Overwhelming support for ‘further and faster’ tax-cuts for low-paid

LDV asked: The Coalition is committed to increasing the level at which income tax becomes payable, from its current £7,475 to £10,000 by 2015. The tax-free threshold was expected to rise by about £630 annually. However, in a recent speech Nick Clegg said, “I want the Coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance, because the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.” Do you support or oppose the income tax allowance being raised to £10,000 as an immediate priority for the Coalition?

97% – Support
2% – Oppose
1% – Don’t know / No opinion

Well, I think that result is fairly definitive: a North Korean-esque 97% of Lib Dem members in our survey back Nick Clegg’s calls for accelerated tax-cuts for the low-paid. Here are some of your comments:

It takes the working poorest out of tax altogether – should be done immediately.

There seems to be little reason to delay doing this immediately. It’s not that we can’t afford it. We choose not to be able to afford it.

However, it would be more progressive to raise the National Insurance thresholds.

Provided we take equal action to recoup the cost through increased crackdowns on tax evasion etc.

We should aim to increase the threshold to £10k as soon as possible and then press for it to be further raised to the level of the minimum wage – after that, bring back the 10p rate up to the level of the “living wage” in each region.

Support – so long as the rise can be afforded without further expansion of the deficit

I support the idea of the minimum wage level being the income tax threshold

It should be the number 1 priority and we should seek to go further.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

* Warning: the following video contains scenes with Quentin Letts, which some viewers may find distressing.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

LDV asked: The Health and Social Care Bill which will implement radical reforms to the NHS was passed by MPs last September. From what you have seen or heard about the Coalition’s plans for the NHS, do you support or oppose them?

25% – Support
49% – Oppose
26% – Don’t know / No opinion

So, by a two-to-one margin, Lib Dem members in our survey are opposed to the Coalition’s NHS reforms. This is a significant shift in opinion against the Bill since last we asked the question — in September we recorded a slimmer margin of opposition, 43% to 37%. More than a quarter of party members are unsure.

Quite simply, the Coalition has failed to persuade Lib Dem members of the merits of the the NHS reforms (in stark contrast to the also-controversial benefits cap) — so small wonder that the wider public are also unconvinced.

Here’s a sample of your comments:

I back the changes. They’re not perfect but if the BMA is against it it’s usually a sign that it’s a good idea. We need to break up vested interests in the NHS.

The bill appears to accomplish very little. Most of the good and bad parts have been watered down to the point where it is unlikely to change things much.

I chose support, although weakly so. I think the timing of such reforms is wrong. I do not fundamentally object to the private sector having a larger role to play in healthcare provision so long as it is free at the point of need and that the key criterion used is quality rather than cost when care is provided.

PCTs were an inefficient layer of management bureaucracy too far removed from patients. Support for those procuring will be required though to ensure they are equipped with the skills necessary to achieve value for money in obtaining supplies and services.

In general, decent to good ideas that have been lost in a sea of mud-slinging and political vitriol.

We said we wouldn’t reorganise the NHS. What matters is service, not structure. Deeply concerned that there has been an attempt to open the NHS to more private provision.

Mixed feelings. I do not feel that the case for change has been clearly made but the opposition does not seem soundly based either.

Now is not the time to be doing something so overarching. Some bits of the reforms are very good but it’s simply too complex to do whilst abiding by spending constraints.

Of course I support the idea of decentralising decision making. Objection that I’m aware of seems to just be along the lines of “private companies are evil”. As long as a good standard of care is present and the service remains free at the point of need I’m not fussed about who is providing the care. There may be an argument for not doing this at a time of budgetary restraint but I understand why now and not later.

Reforms should be deferred. Reducing the deficit is the top priority & reforms at this stage interfere with that.

With GP commissioning no provider/purchaser split. Will introduce private companies who will when suits undermine local hospitals. Commissioning will create more organisations/bloated bureaucracy than previously. So where are the savings no wonder so many hospitals now facing having to make huge savings/reductions in services. My local hospital now having to find £37million and other local acute hospital/trust mergers to take place to save £237million. What a farce!

I think the whole thing has become such a mess it shld be scrapped. Don’t think there was need anyway for the use of legislation in this way. Changes cld have been effected without it.

The more I understand about this Bill, the less I like it. I am a competition lawyer and I dread to think what the impact of competition will be on the NHS. I suspect that only people like myself will be the winners.

