Tag Archives: triple lock

Ian Swales MP writes: 12 CUTS Labour don’t talk about

By Ian Swales MP | Published 30th December 2011 - 12:30 pm

The Labour party think they can win the economic argument by just wailing about cuts on behalf of their public sector union paymasters. They give no credible alternatives for what they would do about Britain’s economic crisis.

What they also like to ignore is some of the changes that are being made towards making this country fairer. Here is a list of cuts WE should be talking about because they are mostly happening through Lib Dem action and pressure.

  • The CUT from £250,000 to £50,000 in the maximum annual pension contribution to receive tax relief – clawing back a staggering £4,000,000,000 (£4bn) that Labour was giving to the rich.
  • The

…

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , | 55 Comments

The party strategy debate: rolling highlights

By Mark Pack | Published 13th March 2011 - 10:05 am

Note: If you’re catching up with this post after it was published, read it from the bottom up.

Final result – both amendment and motion passed overwhelmingly. The overall tenor of the debate was more good natured than might have been expected – people did not take the opportunity to express any unhappiness in strident tones, and the party being in coalition with the Tories until 2015 was accepted and expected, explicitly or implicitly, by all speakers. Tuition fees and NHS got mentions, but brief ones. Norman Lamb’s comments about the health debate (see below), however, were unexpected and welcome.

James Gurling, …

Continue reading »
Posted in Conference, Party policy and internal matters | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Tom Baldwin and the “triple lock”: you could have read it here Tom

By Mark Pack | Published 12th March 2010 - 2:12 pm

Today Tom Baldwin in The Times reports on its exciting persistent investigative journalism into the party’s “triple lock” rule for deals with other parties:

The exact wording of this rule, disclosed only after repeated inquiries to Liberal Democrats headquarters this week, sets a high bar for clearing “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.

A pedant would point out that it was “disclosed” here back in November. Then it was Steve Richards I took to task (for calling the rule – which was debated in public at party conference – “secret”).

Perhaps you should add us …

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , | Leave a comment

5 reasons Nick Clegg should rule out a coalition now

By Stephen Tall | Published 10th March 2010 - 8:45 am

With most polls showing the next election could result in a hung parliament, there has been various speculation about what the Lib Dem position would be. I think it’s time for Nick Clegg to make an unambiguous statement that the party would not enter a coalition with either Labour or the Tories. Here are my five reasons why Nick should spell this out clearly and simply now …

1. A coalition is a non-starter, so let’s just rule it out now

It’s quite simple: the majority of party members will not for a single moment entertain the idea of a coalition with …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , | 31 Comments

Since when is something debated in public, in front of journalists called “hidden”?

By Mark Pack | Published 26th November 2009 - 9:20 am

Since yesterday, in fact. Because in an otherwise thoughtful piece on hung Parliaments in The Independent, Steve Richards made this comment:

If there is a hung parliament there will almost certainly be no formal coalition government, even if Nick Clegg and Vince Cable would like to join one. Clegg is trapped by what is known as his party’s “triple lock”, a hidden rule that might become of vital relevance. Before entering a coalition he is bound to secure the agreement of his MPs, other national representatives and the membership.

Credit to Steve Richards for knowing about this rule. But “hidden”? It …

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , , | 3 Comments

That hoary old Hung Parliament chestnut

By Stephen Tall | Published 17th March 2009 - 8:38 pm

There’s an interesting article by The Independent’s Steve Richards today, focusing – as the media does every three months or so – on the prospect of a ‘Hung Parliament’, and what the Lib Dems would do in such an eventuality.

Actually the article’s a bit broader than that, and I can’t let the opportunity pass without briefly digressing to agree wholeheartedly with his snipe at the Tories’ two key initiatives of the past week: David Cameron’s ‘apology’ for failing to anticipate the economic crisis until way too late (Steve accuses the Tories of “still playing student-like games”); and yesterday’s …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , | 12 Comments