From today’s Guardian:
We write to express broad support for the Compass Plan B proposals reported in the Observer (30 October). We are Liberal Democrat members who have campaigned hard for decades in national and local elections. We have also engaged in our party’s policymaking. For both reasons, we take seriously the policies on which we fought the last general election, in particular the belief that the Conservatives’ economic proposals would have dire consequences.
In May 2010, our party signed up, through the coalition agreement, to a series of policies against which it had recently campaigned. But out of responsibility to the country, Liberal Democrats must now tell the Conservatives that they will no longer support policies which are not working. That is necessary even if one is only concerned about deficit reduction. As the Compass Plan B states, it already “looks as if the government will miss its deficit target reduction and, as the economy slows, the deficit could increase”.
As an alternative, there must be a series of radical measures including an emergency recovery programme, a fairer tax system and social investment. Plan B proposes these. Liberal Democrats who still believe in the manifesto on which they last fought a general election should support them.
Cllr Ron Beadle 2010 parliamentary candidate for Newcastle North, Ruth Bright 2005 parliamentary candidate for Hampshire East; London borough of Southwark councillor 1994-2002, Prof Richard Grayson2005 & 2010 parliamentary candidate for Hemel Hempstead; vice-chair, Liberal Democrat federal policy committee 2008-10; director of policy, 1999-2004, Prof Stephen Haseler, Simon Hebditch, Dr Jo Ingold, Linda Jack Member, Liberal Democrat federal policy committee; parliamentary candidate 2010 for Bedfordshire Mid and 2005 for Luton North, Cllr Stephen Knight Leader, Liberal Democrat group, London borough of Richmond, No 2 on Liberal Democrat List for 2012 London assembly elections, Margaret Phelps Parliamentary candidate 2010 for Witham and 2005 for Cynon Valley, Nick Rijke 2001 parliamentary candidate for St Albans
53 Comments
After good news from higher-than-expected growth figures today, nice to see a bunch of self-important party wannabe-slebs shooting us in the foot in public, yet again.
Sorry Dave, A set of unadjusted GDP figures does not a summer make. I also think it is unfair to describe the authors of this letter as ‘a bunch of of self-important wannabe-slebs’. I do not wholeheartedly support the Compass rec ipe for turning around the Economy but there is a lot of sense in it. It is generally accepted that we need to rebalance the economy, we need to improve our manufacturing sector and rely less on Financial Services, nothing I have seen from this present Government goes far enough in achieving this. I think we need to improve our Green infrastructure, insulating the Housing stock, investing in green energy improving our Rail network (not just HS2) etc. I also believe we to have fairer Taxation system (hooray for a land value Tax), and it obviously good to put money into the pockets of the less well off. I like the authors believe this was all in our election manifesto, we said the Tory cuts would be disaster.
.
That is a little on the rude side, Dave. Some might say a ‘touch caustic’.
There is a clear debate to be had here and, frankly, anyone who boasts any certainty on the optimal rate of deficit reduction and the best way to achieve it is a charlatan or a deity who has dropped into earth ‘under cover’ on His day off. The present economic ‘plan’ is (give or take the odd bit of Tory additional waste such as Academies and elected Polizei Kommissars) not really much dissimilar from Alistair Darling’s ‘skeleton’.
Now whether it is optimal behaviour for Lib Dems to even contemplate ripping each other to pieces on such an issue, in public, on a web site such as this, I shall leave others to decide.
I stopped reading the one page summary of ‘Plan B’ at the third paragraph, which asserts that: ‘The impact of the government’s decision to reduce spending by £130 billion over 5 years is now beginning to tell, the cuts are reducing GDP by up to 2% per year.’
In fact, Government spending, under the spending review, is set to grow from £696.8bn to £739.8bn between 2010/11 and 2014/15.
It strikes me that any ‘Plan’ based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government’s plans, really isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Indeed, as Dave says, not exactly the best day to pick to attack Government strategy. And, like him, I do weary of megaphone lecturing from the pulpit that is the Guardian’s letters page.
