Current Vision - Lewin's Liberal take on the world

Arrogant, Careless and Deeply Concerning; Nick Clegg attacks members of his own shadow cabinet! The Party Deserves an Apology

2008-11-30T10:55:00.006Z

For anyone who has yet to see the story, the Sunday Mirror is running an exclusive regarding comments that Nick Clegg made on an internal flight from London to Inverness. In a conversation with Danny Alexander, our leader has managed to patronise and insult three of the the most high profile members of the party's shadow cabinet. The full story can be read here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/11/29/lib-dumb-liberal-democrat-leader-nick-clegg-slags-off-his-own-party-colleagues-on-packed-plane-115875-20934579/

Let me first clarify my own position; I have no vendetta against Nick Clegg. I believe that he has made an assured start as party leader; he has been confident and incisive at Prime Minister's Questions and he has begun to shape a policy agenda that will ensure we provide a distinctive and real alternative at the next election.

My feelings about Nick Clegg's leadership to date aside, I am deeply troubled by this story. To casually insult three of the party's most prominent spokesman on a flight to Inverness is appalling in a number of respects. Principally, Clegg is guilty of sheer carelessness. To make such inflammatory comments when surrounded by members of the public is grossly naive. Perhaps it was bad luck that a Mirror correspondant was sitting in the next row, but this is a leak that cannot be attributed to misfortune. If Clegg wanted to air such personal views to Danny Alexander, it should have been done behind closed doors.

Now that these views are in the public domain, we have every right to assess thier significance. What troubles me, is that Clegg was criticising his colleagues on a personal as opposed to a professional basis. Most damining was his pronouncement that Steve Webb is, "a problem...I cant stand the man". In the same vein he claimed that Chris Huhne lacked 'emotional intelligence'.

Such personal attacks are inherently damaging in themselves; but even more worrying is that Clegg was seemingly using these views to justify a shadow cabinet reshuffle. From what little we know of this conversation it would appear that Clegg's views of personality are playing an important role in shaping the make-up of the next Lib Dem shadow cabinet. This is not an acceptable state of affairs; professional relationships are obviously important, but I would like to think that our party leader appoints his shadow cabinet on the basis of ability. I would hate to think that admirable and effective performers such as Steve Webb and Chris Huhne are facing the prospect of demotion because they have personal differences with the leader.

I would like to see this story diffused in the most efficient and responsible manner possible. I am certain that this can best be achieved with Clegg issuing a full, formal apology. I fully hope and expect that there will already be conversations going on behind the scenes. I feel that party members deserve more; we need reassurance that our leader has faith in the abilities of his team.

Nick Clegg should apologise to our party, reassert his faith in the MP’s concerned and allow us all to move on.

Please feel free to comment, particularly if you agree with me that party members deserve an apology.

Andrew Lewin

Cameron’s Speech: ‘A Plan for Change’ that Raises More Questions than Provides Answers

2008-10-01T19:03:00.000+01:00

This was intended to be the address of a statesman. David Cameron’s speech set out to portray himself as a man of character, a man of vision and a man ready to lead. Cameron struck the right tone, his speech was measured and he wisely opted to steer away from too much political partisanship. Yet, as is so often the case with this PR savvy figurehead, the content of Cameron’s address failed to match the authoritative delivery.

Cameron began by insisting that the Conservative’s meeting in Birmingham had been a ‘sober conference’, one overshadowed by the scale of the global financial crisis. Despite immediately drawing attention to the financial situation, Cameron then failed to say anything of note as to how we should move forward from here. As the original cheerleaders for a free and unregulated market, the Conservative party appears to have no coherent strategy for how best to tackle this crisis of capitalism. On Northern Rock they dithered and prevaricated on whether nationalisation was the right move, this time Cameron’s Conservatives appear happy to say nothing at all. For a man desperate to show his leadership credentials, such a brief and empty reference to the economic crisis seemed to prove that Cameron was on uncomfortable ground.

To the ‘plan for change’; the conference slogan and Cameron’s rallying call to the party faithful. It was truly remarkable that this self proclaimed ‘modern’ Conservative, decided to introduce his ‘plan for change’ by referring back to the Thatcher years. He said that ‘experience was the excuse of the incumbent’ and that had the electorate not realised the need for change in the past, we would never have had a Thatcher premiership. Unsurprisingly the party faithful lapped it up, I was in no doubt that the reference to Thatcher preceded the longest and loudest ovation of the hour long speech. This was a genuinely surprising move on behalf of Cameron, as Nick Robinson astutely said at the end of the speech, the decision to invoke Thatcher gave the address a ‘back to the future’ feel. Gone was Cameron’s ‘modern compassionate Conservatism’ and back we went to having the shadow of Thatcher dominating a Conservative leader’s party conference.

On policy detail, Cameron’s rhetoric again seemed a distance away from the reality of his policy position. He gave an impassioned plea that he was; “on the side of the hairdresser, the electrician and the call centre worker”, he was adamant that he wanted to cut the taxes of people such as these, but that he simply couldn’t afford to do so. At the same time Cameron does have two outstanding tax cutting policies. A pledge to cut corporation tax by 3p and the much vaunted policy to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1million. If the lowest earners in society were his true priority, then surely one of these proposals could be sacrificed in order to accommodate his desire to bring tax relief to the most disadvantaged?