There are many things that could be done to reduce costs in the NHS. Changing the whole structure is not in my view one of them.

Efficiences, yes; reconfiguration, yes; clinical commissioning; yes. This could all have been achieved through much less disruptive reforms, and without giving it all the sheen of privatisation.

I want our manifesto commitments to be implemented – more choice, local accountability – and the HSC bill does neither.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

59% of Lib Dem members back benefits cap at £26,000 or lower

LDV asked: Under the Coalition government’s proposal the cap on benefits will apply to the total sum of all benefits a household receives, including income support, jobseekers allowance, child benefit and housing benefit. The government is setting the maximum at £26,000, the average earnings of a British family after tax. What do you think the maximum amount should be set at?

0% – £10,000 per year or less
2% – £15,000 per year or less
10% – £20,000 per year or less
5% – £23,000 per year or less
42% – £26,000 per year or less
4% – £28,000 per year or less
4% – £30,000 per year or less
1% – £35,000 per year or less
1% – £40,000 per year or less
25% – Not applicable, I don’t think there should be a maximum amount
6% – Don’t know / No opinion

A plurality — 42% — of Lib Dem members back the Coalition’s £26,000 benefits cap, but interestingly a further 17% of our respondents would have gone further than the government: one-in-10 said the cap should have been £20,000 a year. Even so, this places Lib Dem members out of step with the party’s supporters. According to a YouGov poll, 31% of Lib Dem voters would set the cap at £20,000 or lower.

In total, 69% of Lib Dem members in our sample believed there should be a benefits cap. A significant minority, however — one-in-four of those surveyed — rejected the principle of a cap at all. There were a significant number of comments advocating regional variations for the cap in order to reflect the higher private rent costs for those living in London in particular.

However, 54% back Lords amendment to exclude child benefit from cap

LDV asked: The House of Lords voted against the government’s benefit cap, passing an amendment that will exclude child benefit from the £26,000 cap. This means that it would be possible for a family with children to receive more than £26,000 in benefits a year. Do you support or oppose this amendment to the Bill?

54% – Support
39% – Oppose
7% – Don’t know / No opinion

A majority of Lib Dem members agreed with Paddy Ashdown (among other Lib Dem peers) who voted a fortnight ago to amend the Coalition’s benefits cap policy in this way. However, a large minority — four-in-10 members — rejected the Lords’ amendment, with many arguing that it would undermine the principle of the cap. Here’s a flavour of some of the comments received:

I think it’s definitely right to maintain child benefit as a separate entity. Visiting the sins of the parents (if sins they even be) upon the children is plain wrong.

Child Benefit has been around a lot longer than many other benefits. I think there should be a cap for child benefit, but it shouldbe seperate from the rest of the benefits

I would see a case for suppporting this amendment IF the figure of £26,000 without child benefit was reduced appropriately. £26,000 net of tax for a childless household is too much in my view compared to likely earnings for those in work.

I can see the arguments both ways, but when it comes down to it it isn’t the kids’ fault and they shouldn’t suffer.

Those who are responsible and only have the children they can afford to support should not subsidise those who have children that they cannot themselves afford.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Manchester Withington’s John Leech submitted the Early Day Motion and said people should sign an online petition protesting against Turing’s conviction. The gay computer pioneer was convicted for gross indecency in 1952, when homosexual acts were illegal in the UK. Mr Leech said his persecution “by the state for being gay is a scandal that shouldn’t be allowed to stand”. Alan Turing worked as part of the team which cracked the Enigma code at Bletchley Park in World War II and directed the computing laboratory at the University of Manchester, where he helped to form the basis for the field of artificial intelligence.

You can sign the e-petition here;
You can see the Early Day Motion here.

Anti-gambling campaigners have blasted Robbie Williams for starting a poker site. The Robbie Williams Poker community, to be launched online this year, says the main focus is “fun” but some of the games cost money. Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt said the Take That singer, 37, should know all about addiction as he was once dependent on prescription drugs. She added: “I’m outraged by this. It directly targets his fans, including children. The money he makes should go to addiction charities.”

Health researcher Rebecca Taylor, who grew up in the town, has been installed as Euro MP for Yorkshire and the Humber. … Her father Dr Michael Taylor, who still lives in Owlers Walk, Todmorden, is a former Todmorden and Calderdale councillor and her mother Elisabeth Wilson is an ex-county councillor and her grandparents are also committed Liberals. She said: “It is a great privilege and honour to serve the people of Yorkshire and the Humber in Europe as a Liberal Democrat MEP. It is why I stood for selection in 2007 and my commitment to the region has not changed.”

