don't (Or at least aren't prepared to say if they want us to join or not). Is this confirmation that where before, they were blinded by an ideological commitment to further integration with Europe, they have now realized that surrendering control of our interest rates and our own independent exchange rate most appropriate for the UK economy would have been wrong? In a recent radio interview, he admitted that joining the Euro would have weakened the UK economy even further in the recession, yet he still hasn't ruled out future membership. Can we afford this kind of indecision? We think it is in Britain's long term interests to join the Euro. But given we've just had a recession, right now isn't the time to consider joining. But when things have settled down and the time is right, we will give the public a referendum on joining.

-Vague on defence: They stand for abolishing Trident, but refuse to say whether this means removing the nuclear deterrent. Presumably, they acknowledge a world where Iran is marching towards a nuclear arsenal (as well as North Korea) is not a world which is moving towards mutual disarmament. But what is their stance? Do they want a proper deterrent, or do they want to do it on the cheap? This will all be decided as part of the Strategic Defence Review that all the parties agree is needed. Why exclude our nuclear capabilities from this scrutiny? We should opt for a pragmatic, affordable nuclear deterrent that is suitable for the threats facing us is the future, not the past.

-Indecision on tuition fees: After admitting they cannot afford to enact their original plan to let students got to University for “free” (someone, somewhere, picks up the bill) after a month of dithering, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem's eventually said they would plan to phase them out "over 6 years". Ignoring that this vague commitment sidesteps the fact a term in Parliament is 5 years, they are yet to say where the £7.5 billion cost of this would come from. Presumably, through increases in tax. The party of fairness? Pages 102-103 of the Lib Dem manifesto show the wide range of measures that will pay for the £7.5bn cost over the Parliament. The main source of revenue is a levy on bank profits, which in itself more than pays for this proposal. Your insinuation that we haven't said where the money will come from is untrue.

-Giving criminals the vote: Nick Clegg believes that people serving time in prison deserve the right to vote in an election. Do you? The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2004 that we must give prisoners the vote. We can't just put our fingers in our ears and ignore them. If the government can ignore the law, that gives carte blanche to all of us breaking any laws we don't like.

-U-turns on the economy: This needs a few points in itself....

1) On September 19th 2009, Nick Clegg said we need bold and even "savage" cuts in government spending, which will be necessary to bring the public deficit (standing at £168 billion) under control. On April 11th, 2010, he warned of "Greek style" unrest and "serious social strife" if tax increases and cuts in spending were enacted. Indecision a fragile economy can afford? You've half-quoted him. His argument was about the need for a government with a strong mandate, not the need for a bold deficit reduction plan. He was saying that people would be outraged if a government with a small vote and a weak mandate started making fiscal decisions that affected people's lives, and that could cause unrest.

2) Clegg says the Tories are being naive taking the government’s projected savings on waste into account in their NI calculations, and then takes the same figures on for the benefit of his own deficit-reduction calculations. You haven't provided a source for these claims. My understanding is that no spending commitments have been made on the basis of vague efficiency savings.

3) Despite the fact we face a £168 billion budget deficit, Nick Clegg has only identified £10 billion in savings. And they say they're being honest with you? The £10bn identified is on top of the announcements made in the latest Budget. And we're being more honest than any other party. Do tell me how other parties will cut the deficit.

4) Promises to raise the income tax threshold are based on hypothetical calculations of revenue from tax increases elsewhere. According to the Institute for Fiscal studies, “Whether the revenue raising measures would yield what they expect is... uncertain” and that it is feasible they “Could raise less” than expected. More half-quotes. They also said they "could raise more". Society is constantly changing, and the amounts that various policies will raise fluctuates. All the numbers are estimates, some are optimistic, some are pessimistic. As the IFS said, "The only way to find out for sure would be to suck it and see." I'm tempted to spin this into the IFS suggesting people should give the Lib Dems a chance!

-Flip -flops on property tax: Before, the Liberal Democrats wanted to abolish property tax in favour of a "local income tax". We still want local income tax to replace council tax. See p90 of the manifesto. In 2009, they made a calculation that meant they now supported tax on property in the form of their "mansion tax". Within a month, they had already fallen into disarray on the policy, and doubled the threshold for property to be affected by the tax. The idea may not be wrong, but such indecision is hardly a ringing endorsement for a party to wield significant power in Westminster. To be fair, this is your strongest critique. We didn't handle the way we announced the policy to the media very well. After some internal discussion, the party fine-tuned the policy so that only the most expensive mansions would be taxed, and also changed the rate so that enough revenue could be raised to properly pay for the £700 income tax cut.

