Desperate, though, to avoid admitting this would involve a significant increase in borrowing, he’s been telling us that this would actually be a free tax cut because the economic growth that resulted from it would increase revenues by more than the upfront cost.

That unlikely-sounding claim was given short shrift by Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor:

For Labour, the challenge is to persuade the country that such will be the economic boon from cutting the VAT rate to 17.5 per cent that it will offset the £13bn annual cost of the idea. As a rough rule of thumb, with the exchequer collecting 38.4 per cent of national income in receipts, the £13bn tax cut must raise gross domestic product by £34bn – some 2.6 times the size of the revenue cut – to expect total tax revenues to rise after a VAT cut, rather than fall.

Such a large “fiscal multiplier” is far in excess of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimate of 0.35 for a change in VAT. The OBR could be wrong by a large margin, but Labour is suggesting its estimate is close to seven times too low, indicating it believes the OBR has no clue about the way the economy works. If he believes his rhetoric, Mr Miliband should also be calling for the head of Robert Chote, chairman of the OBR.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about whether some sort of fiscal stimulus is needed in the UK, but Eds Miliband and Balls, schooled in the dodgy economics and low politics of Brown’s Treasury, are not engaged in it. If they were they’d be upfront about wanting to borrow more and follow the evidence on the most effective way to spend that extra borrowing to boost economic growth the most: capital infrastructure spending.

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

(Watch it on YouTube here.)

The Guardian’s excellent live-blog covered it here and summarised the highlights here. Meanwhile the BBC reports it here:

Clegg defends budget ring-fencing amid reported unease among ministers
Nick Clegg has said he is “adamant” the NHS, schools and overseas aid should still be protected from cuts, amid reports colleagues are unhappy about the effect on their departments. The deputy prime minister said ring-fencing budgets was the right decision. … the deputy prime minister told BBC Radio 4′s World at One programme: “I am absolutely convinced that at a difficult time like this, protecting NHS spending, protecting spending on schools, honouring our international obligations to developing countries around the world, was a big decision, was a controversial decision but I think was the right one to take and the right one to stick to.” He added: “I think we are right, and I am adamant about this, to stick to retaining those protections. The consequences are that there are knock-on effects on those departments that are not so-called ‘protected’.”

That creates an opportunity for our party. Over the last twenty years the centre has become a crowded place. First New Labour pitched up, determined to demonstrate a new found credibility on the economy. Then followed a detoxified Conservative Party, hugging hoodies and frolicking with huskies. Yet now – in what, in time, may prove to be a highly significant political shift – the land is clearing. Our opponents are heading back to their respective homes. And it is time for the Liberal Democrats to reclaim this space.

The language of centrism can be misleading. It is not – as it can sound – splitting the difference between competing views; nor is it sitting on the fence. On the contrary, the centre ground rests on a radical, liberal view of the world, unencumbered by the traditional ideologies of left and right.

In the centre, we bridle at dog-eat-dog individualism, but we also reject the bloated and intrusive state. We believe, instead, that the key to lasting prosperity is unleashing the potential that exists in each and every person. And we understand that in the 21st Century a strong, competitive and open economy will be fuelled by a fair and mobile society, where opportunity is dispersed and everyone can get on in life.

It is an unapologetically modern mindset: restive about the future rather than nostalgic for the past; and adamant about the need to reform our clapped out political institutions, no matter how great the vested interests against change.

Labour and the Conservatives are, however, finding it increasingly difficult to stay put in the centre. The Tories are pulling to the right in an attempt to appease their base. Compassionate conservatism has been sidelined. So-called benefits scroungers have been back in the firing line, along with the European Convention on Human Rights. The blue team used to claim to have gone green, yet have now publicly denounced the importance of environmental protections. Despite millions of ordinary families feeling the pinch, the Conservatives resist making the tax and welfare systems fairer still – ruling out introducing a Mansion Tax or looking again at the benefits paid to very wealthy, even multi-millionaire, pensioners.

To the other side, Labour has also shifted. It was startling to see party grandees, led by Tony Blair, pile in on Ed Milband for abandoning the centre. They, rightly, fear that in opposing everything Labour will stand for nothing. And it is true that by offering anger rather than hope, Labour are steadily becoming a party of protest. They are making the classic mistake of opposition, talking only to themselves rather than setting out a positive vision for the nation. Their absence of ideas only confirms that they cannot be trusted on the biggest challenge of our time: fixing the mess in the economy they helped create.

The irony is that, while Labour and the Conservatives are pulling opposite ways, they are headed in the same direction: backwards, simultaneously setting their parties’ modernisation projects into reverse. In doing so they are walking away from the millions of people who gave them their support on the basis that they had become more inclusive in the centre ground.

The Liberal Democrats are different. We will not be dragged one way or another. And as the country continues to navigate the most profound economic storm in living memory, we will be the anchor Britain needs: a strong and pragmatic check on both extremes.

Our task now is to reach out to the millions of people who also shun the extremes. The country is on a difficult journey, making its way through a period of anxiety and unpredictability and the Liberal Democrats must be a reassuring voice.

So as we head towards the local elections, tell the people you meet: if you agree we need responsible action taken on the deficit, but you believe the burden should be spread fairly, there is still a party that speaks for you.

