Rummaging through some papers at the weekend I came across my Election Address from May’s General Election. I was the Liberal Democrat candidate in Plymouth Moor View.
Conditioned after months of the media drip feed about how Lib Dems had stabbed every conceivable group in the back, I steeled myself to read the list of broken promises I had made to the good people of my home city.
Well, first of all, on the front of my Election Address, I promised fairer taxes that put money back in your pocket. I went into specifics, stating that “you will pay no tax on the first £10,000 you earn”.
Hmm, I thought. We are introducing that. It made it into the Coalition Agreement, it was reiterated as a policy goal by the Chancellor in his Budget in June, and the first £1,000 jump in the personal allowance takes place next April. Further advances towards the £10,000 allowance will be made in this Parliament.
Inside, I promised to “protect frontline NHS services”. Well, the Coalition Agreement commits the Government to above-inflation rises in NHS spending in each year of this Parliament. Indeed, October’s Spending Review announcement set out each year’s above-inflation rise right through to 2015.
The promises continued. The Lib Dems would “put more police on patrol, restore the pensions’ earnings link and deliver fair pay for the armed forces.” On pensions, the link is restored; indeed, even better, we got our policy of the ‘triple guarantee’ into the Coalition Agreement, meaning the basic state pension will rise in line with earnings, prices or by 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest. That will kick in from next April.
On armed forces pay, the Coalition Agreement committed the Government to doubling the Operational Allowance, payable to personnel serving in Afghanistan. That doubling was backdated to polling day.
On police: yes, I am afraid it looks like we have not been able to implement that. That is unfortunate, and I feel that particularly as the son of a retired police officer. Given that we finished 269 seats short of an overall majority however, I hope it is understandable.
My Election Address also reminded voters that the Lib Dems had a plan “to balance the country’s books after the recession.” Well, the recession is over; we have had four consecutive quarters of growth, with the latest figures showing the economy growing twice as fast as experts predicted. With debt payments costing taxpayers the same in just one day as is spent on NHS maternity services in the South West in a whole eight months, it is time to honour that promise and balance the books.
I also made specifically personal commitments. Firstly, to speak up for Plymouth in Parliament after years in which per pupil spending on education and per resident spending on the police had slipped far below the England average. Secondly, I pledged to fight for a better deal for the armed forces.
Well, I didn’t win, so cannot speak up for Plymouth in Parliament. On the armed forces, in addition to the doubling of the Operational Allowance there is a whole swathe of commitments to our service personnel in the Coalition Agreement.
So, there we have it. Income tax cut for the poorest working people, the NHS budget protected, pensioners guaranteed healthy future pension increases, troops rewarded, the nation’s books being brought back into balance.
Of course we could have cast aside the opportunity of being a part of the first peacetime coalition in generations and guaranteed ourselves a permanent place in impotent opposition. Thankfully we didn’t. Our Government is now implementing the policies I promised to the people of Plymouth Moor View. Those Liberal Democrat votes cast for me are being honoured not betrayed by our MPs.
Stuart Bonar was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Plymouth Moor View in the 2010 General Election
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
49 Comments
So you didn’t say anything about tuition fees in your election leaflets then?
Did your election leaflets promise a regresive increase in VAT and dangerous experiments with NHS reorganisation and so-called “free schools”
“the NHS budget protected,”
Really? Why, then, are PCTs being forced to sack 40% of their managers by Christmas? Why was the Performance Reward Grant snatched away and the Area Based Grant cut by 24%?
Don’t worry. The LibDems didn’t win the election. So, all pre-election promises are off.
We’ve got a coalition. This means that The Conservatives do what they usually do (make cuts and look after the rich) and the LibDems cheerfully go along with it.
It’s all fair and progressive – we’re all in this together.
Stuart,
Given all the good things being delivered then, how do you feel about the fact that they are being overshadowed by the breaking of the signed personal pledges on tuititon fees?
@Stuart Bonar
Please stop. The endless attempts to find ways of justifying where we are is becoming counter productive. Rightly or (mainly) wrongly people see the recognisably Lib Dem coalition policies as secondary when set against Gove’s assault on the school system, tuition fees, too deep, too fast, too ideological cuts. We all look for finding ways to argue our cause but most voters are not going to buy an approach that say ‘this one is ours, those are not but that one is a bit of ours etc’. If the Coalition was build more consensually we could have said that we supported this perhaps more limited set of initiatives but at least they would have had wider popular supporter. Unfortunately we have become part of a rather right wing ideological crusade. Increasingly our task will become how we re-establish a credible, independent identity not how we prove the Coalition is orange (book) tinted.
