We just can’t win.

Vince Cable has ‘revisited’ Mansion Tax, which has been coined the ‘Lib Dem price’ for the party to remain a ‘willing coalition partner’ by the media.

The policy would mean that those who own properties worth £2 milion would have to pay tax on that property, which would also go hand in hand with a reform of the Tax System altogether. The content of the article rather than the context is why I am writing this post.

In relation to the Mansion Tax policy the article discusses the reasoning behind pressing for a policy which was not in the Coalition Agreement following the 2010 General Election. The ‘Lib Dem price’ is, apparently, the party’s terms on which they would apparently remain as Coalition partners for the duration of Parliament. As Cable reinforces a strong party and party supporter argument;

“No, I’m not threatening to walk out, I don’t think that’s the approach we should adopt. We have got a massive task and we have got to work on it and as Liberal Democrats we’ve got to fight our corner in the arguments, but that’s a national problem that we’ve got to deal with as a team.”

The word ‘price’ implies that the party leadership is bargaining with the Conservatives in order to gain power and selfishly implement policy – which is a common rhetoric of the media and opposition. It’s important that the Liberal Democrats do implement long-standing Liberal Democrat policies – such as the tax cut for those on lower incomes (which we have already implemented and intend on furthering) and the mansion tax. When the economic situation is stable, it’s vital that the party presses ahead with alternative Liberal policies (not just acting as a buffer to Tory policy) to demonstrate what the party stands for and that we are able to form a credible, accountable and reliable party in government.

“We are where we are – we’ve learned lessons from this campaign, and we’ve got to stay where we are within the Coalition, make it work, get the economy moving, promote the Lib Dem policies and values within the Coalition Agreement – we shouldn’t be embarrassed about that. We’ve achieved a lot, we’ve got a lot still to achieve.”

We entered government with the Conservatives on the basis that we would ensure that the country’s economic situation was addressed and stability was re-established, and many will see the stabilising of the economy as a sign for the Liberal Democrats to leave government, but we also have a duty to ensure that Tory policy is progressive – not ‘revolutionary’; as Nick Clegg put it over NHS Reform – and to demonstrate what the Liberal Democrats could achieve in government. Our chance to prove that we can be an accountable, responsible and credible part in government and in opposition.

Full Article: Party Popularity or the country?

Business Secretary, Vince Cable writes in the Financial Times on the Coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan, following the International Monetary Fund’s endorsement of the Government’s Plan A. Cable, as do the majority of the Liberal Democrats, still believe that the only sensible – as Cable called it – policy is the one that the government is following; “The only sensible macro-economic policy stance is a tight fiscal policy combined with a loose monetary one: Plan A.”

Now I don’t claim to understand, at all, what the differences between fiscal and monetary policy are. Economic policy full stop is all a bit of a blurr when it gets detailed and specific. I’d rather look at the, already analysed, effect of financial policy on the Liberal Democrats – or my view of the affect.

There’s no denying that the Lib Dem’s support of the Government’s deficit reduction plan hasn’t fared well with voters or party members. The majority of the swing voters the party won during the General Election have been lost on the basis that (on what party members and supporters argue) the party has (by supporting the government’s economic policy) proved that it could be responsible, could be accounted for on practical areas of government, and could tackle the deficit head on, in spite of party support and approval.

Voters and those who are politically attuned have more often that not claimed that the Lib Dems have wholly agreed on the Conservative’s economic policy, despite the figures released by the BBC which claim that 75% of the Liberal Democrat manifesto has become government policy, whilst only 60% of Conservative manifesto policy has actually been implemented. Cable’s argument was – which shows some policy differences between the two coalition partners;

“Co-operation between the coalition partners remains vital for the good of the economy. While there is much common ground there are differences of emphasis. Liberal Democrats prioritise radical banking reform, progressive taxation and the green economy. Conservatives set greater store by corporate tax cuts and labour market reform. We agree on the need for more house-building, which will push down prices, but we have long argued that the boom-bust cycle in property will remain unaddressed until we develop a more economically rational and progressive approach to taxation.”

Having said that I don’t understand economic policy, I can’t comment on the affects, only that I agree with the need to cut the deficit sooner rather than later so the next generation isn’t paying for this generation’s mistakes, whilst ensuring that the most vulnerable in society are protected – which the Liberal Democrat tax cut – and further tax cut – [would] promote(s).

The party’s decision to enter a coalition with the Conservatives was ‘bad for party’. The party’s decision to support the deficit reduction was ‘bad for party’. And the party’s delayed response to government policy – meaning peers’ willingness to oppose some government policy – was ‘bad for party’. But, in times such as this, should politicians be putting party politics before the needs of the country and economy? It’s time politics became about society and people, and not about party approval and popularity.

Even to keep the current levels of support for the party the Liberal Democrats need to emphasise what they have done in government to show that they can be trusted on a wide range of government policy, and can be trusted to act responsibly and to make difficult deicisons. If the party fails to emphasise this, I believe that the party could fall back to the levels of support during the 90s, which would be dissapointing with what the party has been through and what the party has proved it can do, by putting the country before party politics.

You can read the full article over on Politics Student.

Party Popularity or the country?

Business Secretary, Vince Cable writes in the Financial Times on the Coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan, following the International Monetary Fund’s endorsement of the Government’s Plan A. Cable, as do the majority of the Liberal Democrats, still believe that the only sensible – as Cable called it – policy is the one that the government is following; “The only sensible macro-economic policy stance is a tight fiscal policy combined with a loose monetary one: Plan A.”

Now I don’t claim to understand, at all, what the differences between fiscal and monetary policy are. Economic policy full stop is all a bit of a blurr when it gets detailed and specific. I’d rather look at the, already analysed, effect of financial policy on the Liberal Democrats – or my view of the affect.

There’s no denying that the Lib Dem’s support of the Government’s deficit reduction plan hasn’t fared well with voters or party members. The majority of the swing voters the party won during the General Election have been lost on the basis that (on what party members and supporters argue) the party has (by supporting the government’s economic policy) proved that it could be responsible, could be accounted for on practical areas of government, and could tackle the deficit head on, in spite of party support and approval.

You can read the full article over on Politics Student, or later on in the week when I’ll post it in full here.