If you want the Government to get a grip on welfare, but to ensure we still help those in need. If you think we should support business by cutting red tape, but not at the expense of workers’ rights. If you value the benefits immigration has bought to Britain, but you think it’s wrong when the rules can be easily abused. If you know that membership of the EU matters to British jobs, but you want the UK leading reform of a streamlined, more efficient EU. If you back greater choice in our public services, but could never support privatising the NHS or profit-making in schools.

On these and so many other issues, we will not be swayed. In these uncertain times the Liberal Democrats will continue to deliver a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling everyone to get on in life. Of that you can be sure.

* Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and MP for Sheffield Hallam

Miliband edges ahead of Cameron among Lib Dems (though ratings of both decline)

We’ve been asking this question for 18 months, and over the past year there has been quite a reversal in fortunes for the two party leaders, as this graph illustrates:

Here’s the detail from this month’s survey…

Do you think David Cameron is doing well or badly as Prime Minister? (Comparison with December’s results in brackets.)

• 0% – Very well
• 26% – Well

Total well = 26% (-8%)

• 55% – Badly
• 15% – Very badly

Total badly = 70% (+7%)

• 4% – Don’t know

Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?

• 1% – Very well
• 29% – Well

Total well = 30% (-3%)

• 47% – Badly
• 17% – Very badly

Total badly = 64% (n/c)%

• 6% – Don’t know

A year ago Ed Miliband’s ratings reached their lowest recorded figure among Lib Dem members: a massive -84%. Since then, bolstered by the pummeling (self-)inflicted on the Tories and more confident performances, the Labour leader has gained ground. For the second time, he finds himself nosing ahead of the Prime Minister — though that is due to the continuing fall in Mr Cameron’s ratings. A year ago he had a net rating of +22% among Lib Dem members. Today it stands at -44%.

I don’t suppose either are bothered by what Lib Dem members think of them, but it’s an interesting barometer of their credibility as potential partners if there were to be another post-2015 coalition. As I customarily note, by the way, rating David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister is a subtly different question from rating his performance as Conservative party leader (whether Mr Cameron’s ratings would be higher or lower among Lib Dem members if we asked that question, I don’t know. Though I could hazard a guess).

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

So.
Farewell then
David Miliband.

You did not
Win the
Labour leadership.

Though you got more votes
Than Brother Ed

The trade unions
Did not
like you.

They liked
him instead.

That was
your tragedy.
And it will be
His.

EJ Thribb

And so David Miliband exits the political stage, pursued by a barely concealed sense of thwarted ambition. The man who, but for four MPs’ votes, would now be Labour leader and PM-in-waiting is instead leaving the country for New York to run an international charity. (Another small victory for Theresa May’s crusade to drive down net migration.)

Four years ago you’d have got good odds on David Miliband and James Purnell being two of Labour’s leading lights; neither are now MPs. The pendulum of politics has swung decisively away from the Blairites.

With Labour’s own debt-ridden finances now increasingly dependent on funding from the trade unions (and in particular the public sector union Unite) Ed Miliband has very little room for manoeuvre. He knows he must persuade the public that Labour will put national interests before producer interests; yet he needs to keep the unions on side. Trapped, he’s become a Trappist on issues like public sector pay and reform.

As for David Miliband, well, part of me is sympathetic. He came so close, and lost to the only person whose victory would inevitably shut him out of top-table politics.

But before we get the violins out to serenade him across the pond, let’s remember here was a man who not only voted for the Iraq war but was also probably complicit in the state-sanctioned torture. Remember that, and I find my sympathy ebbs just a little.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Won’t they?

There’s no denying it’s an eye-catching move clearly designed to embarrass the Lib Dems. But of course the party’s MPs will (largely – a few backbenchers may peel off of course) vote with the government on any opposition motion of this nature. They have signed up to support an entire government programme that includes things that one party or the other would not ideally want and excludes other policies that one or the other party would dearly like. They cannot simply pick and choose which fiscal measures to support. The government would have lasted about 5 minutes with this sort of approach.

This move from Miliband fits into a repeated pattern of Labour appearing to not understand how coalitions work. Well actually they definitely do know how they work so they are choosing to ignore this fact to try and score a few political points. Of course in the short term this will be awkward for the Lib Dems as they adhere to collective responsibility. But in the longer term Miliband has signalled that he doesn’t think junior partners in a coalition have to vote with the government. Indeed he is basically saying it is a betrayal for them to do so on an issue that the party clearly would like to implement a policy on if they were given the chance.

So let’s imagine we are a few further years down the line. The 2015 general election was (as seems quite possible) inconclusive with Labour as the largest party and they are in coalition with the Lib Dems. Let’s further imagine that the opposition of the day pulls a similar stunt on a policy they agree with the Lib Dems about but that has not been agreed to form part of the government programme and that Labour oppose. There are bound to be policies that fall into this category.

How could Prime Minister Ed Miliband credibly argue that the Lib Dems had to vote with the government? As Leader of the Opposition he’s already made it clear than in principle he sees nothing wrong with a junior partner in a coalition voting against the government, nay he is actively encouraging it. He would not have a leg to stand on and would look like an utter hypocrite if he tried to do anything about it.

