Spend, spend, spend.

Although this article may be a few days old, a few Tweets posted this morning by Adrian Masters shows that Labour’s spending culture isn’t over – in short, they haven’t learnt.

The article says that the Welsh Government has “raided” its reserves to deliver Labour’s manifesto commitments – Wales’ economy is footing the bill to avoid hypocrisy. The figures show, following the publication of the draft Welsh Budget, that at the beginning of the next financial year the government will have just £127m, or 0.95% of its budget in reserve for “unforeseen circumstances”.

However, Labour’s ignorance seems as bold as ever. Minister Jane Hutt told Good Morning Wales that “[..] the reserves are adequate.”

“We are in unprecedented times in terms of the cuts we have had from the UK government – a six percent cut in revenue and 21 percent cut in capital this year.”

Whatever the figures say Jane Hutt appears to have her head buried in the sand, and once again it’s the nasty coalition’s fault that they’ve had to cut budgets to deal with the deficit.

Moving on to Adrian Masters’ tweets – apparently Labour’s tuition fee commitment includes subsidising fees for EU students, meaning they will only have to pay £3465. Whilst I agree with the policy of tuition subsidy by the Welsh Government, personally I’d see it limited to Welsh domiciled students. I don’t see the current policy as being sustainable long-term – particularly when the Government’s reserves have been wiped – and with the policy now including EU students, it will only make matters worse.

When Labour councils seem to be cutting jobs to protect font-line services (when other councils are managing to protect front-line services without cutting the same level of jobs), when they seem to be dwindling budgets and reserves without a second thought of the future or policy commitments, when they’re promising and proposing policies which do not appear sustainable long-term, the question that needs to be asked (again) is, can we trust Labour on the economy?

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.