Sesenco – PCT management is being reduced by 40% under plans agreed by the LABOUR government before May and had already started before the election. Cutting management in commissioning bureaucracies such as PCTs is not the same as cutting the overall NHS budget, which will rise under this government. These cuts, which have cross party approval, will free up more money for prevention and drugs. By going further and abolishing Strategic Health Authorities and transferring commissioning to GP clusters, the government is having the guts to continue this direction, instead of the half measures of the previous government.
PRGs and LAAs are not NHS funding streams, they are for Local Authorities.
Neil,
“By going further and abolishing Strategic Health Authorities and transferring commissioning to GP clusters, the government is having the guts to continue this direction, instead of the half measures of the previous government.”
What is likely to happen is that the commissioning will be transferred either to LAs or the private sector. In either case, that is where the sacked managers are likely to go. If they go to the private sector, they will be paid a lot more, so even less money for patients.
The reality is that Lansley, like most Tories, doesn’t believe in having a Health Service. He wants everyone who can afford it to purchase private health care, though he may be willing to maintain a safety net of sorts for those who can’t. Clegg, as a free market enthusiast, doubtless agrees.
BTW, who is going to monitor GP performance? GPs?
I suppose you are right in a way. It does take guts to stealth privatise the NHS.
Neil,
“PRGs and LAAs are not NHS funding streams, they are for Local Authorities.”
Factually incorrect. They are (or were) paid to Local Strategic Partnerships, which are partnership bodies comprised not just of LAs, but PCTs, the Police, Fire Brigade and sundry public sector agencies. Most of the PRG and ABG money is spent by bodies that are answerable, at least in part, to PCTs.
The Youth Service, Connexions, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Teams, etc, are all being hit. That won’t do much for the nation’s health, will it?
@Stuart Bonar
If people are so delighted with what your party has done so far perhaps you could explain why you are languishing at 14% in the latest ICM poll? Your lowest poll rating since the election that never was. Perhaps you could also explain why Labour are leading that poll? Couldn’t be anything to do with the fact that your most impressive achievement in government has been to act a s a Trojan Horse for the most oppressive Tory attack on the Welfare State since Thatcher? Oh yes, and your broken word over tuition fees. The increase in tuition fees is going to be for the Liberal Democrats what Iraq was for Labour: a ball and chain around your neck. The only way that you can extricate yourselves from it is for a huge number of your MPs to rebel and vote down any increase. But that’s as likely as your next election address getting you elected.
er … That’s your lowest ICM poll rating since the election that never was.
Below is a (random) list of projects funded, or considered for funding, by the Area Based Grant:-
“Life after Stroke” Family Support Service
End of Life Care
GP Dementia Liaison
DAAT Court Liaison
DAAT Outreach
Drugs and alcohol workforce development
Prevention of Teenage Pregnancy Programme
None of these is health related, obviously.
“By going further and abolishing Strategic Health Authorities and transferring commissioning to GP clusters, the government is having the guts to continue this direction, instead of the half measures of the previous government.”
You can argue all you like about whether that’s the right thing to do, but the fact remains that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the policy that the Lib Dems fought the election on a few months ago. That’s despite the fact that introducing elected representatives on to PCTs was actually in the coalition agreement. That Lib Dem policy has been _voluntarily_ abandoned by the party, despite the fact that the Tories had agreed to it!
No doubt some bit of sophistry has been thought up to explain that particular action, but if so I haven’t heard it yet. Obviously “we didn’t win the election,” “coalition involves compromise” and so on won’t do the job in this case. Maybe it’s “I didn’t realise how bad elections were until Andrew Lansley explained it to me.”
Did your election leaflets promise to end the universality of benefits? Did they promise to triple tuition fees?
Could you link to them so we can see what they promised in the round?
OK let’s look into this in a bit more details.
Education – You failed to mention the albatross so we can assume that like others you signed the pledge, enough words have been written on that.
Frontline NHS Services – The employment freeze at Derriford hospital seems to argue with protecting the NHS in Plymouth. The removal of PCT’s at a speed that even the College of GP’s (who will assume the bulk of the responsibilities) have stated is wrong. The dissapointment expressed this week by the Royal College of Midwives.
Tax – As the proportion of VAT to earning of the lowest earning sector of society is so high, and coupled with the punitive reductions in some welfare payments, I think the current rise in tax threshold is nothing to be proud of.
Pensions – Restoring the link to earnings. At last one I agree with!
Police – The coalition tactic of trying to blame chief constables for cutting fronline policing doesn’t seem to be going so well at the moment…..
Armed Forces – Finally the real betrayal of the government. As an ex royal Marine who lives in Plympton I have a bias here.
The rise in Operational Allowances – Good, but a Tory policy. The SDR was a financial measure dressed up as a defence review. Carriers with no aircraft. Nimrod cancellation, even though most of it’s predecessors work was with troops on the ground in Afghanistan and air sea rescue. Privatising Air Sea rescue (after Prince William leaves of course), the list goes on. Apparently the Army and Royal Marines protected (but the Marines are currently looking to reduce manning by 650).
