What Is LibDem Policy on Public Finances?

If you look at the LibDem website, and go through their policy pages, you'll find a downloadable policy document on every page (eg Health) ... except the one on public debt - where there is no policy document at all and a mere four paragraphs of mealy mouthed text. Surely a bit of an omission in the circumstances?

LibDems Try to Mitigate Effect of Mansion Tax on LibDem Marginals

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nick Clegg has taken some risky and sometimes brave decisions as LibDem leader. He appeared to have shifted the party to a low tax, market based approach - away from the more social democratic approach of his two immediate predecessors. In fact, he seemed to be trying to move the Liberal Democrats back to being a truly liberal party - at least from an economic viewpoint.

But today's tax announcements leave me wondering. Having moved the party from being a party whose instincts were to put up taxes (remember a penny on income tax for education and the 50% rate for high earners), he then extolled the virtues of tax cuts. But his party were less than gruntled. And then at last year's conference Vince Cable's halo was severely tarnished when he announced a whole raft of measures which appeared very ill thought out. These included a Mansion Tax of 1% of the property's value on all properties worth in exess of £1 million. Susan Kramer and others were incandescent. After all, in her marginal seat there were thousands of people who owned houses in that bracket but who were not cash rich.

Today's tax announcements by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have some superficial attractions about them as they cut taxes for many of the lower paid - something the Conservatives are committed to doing too. But their means of balancing the books will attract huge controversy. The Mansion Tax stays, albeit it will now only affect properties worth £2 million or more, but at 2%, rather than 1%. Will that placate Susan Kramer and other south west London MPs? In some ways, who cares, as it is clear that this policy is mired in LibDem politics rather than proper economics.

The cost of the LibDem tax cuts is £16.5 billion. The Mansion Tax will raise £1.7 bn. So where;s the rest coming from? They want to restrict tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate (£4.7 bn). Capital Gains tax increases will bring in £4.1 bn. Taxes on aircraft and passengers will raise a further £2.1 bn, while a massive £4.67 bn is said to be raised through closing various tax loopholes.

For a party which wants to make " savage cuts" in public spending, you might imagine that their tax policies would be more radical than this.

Of coruse the fact of the matter is that the LibDems won't form the next government, so in some ways I don't know why I have spent so long discussing their tax plans, as it would take a political earthquake for them to be in a position to implement them.

Still, makes them feel wanted, doesn't it?

Are the LibDems About to Change Policy on Afghanistan?

With every day that passes, I am convinced that the LibDems will enter the next election campaign with a promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. They daren't come out with it now, but as sure as eggs is eggs, that's the direction in which they are tiptoeing. If it was some principled stance, one could have a rational debate about it, but it's not. It's pure, calculated, naked political opportunism. Their strategists have identified it as the only issue on which they can really differentiate themselves from the main two parties.

What does this say about them? I'll let their actions speak for themselves.

The 50 Most Influential LibDems 50-26

No, don't laugh. Really. Each year the Daily Telegraph asks me to put together three panels of experts to compile the Top 50 LibDems, Top 100 most influential people and the left, and then the right. Today the Telegraph publishes the first part of the LibDem list, running from 50 down to 26.

The rankings were arrived at by a panel of 5 Liberal Democrat personalities, which was chaired by myself. i.e I am sharing the blame! Here's the list. The second figure denotes last year's ranking. Click HERE to get the full details including mini biographies and a short explanatory article HERE.

26 19 Norman Lamb
27 29 Jonathan Oates
28 4 Chris Rennard
29 15 Lord Carlile
30 44 Sarah Teather
31 39 Alison Suttie
32 - Hilary Stephenson
33 - Richard Kemp
34 20 Baroness Neuberger
35 14 Ed Davey
36 34 Ming Campbell
37 38 John Shipley
38 - Kirsty Williams
39 48 Richard Grayson
40 - Paul Scriven
41 Jo Swinson
42 36 Mark Pack
43 41 Dorothy Thornhill
44 - Neil Sherlock
45 45 David Howarth
46 - Daniel Radcliffe
47 - Mark Littlewood
48 - Willie Rennie
49 - Fiona Hall
50 18 Lembit Opik

LibDems Revamp Their Website

The Liberal Democrats have unveiled their new website. I have to say I liked the design of their old site better, but the new site has quite a few new features and is relatively easy to navigate.

Particularly souped up are the people pages, with news feeds from their local sites, links to Facebook groups, Twitter accounts, etc. A very different beast from the Labour Party website's alphabetic listing of MP names. There also a LibDem blogfeed - wonder if the Tories will have one of those on their brand spanking new site (which will be launched at the end of the month)

The volunteer sign up form with responses being sent direct to the relevant local party is another good innovation. Somehow I can't see CCHQ replicating that particular innovation!