Sir Bob was unrepentant. He said: “If people write seeking my views, I give my views. If he wants to think it’s insulting, that’s his point of view.”

Former Liverpool council leader Warren Bradley was today facing a perjury charge after a police inquiry into electoral fraud allegations. … At the time Cllr Bradley was leader of the Lib Dem group but resigned the day the allegations were made public. He was then suspended from the Lib Dems and he is currently facing being banned from the party. At the time he said: “I totally deny this allegation and am seeking legal advice to that end.”

Cornwall Council said 17 councillors paid late but the authority would not comment on individual cases, arguing it was a personal matter. The Government’s Information Commissioner is considering an appeal against the refusal to identify the members.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Picture from The Guardian.)

Here’s Nick Clegg welcoming new energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey to the cabinet — what do you think might be being said or thought by or about them?

And the winner of our last caption comp is…

Some fantastic entries for our most recent caption competition, Eds Balls and Miliband “The Early Years” Edition.

The winner, according to The Voice’s judging panel of one, was this one by Cheltenham robin, with a highly commended offerings by LondonLiberal here and Toby MacDonnell here.

Got a photo of a prominent Lib Dem you think would work well for a future caption competition? Then please email us at .

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

We asked: Would you support or oppose David Laws making a return to government at the next reshuffle?

• Yes – to a cabinet post 58%
• Yes – but only to a non-cabinet post in government 14%
• No – he should not return to the government at the next reshuffle 21%
• Don’t know / No opinion 7%

In total, then, 72% of Lib Dem members in our sample wanted to see David Laws return to a ministerial post in the Coalition government, with most wanting to see him return to the cabinet 18 months after he was forced to resign. However, a significant minority, 21%, opposed his return, at least at the ‘next’ reshuffle (as it then was). You can read a sample of the comments received from members below.

Nick Clegg was asked directly about a return for David Laws in Paul Waugh’s excellent interview for The House magazine — here’s how he replied:

Speaking of possible ministerial reshuffles, would he bring back David Laws at non-cabinet level if needed? “I’m not wildly hierarchical and David certainly isn’t. It’s one of the many things that I like so much about David, he’s a sort of an unusual combination of being a politician but actually quite a modest character, which you don’t find very often in politics. David is not after status. What I would like to see David do is to be close to the centre of power in one shape or form with, ideally, quite a broad view of government policy, because I think he’s got an ability to see the connections between policies – which is quite unusual.”

So though David may not have returned officially to the heart of government in Friday’s reshuffle, we can be pretty sure unofficially he’ll be there or thereabouts regardless.

Those are Nick’s thoughts; here are some of our party members’:

Running the country well is more important than some pretty trivial personal tomfoolery. If he’s the right person for the job, give him the job.

David Laws is an exceptionally capable individual that should be central to our government and its achievements.

No objection to him being in government per se, I’d just rather we kept some of our best people available to be Lib Dems rather than government spokespeople.

A very gifted man, but his ethics and integrity were found to be incompatible with his position.

He does not represent the kind of liberalism I generally support, but he is probably our most intelligent and competent MP and deserves a place at the Cabinet table.

Good man, but I’d like someone less right-wing in the cabinet.

There is no doubt that David is immensely talented and would make a valuable contribution to government. But I would prefer that he remains outside of the government, supporting the Lib Dems in government and looking to the future and the 2015 election.

He is valuable and, writing as an older gay person, I know the fear that some folk have of being “out” – I had this once. He has been punished enough.

His resignation shouldn’t have happened, but I see why he did it. Bring him back.

But much as I would love to see David back in the Cabinet, can we PLEASE have a woman LD Cabinet minister first!!!

We can’t afford to waste talent like his although I’m sure he is playing a major role behind he scenes

David Laws is a clever man who behaved stupidly. He’s paid the price. He’d be an asset in Government – provided he’s not turned Tory-Lite.

Should not return to government until he has been re-elected as an MP.

He’s a talented man but his re-appointment would play badly when the public still regards most politicians as corrupt.

He’s the brightest and the best MP we have. Bring him back!