But the most heinous thing that has been done to the armed forces in in pensions. Changing the index link to CPI will mostly affect those medically dishcharged and War Widows. These are the two groups whose pensions are index linked from day one. Both stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. Money to make life bearable, not a luxury.
Cameron and Cleggs answer was that tough decisions had to be made. As I have posted here previously try making some of the decisions (literally life and death ones) that our guys make everyday on operations. Try deciding how to tell your children that daddy / mummy is not coming home, ever. Try deciding whether to adapt your home or move to a bungalow as the lack of legs makes the stairs a bit hard.
Don’t profess that this coalition has done wonders for the forces, they have betrayed their injured and their widows. And in Plymouth you should be aware that this will be a major issue next election, even if most of the Country has forgotten.
I would advise you post a blank election leaflet through doors then it can be filled in later!
Stuart, try to argue against emotion with facts is never going to convince them. They have all decided the Lib Dems are a bunch of treacherous liars and that’s that. No chance of reason or discussion. Or the truth.
Just remember, the people who post on this site are small in number and I doubt if any of them live in Plymouth!
Best of luck to you, from one 2010 PPC to another!
I find those criticising Stuart do so too easily. The VAT increase was the elephant in the room for all three parties, all of which planned to impose it straight after the election because it was a neccessary minimum towards balancing the books. This was just one step of a massive ‘correction’ to Gordon Brown’s financial mess which any government would have to do. Unless everything that Labour was doing in 1997-2010 was deliberately wasteful the prospect of making this correction without serious pain was only for fairyland. Yet Labour critics attack every saving suggestion which has been made as though it was a proposal to cover Britain with bubonic plague, without giving a hint of which of these proposals they themselves are those which they themselves would have had to support (regardless of the ‘rate’ of deficit reduction adopted) because of Brown’s deficit.
The only serious criticism of the Coalition’s strategy being made would appear to be with regard to the distribution of cutbacks between various income groups etc. Bearing in mind we have spent 13 years under Labour where they have struggled hard (but succeeded!) to make the wealth distribution in the UK even worse than under Mrs Thatcher, and reduced net social housing availability to an all time low, it is more than a little cheeky for Labour to take pops at the Coalition on this issue, however it is, still, a genuine issue which requires addressing. The predictions of doom and gloom made by some commentators are just that, predictions – which we will not be able to determine the accuracy of for some years.
It is clear that some of the changes brought in by the Coalition are going to be redistributive but not clear, as yet, how these will be balanced by other measures which are less ‘fair’. One thing which cannot be denied is that even if you make cuts impinge evenly across the socio-economic strata then the poorest will still see their effective disposable funds reduce rather more than middle income earners will. Any Coalition which was prepared to really take this issue on would have to involve a major player which was Socialist. We haven’t had any socialist party in Britain for more than 15 years and there is not one such party functioning on the UK electoral scene right now so this is just not on the cards at all.
“The VAT increase was the elephant in the room for all three parties, all of which planned to impose it straight after the election because it was a neccessary minimum towards balancing the books.”
So when Nick Clegg said during the election campaign “Our plans do not require a rise in VAT,” he was actually planning to increase VAT immediately?
Is it any wonder that people think “the Lib Dems are a bunch of treacherous liars,” in MrsB’s words?
@Mrs B. I think you’ll find that I live in Plympton (suburb of Plymouth) and that I have included local facts in my response. If Stuart wishes to justify the SDR or the removal of the RPI link to War Widows and Service Invalidity pensions then I would be happy to see the facts to back this up. Search the BBC website for armed forces pensions and follow the accompaning links from there to both BBC and external sites you will see I am correct.
As for the major local hospital, Wards are not allowed to replace vacancies but are reduced to using temporary staff who will be less aware of SOP’s and practice within the ward. In tandem they have cut the rate paid to NHS Professionals (the agency who have a contract to provide temporary staff) meaning that many local agency workers are either worse off or instead work within the large local nursing home sector.
If Stuart wishes to talk to me directly I’ll be happy to meet up and chat, my office is in the Plymouth International Medical and Technology Park, I’m sure he’ll know where it is…
So not only do I not lie, but I live in Plymouth, enough for you? Perhaps in future you will insult specific people rather than use a generality….
@Tony Dawson
” Yet Labour critics attack every saving suggestion which has been made as though it was a proposal to cover Britain with bubonic plague, without giving a hint of which of these proposals they themselves are those which they themselves would have had to support (regardless of the ‘rate’ of deficit reduction adopted) because of Brown’s deficit.”
Firstly I’m no Labour apologist.
Secondly, I support cuts at the level the Lib Dems and Labour proposed. Therefore the level supported by over 50% of the Country.