What do you think of it then? An improvement on their old site, or still light years behind the US equivalents?

LibDems Rate Huhne Higher Than Clegg

LibDem Voice has done a survey of LibDem members to rate the performance of their Shadow team. Details are HERE. Nick Clegg will not be pleased. It comes to something when you're the leader of your party and you trail in fourth place (behind Norman Baker!) with a rating of 6.3. Clegg will be concerned by the fact that Chris Huhne is rated higher than him, behind the legend that is Vince Cable. The big loser is Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman Ed Davey who trails in ninth place, although perhaps Lembit Opik should be the most worried man in the LibDems. He comes in bottom place with a rating of only 3.5.

The Two Faces of Norman Baker MP

In last week's PR Week, there was an article headlined 'MPs call for 'enforceable' lobbying code of ethics'. Five MPs have signed a parliamentary motion calling for tougher regulation of the lobbying industry, including the LibDem Transport Spokesman Norman Baker. The EDM states:

'That this House notes the strong public cynicism about the influence of corporate lobbyists on British politics; that individuals and organisations which engage in lobbying activities are able to do so effectively hidden from public scrutiny.'

Surprising then for a friend of mine to receive the attached letter from Norman Baker himself, offering a "small private dinner" with the frontbench Lib Dem transport team. He was told that "tickets for the dinner are extremely limited", and that the party's new transport policy paper would be discussed. This does not appear to be advertised widely, just hand-picked lobbyists from the transport sector. So much for transparency!

But worst of all is the price....a staggering £881.25, (£750 excl VAT). Now, to be fair, it does include a conference pass (which is available elsewhere for just £77), and accommodation (at those prices, lets hope its the main conference hotel but unlikely). But even with that taken into account, the dinner and discussion must be fairly expensive!

Now, no rule has been broken here, but the hypocrisy from Norman Baker is staggering. Here's the full text of the letter he has sent out, only a few weeks after signing an EDM slagging off the very people he's trying to get £750 out of.

Dear XXXXXX

“Fast Track Britain”: Building a transport system for the 21st century
Liberal Democrat policy paper, autumn conference 2008

One of the key policy debates at the Liberal Democrat conference this September will be on transport policy. I am writing to offer you a special opportunity to meet the Liberal Democrat transport policy team, and other industry colleagues, to discuss how these proposals could affect business, at a small private dinner on Tuesday 16th September in Bournemouth.

The transport policy paper has just been approved by the party’s Federal Policy Committee, and will be published in June. It will include key proposals on national and local passenger transport, as well as freight issues. The party’s transport team – including myself, parliamentary colleagues and key policy advisers – are keen to discuss these proposals with leading companies in the sector. Tickets for the dinner are extremely limited and will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis. The ticket price is £750 +VAT and will include a two-day full registration to the conference – including the debate on the transport paper – accommodation and dinner.

I do hope you will be able to join us at what promises to be a very interesting evening of discussion. The Liberal Democrat conference office will contact you in the next week, but if you would like to register your early interest please email carol.xxxxx@libdems.org.uk. I look forward to seeing you in Bournemouth.

Yours sincerely

Norman Baker MP
Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Transport

Don't all rush at once. Having heard Nick Clegg and Norman Baker tie themselves up in knots over their unfunded rail policy on the radio a couple of days ago I can't think either of them will have anything worth listening to. Especially for £750.

LibDems: Tory Coalition No Longer Unthinkable

CentreForum, a LibDem inclined think tank has today published a paper arguing that LibDem-Conservative could collaborate in a future government. Even five years ago such thoughts would have been considered heresy by the majority of LibDems. How times have changed. The document begins...

By challenging the Conservatives to become more socially liberal, David Cameron has made his party less objectionable to Liberal Democrats. By challenging the Liberal Democrats to become more economically liberal, Nick Clegg has made his party less objectionable to Conservatives. And by developing a similar liberal critique of the current government – as too centralised, too big and too interfering – Cameron and Clegg have committed their parties to the same over-arching political challenge: to break decisively from New Labour’s top down, centrally planned approach to governance and put real power back in the hands of the British people.

And it concludes...

The election of a self styled ‘liberal Conservative’ as Tory leader should have increased the likelihood of meaningful co-operation between the two parties. So far, such co-operation has been conspicuous only by its absence. There are several reasons for this.

First, the parties have spent most of the last century and a half eyeing each other suspiciously over the progressive-conservative divide. This mutual suspicion runs deep and will not be quickly or easily overcome. Policy positions may be ever changing, but the culture of a party, and the core instincts of its members, are not.