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Chris Huhne:

How would you rate the performances of Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Very satisfied 15%
Satisfied 40%
Total satisfied = 55%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 17%
Dissatisfied 21%
Very dissatisfied 7%
Total dissatisfied = 28%
Net satisfaction = +27%

In Chris’s final rating by party members — at least for now — he scored a net satisfaction rating of +27%. In a way, not bad, but it’s a big drop from Chris’s best ratings — back in November 2010, he was the top-rated Lib Dem government minister, with a score of +68% (though note we were then rating ‘effectiveness’ rather than ‘satisfaction’, a subtly different question). Here’s how Chris’s ratings have fared while in government:

July 2010: +51%
August 2010: +59%
November 2010: +68%
January 2011: +65%
April 2011: +63%
September 2011: +53%
December 2011: +42%

The drip-drip of bad publicity over the past few months relating to the charges that have now been laid appear to have dented Chris’s popularity among party members — notwithstanding his lauded performance at the Cancun climate change summit in December.

Ed Davey:

How would you rate the performances of Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?

Very satisfied 16%
Satisfied 35%
Total satisfied = 51%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 39%
Dissatisfied 8%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Total dissatisfied = 10%
Net satisfaction = +41%

Ed finishes his time as Lib Dem No. 2 at Vince’s BIS empire with very positive ratings, testament to how he’s pushed through Lib Dem policy on a range of issues while offering a coherent story of liberalism in action. Here’s how his positive ratings have grown over the last 18 months of Coalition, from a relatively poor start, a legacy of what was judged to be a mixed performance as the party’s shadow foreign affairs spokesman before the election:

July 2010: +9%
August 2010: +11%
November 2010: +23%
January 2011: +24%
April 2011: +30%
September 2011: +27%
December 2011: +39%

Ed will start the new role with a lot of goodwill behind him (though more than a few Lib Dems are unhappy that Nick Clegg didn’t take this enforced opportunity to create the first female Lib Dem cabinet minister), but will be very well aware he has big shoes to fill. If he makes a real success of the role, though, he may find journalists starting to ask him if he’d like to be party leader one day.

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 436 responded to the latest survey between 31st January and 3rd February.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on YouTube here.)

But now reality has struck. Though Chris was able to retain his cabinet post while the police investigated the claims (as Tim Farron rather neatly put it, ‘Tony Blair remained prime minister while he was investigated, I imagine Chris Huhne can just about cope with being energy secretary’) it was always clear that in the event of formal charges being laid his tenure as secretary of state for energy and climate change would be terminated. Nick Clegg made clear his own view on BBC1 last Sunday:

“Of course, that is a very serious issue if that were to arise. We as a Government want the highest standards of probity to be in place in everything that is done by Cabinet members.”

Nick and Chris contested the leadership of the party following Ming Campbell’s resignation in 2007. Despite a rather bruising campaign — probably best-remembered for the ‘Calamity Clegg’ jibe made by one of Chris’s team — the two later formed en effective working relationship, with Chris key member of the Lib Dem negotiating team which produced the Coalition programme with substantial chunks of the party’s election manifesto incorporated. It was no coincidence that one of the most detailed policy areas was the environment, a long-term passion of Chris’s, which saw him identified as being on the social liberal / centre-left of the party; yet on the economy, he was a Lib Dem fiscal hawk, trenchant in his support for deficit reduction.

Never one to avoid a fight, there was frequent friction between Chris and his Conservative cabinet colleagues. For example, he controversially attacked Tory chairman Baroness Warsi during the AV referendum for mounting an “increasingly Goebbels-like campaign”, spoke out in cabinet against the Tory tactics of personally targeting Nick Clegg (much to its co-author George Osborne’s annoyance), and took David Cameron to task for his ‘veto’ in December’s European summit. For some this smacked of betrayal. Personally I admired Chris’s willingness to say what he thought without resorting to the more common Westminster practices of unattributable briefings. Not that he lacks sharp elbows when they’re needed, a rare trait in Lib Dems which will be missed by (most of) his colleagues.

Chris will soon face the charges that have dogged him for so long; the rest of his political career will now depend on whether he can disprove them.