As for specifics, there can be no two groups of people who deserve cuts less than those whose Husband or Wife have given their lives in service of this country or those who have been disabled to such an extent they can no longer remain in the armed forces (and that disability is directly attributable to their service).
I support sensible review of the welfare system, not rushed legislation. As a good example using properly qualified Occupational Health Physicians to carry out the capacity reviews. Even then you use the information gained to identify suitable employment before you remove the benefits.
I support reform of housing benefit, but would look to linking allowable rents to the localised mean rent, (not the meanest) and therefore removing the need for a false cap. Housing should be provide only in areas where there is a real link, i.e. family ties (to help the big society!) or where it is within reasonable distance of the claiments employment.
I support sensible review of the NHS, but not privatising commisioning. As a start try looking at the root causes of the high rates of sickness absence rather then punishing the symptoms.
I support the majority of the Policies I voted Lib Dem to support.
I do not support the stance taken by Lib Dem ministers in supporting legislation (and not only that in the coalition agreement) that is clearly ideologically right wing. And I cannot stand the complete inability of the likes of Nick Clegg and Vince Cable to give a straight and trueful answer.
I’m glad I read Stuart’s post because there was I thinking we had some sort of problem.
Far from it. Now all we have to do is continue what we’re doing and collect
a shed full of votes next May. I bet he also likes reading Alice in Wonderland.
@ Tony Dawson
“I find those criticising Stuart do so too easily. The VAT increase was the elephant in the room for all three parties, all of which planned to impose it …The only serious criticism being made would appear to be with regard to the distribution of cutbacks between various income groups etc.
…even if you make cuts impinge evenly across the socio-economic strata then the poorest will still see their effective disposable funds reduce rather more than middle income earners will. Any Coalition which was prepared to really take this issue on would have to involve a major player which was Socialist. We haven’t had any socialist party in Britain for more than 15 years and there is not one such party functioning on the UK electoral scene right now so this is just not on the cards at all.”
Well, first of all Tony, thanks for a relatively honest post, in which you concede that yes, inequality is a bit of an issue. It got worse under Thatcher; it went on getting worse under Blair and Brown; and now it is set to get worse still, thanks to the Coalition cuts programme. So what can be done about it? Nothing, apparently, unless we are prepared to bring back Arthur Scargill!
Well now, that is the kind of attitude which does eventually lead to the return of Scargillism, or more likely fascism. Because if the whole of the political establishment is in the pay of the rich and is at best unconcerned about the poor, then democracy has failed, and things will turn ugly. And OK, I do grant you that Lord Mandelson’s party is intensely relaxed about inequality.
Charles Kennedy’s answer was that Britain did not need three conservative parties. I am sure he would have pointed out that when a deficit has to be cut, justice can be done to the poor by not relying on cuts alone, and by adjusting the tax regime to bring in funds and balance the impact on rich and poor. Not really too difficult!
Nick Clegg’s answer, I fear, is that it is actually quite vital that Britain should have three conservative parties. Otherwise the Lib Dems might spoil the right-wing consensus and make trouble for the upper classes now running the Coalition. Of course, Lib Dem activists would never have voted for that kind of leadership. So Clegg ran a totally bland leadership campaign full of wide-eyed innocence and faux-naif optimism – pretty much like the way he campaigned at the subsequent General Election, in fact.
Where next? Well, what Clegg has to do now is to slim down the Lib Dems. Drive out the centre-left. Deliberately shed voters, so that our activists start to despair of the party’s prospects on its own. Cement the coalition as a permanent feature by declaring that the Tories are good at it and that Labour could never do it. Prepare to fight 2015 as a wing of the Greater Conservative Party, while denying that aim. Declare that objective measures of inequality are wrong, and that it is vital to judge such issues on the basis of unverifiable criteria such as the level of “fear of crime”. It’s all been said here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/inequality-injustice-nick-clegg
“when Nick Clegg said during the election campaign “Our plans do not require a rise in VAT,”
That press release was specifically about Lib Dem tax cut plans which, UNLIKE THE TORY PROPOSALS did NOT require VAT rises to pay for them.. They did not require such rises. What the VAT rises which everybody was bound to bring in were for was for the deficit reduction. Something completely different. Since you have an armory of quotations I’m sure you have the Vince Cable quote from the time which made clear that VAT rises were not ruled out.
@Tony Dawson
““when Nick Clegg said during the election campaign “Our plans do not require a rise in VAT,”
That press release was specifically about Lib Dem tax cut plans which, UNLIKE THE TORY PROPOSALS did NOT require VAT rises to pay for them.. They did not require such rises. What the VAT rises which everybody was bound to bring in were for was for the deficit reduction”
That’s the worse kind of spin, and is exactly the reason why people are getting so annoyed at politicians. It is certainly not the new open and honest way of doing politics that Nick Clegg promised.
