In Praise of the Independent: Finding strengths in Nick Clegg

In Praise of the Independent: Finding strengths in Nick Clegg.

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.

25,700 receiving an Income Tax cut in Ynys Mon

25,700 receiving an Income Tax cut in Ynys Mon.

From 6th April 2011, around 700 people in Ynys Mon will no longer have to pay Income Tax and a further 25,000 will get £200 extra in their pockets.

Liberal Democrats in Government secured a rise in the Income Tax threshold, the point from which people start paying their taxes, of £1,000 to £7,475 which comes into force today.

Across Britain nearly 900,000 people will be lifted out of paying Income Tax while around 23m basic-rate tax payers will get an extra £200 in their pockets.

This increase is the first step toward the Liberal Democrat commitment to raise the Income Tax threshold to £10,000, with a further rise of the threshold was announced in the budget for 2012.

Commenting, Ynys Mon Assembly candidate Rhys Taylor said:

“At a time when people are worried about their personal finances, this tax cut will help millions of people.

“In Ynys Mon, 25,000 people will get an extra £200 to spend this year and I know this will make a real difference.

“I am proud that thanks to Liberal Democrats in Government, almost a million people will be lifted out of paying tax altogether across the country, while 23m people will get a tax cut.

“One way we are paying for this is by taxing the banks more, £10bn more, so they pay their share.”

“This tax cut is straight from the front page of our manifesto to the pockets of 23m tax payers.”

Commenting further, Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg said:

“We have to make difficult decisions but we can still make life fairer and that’s what Liberal Democrats in government and across Britain are doing.

“From today Liberal Democrats have delivered a £200 income tax cut to every basic rate taxpayer, and there’s more to come – our ambition is a country where no one pays any income tax on the first £10,000 they earn.

“These are the kind of decisions Liberal Democrats are making in Government to make life just that little bit easier for people who are facing difficult times.”

2015 and party grassroots.

I had been thinking about putting a post together on where the party can go from here and how the party should approach the 2015 General Election and then I came across this on Lib Dem Voice, and decided to use this to emphasise my argument.

People – generalisation intended – have criticised Liberal Democrat MPs for voting for, then against government reforms for the NHS, calling it a ‘u-turn’, an attempt to gain public approval, and an attempt to show that the Lib Dems are different from their Conservative coalition partners. As Mark Thompson says however, that view undermines people’s understanding of Liberal Democrat politics and party politics as a whole.

The reason the Liberal Democrat stance on governmental reforms of the NHS changed was because of grassroot politics, which has seen a massive influx during recent years – even if it’s campaigning for certain policy areas or topics such as Voting Reform in May. The party’s grassroots gave party leadership the real view of NHS reforms – and as the party’s grassroots decide on party policy – the party leadership had to acknowledge party activist’s stance on the reforms. When we first entered government it was paramount that we dealt with the economic climate, putting political differences aside – which the majority of the party’s grassroots agreed on.

That is how we progress and tackle the next General Election – the party’s grassroots must be at the centre of the campaign, in terms of where the party was right, where it went wrong, and where it can improve. We take, what are normal people’s view, of this government and emphasise what we have done well over the course of parliament.

We emphasise the difficult decisions that we have made, and the impact that we have had on government policy, making sure that the coalition’s disagreements are known and how we would have done things if we had been in government. It is possible that the next campaign should outline plans for the net government, but should have far more emphasis on our first chance at governance and what we have done. Use our experience to prove that we can be trusted on more than constitutional reform and opposition.

‘What Nick can do next…’

‘What Nick can do next…’ is a blog post over on Lib Dem Voice by Stephen Tall, the site’s Editor. The article looks at a question posed by The Guardian’s Michael White on the future of Nick Clegg as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick’s image and the next General Election in 2015.

The original article – “Nick Clegg is doing better, but will it be enough?” – looks at Nick’s speech to the Parliamentary Press Gallery (including what the press did and didn’t include about this well received speech), and puts it in context in terms of Nick’s image as a Leader, politician and Deputy Prime Minister, and the affect of this on the party, in terms of the next General Election.

Opposition parties, the media and all those looking in on UK politics and have scrutinised Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg for his and the party’s ‘u-turns’ and failure to implement the party’s election manifesto as part of a Coalition government. However, as most Lib Dems believe – and some political commentators – when the extent of Lib Dem influence on Government policy comes through, people’s view on the party will – hopefully – change.

You can read the Lib Dem Voice article, with all it’s links and references, here.

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.

1 Year of Praise for Nick Clegg: His strengths and achievements in 1 year of being Deputy PM

Just a quick link to an external article on Nick Clegg’s first year as Deputy Prime Minister and the positive things that the press has been saying about Clegg over recent months – although we have, as a party, had a battering from the media, there are positive things being said by the media that have gone unnoticed to those who would love – more than anything – to rant about what they see as the ‘u-turns’, lies and general disgrace of the party.

1 Year of Praise for Nick Clegg: His strengths and achievements in 1 year of being Deputy PM.

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.