-Dodgy donors: They like to pretend they're whiter than white on this. Their 2005 campaign was supported with a £2.4 million donation (at a time they said no party should take donations of more than £50,000 ...What, we're meant to deliberately cripple ourselves with an unfair disadvantage to the other parties by refusing large donations? Totally unreasonable) from a man later convicted of fraud. Emphasis on *later*. We didn't know he was a fraudster, and obviously would never have taken the money if we did. The Electoral Commission have said we did all the reasonable steps to check if the donation was permissible. One of their other major donors, Sudhir Choudhrie, has been accused of taking kickbacks from foreign governments for arms deals. So it's guilt by association is it? Again, we were given the money before any allegations were made. We apologise for not being psychic. When they criticize the other parties, you should ask: Is this just a case of hypocrisy, or just a naive belief that they are free from scrutiny? We criticise the other parties not because we are angels ourselves, but because whenever we tried to clean up politics over the last Parliament, the two old parties blocked reform. We want to change politics; they are happy with how things are.

-Dubious expenses: In one four month period, Nick Clegg claimed a staggering £1,657.32 on groceries. When he was an MEP, he travelled economy class, but claimed for Business class, claiming the difference for "office expenses”. He was automatically paid business-class fares under the rules, just like every other MEP, but rather than pocket the difference, he chose to use the money on his office. Not to mention the four Lib Dem MPs that were ordered to repay £16,500 for over claiming on expensive rent for Dolphin Square apartments near Parliament. When those Lib Dem MPs realised there may have been an issue with their Dolphin Square rent agreements, they referred themselves to the Standards Commissioner. Dolphin Square is popular with lots of MPs, and Labour and Conservative MPs have also benefited from similar rent deals, but they've kept quiet and not referred themselves for scrutiny. We're trying to be open and honest, they're still obfuscating. Again, we aren't angels, but we have been better than the other parties. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of flipping their second homes. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of charging for phantom mortgages. There are no Lib Dems MPs accused of dodging capital gains tax. And there are no Lib Dems in the dock because of their expenses. The Labour and Conservative parties can't say that.

-No commitment on the NHS: They are the only major party with no commitment to protect spending on the NHS. Their commitment to protect "key services" is based on "efficiency savings". All well and good, but why can't they say they'll keep the current levels of investment for the NHS? What's more, they refuse to commit to protecting A&E and Maternity services, saying it would be left to a "local health board". A convenient way of avoiding any accountability for cuts?

-An immigration policy for you?: They sure are different from the main parties on this one. As well as wanting to reward around 600,000 illegal immigrants with citizenship, they don't want any limit on inward migration. Instead, they simply want to move them around to different regions.

(These last two aren't criticisms. You either agree or you don't.)

Everything the Liberal Democrats say is shrouded by uncertainty, vague "commitments" and U-turns. Is this a party which can be trusted in times of uncertainty? Do you think a time of crisis and uncertainty needs serious leadership, or Nick Clegg with his flip- flops? I hope my comments have shown how these criticisms have little substance. We welcome scrutiny, and it's nice to know that people are paying attention to what we are saying.

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now

Apt song for how I'm feeling about the Lib Dems at the moment...



Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

There's been so many things thats held us down.
But now it looks like things are finally comin' around.
I know we've got, a long long way to go,
and where we'll end up, I don't know.
But we won't let nothin' hold us back,
we're putting our selves together,
we're polishing up our act!
If you felt we've been held down before,
I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore!

Don't you let nothing, nothing,
Stand in your way
I want ya'll to listen, listen,
to every word I say, every word I say

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

I know you know someone that has a negative vow,
and if you're trying to make it they only push you aside.
They really don't have, no where to go.
Ask them where they're going, they don't know.
But we won't let nothin' hold us back,
we're gonna put ourselves together,
we're gonna polish up our act!
And if you've ever been held down before,
I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore!

Don't you let nothing, nothing,
Stand in your way
I want ya'll to listen, listen,
to every word I say, every word I say

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We're on the move
Ain't No Stoppin Us Now
We've got the groove

Deadlock Democracy

I do like the 'Labservative' viral campaign. It is witty, intelligent and hits upon a the big problem in our democracy: the inevitability of Labour or Conservative government, and the lack of appetite for either.

