Battling the rhetoric over the Welsh Liberal Democrat’s deal with Welsh Government.

It seems that some Plaid Cymru and Welsh Conservative members are fairly unhappy that they were not the ones to secure a deal with the Welsh Government. I’ve seen many call it a “pathetic deal” and claim that, in the case of the Tories, that the party have “endorsed Labour’s savage cuts to the NHS” – probably a case of sore losers. This shows that the Welsh Liberal Democrats are the effective and responsible opposition that Wales needs, holding the Government to account and ensuring that it delivers for Wales.

The package secures one of the party’s key manifesto priorities - an extra £20m for a new Pupil Deprivation Grant; Wales’ version of the Pupil Premium. It also includes a £38.9m economic stimulus package to stimulate the economy and protect jobs, including extra resources for the young recruits and skills growth Wales programmes.

The Pupil Deprivation Grant will ensure that the Government can reduce the effect of poverty on educational attainment, something that is vital to secure if we are to see the future economy and skills base of Wales progress. Just 1 in 5 children on free school meals gets 5A*-C good GCSE’s – the policy will ensure that each child that receives free school meals will receive an extra £450 in funding. Securing £71,001 for Cardigan alone - £511,200 for Ceredigion – a fair sum of money for a relatively small county.

Teachers and a teaching union have welcomed the new policy.

People have attacked the Pupil Premium claiming that it is just a policy which re-distributes existing money – but the argument is that we can do more for less. We have to do more for less.  However, doing more  for less doesn’t have to carry the same negative connotations it usually would. By effectively targeting new or old money, we can have a real impact on the lives of individuals. We can’t continue throwing money at projects and policies – we need to be far more effective in how money is spent and distributed.

I believed that Welsh politics had moved on following the Referendum, but First Minister’s Questions and reports have often left me doubting Wales’ progression since May – the lack of government programmes, the constant references to Westminster on devolved issues – this policy however, and the manner in which the need to redraft the Welsh budget has been approached, allows me to believe that Wales has moved forward, and we can continue to do so.

Should we really be cutting rioter’s benefits?

“An e-petition calling for rioters to lose their benefits has hit 100,000 signatures and become the first to be considered for a Commons debate.”

At risk of sounding like a broken record or a parrot, I’ll just say it how it is or how I see it. These riots (again, if they can be called riots) are unjustifiable and unfair on the remaining, majority, law abiding citizens – they are completely void of any reason, far removed from the original protest last week, and is purely law breaking and criminality. However, I don’t agree with the 100,000 (plus) people who would see the rioters who receive state benefits lose their benefits. Society has a social responsibility to ensure that the people who need help, the people receiving state benefits, have all the help and, more importantly, guidance to help themselves to ensure a standard of living for them and their family.

Cutting their benefits will not only affect them directly – as they’re likely to serve a prison sentence and lose their benefits anyway. It will indirectly affect their family, their children, and the elderly mother they could possibly be taking care of. Who looks after their immediate family, who can’t get work, can’t support their family once their lose the only income they receive? Those who commit the crime should bare the consequences, not those around them.

Yes, those who have caused complete chaos across some parts of England over the past few days, disturbing people’s day-to-day lives and terrifying others need to be brought to justice (the only thing that prison sentences really do), but those around them should not suffer for other’s transgression.

From a party political stance, the Liberal Democrats should not stop talking about social justice and social liberty. As opportunistic as it may seem we need to show to the public that we do stand aside from the Conservatives who would just lock them up, from Labour who blame the government’s cuts and would just aimlessly throw more money at these ‘pockets’ of people who have been directly or indirectly involved with the rioting over the past few days.

This is an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats, but more importantly for government and the police to re-establish law and order, to re-establish policing powers and demonstrate the full ability of the law.

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.