I personally don’t have a problem with loosening collective cabinet responsibility and have previously written about how I think our current system is too restrictive. But I bet Prime Minister Ed Miliband would have a problem with it. Indeed he adhered so closely to it himself when in government that he voted for the abolition of the 10p rate and argued for the policy even though he now admits he thought that policy was wrong. He’s a collective responsibilityist through and through!

This all just goes to show just what a silly and from his perspective politically dangerous stunt this is. To score a few points using a parliamentary motion that most members of the public won’t even care about he is risking his own future authority as head of a potential coalition government.

I hope the tiny political “win” he gets when the Lib Dems unsurprisingly vote with their own government is worth it.

* Mark Thompson blogs here

A 10p tax rate would reduce taxes for those on low incomes and strengthen their work incentives. A far simpler and more sensible way of achieving these aims would be to spend the same amount of money on increasing the personal allowance – a policy on which the current government has already spent £9 billion a year. This would have virtually the same impact on individuals’ tax payments, be slightly more progressive, take some people out of income tax altogether and avoid the complexity involved in introducing a new income tax rate. …

… the proposal for a new 10p starting rate of income tax, has no plausible economic justification. It would complicate the income tax system and achieve nothing that could not be better achieved in other ways. It appears to repeat the same error perpetrated by Denis Healey in 1978 (undone by Geoffrey Howe in 1980), Norman Lamont in 1992 and Gordon Brown in 1999 (which he himself undid at considerable political cost in 2007). To have observed lower starting rates of tax being introduced and abolished by governments of both complexions over the last three decades and then to propose the same thing again suggests a remarkable failure to learn from history.

For the record, I think this is a little harsh. That Labour has recognised you can help the low-paid by cutting the tax taken from them is a significant step for the party. It suggests they might genuinely be moving away from Gordon Brown’s well-meaning but ridiculously complex ways of helping the poorest by taxing them with one hand then giving (some of) it back through benefits and tax credits with the other hand.

It also shows how the Lib Dems have genuinely shifted the terms of this debate. Miliband’s plan was originally proposed by Tory MP Robert Halfon. That both Labour and the Conservatives are now battling on the Lib Dem terrain of how best to lift the low-paid out of tax is a genuine victory for progressive liberals. More importantly, it makes it far more likely that, whatever happens in 2015, the Lib Dem policy will continue in one shape or form.

Two other points from the IFS analysis are worth highlighting…

Vince’s Mansion Tax vindicated:

The ‘mansion tax’ has a sensible logic underpinning it: if residential property is to be taxed, it makes sense to levy such a tax in proportion to property value and base it on current valuations. By contrast, Council Tax, the existing tax on residential property in England and Scotland, has neither of these features as it is based on 1991 property values and is set far from proportional to those values, with higher-value properties significantly under-taxed

(Though it should be noted that the IFS’s first preference is a full Council Tax overhaul, with properties re-valued from the original 1991 estimates, and the charge levied made proportional to their current value.)

Focus next on National Insurance Contributions (NICs) – NOT the income tax threshold

Currently the Lib Dems are moving towards committing to raising the personal income tax threshold to c.£12.5k, ensuring no-one paid less than the minimum wage is subject to income tax. It’s a worthy aim, but an expensive one which will not benefit the poorest paid who are still subject to direct personal taxation through NICs. As I suggested yesterday:

I’d prefer we looked at unifying income tax and national insurance to take the lowest paid out of personal taxation altogether and use the revenue from the mansion tax to smooth out the transition which might otherwise hit pensioners and low-income individuals who don’t work.

The IFS backs up this suggestion as the most progressive option currently available to policy-makers:

An even better alternative, which would help those who already pay no income tax because their incomes are below the personal allowance but do pay employee National Insurance Contributions (from April, there will be 1 million such people earning between £7,748 and £9,440), would be to increase the point at which individuals start paying employee National Insurance Contributions. This would also bring the income tax and National Insurance systems more in line and would take some people out of direct tax altogether. And if one wanted to focus the gains from the policy on low-income working families rather than basic-rate taxpayers generally, increasing Working Tax Credits would be another sensible alternative to look at.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Labour does have a policy after all. Two in fact! It’s just that they’re both Lib Dem policies: tax cuts for low-paid funded by mansion tax.

— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) February 14, 2013

Here’s what Ed has just announced:

Let me tell you about one crucial choice we would make, which is different from this government. We would tax houses worth over £2 million. And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people. We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government. We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised. This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers. Moving Labour on from the past and putting Labour where it should always have been, on the side of working people.

No more details as yet — we’ve another two years to wait for them apparently: “We’ve rightly said that we will only set out our tax and spending commitments at the next general election.” Fair enough, except it makes it a bit tricky to answer the two critical questions: 1) will the tax cut cost more than the mansion tax raises; and 2) will it help the poorest paid most?

While we’re waiting for Labour to help us work that out, it’s worth looking at the Centre for Policy Studies’ analysis of the impact of this proposal (first put forward by Tory MP Robert Halfon last month) compared with the Lib Dems’ stated preference to lift the income tax threshold to exempt all earning less than the minimum wage. Here’s the graph that shows the effects most clearly:

In summary: the Lib Dem proposal costs more, but would help the low-paid more. The Labour/Halfon proposal is cheaper, but helps the low-paid less.