The election campaign is now in full swing. The key soundbites are being wheeled out at every opportunity by the party representatives. It is becoming clear what the parties' core messages are to the electorate.

The core message from the Conservatives is "do you want 5 more years of Gordon Brown, or change with the Conservatives". The M&C Saatchi billboards are nothing but a straight attack. Basically, its 'vote for us because we're not Labour'.

The core message from Labour is "don't put the recovery at risk with the Conservatives". Today we've heard a variation on this theme from Lord Adonis, begging Lib Dem voters to vote Labour to avoid the Tories. Basically, its 'vote for us because we're not the Conservatives'.

So the electorate is quite explicitly being encouraged to vote negatively. They are being asked to sum up who they fear the most, and then vote against this. This is yet another reason that people are fed up with politics. The big two parties aren't providing a prominent positive reason to vote for them. I therefore gently encourage any passers-by not to.

But it is possible that all 45 million potential voters don't end up reading this headblurt (crazy), so presumably people will still tootle along to their polling station and vote for more of the same. What's for sure is there's no sign yet that this will be the election will see a breakthrough in support for the Lib Dems (even though we have the most popular leader, the most popular would-be chancellor, and tax policies that would see the vast majority of people hundreds of pounds better off. What more do people want?).

I Just Read a BBC Immigration Article...

(My thoughts are in green.)

Brown tells illegal migrants: "You are not welcome"

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stepped up his pre-election rhetoric on immigration by telling would-be illegal migrants: "You are not welcome." No shit Sherlock. (Of course he's addressing the electorate, not would-be illegal immigrants.)

With Labour facing a challenge in some areas from the anti-immigration BNP, Mr Brown urged a "united front" among the main parties to combat "xenophobia". You expect me to unite around your nasty, populist, xenophobic rhetoric? Fuck off. Talking tough on immigration doesn't combat xenophobia, it creates it. It plays to the BNP's agenda.

But he said it was right for politicians to talk about immigration and address people's "needs and fears". People need immigration and shouldn't fear it. Sorted.

The Tories said Mr Brown had "failed on immigration" and had no new ideas. The Tories haven't changed from their ideas in 2005.

In his third major speech on immigration (I thought you couldn't talk about immigration these days?) since becoming prime minister in 2007 Mr Brown said Labour's points-based migration system for workers from outside the EU would reduce the UK economy's dependence on migrant labour as British workers were trained up to meet skills shortages. It doesn't work like that… skills requirements fluctuate, but training is slow and costs money. Immigration allows for skills shortages to be filled quickly and cheaply, which is good for the economy.

But he also stressed the importance of addressing voters' concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities. If you don't like your community, move. Don't stop others from moving.

He highlighted recent tightening up of restrictions on newcomers and changes to housing rules to allow councils to favour local people and a new fund to help high-migration areas cope with the added pressure on public services, paid for by migrants. Migrants already pay their taxes and put in more than they take out.

'Fears' Oh piss off, BBC.

And he delivered a stark message to illegal migrants: "To those migrants who think they can get away without making a contribution; without respecting our way of life; without honouring the values that make Britain what it is - I have only one message - you are not welcome."Illegal immigrants are forced into this position by the government. They don't choose to be illegal, the government has made their circumstances illegal. They can't make a contribution because of their status.

Giving his reaction to Mr Brown's speech, Conservative leader David Cameron said: "I'm delighted that the prime minister has converted to the cause of controlled migration, but people will wonder what he has been doing for the last few years." He's been blurting out the same nasty rhetoric as usual throughout his premiership, David. Why haven't you been paying attention?

The Conservatives would broadly continue with Labour's points-based system, which sets criteria immigrants from outside the EU must meet to work in Britain, but would also set an annual cap on the number of work permits issued. i.e. discriminating based on application order. Huge human cost + cripples business.

They say they want to cut net immigration - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - from "about 200,000" people a year to the "tens of thousands a year we saw in the 80s and 90s".

The Conservatives say they would achieve this by stopping students transferring automatically from study to work (this will mean breaking up relationships formed at university) and by capping the number of skilled workers admitted from outside the EU, although they would encourage more high value migrants such as entrepreneurs, doctors and scientists. How about letting the market decide who is of value? Blummin' Marxist Tories!

They would also introduce a border force to combat illegal immigration and English language test for the spouses of legal migrants. More breaking up of relationships. I thought the Tories were meant to be pro-marriage?

Shadow immigration minister Chris Grayling said: "We want to continue to attract the brightest and the best people to the UK - but with control on the overall numbers coming here."

