LibLink: Long reach of the Laws

David Laws may have resigned from the Coalition’s cabinet two years ago, but (after an initial period of wondering whether to quit politics altogether) his influence hasn’t actually waned much. His interests range across economic and social policy: though he was the party’s education spokesman in opposition, he was a natural fit as chief secretary to the treasury in government, however briefly. He is widely expected to make a return to government at the next reshuffle, and has given a number of media interviews in the past few weeks.

He spoke to the Telegraph (the paper whose revelations brought him down) last month, controversially proposing to lower state spending to 35% of GDP. Last week, The Independent interviewed him, and he used the opportunity to reject party critics’ claim that he’s simply a Tory-in-disguise:

“I am not a Tory because I am a small ‘l’ liberal. Which means liberal economically – which I think most Conservatives are – but also liberal in terms of personal life … most importantly, a social as well as economic liberal, believing that the state has to intervene to ensure not only protection for people in the bottom of society, but that there are strong ladders for those people to do better and improve themselves.”

He hammers home the differences. Where Tories promised inheritance tax cuts for millionaires, Lib Dems wanted the low paid to be lifted out of income tax. The right’s assertion that free-market economics automatically lead to more socially mobile societies has failed. “We are in danger, in Western nations, of getting a sort of caste-like society where it’s actually more difficult than it was a number of decades ago for people who are born into disadvantaged backgrounds and households to do well in life. We have got to challenge [that] even in these tough economic times.”

And this week, he’s the cover star of The House magazine, interviewed by Sam Macrory. Here’s a couple of excerpts…

Laws on the Coalition:

Not surprisingly, he is concerned by the rows over reforming the House of Lords. “This is an important part of the coalition agreement. It wasn’t actually a controversial part of the coalition agreement – it’s something, by my recollection, that we agreed in a few minutes of discussion”, recalls Laws, a negotiator in the coalition talks. “I think it’s very important in terms of honouring the coalition agreement and both parties so far have signed up and delivered all of the aspects of the coalition agreement and it’s therefore really important we continue to do that.” … He rejects the idea of withdrawing Lib Dem ministers before the election. “That would look pretty unconvincing to the public… Are they really going to have a different view of the Lib Dems and think of us as a more independent party just because we sort of bailed out of the plane just before it comes into land? I kind of doubt it.”

Laws on party funding reform:

Laws admits there have been “ups and downs” during cross-party talks, but is “optimistic” that an agreement will be struck. “We’d hope that we might be able to complete that by round about now. I suspect it might take a little bit longer than that, but I think the case for reforming party funding is still very, very strong. When I consider those issues and compare them with over challenges like getting party agreement on Lords reform, this feels like the kind of thing that a few sensible people ought to be able to figure out in a dark room in a matter of hours. … I don’t think the public would understand if we said, you know, there’s this great big challenge, it is really important to clean up party funding, we all said that we would do that in our manifestos, now we’re sort of agreeing something and not doing anything about it.”

Laws on the economy and ‘Plan A’:

“When people talk about the government’s economic strategy and sticking with Plan A, they’re right. That’s exactly what we need to do, but Plan A was not just a plan to control public expenditure tightly and to cut real public spending, Plan A was also a plan that relied upon growth”, Laws argues, before hinting that Plan A needs a tweak or two.“It’s clear that there needs to be more action on monetary policy, more radical both in terms of scale and in terms of the radical nature of those monetary interventions, and the government needs to keep on doing what it is already doing which is to look at other ways which it can boost investment spending.”

So if not a Plan B, then is this a Plan A+? Laws resists the suggestion. “I kind of hesitate to invent an alphabet soup of different options for the economy. To me it’s not A+, B, B- or C, it is Plan A. Plan A is a plan for spending control and growth. The spending control bit is coming in absolutely fine, so we need to just go on delivering that. The growth bit is more challenging, almost solely because of the situation in the eurozone and so we and the Bank of England need to take more aggressive action to deliver plan A.”