There will be few major implications for the Coalition of Chris’s resignation. For all the media excitement today, Cameron and Clegg have had plenty of time to prepare for today’s reshuffle. There may be bigger implications for the Coalition’s environment policies — Chris was a big hitter who achieved a huge amount in a short period of time: will his successor be able to continue Chris’s assertive work? An important first decision will be whether to retain Chris’s influential and knowledgeable special advisors, Duncan Brack and Joel Kenrick (a reminder that resignations have a human impact that extends well beyond the minister alone). Both were drafted in by Chris on his appointment to the climate change and energy post; it’s to be hoped they are allowed to continue in their roles.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Questions we’re asking this month include:

• what you think of the Coalition’s £26k benefits cap;
• whether you back the NHS reforms;
• your views on Scottish independence;
• what you think about Nick Clegg’s speech on tax-cuts for the lowest paid, and about tax-rates for the wealthiest;
• how you think Nick Clegg and David Cameron handled the European summit in December
• how satisfied you are with Nick Clegg as party leader, and leading figures within the Lib Dems;
• and what you think of the Coalition’s performance to date;

It should take no longer than 10 minutes minutes to fill in. All registered members of the Forum should have already been e-mailed with a unique link to take you to the survey. If you haven’t received yours, or if you are signing up to the Forum now, please drop Ryan Cullen a line at

We’ll publish the results in a few days’ time. You can access the results from our previous LDV members surveys by clicking here.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

And here’s how Jeremy Browne handled the issue on BBC1′s Question Time on Thursday night.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Ahead of Monday’s summit of EU leaders, which is due to finalise “political agreement” on the fiscal compact treaty, the government signalled that it would not challenge a role for the European commission and, more sensitively, would also allow resort to the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg to enforce new debt ceilings and fines for fiscal miscreants in the eurozone. ..

Cameron is understood to have made it clear to José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, in a telephone call on Wednesday that Britain would no longer object to using the ECJ to enforce the new treaty. … Cameron’s concession marks a significant watering down of his previous position and represents a victory for Nick Clegg, who has been urging the prime minister to recover ground after wielding the veto. The deputy prime minister lobbied hard inside Whitehall for Cameron to drop his objections to the use of EU institutions to enforce the compact.

There’s good reason for Nick Clegg’s stance. The only way the UK would be able forcibly to prevent Eurozone countries from making use of the European court of justice would to challenge it in the courts. Legally there’s no guarantee such a challenge would work. And politically it would pit the UK against the vast majority of its neighbours who have signed-up to use the ECJ — not a smart move.

Mr Cameron has landed the UK in neither a winning nor an attractive position. But that is what happens when — as the Prime Minister did in December — you issue an ultimatum without laying the necessary groundwork, and then walk out of the negotiations before you can gain any concessions.

Of course, none of this may now matter to Mr Cameron. His ‘veto’, however unintentional, earned him rave reviews from his backbenchers and the right-wing media, and is credited with providing the Tories with the polling boost that has seen them overtake Labour, piling more pressure on the beleaguered Ed Miliband. That just a few weeks later the Prime Minister now backs down over technicalities such as the ECJ, which few will understand or care about, will probably matter little to the political mood music.

But the stark truth of the matter is that Mr Cameron’s cack-handed negotiating has delivered nothing of lasting significance for the UK.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Image from The Guardian.)

Here’s Labour top two Eds — the party leader and shadow chancellor — pictured in their salad days, Spadding for the Blair/Brown government. What do you think might be being said or thought by or about them?

And the winner of our last caption comp is…

Some fantastic entries for our most recent caption competition, Michael Gove “May the Lego be with you” Edition.

The winner, according to The Voice’s judging panel of one, was this one by Tim Leunig, with a highly commended offering by Jason here.

Got a photo of a prominent Lib Dem you think would work well for a future caption competition? Then please email us at .

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

Here’s what my LibDemVoice colleagues had to say about Nick’s call for lower taxes:

And here’s how the rest of the Lib Dem blogosphere reacted:

All in all, a good day’s work for Nick — advancing a policy which is not only right in principle, but which is also popular, AND differentiates the Lib Dems from both the Tories and Labour.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

This is how the Press Association reports it:

The Government has secured the future of the Post Office under a 10-year deal giving certainty to postmasters, ministers have announced. The long-term arrangements between the Post Office and the Royal Mail will be reached before the two are separated under the Government’s controversial privatisation plans. Sub-postmasters welcomed the move but the Communication Workers Union said it was the end of an era for a fully publicly-owned postal service.

Postal Affairs Minister Edward Davey said: “Concerns people had about the Post Office becoming independent from Royal Mail were always misplaced as that separation is part of our cure, but the 10-year deal struck between Royal Mail and the Post Office will give sub-postmasters and others greater confidence. Coupled with winning new contracts and the successful pilots of new operating models, the signs are extremely encouraging for the future of the Post Office.”