It is pretty bad out there, with the Greeks seemingly determined to hole the European stabilisation package below the waterline, and growth in our biggest markets under threat. But if Osborne and Alexander are right?…
I might have sympathy with the authors of the letter if they had raised this at the conference we just had. If I, a mere member with no backing, connections or support, was able to write and get passed a motion which reversed our policy on disability benefits then I fail to see how this assortment of PPCs and former party officials couldn’t at least have caused a debate on this issue at conference if they’d wanted to.
Let’s be clear – there are no easy solutions to this crisis which has been caused by over-borrowing. The banks had their faults through their CDOs etc yet it was the governments and people that gave them the money through lack of regulation and deciding to party `like it’s 1999 forever`.
Another point of interest is that the `downsides` of the plan B are never spoken about. Labour made it unfashionable to think that there could ever be a `downside` to anything and if there was the best thing was to do was spend your way out of it. Wrong! Would the extra borrowing required be made up from the growth?
The choice isn’t between something terrible and something great – it’s about terrible tasting jam today or better tasting jam tomorrow.
Let’s take the points one by one:
`An immediate halt to cuts, to protect jobs in the public sector` – nice idea – how are you going to pay for it?
`A new round of quantitative easing to finance a “Green New Deal” to create thousands of new jobs.` Could be doable although the quantitative easing would be difficult for inflation and with the markets.
`Benefit increases to put money into the pockets of those on lower and middle incomes and give a boost to spending.`
This is really the social liberal wing of the Party trying to desperately reclaim territory from the centrists. They don’t understand that Labour’s big loss in 2010 was part of a flight from Labour of those who ARE on low and middle incomes but are locked out of the benefit system or are too proud to claim from it. Labour has a huge `£16,000` problem which is the amount of savings you can’t go over to claim benefits if you are a single person. What the `100` seem to be saying is that it’s better to give to those who, for whatever reason, are reliant on the state, rather than go out to work.
Sums it up for me. Give an SLFer an inch and their instincts are to prioritise those that don’t want to work rather than try and succeed. Now if they’d said increase the tax threshold from 10k to 11k or bring it in earlier they REALLY WOULD be talking. But they don’t because in their heart of hearts I wonder if they believe in it.
`A financial transaction tax to raise funds from the City to pay for investment in transport, energy and house building.` I’ve heard analysis that this is both doable and from others that this is simply tokenistic or requires a global agreement so that we don’t lose out on our financial services. Now if you’d said cut VAT on building work for new homes I’d be listening.
The real worry with this prescription is that it doesn’t face up to the change in attitudes required. It’s old-style thinking by `old heads` with old assumptions.
The choice is clear – either embrace Scandinavian style Social Democracy with all the inherent `downsides` such as higher tax rates, eye-watering benefit reforms, loss of financial civil liberties as well as creating a strong savings culture or push us further than the baby steps we seem to be making as regards adopting a German Social Market economy.
The SLFers seem to want it both ways – they have to choose!
Plan B proposed by Compass doesn’t seem very fair to people working hard on low incomes in the private or not-for-profit sector who don’t receive benefits or aren’t in public sector jobs. I’m pleased that the policy we are implementing – raising the threshold for income tax – will benefit people on low and middle incomes. I am glad that the limited money that we do have available is targeted broadly in this way to help the most people.
@George – it is not as simple as that. The items selected for debate these days are largely non-critical of the government, yours was the exception.
On top of that I do not recall that we have had a conference motion on the economy that supports current government policy, a policy which marks a radical change to the one we pressented at the last general election.
As for those who are commenting on the “bad timing”, I would point out that it would be wrong to get excited by 1 figure in isolation. Up until now the “independent” OBR have been downgrading their growth forecasts and I would suggest that we can throw our hats in the air should they have reason to change their forecasts back up again. I do not see any sign of that happening soon.
