The Liberal Democrat manifesto in practice

It’s an unnecessarily well-kept secret that the Liberal Democrats have already achieved much in Government since the General Election.

Despite the Guardian saying today that “the Liberal Democrats have rushed out a checklist of 67 party manifesto commitments already or nearly achieved in eight months in office” it’s not that easy to find the checklist online, nor to understand why the newspaper used the word “rushed” when the party has waited two thirds of a year before compiling and releasing it in a low-key way to Lib Dem campaigners.

Nonetheless, the list is impressive, and deserves to be shared widely. So I’m publishing it below, but first, the preamble:

The Liberal Democrats have been in government for only eight months, but we have already implemented many of our manifesto policies.

Below is a list of these policies and what we are doing to make them happen. The list does not even include those of our policies that are in the coalition agreement but have not yet been implemented – so this list is just the first part of a long line of Liberal Democrat policies to come.

The list is organised according to each section of our 2010 manifesto, for ease of comparison. However in some areas, such as environmental policy, it made more sense to group it together in one section, so it will not always be completely true to the original structure.

This document is a striking illustration of the influence the Liberal Democrats are having in government.

Lib Dem Achievements in Government

Document also available on Scribd here.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/22566 for Twitter and emails.

12 Comments

  • The claim that an extra £900billion is being invested in cracking down on tax cheats is a good example of how you are being conned.

    In fact, HMRC’s budget is being cut quite substantially. There will be less money to clampdown on tax cheats, not more. These documents are for the gullible.

  • Mike(The Labour one) 28th Dec '10 - 7:04pm

    There’s too much there to waste time on, but it’s claptrap. Deliberately ambiguous language to hide the Royal Mail privatisation and the fact that the Pupil Premium is not new investment but rather comes from shifting around existing funds for example.

    Do one without those policies that the Tories and Labour also planned. And then do one with some honesty, if that’s possible for your party.

  • Well if the LibDems are the ones responsible for all these policies being enacted that means there’s nothing left for the electorate to blame the Tories about so the LibDems will need to carry the electoral backlash on their own.

    I won’t bother to list all the areas where the poor, ill and disadvantaged are going to be hammered because I’m not sure that there’s that many left in the LibDems that are interested in these groups because they appear to be viewed as economically inactive.

    But the power of self-delusion is strong and I noted in the victory list the no like for like replacement for Trident in this Parliament. Well, there never could have been because the replacement programme will take 20 years so you’ll actually be able to claim there won’t be one in the next Parliamant either so there’s one for your next Manifesto.

    All that you have secured as a sop is that the announcement of the Trident like for like replacement won’t be announced in this Parliament. The design and preparatory work has already started and is being funded under the ‘Initial Gate’ mechanism and Trident will be replaced with a like for like system on time whether I or the LibDems like it or not – that’s the reality and it’s a great pity the party parly leadership still seems to have a difficulty in telling the truth or disguising it with smoke and mirrors.

  • If the party supported by sniping, moaning hypocrites like Mike (The Labour One) and EcoJon hadn’t ruined the public finances while it was in office by running up a massive government deficit, we would be implementing a whole load more of our promises.

  • Heavens, those leaving comments on LDV are unconvinced. I am surprised.

  • Mike(The Labour one) 29th Dec '10 - 12:08am

    @Andy Hinton: Nonsense. Your party has repeatedly claimed that it is new money, when it isn’t. It’s a con. You can’t make a song and a dance about having provided ‘new’ money, and when it’s pointed out that it isn’t new money say that ‘oh it would be if *blah blah blah*.’ Your party made the claim, and it was a false one.

    Would the banks not have failed without Labour? Would there have been no recession? The structural deficit would have been dealt with under Labour’s plans easily enough, as even the likes of Fraser Nelson have admitted, without the extra cuts you and the Tories want.

    @Robert C: 1) You would have let the banks fail then?
    2) It is nonsense that these cuts have to be so deep in order to deal with the structural deficit. It simply isn’t true- to my knowledge we’ve had three Nobel prize winners in economics come out against the severity of the cuts and a number of mainstream think tanks.

    Listen to yourself. ‘We want to fulfil more promises but’ isn’t a valid answer to ‘the promises you claim you’ve kept really aren’t’. You shouldn’t be claiming to have fulfilled all of these promises when the facts don’t fit that narrative.

  • @Andy Hinton

    How do you manage to make so many errors in such a short post?

    Firstly, I have never been a member or supporter of any political party. I have always voted for the people and policies at the time – never a party.