The announcement is further evidence of Lib Dem Ed Davey’s success in his ministerial role — as noted by Mark Pack here — and why he’s being tipped for the cabinet.

Fellow Lib Dem MP Lorely Burt, Co-Chair of the party’s Parliamentary Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, joined Ed in welcoming the news:

“This is very welcome news for both the Post Office and Royal Mail and demonstrates our commitment to ensure a sustainable future for both. Post Offices are a vital part of our communities and are the lynchpin of our towns and villages. More than 20m people visit a Post Office every week to send letters to loved ones, to manage their finances or to renew passports for holidays and hundreds of thousands of pensioners rely on them every day for their pensions.

“Labour left Royal Mail in a terrible mess and it is Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government who have stopped closures and put Royal Mail and the Post Office on a secure footing. Our plans mean that we will never see the kind of planned closures that devastated local communities under the previous Government.

“Labour said our plans would lead to more closures as the Royal Mail moved away from using the Post Office network. Today’s announcement proves that they were, once again, wrong.”

Lorely is right to note Labour’s knee-jerk oppositionism (despite their own dire record in government). Here, for example, is what shadow chancellor Ed Balls had to say back when he was contesting his party’s leadership:

“I will fight against the Con-Dem plans, which endanger this vital and popular public service.”

Contrast Ed’s predictable doom with the words today of National Federation of SubPostmasters (NFSP) general secretary George Thomson:

“Sub-postmasters will welcome the security which this news brings, which will help provide them with the confidence necessary to invest in their businesses for the future.”

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Available on the BBC website here.)

Here’s how the BBC summarised the proposed measures:

making firms’ remuneration reports easier to understand, and requiring them to explain executive salaries in relation to the earnings of other employees

increasing transparency by requiring the publication of all directors’ salaries

giving shareholders a binding vote on executive pay, notice periods and exit packages – at present their say is merely advisory

encouraging a wider range of people onto company boards, including academics, lawyers, public servants and those who have never served on a board before

requiring all companies to introduce “clawback” policies, allowing them to recoup bonuses in cases where they are later shown to be unwarranted

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

The government has been defeated in the Lords in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap. Lib Dem, Labour and crossbench peers backed a bishop’s amendment by 252 to 237 that child benefit should not be included in the cap. Critics argued that imposing the same cap on all families, regardless of size, would penalise children. The government said it was “very disappointed” and the vote “clearly flies in the face of public opinion”.

Lib Dem peers split 26 in favour of the amendment (and therefore against the Coalition) and 39 against the amendment (and therefore backing the Coalition position).

Here’s the named vote…

Lib Dem peers who voted for the amendment:

Allan of Hallam, Lord
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, Lord
Avebury, Lord
Benjamin, Baroness
Cotter, Lord
Doocey, Baroness
Dykes, Lord
Greaves, Lord
Harris of Richmond, Baroness
Hussain, Lord
Hussein-Ece, Baroness
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, Lord
Macdonald of River Glaven, Lord
Maclennan of Rogart, Lord
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Baroness
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Lord
Redesdale, Lord
Roberts of Llandudno, Lord
Smith of Clifton, Lord
Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord
Thomas of Winchester, Baroness
Tonge, Baroness
Tyler of Enfield, Baroness
Tyler, Lord
Walmsley, Baroness
Williams of Crosby, Baroness

Lib Dem peers who voted against the amendment:

Addington, Lord
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Baroness
Brinton, Baroness
Burnett, Lord
Carlile of Berriew, Lord
Clement-Jones, Lord
Dholakia, Lord
Falkner of Margravine, Baroness
Garden of Frognal, Baroness
German, Lord
Goodhart, Lord
Jolly, Baroness
Kramer, Baroness
Lee of Trafford, Lord
Lester of Herne Hill, Lord
Loomba, Lord
Maddock, Baroness
Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord
McNally, Lord
Newby, Lord
Northover, Baroness
Randerson, Baroness
Razzall, Lord
Rennard, Lord
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord
Scott of Needham Market, Baroness
Sharkey, Lord
Sharp of Guildford, Baroness
Shipley, Lord
Shutt of Greetland, Lord
Stoneham of Droxford, Lord
Strasburger, Lord
Taverne, Lord
Teverson, Lord
Thomas of Gresford, Lord
Tope, Lord
Tordoff, Lord
Wallace of Saltaire, Lord
Wallace of Tankerness, Lord

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.