You can’t surly think it is right to say to the electorate:
We will abolish Tuition Fee’s and our fully costed plans do not require a rise in VAT
Then Increase VAT and say this is to pay down the deficit and has nothing to do with the tuition fee’s
LMAO that is absurd, My god, and people wonder why Liberal Democrats are having such a hard time and facing credibility problems
@Stuart Bonar
Thanks.
Your post is a useful reminder that, although tuition fees has been a huge political issue over the last couple of week.
During the election, for many voters it was just one of many issues. And in your case, didn’t merit special mention in your Election Address.
@matt
What you (and others) conveniently forget is that Vince Cable specifically declined to rule out an increase in VAT on BBC1’s Politics Show over 3 weeks before the election.
On the 11 April Politics Show, the BBC’s Jon Sopel asked Vince “Would you rule out raising VAT?”
Vince’s reply was “No, I don’t.”
Tony
What you’re suggesting is quite untrue. Clegg and Cable both said quite clearly during the election campaign that they had no plans to raise VAT. Cable claims that he changed his mind only when the ORB revised its estimate of the structural deficit after the election:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-why-the-vat-rise-had-to-happen-20039.html
If there was a secret plan by the Lib Dems to raise VAT, then both Clegg and Cable were lying during the campaign, and have continued to lie about it since then.
Nick (not Clegg)
“Did your election leaflets promise a regresive increase in VAT”
In fact the IFS has confirmed that the increase in VAT is “mildly” progressive, rather than regressive as you claim.
Simon
If you read the discussion above, you’ll see that Tony is suggesting that the Lib Dems always planned to raise VAT. Obviously that is quite different from having no plans to raise it, but refusing to rule it the possibility.
Simon
Careful! Don’t forget the IFS is now officially a purveyor of “distorted nonsense” (according to N. Clegg)…
I hate that word progressive.
Besides, my economics teacher taught me that an increase in VAT was regressive, not progressive.
Mind you, that was when Geoffrey Howe increased it, not this Coalition. So perhaps interpretation has changed since then!
“that is quite different from having no plans to raise it, ” The Lib Dems never said they had ‘ no plans to raise VAT’ – they said they had no need to raise VAT to pay for their tax reduction policy. Please keep up. But recognise, also, that there has been no cross-the board increase in VAT. The more regressive element of VAT (the lower rate, on domestic fuel) has not been raised at all. The impact of ‘Standard’ VAT on households depends on their spending patterns. Someone who is on low income busily running up 30k on a credit card debt, intending to go bankrupt, is likely to be spending a lot on ‘Standard VATable’ goods/services while someone equally poor, or poorer, probably spends virtually nothing on such stuff because they cannot afford to spend anything other than on fuel and the non-VATable essentials.
Tony
“The Lib Dems never said they had ‘ no plans to raise VAT’”
If you follow the link I provided, you will see that Vince Cable wrote this:
“Through the election campaign, all three prospective Chancellors were asked about VAT, and we all answered in exactly the same way: we have no plans to raise it, but we cannot rule it out.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-why-the-vat-rise-had-to-happen-20039.html
Well I am not a Lib Dem. But I do have the election leaflet from my local candidate in West Yorkshire. And it says lots of the same embarrassing stuff yours does, as well as promising to make Britain Greener, smaller class sizes, investment in public transport etc. So many broken promises. But worse the whole thos of the Lib Dems has been blown away. The old role of the Lib Dems at national level, as radical outsiders, is gone as they are now supporting a party of very wealthy politicians involved in reducing the state and redistributing wealth, only not in a good way. The fact you have a public school educated orange booker doing this is only helping the rest of us believe you have become a natural ally of the tories. You probably won’t believe me, a labour party member saying that i miss the old lib dems – but i do. But you can take it for granted that it will be a very long time before any substantial portion of the electorate believes anything that appears on a Lib Dem leaflet again. And worse i am not sure there is anything you can do about it. If things get better Tories get the credit and you get stuffed. If things get worse….well you get the picture.
thos = ethos – sorry
@Simon Shaw
“@matt
What you (and others) conveniently forget is that Vince Cable specifically declined to rule out an increase in VAT on BBC1’s Politics Show over 3 weeks before the election.”
Are there you are Simon, I wondered when you would pop your head up, you have been awfully quiet the last week, hope you have been well 😉
anyway my response to Tony Dawson was because
he seemed to suggest that it is “acceptable” for the Liberal Democrats to say before the election, that their plans to abolish tuition fee’s is fully costed and does not require a rise in VAT.
But then raise VAT, and say that this is to pay for deficit reduction and not pay for tuition fee’s.
My point was, that is the worst case of spinning I have heard on here to date.