As for whether we should support the Compass Plan B, I am undecided but I would say it looks a lot better than George Osborne’s Plan A.
@Maria – it is important to bear in mind that a lot of private sector jobs depend on the public sector. So more investment in the public sector – if done well – would also improve their job security.
I look forward to someone doing some independent research to find out exactly how progressive raising the tax thresholds are.
Many of these people are the same group as announced a few months ago that they were going to be sitting on Labour Party policy groups:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/richard-grayson-ed-miliband-23033.html
Their excuse for this at the time was that they were going to help convert Labour to Lib Dem policies. It now appears they they have been converted to Labour policies.
They should consider what happens to interest rates when the markets are not convinced Govts have their defict under control. Italy is paying 6% on 10 year Govt debt, Spain 5.5%, UK 2.6%.
@Tony Dawson
“There is a clear debate to be had here and, frankly, anyone who boasts any certainty on the optimal rate of deficit reduction and the best way to achieve it is a charlatan or a deity who has dropped into earth ‘under cover’ on His day off.”
Absolutely. If they are honest, no one knows what the optimum policy is.
I’m sure the authors know that it takes time for economic policies to take effect, and that there are relatively minor differences between the coalition’s policy and what Alistair Darling was proposing for the first year of this parliament. So the suggestion that the sluggish growth of this year is down to the coalition is disingenuous.
I’m sure that they also know that stable government is very important to maintaining the confidence of the international markets. They will remember as we all do what happened to the USA ‘AAA’ rating when it had a crisis over its budget. So it is not responsible to suggest that the party should publicly dictate changes of policy to the Conservatives in a way that would inevitably undermine confidence in the stability of the government.
Their letter implies that we should insist that all our 2010 manifesto must be implemented. But the Compass proposals reported in the Observer are a million miles from our manifesto. They call for an immediate halt to cuts and increases in spending, as well as the quantitative easing which the government is already planning. Their proposal of a financial transaction tax is not to pay for the above, but to fund further spending. This would lead to a significant increase in the budget deficit.
Our manifesto said: “Our working assumption is that the economy will be in a stable enough condition to bear cuts from the beginning of 2011–12 … Public borrowing has reached unsustainable levels, and needs to be brought under control to protect the country’s economic future … Not only must waste be eliminated, but we must also be bold about finding big areas of spending that can be cut completely.”
In reality, this letter to the Guardian is not calling for us to fight for our 2010 manifesto, not even to adopt the 2010 policies of Alistair Darling, but to adopt the policies of Ed Balls.
There is, of course, room for debate about optimal policies, both about the timing of the deficit reduction strategy and its details. But it is absurd to pretend that there are easy solutions to an unsustainable structural deficit.
“I’m pleased that the policy we are implementing – raising the threshold for income tax – will benefit people on low and middle incomes. I am glad that the limited money that we do have available is targeted broadly in this way to help the most people.”
Or, to put it another way, you are glad that the bulk of the money is going to those on middle incomes, rather than being targeted at the low-paid.
That compass thing is garbage – “temporarily reverse all cuts”? Wow way to give councils some stability there, or accept that not all cuts are evil.
Our 2010 manifesto proposed massive “kickstart” investment projects at the same time as deficit control, which the Conservatives in government are now belatedly adopting. While I have a lot of time for these signatories individually, I can’t really understand the point being made here with such broad brush-strokes.
@Maria M I’m sure the Compass plan isn’t fair to people working on low incomes over the last few years it has become increasingly clear that isn’t a priority for Labour.
At last, some honourable Lib Dems who are honest enough to admit that the Tory led Coalition has cut too far and too fast. Also, that public sector money and private sector money are not discrete currencies with banknotes issued in different colours. 0.5% is an improvement, but only an estimate and the figures could be revised downwards. But even this small amount of growth will be flushed away by the government’s fiscal policies. Clutch at straws by all means but don’t use the 0.5% growth figures (which actually contain a 0.6% fall in construction output) to discredit the writers of this thread. They will, I am sure, be proved to be absolutely right in the end. Heed their warning.