'Amnesty' Nice work BBC. Plant the opposition's spin into the reader's mind before they get to the explanation. Cocks.

In his speech, Gordon Brown called the Tory capping plan a "pre-determined quota" which he said was "misleading" as it will not apply to 80% of migrants, including EU nationals, family members and students. Wow, something true! I think I'm going to faint!

The Liberal Democrats favour a policy of earned citizenship for illegal immigrants - dubbed an "amnesty" by their opponents. Much better than Labservative policy, but I don't like "earned".

They also say they would channel skilled migrant workers to parts of the country where there are labour shortages, away from the overcrowded South-East of England. Immigrants would channel themselves there if it wasn't for government interference.

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said there was "more consensus than meets the eye" on immigration and that "after many years of chronic mismanagement Labour have now got their act together". Sigh. Could someone please remind Chris about the word Liberal in our party's name.

But he said a border force, with police powers, was needed and he called for the reintroduction of exit and entry checks.

The BNP (oh fuck here we go), which is seeking to win its first seats at Westminster at the general election, want an immediate end to all immigration to the UK, including from other EU countries, and a programme of "voluntary repatriation".

What? That's it? No criticism? Just regurgitate BNP immigration policy and move on? The BBC are dangerous imbeciles.

The UK Independence Party (I think I'm going to vomit) is also focusing on immigration in its election campaign. It is proposing a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.

UKIP wants withdrawal from the EU, like the BNP, and would end the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK, replacing it with a work permit system.

Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP's MEPs, said Britain would have an "open door" to the rest of Europe "while we are a member of the European Union". (which has been universally positive for almost everyone)

"This is the great thing that the Labour and Conservative parties don't want the voters to know," he told the BBC News Channel.

...And once again, no criticism for UKIP. I despair.

Shortage

*Ahem* you covered the BNP and UKIP's immigration policy... so are they the only minor parties? Aren't you forgetting the Greens? Liberal BBC bias my arse.

In his speech, Mr Brown sought to differentiate between the position of parties such as the BNP and UKIP and "mainstream parties" who he said share a consensus that immigration is a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth. So stop limiting it!

But he told the audience "how we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself". Agreed. For instance, it is important that immigrants aren't blamed for things that aren't their fault...

And he called on mainstream parties to unite against "those who want to end immigration not because of the pressures it places on our communities (...like that! That's the government's fault, not immigrants') but simply because they don't like migrants".

Mr Brown announced changes to the points system, which will see two occupations - care workers and chefs - on the shortage list removed.

An aide said this would only reduce numbers entering the UK from outside the EU by about 2,500 and would not come fully into effect until 2014.

Mr Brown said he wanted to encourage young British people to take up social care and catering as careers to reduce the need to employ people from outside the EU. There's no way of doing this without it costing money.

Where Are The Losers?

Over the weekend, Left Foot Forward released a critique of the Lib Dem plan to give taxpayers a £700 income tax cut by raising the personal allowance to £10,000.

Here is the chart they used to demonstrate the allegedly regressive impact of the tax cut:

However, this chart can't be telling the full story. The Lib Dems have always made it clear that the policy is revenue neutral. This means that the policy won't cost the Treasury anything, because the tax cut has been paid for by tax rises in other areas: raising the tax on capital gains, and the new mansion tax on property worth over £2,000,000.

With any revenue-neutral tax change there will be winners and losers. However, the chart above shows everybody winning.

An honest bar chart would show negative bars representing the tax rises that pay for the tax cut. The total area of the negative bars would match the total area of the positive bars. Given the proposed tax rises will hit the wealthiest, these negative bars would be at the 'richest' end of the chart. This wouldn't fit with Left Foot Forward's narrative, so they have used statistical trickery to create a different result.

I suspect that the bars are showing the median of each decile, rather than the mean. This would hide the impact on the richest 5% of households. However since their report does not show how they calculated the impact, I can only guess.

Perhaps Left Foot Forward could come clean on how they have managed to hide the losers in the Lib Dem's tax plans.

Missed Off The Shopping List?

Apparently the Lib Dems will not go into a coalition, but would support a minority government who makes concessions in four key areas - the Lib Dem 'shopping list':

• Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children.

• Tax reform, taking 4 million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate.

• Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.

• Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour.

These sound like the same four objectives outlined by Nick Clegg last month.


I support all four, but to my mind there's one glaring omission: the restoration of civil liberties.