You do not cost each individual policy by saying you will pay for that “solely” by raising this tax or “cutting” that budget, it is costed by the overall tax increases and budget cuts. And it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
BTW I am not saying Labour would not have raised VAT either.
I am saying it is wrong for “any” party to spin like this,
Sesenco – LAAs and ARGs are not NHS funding streams. Any cut in virtually any area of government expenditure could be argued to have had an impact on peoples health. But the NHS funding is not being cut. What would you do? Carry on spending.
@Cab, @Nick (not Clegg) & @Cuse – No, I did not mention any of those things; follow the link if you want to see the Election Address itself.
@Sesenco – You make a number of points. First: perhaps I am eccentric, but I measure the size of the NHS budget by the amount of money that is spent, not by the number of managers employed by Primary Care Trusts. You believe that Lansley and Clegg don’t believe in the NHS and that they want to push people into private healthcare… I am not even going to bother arguing with that silly assertion. On GPs, they will be monitored by the NHS Commissioning Board, the Care Quality Commission and, I think, Monitor. You also list a number of projects that you say are being cut; again, that does not undermine the fact that the NHS budget will rise above inflation each year.
@Leviticus18_23 – You seem to mock me for arguing that Lib Dems policies have been dropped because we didn’t win and are in coalition; the problem with your attempt at humour is that I do not make that argument, in fact the whole thrust of my piece is the opposite – that our policies as promised are being delivered.
@Lonely Wonderer – I think it’s unfortunate, but inevitable, I guess – a policy dropped is more newsworthy than a policy implemented. Lib Dems like me are just going to have to get used to the realities of government.
@AlexKN – I do apologise for exposing you to ideas and thoughts that differ from your worldview. If you are a liberal however you should welcome diversity of opinion, not ask we to “please stop.”
@MacK – Where do I argue that the Lib Dems are particularly popular at the moment? I make a completely different point – that despite all the negative publicity (no doubt depressing the poll rating) we are in fact delivering on many of our policies.
@Steve Way – You make a number of points but not ones that contradict my article. On Operational Allowances, yes, this was a Tory policy; given however that the Tories won 306 seats and the Lib Dems won 57, do you not think they are entitled to implement any of theirs? If a Lib Dem end (treating the armed forces better) can be met by Tory means (doubling the Operational Allowance), how is that somehow not valid? My Election Address promised to “deliver fair pay for the armed forces”; doubling the Operational Allowance helps achieve that.
@Anne – No, I’d prefer to do what I did do, which is to deliver a series of promises and then get almost all of them delivered by Liberal Democrats in Government.
@MrsB – Thank you! I just thought that some of the naysayers inhabiting this site of late could do with a healthy dose of facts and reality rather than just the output of the blogospheric echo chamber in which I suspect they spend too much time.
@Tony Dawson – Thank you for a more thoughtful critique. We could do with more of this kind of comment – challenging, yet reasoned. On your middle paragraph, can I point you towards Nick’s Hugo Young Lecture from last night (the text is on the party website); in it Nick argues that there is more to arguments about fairness, equality and so on than just income changes – what about the effect of the pupil premium on pushing more money towards educating children from poorer backgrounds, for example? He makes a fair point.
@Emsworthian – Yes, far better we stay permanently in opposition and never hold any power at all. That way we will never have to cope with disgruntled voters or the burdens of real-life government. I joined a political party, not a pressure group. Apologies if I do not, like others, adopt the Corporal Jones approach to politics.
@George Kendall – Thanks for the positive comment. Many commenters seem to think my article argued that all in the garden is rosy, which it didn’t; my argument is simply that we are in reality implementing many of the policies we argued for (something that too many overlook) and that is surely what political parties are here to do.
@David Clayton – It is perhaps a tad unfair to consider that I am bound by whatever a candidate in your Yorkshire constituency put into his leaflets. My Election Address is linked to in the article and it is, with one exception, being implemented by this Government. BTW, you shouldn’t judge someone because of the school they went to (and I say this, as I suspect it’s important to you, as an ex-state school pupil).
And on the comments on VAT, nowhere in my Election Address do I mention VAT and it was never raised with my on the doorstep; thanks however to @Simon Shaw for pointing out that the IFS has judged it mildly progressive – I didn’t know that – and to @Philip Rolle, with the greatest of respect to your economics teachers, perhaps the IFS is better placed to judge.
Thanks for all the comments, by the way, even the ones with which I have been rather combative. I’m pleased my piece generated so many responses.
“to @Philip Rolle, with the greatest of respect to your economics teachers, perhaps the IFS is better placed to judge”
Oh dear. I’m afraid you must have missed the announcement from MiniLuv:
“LibDemania is at war with the IFS, LibDemania has always been at war with the IFS.”