And that concludes MacK’s regular party political broadcast from the Labour Party…
@Dave Page
Nah, if it was a party political broadcast I’d have advocated at the very least a cut in VAT. Surely you’d agree with that? It was after all the Lib Dems who were warning everyone about the Tories “VAT Bombshell” at the last general election. (Now doesn’t that seem a long time ago)
“After good news from higher-than-expected growth figures today”
So George Osborne says, but most economists I’ve read today have made it clear that Q3’s 05% growth was fully expected for the sole reason that the Q2 figures were so dire. For the government to claim credit for today’s figures is a bit like a violent husband offering his wife a consoling arm after a beating. There is zero optimism in economic circles about Q4 and 2012, and our growth figures over the past year have been abysmal compared with many of our competitors.
Maria: Government investment need not just be in the public sector (see Nick Clegg’s announcement of yesterday). Also remember that it is of no benefit whatsoever to private sector workers if great swathes of the population are no longer able to buy their goods or services because they’ve lost their jobs. The private and public sectors complement each other – don’t be taken in by the Tories’ usual divide-and-rule garbage.
@Stuart Mitchell My comment applauded a move that would reward people in both public and private sectors (ie anyone who pays income tax).
I am unclear what course the 10 suggest we take. If they believe we can persuade our Conservative partners to adopt The Compass Plan then publishing a letter in The Guardian seems a really stupid way to do it. Otherwise its simply going along with The current Labour strategy of trying to get The Coalition partners fighting each other.
On the importance of The 10, only 4 seem to be 2010 PPCs, out of 626 nationally.
I think that a lot of the comments here have been are unfair. Compass doesn’t echo Labour policy, it tries to change Labour policy and its membership is currently open to both Lib Dems and Greens. I’ve always considered Compass to have a bit more in common with us than Labour, especially on issues like PR.
In regard to this “Plan B”, it did seem to echo a lot from our manifesto. For example, we were planning to invest heavily in the first year to secure growth and recovery and then cut where we could, adjusting our plan based on the health of the economy. After all, reduced tax receipts and increased benefit claimants is hardly the best method of deficit reduction.
Not sure I agree with the plan in it’s entirety (some of it seemed a little unrealistic) but I consider it to be closer to our ideal that Osbourne’s current approach.
As has been mentioned, the 0.5% growth isn’t much to write home about, particularly when the purchasing managers’ index dropped to an alarming 48 and when people like the chief economist at Deutsche Bank is predicting that the UK will indeed be back in recession before very long.
I don’t know if the Plan B really is the best way ahead, but I’m pretty sure that Osborne’s Plan A is certainly not, and that our much prized AAA rating will go west once the government sees spending outstripping the tax take, and more importantly, once the markets have seen it and start to react in a fairly predictable manner.
We’re on a knife edge, and simply carrying on with the current strategy, now it’s been proven to deliver low or minimal growth, seems completely illogical to me.
I must confess that I hadn’t heard about this “Compass Plan B” proposal, but following the link to the Observer website, there is a very good chance that it’s clearly bonkers.
Now, it may be that the Observer story has deliberately quoted the most “extreme” elements, but the 4 key aspects they quote are these:
• An immediate halt to cuts, to protect jobs in the public sector.
• A new round of quantitative easing to finance a “Green New Deal” to create thousands of new jobs.
• Benefit increases to put money into the pockets of those on lower and middle incomes and give a boost to spending.
• A financial transaction tax to raise funds from the City to pay for investment in transport, energy and house building.
Excluding Quantitatve Easing, on the basis that I don’t know anyone who can explain what it really is, all this is something far more financially irresponsible than Labour were or are proposing. Indeed I note that Ed Balls had an article in Monday’s London Evening Standard condemning a (non-worldwide) financial transaction tax under the heading “Don’t cripple the City – London can lead the recovery”.