    Secondly, that you assume Labour indicates a certain phobia leading you to make incorrect assumptions. Why not UKIP or Scottish Nationalist or Tory or Green Party or Plaid Cymru?

    Thirdly, according to Danny Alexander, £1 spent on pursuing the tax cheats will bring in around £15 revenue (a fantastic return on investment) and there’s an annual mountain of £42 billion to pursue. No other measure will have such a big impact on the deficit. But, you say it’s all about priorities. Hmmm.

    Apologies don’t bother me, but will you acknowledge your mistakes? It may help you in future.

  • Simon McGrath 29th Dec '10 - 11:14am

    Helen thanks for publishing – needs to be got out to as many people as possible.

    Not surprising it has got such a strong reaction here from labour trolls – they can’t bear to be reminded of our achievements in government.More in 6 months than there lot manageed in 13 years and no illegal wars either.

  • @ Mike (The Labour One).

    I am talking about the PUBLIC FINANCES. Gordon Brown was quite right to intervene in support of the banks – as suggested by Vince Cable. Without functioning banks, the economy collapses.

    The fact that there is a massive 11% of GDP deficit seems to have passed you by. If we had no plan to cut that at all (the approach Labour seems now to be adopting by opposing every single cut), then the financial markets would be trampling us like a herd of stampeding cattle. That is why I am so angry with Labour supporters: their sheer opportunistic denial of the need for financial responsibility. They are simply riding a wave of discontent without any proposals as to what they would do.

    I think we should return the favour by publishing an alternative Labour budget, showing what a disaster their approach would cause by allowing a fiscal explosion.

  • Mike(The Labour one) 29th Dec '10 - 3:57pm

    @Robert C: You’ve been sold a pup. The deficit doesn’t require cuts quite so harsh- read this article by Fraser Nelson, it sums up where we found ourselves in relation to the deficit after election.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6080418/osbornes-headache.thtml

    ‘The below chart sums up the extraordinary announcement from the Office for Budget Responsibility. George Osborne did his best to maintain the “things are worse than we thought” line but the reverse is true. Unemployment, inflation, the deficit – everything is better than not only the Treasury forecast but better than the market had been preparing for.’

    ‘ His plan was conceptually fine: that he’d create an external agency, which would demolish Brown’s Potemkin Village and show the full unvarnished truth. But the OBR has made its first announcement just as the economy is on the turn. Manufacturing, house prices, gilt yields – on almost every metric you can think of, things are not as bad as had been feared. What jumped out at me was that the OBR says that on current government policy (ie, without Osborne’s recent £5.7bn of cuts, on the Darling trajectory) the structural deficit would be reduced from 8% now to 2.8% in 2014-15. That is to say, Osborne’s manifesto pledge – to eliminate “the bulk” of the structural deficit – would have happened under Darling. So no extra cut, or tax hike, is needed to meet this pledge.’

    We have had three Nobel prize winners come out strongly against the severity of the cuts and a number of think tanks. The NIESR, not a leftist organisation by any stretch of the imagination, has said that the cuts will harm deficit reduction by reducing growth and therefore tax revenues, and recommends *half* the cuts, less than even Labour had planned, as the best way to get the deficit down. That is without even thinking of the social impact- purely going on what is the best way to get the deficit down, these deep cuts are a bad option.

    The deficit isn’t overspending, it is also a result of a diminishing amount coming in due to the recession. Well deep cuts are the best way to slash your tax revenues and make this situation worse.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User Avatarjedibeeftrix 28th Jul - 8:20am
    lol, charles, how quaint is your view of commonwealth as some sort of geriatric sports club. in reality, it represents an area of enormous economic...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 28th Jul - 8:10am
    Hi Peter, I'm sorry I don't wish to get into a big conversation about this. I don't mind so much if they are loyal, but...
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 28th Jul - 8:06am
    @Eddie Sammon "I don’t believe in having far leftists as members of the party." How far left is too far?
  • User AvatarCharles Rothwell 28th Jul - 7:04am
    I assume jedibeeftrix's comment about "our true destiny in the EU" is meant in an ironical sense, but when it comes to "shared values", the...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 28th Jul - 4:17am
    Simon, it's nothing personal and my problem isn't with everyone who signed "Lib Dems 4 Change". I don't believe in having far leftists as members...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 28th Jul - 4:01am
    I don't agree with doing an anti-armed police campaign. I live in a pretty peaceful town too, but I needed them back in 2005. Unfortunately,...