Laws on returning to government:

Laws smiles. “I’m using the Winston Churchill response. Commenting on invitations that haven’t been made, accepting or rejecting them, is bad manners”.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.
Advert

8 Comments

  • Tony Greaves 15th Jul '12 - 12:26am

    I am sorry to say that if Laws returns to the Government, it will be a depressing signal that the powers that be in the party have learned nothing and are ploughing on to electoral disaster at the next General Election.

    Tony Greaves

  • If anyone claiming benefits had used the excuse Laws did they would still have gone to prison.

  • Bill le Breton 15th Jul '12 - 8:17am

    Stephen writes: ‘Laws argues, before hinting that Plan A needs a tweak or two. “It’s clear that there needs to be more action on monetary policy, more radical both in terms of scale and in terms of the radical nature of those monetary interventions, and the government needs to keep on doing what it is already doing which is to look at other ways which it can boost investment spending.”’

    If this means NGDP targeting, level targeting, I will forgive him much else. But it is interesting that Mark reports that Nick Clegg at SLF conference said, “nick_clegg attacks impact of inflation on poorest” . Mark suggests that he is ‘Obv not won over by Nick Crafts/CentreForum argument for higher inflation.’

    If Laws is advocating monetary easing directed at achieving a (say) 5% growth in Nominal Gross Domestic Product, I hope he manages to convince his Leader. The present policy has delivered two years of zero growth.

    What is worse for the poor – years more of this stagnation with non-existent job-creation, accompanied by the concomitant attacks on welfare, or a short period of 4% inflation to get people spending and firms investing?

    Clegg is parroting the Central Bankers line that faced with anaemic aggregate demand, cutting inflation to 0 – 1% means people ‘will have more money to spend’. If that were true, why isn’t Japan growing … or American (which has had an average of 1% a year for the last four years)?

  • ………………………………………….He rejects the idea of withdrawing Lib Dem ministers before the election. “That would look pretty unconvincing to the public… Are they really going to have a different view of the Lib Dems and think of us as a more independent party just because we sort of bailed out of the plane just before it comes into land? I kind of doubt it.”………………………….

    We have had two years as co-pilots of the most ‘Conservative’ government since Thatcher and we’ve achieved what?

    We have not just voted for policies contrary to our promises (before someone tells me how we ‘improved’ the NHS bill remember our leadership voted for the unamended bill before election setbacks gave them pause) but actively defended them ( the only time Danny Alexander wasn’t on TV was over the fuel duty fiasco). We lost our ‘moral parachutes’ by abstaining over Hunt.

    ‘Bailing out’? Where can our current leadership go?

  • Matthew Huntbach 18th Jul '12 - 11:41am


    “I am not a Tory because I am a small ‘l’ liberal. Which means liberal economically

    It has become crystal clear that the sort of economics which Laws fervently supports does NOT lead to freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity. Rather, it is one of the main driving forces making most people ever more enslaved by these. It would be nice of Laws had the decency to admit that his interpretation of “liberalism” is not one shared by all who use that word, and indeed was explicitly rejected by the Liberal Party when it adopted the slogan “none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity” rather than “none shall be enslaved by taxation and the ballot box”.

    The current Conservative Party came into being by absorbing the right-wing aspects of the old Liberal Party. It is the natural home for people like David Laws. Why can’t he do the decent thing, admit that, and go to where he belongs?

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Jeff
    They are worried that lower standard and cheap meat from New Zealand could flood the UK markets and leave the British and Welsh farming industry unable to co...
  • Joe Bourke
    Peter Martin, the purpose of bank's reserve accounts at the BofE are to facilitate inter-bank clearing and settlement of sterling payments by ensuring there ...
  • Katerina Porter
    This is another thing that is important...
  • GWYN Williams
    The EU does allow a quota of 114,185 tonnes of tariff free sheepmeat from New Zealand every year. It is only exports over that level which attract an ad valorem...
  • Katerina porter
    One could call this murder !!!!!...