Well, there has been a .smidgeon rudeness, has there not, boys and girls. All I would say is that the economy is of full of third order differential equations where the constants are not known. The sheer variability of confidence alone is enough to cripple any plan A,B or Z.
The problem, as I see it, with the growth obsessives, is that they generally appear to treat the UK economy as though it is in isolation. All the growth in the world does you no good if you continue to live off the back of other nations’ efforts. At some point, someone realises that they have to pull the plug on the ever-expanding line of credit they’ve given you on the vain hope that you’d start producing something worth buying off you. Think Greek. Then start multiplying.
@Daniel Henry “I think that a lot of the comments here have been are unfair. Compass doesn’t echo Labour policy”
Quite possibly. If the Observer has massively misreported something, it wouldn’t be the first time.
But as the authors of this letter link to the Observer article, rather than the Compass report, they can’t wriggle out of criticism by claiming the Observer article is wrong.
@Tony Dawson
Indeed.
Though I prefer to avoid a comparison with Greece. The UK is in a much better situation than Greece. However, we do have the largest deficit in the G8, we are very heavily dependent on the Eurozone, and we export far too little to the emerging markets. We wouldn’t go down in the way Greece might. But we could end up with substantially higher interest rates, with the additional deficit problems that would create as the government borrows more each year, and with the economic damage that higher interest rates would do to the UK economy. And that’s not allowing for the damage a second banking crisis could do to the City of London.
These 10 are economically illiterate, politically naive and fundamentally irrresponsible. A period of silence from Grayson and Jack is needed and the behaviour of Stephen Knight – who should know better – makes it very difficult for this Lib Dem to vote for the London list next year with his name so high up it.
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2011/11/economically-illiterate-politically.html
@ George
The letter’s wording was as follows: ” We write to express broad support for the Compass Plan B proposalsreported in the Observer
(30 October).”
Doesn’t the Observer article also cite Compass as the source of the report?
@Simon Shaw: “A new round of quantitative easing to finance a “Green New Deal” to create thousands of new jobs… Excluding Quantitatve Easing, on the basis that I don’t know anyone who can explain what it really is, all this is something far more financially irresponsible than Labour were or are proposing”
Firstly, to explain what it is, the Bank of England lends the Treasury money. Back in the old days it was called “Inflationary policy” but these days it’s called QE.
Creating money to re-capitalise the banks is extremely risky, but what Compass and these 10 rebel Lib Dems are proposing is far, far worse. They are proposing creating money to finance spending. That is absolutely the most dangerous thing that a government can do to the economy and will definitely crash our economy in ways reminiscent of the 1920s and 30s.
So while you are right that “this is something far more financially irresponsible than Labour were or are proposing”, it is in fact the bit about QE that we should be most afraid of.
“Liberal Democrats who still believe in the manifesto on which they last fought a general election should support them.”
Our manifesto set out nothing even close to the Compass Plan B which says reverse all the cuts (and the government is cutting £81bn when I think Labour proposed cutting £82bn), and magically create several billion pounds for a spending programme.
The latter is so bonkers that I am compelled to agree with Tom Papworth!
It also proposes cancelling all the PFI debt. Fine – but then what happens the next time you want a private company to undertake government work. Will there price include a hefty markup against the risk that a future Government randomly decides to chuck the entirity of contract law out the window. I bet it will.
Thanks for that, Tom.
A couple more observations:
1. Has anyone been able to access the original “Plan B”? I have tried repeatedly on the Compass website but it refuses to open. Perhaps it is being kept under wraps for ulterior motives. Has anyone had more success.
2. I’m interested to note that those friendly people on the Guardian say “The first signs of a grassroots revolt over Liberal Democrat support for the coalition’s deficit reduction plan has emerged ….” Well all I can say is that I have rarely seen more unanimity from Lib Dems on LDV than in the above 29 postings. The only grassroots revolt I can see is in response to 10 individuals who should have known better.
My article analysing Compass Plan-B and explaining why Lib Dems should most certainly not support it will be available on Wednesday morning to enjoy with your breakfast.