Personally I’m not sure either are the right priority just now. I’d prefer we looked at unifying income tax and national insurance to take the lowest paid out of personal taxation altogether and use the revenue from the mansion tax to smooth out the transition which might otherwise hit pensioners and low-income individuals who don’t work.

PS: our own in-house tax expert, Mark Valladares, looked at this issue last month: Is bringing back the 10p rate band such a good idea?

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

That’s why for seven years as Tory leader Cameron tried to quell discussion, and then when that failed sought to steer a mid-course with gestures of Euroscepticism, such as December 2011′s faux-veto. In the end, he couldn’t hold out any longer. The in/out EU referendum is the price he’s paid for his failure to win the 2010 election outright; this is the Tory right’s payback.

Yesterday’s speech and its promise of an in/out EU referendum was Cameron’s attempt to turn this weakness into a strength. On its own terms, it’s worked. Tory MPs and the right-wing press are united in their praise of him. They know it won’t last. It can’t. Fundamentally, David Cameron wants to keep the UK in the EU — or at least ensure he’s not the Prime Minister who takes the UK out of the EU, which amounts to pretty much the same thing — while a sizeable and growing minority of Tories want out and beggar the consequences.

Clegg and Miliband’s Hobson’s Choice

But ‘The Speech’ was enough to deflect right-wing attacks away from their leader and towards the Lib Dems and Labour. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are now both under pressure to match David Cameron’s pledge, and commit themselves to giving the people a say on Europe. Their response is essentially the same (though Clegg’s articulated it far more adeptly, as we saw yesterday): We think a referendum is a complete distraction. He can bang on about Europe all he wants. I’m going to keep my focus 100% on the economy.

The easiest thing both could do right now is concede the ground to Cameron. It would draw the sting from the issue and Tories might turn in on themselves once again. When politicians reject the easy option, sensible people ask why.

Miliband, in particular, has every reason not to get dragged into a fight which will be held on the Tory right’s ground. He could be Prime Minister in a little over two years’ time. He will inherit a weak economy, growing debt, years of austerity ahead, and impossible demands from the trade unions and his own party. Why add needless strife abroad to that list?

There will be a bigger tactical worry. If Labour commits to an in/out referendum now and if the party wins in 2015, it will be down to Miliband to negotiate the new terms. By that time, Cameron will be gone and the Tories will be led by someone yet more Eurosceptic. Chances are that — even if Miliband succeeded in such talks beyond even Cameron’s current wildest dreams — a post-2015 Tory party will take the opportunity to campaign against a Miliband-led ‘Yes’, arguing that he’s failed to win the repatriation of powers that would make continuing British membership acceptable. If the Tories (and the press) were to campaign for a ‘No’, the chances of the UK staying in Europe are much more finely balanced. If he lost the referendum, Miliband’s premiership might be over before it’s even begun.

Why ‘wait and see’ won’t work. Probably.

Under the circumstances, Miliband’s decision not to leap on board Cameron’s in/out bandwagon is entirely understandable. It may not be enough to save him, though.

First, he’ll have to navigate the next two years of being asked constantly, ‘Why won’t you let the British people have a say?’ Even though most of the British people aren’t all that fussed about the issue, appearing not to trust them to make the choice isn’t a good look for an opposition leader. Secondly, Cameron’s commitment to re-negotiation puts him on the front foot: unlike Miliband he won’t be waiting around passively for the next treaty to come along to argue for British interests. And thirdly, if there is to be another treaty in the next 5 years (and the Eurozone turmoil makes that more likely than not) Miliband will still have to let the public decide anyway, having now accepted the Coalition’s referendum lock.

This scenario leads to only one logical, if at-first-sight perverse, conclusion for those of us who want to see the UK remain in the European Union: to wish David Cameron every success in his negotiations with his 26 fellow European leaders. Quite simply, he’s the political leader who’s best placed to win an in/out referendum for the ‘Yes’ campaign.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Cameron ends the year a nose ahead of Miliband among Lib Dems

We’ve been asking this question for 15 months, and over the past year there has been quite a reversal in fortunes for the two party leaders, as this graph illustrates:

Here’s the detail from this month’s survey…

Do you think David Cameron is doing well or badly as Prime Minister? (Comparison with November’s results in brackets.)

• 1% – Very well
• 33% – Well

Total well = 34% (+7%)

• 49% – Badly
• 14% – Very badly

Total badly = 63% (-6%)

• 4% – Don’t know

Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?

• 2% – Very well
• 31% – Well

Total well = 33% (-3%)

• 47% – Badly
• 17% – Very badly

Total badly = 64% (+4%)%

• 4% – Don’t know

A year ago, David Cameron was recording positive net figures even among Lib Dems, while Ed Miliband was plunging the depths of popular opinion. Today, perceptions of the Tory and Labour leaders has converged among Lib Dems, both scoring near-identical negative ratings of -29% and -31% respectively. Though I don’t suppose either are bothered by what Lib Dem members think of them, it’s an interesting barometer of their credibility as potential partners if there were to be another post-2015 coalition.

