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.

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.

We should not be declaring victory on NHS reforms.

As Norman Lamb said on the Politics Show, the concerns over Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s proposals, have been addressed, and there have been significant changes to the reform bill after concerns from Liberal Democrat MPs. The BBC has already released an article claiming that Nick Clegg will “claim NHS changes victory for Lib Dems”. The opening sentence of the article is;

“Deputy PM Nick Clegg is next week expected to claim the Lib Dems have got their way in coalition battles over a planned shake-up of the NHS in England.”

Without going into detail over the changes that have been made to the original reform, it’s clear that there have been significant changes to the reforms. Eleven of the thirteen demands (including democratic accountability and preventing private firms “cherrypicking” services) – have been secured, and alternative solutions need to meet the remaining two concerns.

“This is not a case of triumphalism. This is a case of improving the policy”

Whilst these changes have come following demands and pressure to ensure that the changes address the concerns people had of the reforms, declaring ‘victory’ and becoming triumphant will do nothing for party support. It would be easy for opposition to label the whole thing as hypocrisy. Whilst we judge Labour for their triumphalism and tribalism (particularly in Wales) we do the same.

This is the opportunity we have been looking for since joining the Coalition; to prove that we are a party that can be trusted on key government policy, that we can be counted on to act responsibly on key government policy and we can form a credible part of governing both as part of a coalition and as a single ruling party. As a party, we have repeated that the reason that we are in government is to address the key issues such as addressing the economic situation and reform of public services, and to act as a ‘buffer’ (or ‘safety valve’ as Norman Lamb called it) against Conservative policy, and we have achieved that – and that is what we should be talking about; the improvement of the NHS reforms and our achievements in government.

“I think actually this is a good demonstration of why the Lib Dems are currently in government. We can be effective in government achieving changes and acting as a sort of safety valve.”

Party members have outlined what they believe should form the party’s strategy in the 2015 General Election, which includes the need to demonstrate where the party has had an affect on government policy, how we can be trusted to act responsibly, and how we have made real progress and gained real achievements in government. And the moment we claim victory over policy reform and become triumphant, is the time when those arguments become flawed and we lose support.

20 Key Facts about Tuition Fees from 2012.

“For 20 years we’ve educated our youth into debt when they go to university but never about debt – that must change”

Martin Lewis discusses what he considers to be the main 20 facts about tuition fees, including what people have worried about and what’s even more worrying with the Government’s policy change regarding HE fees in England. We’ve had the riots, the political arguments and the doom and gloom of the policy changes broadcasted and highlighted, but few have actually looked at the practicalities of the policy change.  

Here’s the list of the 20 facts that Martin Lewis thinks future students, parents and grandparents should know;

1. The changes ONLY hit new September 2012 starters, existing and 2011 students stay on current system
2. Trebling tuition fees doesn’t always mean tripling your costs
3. You don’t need to have cash to go to university
4. Earn under £21,000 and you’ll never repay
5. After thirty years any remaining debt is wiped
6. ‘Above-inflation’ interest will be charged
7. Repayments will be £540 a year lower than current system
8. You WILL owe money for longer and may pay a LOT more
9. Part time fees rising, but tuition fee loans now available
10. Monthly repayments are the same whether fees are £6,000 or £9,000
11. Student loans also cover living costs
12. Under £42,600 income household’s students get living grants
13. Student loans DO NOT go on credit files
14. The new system is unlikely to impact the ability to get a mortgage
15. You may not be allowed to repay early
16. Students at Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish universities aren’t affected
17. Many people will never pay it all back
18. It’s more like a graduate tax than a loan
19. Student loans should be counted as part of students’ income
20. Other grants and bursaries will be available

You can read the full article including all of it’s references and sources here.

Can you really blame someone for that?……..

You’ll have to ignore my bad wording on this one. If it makes no sense then, I apologise – it’s 14:20 and its already been a very long day. And this is my personal view on the matter.

The Coalition (or the Lib Dems, seeing as it’s a LD policy) have announced that they want to open up internships to individuals who would otherwise not be able to access such opportunities. But for some reason people are calling Nick Clegg hypocritical for endorsing a policy like this when his father helped him achieve his first internship. At least Clegg has been open and honest about it!

From my perspective, unfortunately that’s how the system works. If you know someone, it’s going to help you get places. It’s never going to change. Anyone who knows anything about sociology in education will have heard of Bourdieu’s Cultural Capital. It’s a given.

If your background, or parents, are able to assist you, why should you not make the most of that? Everyone should take any extra help they can get. What this policy tries to do is enable individuals of a different social background to those who are usually accepted for internships to have easy access to them – again coming back to the old Lib Dem ‘fairness’. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the fact that, based on your family’s background and social status, individuals are given priority over others of a different social background and are, to put it in simple terms, given everything. Things like internships should be readily available to everyone – why should it matter if you’re accepted based on the fact that you could get it through a family connection, or through an application form?

People should not be blaming Clegg, or anyone else for that matter, for the family he was born into. This policy is all about fairness and giving everyone an equal start, either from birth or when they’re sat in an interviewing office; it’s high time people stopped picking at anything and everything in order to ridicule individuals and influence how people think.