Throughout this parliament, the party has spent a lot of time talking up a Freedom Bill that would reverse the countless erosions of civil liberty by consecutive Conlabourtive governments. The party created an in-depth website that goes into the history of civil liberty, the detail of the 20 freedoms we'd restore, along with a petition and quiz. During the leadership contest, here's what Nick Clegg said would be his first bill as Prime Minister:



...and here's what Chris Huhne said:



So it always seemed like a top-level priority to me. And so it should be. Civil liberty is a crucial element of liberalism. It is central to our values, and is fundamentally what unites the social- and classical-liberal wings of the party.

As mainstream British politics comes to a broad consensus around economics, the dividing lines are becoming increasingly about the amount of government intervention necessary for society. By not giving the proposals set out in The Freedom Bill their deserved place in this shopping list, it seems that all this good work in setting out our stall for the general election may fall at the last.

What Nick Clegg Actually Said About Tuition Fees

Lots of spinning going on over the Lib Dems commitment to phase out tuition fees. Labourite tweets from the likes of @2pallas tried to suggest that the Lib Dems had scrapped the tuition fees pledge. Conservative blogger Declan Lyons suggested that the policy was all over the place:

the policy was dropped as they couldn't afford it. Then they picked it up again. Now, it has just been extended to be done over more time.

All not true.

The policy was never dropped at Conference. What Clegg said was

Ending tuition fees would cost billions of pounds every year - we need to be certain we can afford it before we make any promises.

So he said that given the state of the country's finances, the policy's affordability needed to be checked.

Then, the new policy of phasing out tuition fees over 6 years was announced last month. This made the long standing commitment affordable.

Today, Clegg has simply restated this pledge as part of a wider message about only promising what could be afforded. On the Today programme, he said:

We will not be able to deliver our pledge on scrapping tuition fees - something we are determined to do - on the timetable we have once envisaged.

So the same policy as announced earlier this month.

Nick Clegg has been totally consistent over tuition fees. Any suggestion otherwise is desperate spin from the opposition.

Lib Dems are the Most Effective Spenders

The graphic should explain all. I showed my working and everything :)

How the 'Irrelevant' Meme will be Neutered

Mark Reckons has rightly taken issue with a post from Tom Harris, which takes the line of the Lib Dems being irrelevant. It is the main line of Lib Dem attack by the two big parties: instead of engaging with the issues we raise, call them meaningless and move on. It breaks just about every logical fallacy going, but the Conlabourtives have never been big on logic.

Of course the honest answer is that the Lib Dems won't be the next government. There's an outside chance the party goes into coalition with the Tories or Labour, but we won't be running the country on our own terms. That makes the 'irrelevant' line of attack a hard one to snappily defend. But looking forwards, I think it will soon become hard for our opponents to use this line, because the Lib Dems have a great opportunity to make a major breakthrough: in local government.

Here's my reasoning.

First, lets assume that the Tories win the forthcoming General Election; a reasonable assumption given the state of the opinion polls.

The tendency for local elections has always been that a beleaguered party of national government performs badly at a local level. At the local elections this year, the Tories won with 38% of the BBC's projected national vote, and Labour slumped to just 23%. Back in 1995, it was the Conservatives in a mess on 25%, and Labour on a whopping 46%.

So after a possible blip of optimism for the fresh new Tories, their vote will slump. Who will that vote go to, Labour or Lib Dems? Well, the Lib Dems have always performed better on the local rather than national stage, and we are starting with an advantage with our 28% local vote share beating Labour's by some 5%. Are Labour going to win from an irrelevant (tee hee) third place, or are the Lib Dems going to win from second?

Winning the local elections would of course give the Lib Dems a huge boost, particularly in terms of credibility. And of course it would immediately neuter the irrelevant meme.

So be careful next time you mock the Lib Dems, because you could soon be making yourself look rather silly.

Over 60% of Lib Dem MPs back NHS Homeopathy

This tweet from Richard Wilson brings me the news that in 2007 (yeah OK, old news), 40 out of 63 Lib Dem MPs backed an Early Day Motion to continue the NHS funding of homeopathic hospitals. That is a higher proportion of MPs than both Labour (72 out of 355) and Conservative (88 out of 198), and the Others (6 out of 29).

The list includes Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem Health Spokesperson, and basically all the party's most prominent names, e.g. Lembit Opik, Chris Huhne, Vince Cable and, sigh, Nick Clegg.

How embarrassing. They need to be sat down and given the once over by Evan Harris.