As I customarily note, rating David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister is a different question from rating his performance as Conservative party leader (whether Mr Cameron’s ratings would be higher or lower among Lib Dem members if we asked that question, I don’t know. Though I could hazard a guess).

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Over 500 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 7th and 11th December.
• 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 offered accurate guides to what party members think.
• For further information on the reliability/credibility of our surveys, please refer to FAQs: Are the Liberal Democrat Voice surveys of party members accurate? and polling expert Anthony Wells’ verdict, On that poll of Lib Dem members.
• 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, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

The known knowns of Coalition

Let’s get two pieces of mitigation out of the way:
1) Coalition government is always tougher on the junior party: we lack the democratic mandate and therefore the strength in numbers in ministerial posts to have the impact we’d like.
2) Lib Dems got into government for the first time in our modern history at the worst time possible: in the midst of the worst global economic crisis in memory.
This much we know.

We know too that a significant number of members and 2010 Lib Dem voters simply couldn’t stomach the idea of the party forming a coalition with the Tories, regarding it as betrayal even though it was an option Nick Clegg explicitly ruled-in well before the election. This was the group which saw pluralism as nothing other than a synonym for a Lib/Lab pact.

Another tranche of members and voters deserted the party over the leadership’s U-turn on tuition fees or the messy NHS Reform Bill. These were the ‘red-liners’, the this-far-but-no-further group who are only ever one disappointment away from tearing up their membership cards. And then there’s the ‘general lapsed’, those folk who signed-up to support the Lib Dems in a moment of ‘yes, we can do this together!’ headiness, and who have come to realise what a despondent grind party politics can be. Again, this much we know.

The 3 Lib Dem coalition camps

Which leaves those of us who are, well, left. We fall into three broad camps, I think, some probably shape-shifting between each of them depending on what day it is, which I’m going to caricature as follows:

• There’s the minority (say 15-20%) who are Coalition enthusiasts, believers both in the principle and reality of what the Lib Dems are getting out of government and reckon liberalism is a net winner. (Though hopefully none use the dread Twitter hash-tag, #Coalicious).
• Then there’s a second minority (say 25-30%) who simply cannot wait for “this bloody farce of a forced marriage” to be over and done with so that the party can either get back to principled impotence opposition, or try and cut a more comfortable deal with Labour.
• And then there’s the bare majority (50-60%), the grudging realists, who believe the party had little choice in May 2010, who accept there’s a few good things we’ve got out of Coalition but think we’re too often outmanoeuvred by those sharp Tories along the way, and who are sceptically open to a further post-2015 agreement (finger crossed, next time with Labour to even things up a bit).

You can argue with my caricatures, argue with my guesstimate proportions of how many members fall into which camp. I think most would accept, though, that open and active support for the Coalition is a minority pursuit within the Lib Dems.

What the public makes of the idea of coalition

I realise, of course, there’s a difference between supporting the actions of “this Coalition” and supporting the idea of “a coalition”. But I’m not sure the public has bought into that distinction. A Populus poll in the summer showed that 65% agreed with the statement: ‘Britain being run by a coalition between parties rather than by a single party with an overall majority has made government in this country weaker’. Just 23% disagreed.

For Lib Dem pluralists who believe strong, effective government springs from cross-party working, starting from where we agree rather than where we disagree, this is a depressingly overwhelming margin against that very concept. For Tory and Labour strategists, that poll shows exactly what they want to see: a public rejection of coalition politics, a return to the simplicity of strong, single-party rule. I don’t want us to play into their hands.

Reclaiming Coalition’s virtues

There are two imperatives facing Lib Dems: both the leadership and the membership. First, we have to demonstrate clearly what it is the Lib Dems stand for, repair the attrition which a couple of years’ compromises have wrought and which a further two years’ compromise will bring. As I’ve argued before, these should be based on cleaning up the economy and cleaning up our politics.

But then, secondly — and just as importantly in the long-term — we need to make strongly the case for coalition, not just as a one-off experiment which we cannot wait to be terminated, but as a better way of governing for the long-term. This requires the leadership to continue staking out Lib Dem distinctiveness within the Coalition, as, for example, we saw again in this week’s autumn statement, when Nick Clegg openly dissented from George Osborne’s dismissal of a mansion tax. As John Kampfner has described this differentiation strategy: ‘What has been found to work is when, publicly but politely, one leader says: “We advocated A, they advocated B, but we agreed to settle on C.”‘

Yet we also need to recognise that such a ‘splitting the difference’ approach to Coalition is not the way we will persuade the British public that coalition is itself a better, stronger, more effective way of governing this country. I don’t think that’s as hard as it may seem (notwithstanding the inevitable hostility of the British news media).

The last (only) two Prime Ministers to win outright Commons majorities in the last 20 years — John Major and Tony Blair — successfully persuaded the British people that they could combine economic competence with social justice. I cannot see either David Cameron or Ed Miliband successfully making that pitch in May 2015: the Tories are seen to be hard-hearted, Labour to be mushy-brained. There’s only one viable way the next government has a chance of getting the balance right — and that’s if the Lib Dems remain right at its heart.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Thankfully in recent weeks this has started to happen. Of course there was Ed Miliband’s speech to the Royal College of Psychiatrists in which he spoke of the need for improved provision in mental health treatments across the country. Many people will of course welcome this state of affairs and it is encouraging if Miliband is intending to put improved mental health provision at the forefront of Labour’s health policy.