@Stuart Bonar
Firstly thanks for taking the time to check back and answer peoples points.
You do not answer my main point regarding the Armed Forces. Whatever the swath of measures are, they do not make up for the change in Widows and disabled ex-servicemens pensions. This has happened while Lib Dems are in Government and has barely been acknowledged.
There are positives, but if people feel betrayed (and I cannot view these measures as anything short of betrayal) then these will be lost. Most of my circle of friends areserving or ex members of the armed forces and they do not feel supported by the SDR.
On the NHS, it is the front line at Derriford that is suffering, so I’m afraid this does contradict your article.
This is not personal, unless like some in your party you had already changed your mind on the manifesto (which I assume you fully supported), you are no doubt a dedicated man seeking public service by honestly publishing your views and plans. However, I would expect the party I voted for to vocalise opposition to measures that harm service personnel or their dependants or those that do not really protect the NHS.
I note you state to another poster that you did not mention VAT. As someone who stood for a party whose leader was photographed under a pretty big sign about Tory VAT bombshell I would say that was taken out of your hands.
Coalition does have a price but silence is not part of it.
@ Stuart Bonar
Thank you for your response. Of course I realise that you weren’t arguing that the Lib Dems are popular! How could you? I was simply suggesting that if people were so pleased with the way your party had fulfilled its promises then your party would not be at such a low level in the polls. Clearly you are in denial. Your proposition seems to be that fulfilling a fair number of small, marginal promises vindicates the breaking of huge central promises.
@MacK and @Steve Way – thanks for the additional comments.
@MacK – You refer to “small, marginal promises” kept. Abolishing income tax for nearly a million of the lowest paid people, as a first step towards a tax-free £10,000 personal allowance is not a small, marginal achievement, neither is the new ‘triple guarantee’ for the basic state pension – to give you two examples.
On your wider point, I’d invite you to re-read my post. Where do I say people are so pleased with the Lib Dems? Surely my argument is that the achievements are going unnoticed (even by a former candidate such as myself). You are accusing me of arguing things that I am just not arguing.
@Steve Way – Thanks for your response. I hope you don’t feel I was too flippant with my earlier reply. I was trying to respond to all or almost all the many comments made, which meant I couldn’t commit to much time to each.
On the Armed Forces, I would say that I probably have a lot of sympathy with your position. My father and brother were both in the military, and my brother-in-law and niece are serving right now; my brother was in Iraq back in 1991, my niece was there more recently, and my brother-in-law served in Afghanistan. As I stated in my post, I pledged in my Electoral Address to speak up for the Armed Forces, and would have done so, on a whole range of issues – housing, healthcare, pay, pensions, equipment, and so on.
On the specific issue of the pension I am personally sceptical of the need for such a fundamental review of public sector pensions; the NHS pension actually pays an annual £2bn surplus into the Treasury each year, for example. And I think that the real issue for pensions is not to cut back on public sector provision, but rebuild private sector provision. That is a personal position however.
On the defence review, there have had to be cutbacks. We are currently having to spend £44,000,000,000 per year (that’s £5m every hour of every day) on just the interest on our debt; believe it or not, that’s 10% more than we spend on defence. If we don’t get that under control the money left to spend on defence, or education, or health, or whatever gets less and less and less because we cannot choose not to pay the interest.
I don’t take pleasure in accepting the need to cut back, especially on defence. I grew up in Plymouth (a city, as you know, with deep links to the military) and my family lives in Plymouth, generations of my family have served in our Armed Forces, defence is an issue that is important to me. But we to bite the bullet. We have been living beyond our means for years, going back well before the problems with the banks.
On the NHS, I don’t know the inner workings of the local trust, but the NHS budget is rising and will continue to rise for years over & above inflation. The Coalition’s plans for health aim to ensure that providers get rewarded for delivering good care at the frontline; those reforms are not yet being implementing, hopefully they will work. Maybe the trust needs to look more closely at where it is spending its money; the Government cannot be held responsible for every last manager’s decisions.
On VAT, I am not saying that the Coalition Government is implementing every Lib Dem manifesto promise. The point of my piece was to point out that I read everywhere that the Lib Dems have trashed their manifesto and ditched every last policy, but when I re-read my personal Election Address, sent by me to electors in the contituency in which I stood, I was pleasantly surprised by how many policies are being implemented by the Coalition. As a member of a party that has not held government office since the Second World War, I am pleased that finally we are able to do that; the alternative is to remain in opposition, with a perfect policy platform… destined never to be implemented.
@Stuart
Can I say thank you again for your response. It was honest and straightforward, everything that has been missing from the leadership of late. They need to start letting the public know where they are sceptical of coalition plans. there is no shame in saying this is not one of our red lines, we don’t agree with it, but will allow it. That’s the price of coalition and would be accepted by everyone here who truly voted Lib Dem (it was the best we could realistically hope for).