Link might help!
http://www.liberal-vision.org/2011/11/02/plan-b-is-crazy/
Ah yes, this was the “100 leading economists” story. When this first surfaced, somebody very rapidly pointed out that it was more like “100 rich people call for the government to change policy in a way that would make them all quite a lot richer without really doing anything for people on low incomes”.
I found that to be pretty convincing.
@Tom (the first one, not Tom Papworth) I actually agree with the gist of your post up until the point it becomes a rant against ‘SLFers’. The letter was signed by ten individuals, not the SLF. I am a supporter of the SLF and count myself as being on ‘the social liberal wing’ of the party, but I strongly disagree with this ‘Plan B’ as I indicated above.
I particularly agree with you that the idea of increasing benefits to people on middle incomes is wrong.
And by the way, the policy of increasing the income tax threshold has been consistently supported by social liberal members of the Federal Policy Committee, including during the period when the party leadership were against it, before then coming round to the idea in the run up to writing the manifesto last time round.
Perhaps Simon Shaw’s unanimity defines a group of economic liberals. Certainly George Osborne and Danny will be grateful for your loyalty. I’m with the ‘wannabe-slebs’
Many comments above jump to the conclusion that this is a post from the Social Liberal Forum, but this is not the case – it is what it says it is, from 10 Lib Dems.
The Social Liberal Forum DID NOT SIGN Plan B. While we are in broad sympathy with some of its intentions we do not feel that it is specific or rigorous enough. (Debating Plan B http://socialliberal.net/2011/11/01/debating-plan-b/ ) However, the fact that Plan B is not right does not make Plan A right by default – we need additional policy which allows the deficit to be cut sensibly while boosting growth and sustainability.
We are in the process of developing such policy, our own ‘Plan C’, and welcome additional constructive thinking to enhance this plan. There is no avoiding the fact that while the 0.5% growth in GDP was better than some expected, year-on-year figures are still sluggish and neutral commentators expect poorer Q4 figures. We must also focus on unemployment and under-employment.
Our economic problems need realistic, constructive and green solutions. The SLF intends to produce a positive, responsible plan to provide them.
On behalf of the Social Liberal Forum, I would like to make it clear that we do not support Plan B. Indeed, we have made this explicit on our website and Prateek Buch has highlighted a number of areas which we take issue with the proposal.
With that said, I respect the right of individual members to support it in a personal capacity, and welcome the debate. The idea that the economy will be fixed if people just stop talking about it out of a sense of deference to George Osborne is absurd – and one not shared even by government ministers as Vince Cable highlighted at conference.
The Social Liberal Forum is working on expanding the ideas for a “Plan C” which Prateek Buch initially kickstarted at our conference earlier in the summer. As a starting point we are not coming from the same place as “Plan B” in that we fundamentally disagree with the degree to which the stagnating economy can be put down to government action. But that is not the same thing as calling for business as usual.
James Graham
Head of Political Strategy, Social Liberal Forum
It’s good news that the SLF do not support Plan B. But James Graham raises an important point. He says :
“I respect the right of individual members to support it in a personal capacity” . Quite, but Stephen Knight has specifcially stated he is supporting it in his capacity as Number 2 on the London Assembly list.
Should he be able to support a plan in direct opposition to that which our Parrty is supporting in the Coalition in his capacity as a high profile candidate?
@Liberal Neil “by the way, the policy of increasing the income tax threshold has been consistently supported by social liberal members of the Federal Policy Committee, including during the period when the party leadership were against it, before then coming round to the idea in the run up to writing the manifesto last time round.”
All credit to those who pushed the party to propose raising the income tax theshold. For decades, the political debate about tax cuts has focussed on cutting the basic rate, while the threshold has failed to keep up with average earnings. As a result of this proposal being in the Lib Dem manifesto, and then in the coalition agreement, that debate has totally changed.