Unfortunately there is reason to be sceptical regarding Labour’s new position. As Norman Lamb pointed out in a recent article for this website, the last Labour Government

consistently treated mental health as a second class service: introducing an 18 week waiting time target for physical health but not for mental health and specifically excluding mental health users from the right to choose where, and by whom, you are treated. The absurd but inevitable result was a health service in which the bias towards physical health has been institutionalised, despite all the evidence demonstrating the fundamental importance of mental health.

Indeed. Can we really have any confidence, given, the Labour’ Party’s recent record of hypocrisy, that a Miliband led Government would make good on the statements made in his recent speech?

Thankfully Lib Dems, and those like me who suffer from anxiety and depression, can rest assured that our party has consistently made improved mental health provision a cornerstone of health policy in recent months and years.

Many have previously commended the excellent work which the previous Lib Dem Health Minister, Paul Burstow did regarding mental health treatment, and now this has been sealed by the publication of the first mandate between the Government and the NHS Commissioning Board.

It is a great relief to me that placing mental health care on a par with physical health care is now written in to the mandate, alongside ensuring better access to psychological therapies.

Since first going to my doctor at the end of July and asking for a referral to a talking therapies service I have not yet had my first session and will not start it until December 12^th. This has already felt like too long, and I am someone who is not at the more serious end of those who suffer. I am sure there are many people who read this website, are in a far worse state than I am and who feel let down by the lack of treatment they receive on the NHS.

I hope that it is some consolation for those people that there are many in this party – including those who spoke at and moved the excellent motion at conference – who will continue to ensure that mental health treatment is not pushed to the sidelines, as it has consistently been by previous Tory and Labour Governments.

* Tim Purkiss is a party member from Somerset and blogs at Nation Discussion

The Mandate was drawn up following widespread consultation over the summer. Key goals contained within it include:

• Improving standards of care, especially for the elderly
• Better diagnosis, treatment and care for people with dementia
• Better care for women during pregnancy, childbirth and the postnatal period
• Making it easier for patients to give feedback
• Making it easier to access GP services – booking appointments and ordering repeat prescriptions, and accessing your own health records – online
• Preventing premature deaths from the biggest killers
• Putting mental health on an equal footing with physical health

There is lots to be pleased about within the Mandate: its focus on outcomes rather than processes, on quality of care as well as quality of treatment, and on the patient’s experience rather than the institution’s convenience.

However, one aspect that we can be particularly proud of is the attention that is paid to mental health. Rather than being treated as a separate minority concern, awareness and consideration of mental health is written right through the Mandate.

At Liberal Democrat Conference in September we had a very good debate about what more could and should be done to improve matters for people suffering from mental health problems in this country. ‘Parity of esteem’ (placing mental health care on a par with physical health care) is now written in to the Mandate and ensuring more open access to the IAPT programme (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies), highlighted at Conference, is one of the ways in which this will be measured.

Ed Miliband seems only recently to have woken up to this issue – perhaps because he can see that the Coalition is determined to make genuine progress on this. The last Labour government consistently treated mental health as a second class service: introducing an 18-week waiting time target for physical health but not for mental health and specifically excluding mental health service users from the right to choose where, and by whom, you are treated. The absurd but inevitable result was a health service in which the bias towards physical health has been institutionalised, despite all the evidence demonstrating the fundamental importance of mental health.

Today’s publication of the Mandate marks a line in the sand. I have talked before, both on these pages and elsewhere about moving from rhetoric to reality. The Mandate does this. It is a statement of intent, of our commitment to improving mental health care in this country. It also, crucially, clearly sets out how the Commissioning Board will be held to account for delivering on that commitment.

* Norman Lamb MP is Liberal Democrat Minister of State at the Department of Health

Miliband overtakes Cameron among Lib Dems for first time

We’ve been asking this question for a little over a year now — a year which has marked quite a reversal in fortunes for the two party leaders, as this graph illustrates:

Here’s the detail from this month’s survey…

LDV asked: Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?
(Comparison with September’s results in brackets.)

• 1% – Very well
• 35% – Well

Total well = 36% (+13%)

• 45% – Badly
• 15% – Very badly

Total badly = 60% (-11%)%

• 5% – Don’t know

This is the first survey of Lib Dem members we’ve undertaken since the party conference season — and it’s clear that Ed Miliband has benefited most. Better than Nick Clegg, and certainly better than David Cameron as you’ll see below. His ‘One Nation’ speech-without-notes impressed many who heard it and, combined with his more assured performances at Prime Minister’s Questions, questions about his leadership have receded. Before we get too carried away, mind, his ratings still stand at -24% among Lib Dems, and remain negative among the wider public as well.

Cameron plunges to lowest rating yet among Lib Dems

Do you think David Cameron is doing well or badly as Prime Minister?
(Comparison with September’s results in brackets.)