There is a huge lesson for the party moving forwards, they need to have clear red lines before an election. Set out those policies that are aspirational – those to be delivered if finding themselves in a strong position, but also clearly define where the extent is.
In my opinion Tuition fees should have been one of these due to the pledge, as should the speed of cuts. Those two points were setup as trust issues by the leadership in the debates, and by the type of campainging materials they used. Stepping back is likely to cost them dear.
Thanks again for taking time to respond.
@Steve Way – And thanks to you for making reasoned and constructive comments. I agree with you, and I think it’ll be a lesson for all parties for the next election, not just the Lib Dems. In fairness though my party did have certain priority policies – take a look at the four coloured boxes in our manifesto (I think they were on the cover of it) at http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_2010_intro.pdf – and these were ones I was promoting as a candidate and used as a template when I was speaking on the stump. Looking back at them, as with my Election Address, to be frank, I think we’re basically delivering them.
Thanks once again for the comments; as and when I write another post and have it accepted, please do add your comments. I look forward to them.
@ Steve Way
One place where the Party’s leadership could start speaking out (and our MPs voting with their consciences) is over the Education White Paper which is hugely elitist and a complete rag-bag of right-wing shibboleths with little or no evidence to support its proposals, virtually none of which can be justified with reference to the Coalition Agreement.
Just take one proposal: where is the evidence for graduates with 3rd-class honours being less effective as teachers than those with 2nds and 1sts – or is this just a cynical ploy to cut the training budget now that recruitment is up because of the recession.
Ex-services officers and senior NCOs have leadership and communications skills which would serve them well in the classroom, but would their academic qualifications stand up to Gove’s stringencies about graduates. If not then Gove is simply hypocritical and inconsistent. (He recognises this by offering a condensed degree route to ex-services entrants – but not to anyone else!)
There is much good analysis in the White Paper about the over-prescriptive National Curriculum and the distorting effects of League Tables at GCSE, but simply slimming down the Curriculum for State Schools is no good if more schools are encouraged to opt out as Academies, and if initiatives like the ‘English Baccalaureate’ are only available if schools have the resources to teach Combined Sciences at GCSE. (More so if there is a desperate shortage of Science graduates, and those without 2:2 or better are excluded from teaching)
The White Paper, in 95 pages, gives just 4 paragraphs to Vocational Education, which should be the appropriate provision for around 1/3 of young people. Although Gove has announced a review, due in April, by Prof. Alison Wolfe, there is no attempt to consider the interraction of this with his elitist Academic proposals.
Gove is also deeply ambiguous about the role of Local Authorities. He wants them to be “champions of parents and students” but also to be promoters of Free Schools and Academies (in direct contradiction to Liberal Democrat policy). Yet all the inspecting is to be done by OFSTED, who will retain their deeply destructive (and self-serving) “most teachers are useless” philosophy.
Meanwhile, Gove wants to move towards a system where all schools, 6th form and FE funding is controlled from Whitehall by an Education Funding Agency. So much for the “localism” agenda! Education may in Gove’s vision, be administered locally, by 22,000 heads and boards of (unpaid) governors, but it will be controlled, even more so than under New Labour, by Michael Gove and a bunch of quangocrats.
As a loyal Lib Dem, I am generally content that we are doing what we can to deliver our policies in Coalition. We were the only party warning the electorate that the cuts would be savage. Unlike Labour and the Tories we were not planning to increase VAT and we did not need to. We were forced to accept an increase in VAT because the Tories vetoed our mansion tax (rightly in my view) and our plan to restrict tax relief on all higher rate pension contributions, and restricted the increase in capital gains tax. Much to my surprise we even seem to be planning to introduce something like our citizens pension which is fantastic. And of course we are getting a referendum on a fairer voting system which gives more choice to voters not to party machines.
However, I am afraid the leadership have let us down badly with child benefit and tuition fees.
The proposed cut-off for child benefit goes against our longstanding commitment to universal benefits and our opposition to means-tested benefits. It is too arbitrary and abrupt, and will distort economic decision-making eg many people on that level of salary will increase their pension contributions or cut their hours to avoid losing child benefit. If we want to tax high earners we should tax them directly not introduce anomalies. It costs a lot more to bring up a child than the current rate of child benefit.
I accept that our leaders were not planning to increase tuition fees before the election (merely accepting that in a coalition we would not be able to deliver on our policy of phasing them out). However, the leadership’s subsequent decision to support a trebling of tuition fees and make the current and grossly unfair 9% supertax virtually permanent is unforgiveable. If Nick Clegg breaks his pledge and actually votes in favour of this increase and against party policy, he should be forced, either by his colleagues or by local parties, to submit to a fresh leadership election.