Most Conservatives are now solidly behind the policy. Labour have stopped opposing it. I suspect it won’t be long before they support it.
That is a massive political achievement. So, to all those, from the Social Liberal Forum and elsewhere, who made this happen:
Take a bow.
@James Graham “we (the SLF) fundamentally disagree with the degree to which the stagnating economy can be put down to government action”
Good to hear it. What angers me is hyperbole which seems aimed at whipping up anger at the very idea of a deficit reduction programme, by pretending that there is a painless alternative.
When you listen to the detail of what Ed Balls says, he can be quite nuanced. But what angers me is that his soundbites seem intended to do the same. And that is dishonest, and utterly irresponsible.
But we do need to debate the deficit reduction strategy. We are a broad church, and members need to feel free to disagree with the government, and to debate this very difficult issue. I look forward to reading your proposals.
I’ll reserve judgement about Compass’s Plan B but it is surely crystal-clear that Plan A is not working and the government is thrashing madly about trying to find groups to blame for that- it’s the unions, it’s the EU, it’s planners, and (most frequently) it’s the last government.
I think the Liberal Democrats who signed this letter deserve credit for wishing to have a debate about economic strategy, rather than peddling the TINA line, and I’m surprised that some members of this forum wish to close down the discussion – doesn’t sound very “liberal” to me.
@BrianD
“Perhaps Simon Shaw’s unanimity defines a group of economic liberals. Certainly George Osborne and Danny will be grateful for your loyalty. I’m with the ‘wannabe-slebs’ ”
No, it defines a varied group of Lib Dems who have mostly chosen not to hide behind pseudonums (as you have) and who rather undermine the Guardian’s ill-informed comments.
I dare say 98% of Lib Dems will be grateful for loyalty, but it’s not about loyalty. It’s about Compass’s Plan B being seriously deranged.
@John
“I’ll reserve judgement about Compass’s Plan B but it is surely crystal-clear that Plan A is not working and the government is thrashing madly about trying to find groups to blame for that- it’s the unions, it’s the EU, it’s planners, and (most frequently) it’s the last government.”
Another anonymous poster! It’s really quite fascinating how anonymity seems to encourage people to make unfounded accusations.
When, exactly did the Government blame the following for the deficit:
• the unions?
• the EU?
• the planners (??!!??)?
The only one you were right on was blaming the last government. Just remember it was they who left office spending money at the rate of £150,000,000,000 a year more than was coming in by way of tax. That meant that evry 12 months that went by there was another £2,500 owed in National Debt for every man, woman and child in the country.
The cuts are appalling – it’s simply that we should never have got into this situation in the first place. And Labour must take the responsibility for that.
As for your ludicrous comment “I think the Liberal Democrats who signed this letter deserve credit for wishing to have a debate”, they aren’t calling for a debate. They specifically say that they support the Compass Plan B proposals.
@Simon McGrath – ‘our Party’ doesn’t necessarily sign up to everything the coalition government does. On tuition fees, for example, our party’s view and the coalition government’s policy are different, the same goes for nuclear power.
And even if it was the same thing, we have always allowed individual members, at whatever level, to disagree with party policy.
@John – we don’t really know whether ‘Plan A’ is working or not, because we don’t know what position we would be in if the Government had taken a different course.
What we do know is that other countries that have taken a different approach aren’t seeing dramatically different outcomes, and some are seeing far worse, at this stage, than we are.
A quarterly growth rate of 0.5%, if that is how it turns out, is not far off the average we’ve seen in the UK over the past 50 years, so things could be worse.
My view is that the wider factors that have contributed to the situation in which we and most western countires find themselves are far greater than those factors that are within the control of our own government.