Second, there are good reasons to believe that the Conservative party is not engaged in as fundamental a re-invention as David Cameron would like the electorate to believe. At its 2007 conference, the party committed to reducing significantly the number of foreigners entering the UK, increasing the number of people in prison, and introducing a £3 billion tax cut for the wealthiest families in the country. Meanwhile, its hostility towards the European Union remains undiminished. Such an agenda can be justified, but not by reference to liberalism.

Third, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives remain in direct opposition in much of the country, particularly in suburban and rural England where Labour has little or no real presence. As long as the success of each party depends on the failure of the other, co-operation will prove difficult, if not impossible.

However, none of these factors obscures the central point: that the Liberal Democrats are today closer to the Conservative Party than they have been for many years. By attacking the government from the left, Charles Kennedy, an instinctive social democrat, managed to distance his party from Labour without ever bringing it closer to the Conservatives (a policy continued by Menzies Campbell). The same cannot be said of Nick Clegg, an instinctive liberal with no interest in leading Britain’s most left wing party. Under his leadership, the Liberal Democrats have resumed a position of ‘equidistance’ between the other two parties – a position they will attempt to hold until the next general election. If that election proves inconclusive, no one can predict with certainty which way Clegg and his colleagues might jump – something that could not have been said of the Liberal Democrats under Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy or Sir Menzies Campbell.

CentreForum is very influential in LibDem circles. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the party leadership "encouraged" them to write this paper as a kite flying exercise to gauge the party reaction. No mention of it on any of the LibDem blogs I regularly look at. Perhaps I can spur them into reaction! Anyway, read the whole document HERE and tell me what you make of it.

The Cleggies are Back at Henley

Remember THIS post last week about the relationship between the LibDems and Henley Management Centre? Well, my spies tell me that Mr Clegg and his core team are back there this evening for an intensive 48 hour long 'away day' session.

What on earth can they be planning, which entails spending so long at Henley every few months? They certainly must have come into some money to pay for it, as Henley revealed to me last week that the LibDems are paying higher than the average daily delegate rate. Expect some questions to be asked about this at their next Finance Committee meeting.

Simon Jenkins Rips into the LibDems

If you are a LibDem you know your Party is in trouble when you're turned on by The Guardian. Rarely have I enjoyed an article by Simon Jenkins so much as THIS one in which he tears the LibDems apart.

What are Liberal Democrats for? They are the flotsam of 20th-century
politics drifting on into the 21st, coagulated from ancient clubs, cabals,
splits and defections from other parties. Not since the 19th century have
they cohered round any great interest. They represent no mass movement, no
breaking of the political mould. Ask a Liberal Democrat what he or she is
for and you get only a susurration of platitudes. Yet thanks to proportional
representation this party gets to choose the governments of Scotland and
Wales. It is Nero for a day...

UPDATE: Stephen Tall asks: What is Simon Jenkins for? HERE.

It Shouldn't Happen to a LibDem...

Courtesy of Tory Radio

UKIP Donation Row: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, has just appeared on Sky News alleging that the Electoral Commission is part of an establishment plot to close them down. If I were in his position I'd probably play the injured party to gain public sympathy. After all, for a Party with an annual income of £250,000, it could be curtains if they have to find £367,000 to hand over to Gordon Brown (under the rules the donation is not returned to the donor). Let's ignore the party political side of this for a moment and look at it dispassionately.

Farage is right when he says that the legislation was drafted to catch illicit foreign donations. He alleges it is all down to a simple clerical error. Well, up to a point. It is actually illegal not to put yourself on the electoral register, and we should not ignore the fact it was down to UKIP to ensure he was actually on it. This partly explains why UKIP's accounts are so late. It is clear that UKIP knew this was going to be an issue and have spent the last six months attempting to persuade the Electoral Commission to give them nothing more than a rap on the knuckles.

There is also the issue of fair play here. It was quite right to fine them for the late submission of their accounts, but it is certainly arguable that the punishment of losing £367,000 was far worse than the crime. Their was no attempt to deceive, the donor was British and it was fully declared, albeit late. The question for UKIP now is whether they can afford a Judicial Review. I am no lawyer, but it is certainly a case that is ripe for one I would have thought.

I'm also interested in the implications of this for the Liberal Democrats who still face the prospect of repaying the £2.4 million they received from the jailed fraudster Michael Brown. The Electoral Commission had intended to make a judgement on the permissability of the donation by the end of last year, but as the City of London Police are still conducting their own inquiry, the Commission is waiting until that comes to an end.