• 1% – Very well
• 26% – Well

Total well = 27% (-7%)

• 55% – Badly
• 14% – Very badly

Total badly = 69% (+8%)

• 4% – Don’t know

This net negative rating of -42% is, by a long way, the worst yet for David Cameron among Lib Dems. I suspect he’s been hit by a double whammy. First, his approval among the public has been knocked by a general sense that he’s not got a tight enough grip on events (or, as I suggested here, that he’s sprawling ineffectively across too many issues). And secondly, his conference speech marked a reversion to traditional right-wing Tory values, with little of the moderate, centrist, small-l-liberal values in which he cloaked himself in his modernising phase leading the Tory party.

As I customarily note, rating David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister is a different question from rating his performance as Conservative party leader (whether Mr Cameron’s ratings would be higher or lower among Lib Dem members if we asked that question, I don’t know. Though I could hazard a guess).

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

We presently have a system in which somebody earning the national minimum wage – which for most is not sufficient to live in any comfort even before tax – and working full time pays income tax at 20% on about a third of their salary, national insurance, VAT on the goods they buy, fuel duty and road tax on the car that gets them to their minimum-wage job, council tax, air passenger duty on their budget holiday, and more.

Yet because the minimum wage in insufficient, and such a vast proportion of it is paid in taxation, the government then gives back to majority of these low-paid workers the same amount, or more, than they paid in tax through working tax credits, child tax credits, council tax benefit and housing benefit.

Who, if they were designing a wage, tax and benefits system from scratch, would come up with such a convoluted, inefficient system? (Well, probably Gordon Brown.)

On its own, the living wage would have a marginal impact in inserting a bit of sense into the system. But it is essentially just a small increase in the minimum wage, which is good but not sufficient.

A better starting point would be to abolish direct taxes on a minimum wage salary, as the Lib Dems want to do (and have already started).

Even then, though, there will be a large number of people whose net income is not enough to live on. Reducing some of the indirect taxes mentioned above would therefore help a little more.

A significant proportion of the funding for these changes can come from the reductions in tax credits and benefits paid to those now keeping more of the money they earn. And different taxes can be levied on wealthier individuals to cancel out the positive effect of reducing indirect taxes.

Still then there will likely be more to do. And this is where a higher minimum wage can be considered. But while the minimum wage so far seems only to have had a relatively small impact on unemployment, a significant increase – without other changes – clearly would make hiring people less attractive.

That is why – and this is crucial – the further savings made in the benefits and tax credits system should be hypothecated to reduce taxes on business, starting with the abolition of employer national insurance contributions. This would, to a large extent, mitigate the effects on employment of a significant increase in the minimum wage.

There is a way to make work pay and leave behind Gordon Brown’s labyrinthine tax and benefits system. Indeed, the Lib Dems have made significant steps to doing so already. But we must be bolder, because we know for sure that neither Labour nor the Tories will be.

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

In my previous post on this website I wrote about the motion concerning mental health which was passed at the Lib Dems autumn conference in Brighton.

I mentioned how I go through good and bad days with my own anxiety and depression problems and why the passing of the motion had reaffirmed my faith in my membership of the Lib Dems.

I am writing this article because I have just been through one of those bad spells and I wanted to get these words down – partly because writing helps me – but mainly because I want to describe the importance of this issue from a personal perspective while it is still fresh in my mind.

This afternoon I had a severe onset of anxiety and panic – breaking down, becoming paranoid and despondent, and feeling completely desolate and miserable. I spent a couple of hours lying in bed and trying to sleep – even though I knew that this was not the thing I should be doing. Such are the effects of mental illness.

I am slowly beginning to realise that these are just phases which will pass in time, but that hardly makes them any easier to cope with.

Ed Miliband was quite correct in what he said on Monday but, not for the first time, the Lib Dems have beaten him to it. The majority of what he said was either included in the September conference motion or was covered by the fantastic speakers who were called to speak during the debate – including of course Lib Dem Health Minister Norman Lamb MP.

This is, however, an issue which is too important to be subject to the usual party political snipping. As we know failure to help people with mental illness has a devastating economic impact on the NHS and also affects one in four people in the population.

It is doubtful that there are many more issues which are as widely relevant as this, because we are talking of an issue, which will have affected almost everybody you speak to when campaigning on the doorstep or during the course of a casual conversation.

So, alongside the other Lib Dem achievements in Government, why not tell people about the work Norman Lamb and Paul Burstow have been doing in Government and about the motion adopted by the party at conference? Chances are either they will either have suffered themselves or they will know someone who has.

Raising awareness of the impacts of mental illness is not only the right thing to do but it has surely never been more important.

* Tim Purkiss is a party member from Somerset and blogs at Nation Discussion

Labour has often been very coy about quite what it would cut and how much it would cut. Ed Miliband’s speech at the anti-austerity protest march today did not shed light on matters.

However, rather than that being a problem to him, his political opponents to his left have kindly helped out.

Those who dislike even his vague and tepid comments about some cuts being necessary – and so had decided well in advance of hearing the first words of his speech that they would boo him – have ironically done him a favour.

After all, what a handy way to look like someone who is willing to take tough financial choices by being up on stage, booed for having dared say you wouldn’t oppose all cuts. How generous of his left-wing critics to help out in this.