If we follow that line of reasoning then can the government ever be wrong? We know the plan A isn’t working because it had a set of goals on unemployment, growth and borrowing all of which have been missed by a mile. The balance of probabilities is surely that those who called for a slower, more responsible and equitable programme of cuts last year (incl the lib dems up till May) were right. Even the IMF are calling on countries with a stable debt position to consider moderating their austerity packages. We need to steer a course between the Scylla of a cuts induced death spiral and the Charybdis of loss of market confidence in our ability to service our debt. At the moment we seem perilously close to death spiral and when the storms from Europe start to hit things can only get worse. Just shouting down anyone who disagrees with Osborne may have worked last year but it’s time to start seriously considering alternatives.
@Simon “Quite, but Stephen Knight has specifcially stated he is supporting it in his capacity as Number 2 on the London Assembly list. ”
Actually the people who run the GLA are not responsible for the economic policy of the government, so that is irrelevant.
I know we are a broad church, but I am really struggling with the mindset of people who think the best way to get changes to government and or Lib Dem policy is to write letters to the Observer in support of what is basically Labour party policy. Sometimes people’s egos appear to be rather too large. Even if I thought they were right, this would not be a good way to behave. As it is, I was not a supporter of Osborne’s Plan A, but am now partially converted, on the grounds that our economy does appear to be in slightly better shape than some of our neighbours. I would not put myself on the right wing of the party, and I spend my days fighting the Tories locally. I am thoroughly pee’d off by all this nonsense.
@Liberal neil “And even if it was the same thing, we have always allowed individual members, at whatever level, to disagree with party policy.”
Indeed, within reason that is the case. But Knight is not signing the letter as an individual party member. he is signing it as a candioate for the Assembly and Number 2 on our list.
@Geoffrey Payne “Actually the people who run the GLA are not responsible for the economic policy of the government, so that is irrelevant.”
Is it your view then that as long as it is not an area specifically within the competence of the GLA our candidates can in their offical capacity say what they like? Withdrawal from the EU? Return of Capital Punishment ? Abolition of Race Discrimination laws?
When candidates are interveiwed for approval for the Assembly they are asked if there were any areas of party policy they had substantive disagreement with. This is not restricted to the areas covred by the GLA.
@Prue Bray
“I know we are a broad church, but I am really struggling with the mindset of people who think the best way to get changes to government and or Lib Dem policy is to write letters to the Observer in support of what is basically Labour party policy.”
I don’t want to appear to be defending the Labour Party, Prue, but you are wrong in saying that Compass’s Plan B is “basically Labour party policy”. It’s far, far more extreme than what the Labour Party has been advocating.
I would estimate that the “distance” between Compass’s Plan B and the Labour Party position is 3 or 4 times that beween Labour and the Coalition Government.
That’s why the actions of these 10 individuals is so regrettable.
Liberal Neil says rightly that ‘we have always allowed individual members, at whatever level, to disagree with party policy.’ But at the same time we have always asked our elected members of the party publically agree with the settled line of the party – particularly on budget issues which are considered matters of confidence.
Sadly Stephen Knight has crossed the line from sensible disagreement to in effect saying ‘vote for me – I have no confidence in the Lib Dems or their economic policy’ and like Simon McGrath I don’t think he can any longer with a clear conscience represent the party’ with views so divergent on the defining issue of the moment.
@Simon McGrath – we have MPs who have voted against the parliamentary party position on an EU referendum and against the party’s position on gay rights, amongst many other issues. I think a GLA list candidate speaking out against the coailtion’s economic policy is no more serious than those examples.
@Dan F – Has the party (as distinct from the coalition government) actually debated and/or agreed our position on economic policy since the election? I may be wrong, but I’m not aware of it. If we did I’m sure there would be a range of opinions expressed, including some quite senior people who would disagree with the government.
I reiterate – I think the coalition strategy is as good as anything on offer, and that this Compass plan, along with whatever fudge Labour could come up with, are completely wrong, but I also think individuals within our party have the right to take an alternative view.
“a bunch of self-important party wannabe-slebs”, “absurd”, “clearly bonkers”, “people’s egos appear to be rather too large”, “as for your ludicrous comment”, etc etc
Theresa May, your prayers are answered. The Tories are no longer leading in the Be The Nasty Party contest!