* I pick the word advisedly, because as with other organisations and even firms, those in charge at the top do not always represent the views and attitudes of those elsewhere through the organisation. The executive committees of trade unions, for example, contain far more people who voted Labour in 2010 than they would if they reflected the voting patterns of their own union members. Moreover, the decisions on how much to donate to Labour, when and with what strings attached are not made by the membership at large of trade unions.

* Mark Pack has written 101 Ways To Win An Election and produces a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Does Andrew Mitchell have some embarrassing photos of David Cameron? Or is there some disaster coming up, known only to the Prime Minister, for which he is conserving the Chief Whip for dumping overboard at an expedient moment as “cover”?

There has to be some reason that the PM preserves in post a man responsible for one of the longest public aftermaths ever for an intemperate outburst.

Only the Tory party could tie itself up in such tortuous knots over such an incident.

Today at Prime Minister’s Questions, a month after the encounter was revealed, Ed Miliband was still able to make huge capital out of it.

Incredibly, Andrew Mitchell, who is to PR crisis management what Mr Blobby is to bomb disposal, gave the story even more legs by adding a new denial. In a shouted comment to Ed Miliband, he denied even swearing during the incident!

Has Andrew Mitchell got no brain?

First, he denies using the word “pleb”. Now, a month later, he denies swearing. Next, he’ll be denying he was actually there and expecting us to believe him.

Mixed up in the plebgate remarks, Miliband succeeding in embarrassing Cameron by comparing his promise that there sould no fewer frontline police with the news that 7,000 front line police have been removed since 2010.

Ah, but the percentage of front line police has gone up, said the PM, showing skill at making it up as he goes along.

That said, “crime is down”, said Cameron.

The reasonable good news of the unemployment figures took the wind out of Miliband’s sails a bit.

Cameron’s best line was reserved for the end of the session when he said Miliband was about to go on “the most lucrative sponsored walk in history”. That was referring to the forthcoming march organised by Labour’s “paymasters”, the unions.

Mexican stand-off

The Prime Minister announced that we will not answer any questions from the honourable member for Rhondda until he, the member, apologises. That was a clever way of avoiding a difficult question about his text messages to and from Rebekah Brooks. But it seems a rather petulant position, which creates a hostage to fortune. What if, God forbid, there is a disaster or tragedy in Rhondda? Will Cameron still refuse to respond to the honourable member?

When is a question a speech?

When it is as long as that of William Bain or Ian Paisley. They did go on. I thought MPs would need a sleeping bag during Paisley’s “question”. There were also some admirably short questions, such as that from Julie Hilling (Lab):

My constituent, Aaron Moon, lost his leg in Afghanistan. He then lost his disability living allowance. The Prime Minister promised to look after ex-servicemen and women. What has happened?

- That’s how questions should be.

Liberal Democrat questions

Andrew George asked how quickly the government would implement the Groceries Adjudicator Bill.

Sir Nick Harvey asked a bullish question – for a recently ex-defence minister. Will Cameron keep an open mind on how to replace our nuclear deterrent? – he asked. After all, there are so many other pressures on the defence budget. I noticed that the current Defence Secretary took this question with considerable sanguinity.

* Paul Walter is a LibDem activist in Newbury, Berkshire and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Cameron is now considered a “real Tory” amongst activists after Osborne provided some red-blooded Tory announcements. He has removed any questions about his leadership, for now, if he can steamroller the Lib Dems with a further £10bn of benefit cuts, the shelving of any taxes on wealth labelled as “resentful” and, their shares-for-rights resurrection of Beecroft’s proposals.

Will the Lib Dems lie down like good coalition partners and take their steamrollering? I hope not!

So the double act of Osborne and Cameron are back on the road. With Osborne firing broadsides at the Lib Dem ship and Cameron glorying in the role of Prime Minster, guiding the country back to Tory greatness during challenging times.

One thing is for sure: the coalition is under pressure after this Tory conference. The Tories have pointed a true blue laser at it.

Lib Dem activists will not take more humiliation and, in turn, another electoral beating at the county elections in 2013.

There are going to be some long weekends ahead for Clegg and company to work out our response. We need to be firing some broadsides back, with more differentiation on vision.

It is quite clever for Osborne and Cameron to use the phrase “aspiration nation”, with Cameron proclaiming he wants more people going to schools like him. This is an unrealistic Tory vision without fairness and social mobility being hard-wired into our society. The opportunity to fulfil those aspirations will pass many by who do not succeed in grammar school exams to get an education like Cameron. What about the rest of society who can’t go to grammar schools and Oxbridge? What about the disabled that have been tormented by ATOS who have botched assessments for those on disabled benefits?

Meanwhile, in the wings is Labour, with an Ed Miliband who has found his feet in the leadership stakes with his “One Nation” speech. They will be hoping the coalition continue to sail on stormy seas while taking lumps out of one and other.

After the conference season the man with most to do is Nick Clegg. It won’t be good enough to hope things get better and that the electorate thank us in 2015. We need to create some of our own distinctive positive weather. The winter months ahead are going to be interesting times.

* William Jones is the lead campaigner in Sale (Priory Ward) of the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Chair of Trafford Lib Democrat Forum and Chair of Wythenshawe and Sale East Liberal Democrat Constituency Party