As he moved away from tax, Cameron’s foray into the debate on MRSA was one of the most controversial of the speech. He used the example of a death from MRSA as an excuse to savage the government’s ‘bureaucritisation of the NHS’. I have always resented the MRSA issue being politicised, everyone is agreed that the cleanliness of hospitals is a national priority and therefore an A-political issue. I thought that using an MRSA case as a front for attacking the government was misplaced and insensitive.

As I said at the outset, this was a confidently delivered speech and ignoring the blemish on the MRSA issue I think Cameron struck the right tone. Leadership however, requires more than striking the right tone, it necessitates having a clear vision. I remain unconvinced that Cameron has a substantial new vision for this Country. The policy commitments that we do have are regressive and backward looking. Today’s celebration of Thatcher only added to the sense that David Cameron is not a man of change, but is a type of Conservative that we have all seen before. He has many questions to answer before he can truly position himself as the candidate for change.

Council Tax Emerges as Defining Battleground at Next Election

2008-09-29T18:13:00.001+01:00

George Osborne’s conference announcement that the Conservatives would plan to freeze council tax bills over a two year period is a thought provoking, yet timid incursion into the debate surrounding council tax.

Let us be clear about the nature of the proposal, one that is small in scale but intended to be large on political impact. Osborne estimates that the freeze on council tax bills will cost in the region of £1.5bn over the course of two years. He emphasises that the Conservatives would be able to fund this proposal by trimming government consultancy budgets; by £270m in the first year and £770m in the second (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7640966.stm). The message that Osborne and the Conservatives will be keen to emphasise is that this modest proposal will not involve a cut in frontline services. The Cameroons are desperate to avoid a repeat of the 2005 election campaign, in which Labour relentlessly attacked the Conservatives as a tax cutting, service cutting party. As far as this aspect of the debate goes, I think it is clear that Osborne’s proposal is modest in nature; the new leadership has successfully resisted a right wing clamour to offer upfront, unfunded tax cuts. It would be a mistake to portray this Conservative party as one that will slash public services in the way that predecessors may have threatened to do.

So, I accede that this is a responsibly costed proposal and one that doesn’t pose a grave threat to local services. The next question to ask is whether a two year freeze on council tax is a policy that will really make an appreciable difference to those who have been hit hardest by mounting council tax bills. It is here that I don’t believe that the Conservative proposal stands up to scrutiny, particularly by comparison to the more radical and progressive alternative favoured by the Liberal Democrats. The outright ‘freeze’ on council bills that Osborne proposals will give a small reprieve to all taxpayers, from the richest to the poorest. A welcome reprieve perhaps, but not a policy that even attempts to deal with the fundamental flaw of the council tax.
The essential problem with the council tax is that it is a regressive tax, one that taxes people on the value of their homes, not their ability to pay. The damning reality of the council tax is that those on low and middle incomes pay a far greater percentage of their income towards this tax, than those on higher incomes. In 2005, council tax accounted for 4.7% of the income of the bottom 20% of households and just 1.4% of the top 20% (http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/axe_unfair). The Conservative proposal does absolutely nothing to tackle this gross inequity. Osborne’s proposal will do nothing to alter the status quo. Under his ‘freeze’ proposal, those on the lowest incomes will continue to pay proportionately more of their income in council tax than their more affluent neighbours.

It is only right that I draw attention to the governing party’s stance on this issue. I will be brief, as Labour’s record on reforming the council tax has been one of contemptuous inaction. As has so often been the case with this government, Labour commissioned a review into council tax, only to dismiss the findings. The Lyons Report was rejected by Gordon Brown, who was seemingly fearful of overseeing any meaningful reform. Subsequently, Labour has said nothing on council tax, seemingly happy to allow this deeply iniquitous state of affairs to remain.

It is only the Liberal Democrats who have made a compelling case for reform. Their plan to replace council tax with a local income tax is openly ‘revenue neutral’. This means that under their proposals, the lowest paid will pay less and the wealthy will pay more than they currently do. As Lyons said himself in his review for the government, “fair taxation is based on the ability to pay”. The Liberal Democrat proposal ensures that a clear majority of people are better off and that low earners are relieved of what is currently a disproportionate and unfair burden.

Osborne’s intervention today shows the electorate that they will have 3 clear choices on council tax by the time of the next election:

Labour offers us a commitment to the status quo; no reform, no change, no progress.

The Conservative party offers us all a short term bribe by virtue of their council tax ‘freeze’. An interesting development, but one that makes no attempt to change the deeply regressive nature of the council tax.

The Liberal Democrats offer open and honest reform. A shift to a local income tax that will relieve a huge burden from low and middle income earners who are currently hit so hard by the council tax.

Which option will you choose?

As the Global Economy goes 'Nuclear', Labour's fiscal plans for Nuclear Power look Ever More Irresponsible

2008-09-25T18:24:00.006+01:00

As the Global Economy goes 'Nuclear', Labour's fiscal plans for Nuclear Power look Ever More Irresponsible...
-A view on the £12bn takeover of British Energy and EDF's plans for a new generation of Nuclear Power stations.

In a yet another fast paced news day, it may have passed people by that British Energy is on the verge of being bought out by French energy group EDF http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/24/edf.britishenergygroup

As the guardian article emphasises, this paves the way for EDF to oversee the development of a new generation of Nuclear power stations. The government are active cheerleaders for Nuclear Power, Gordon Brown is cited in the Guardian as insisting that this power source is, "crucial to the country's energy security". There are countless arguments against Nuclear Power and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have led the debate in opposing their return. I don't wish to list all of the compelling argument against the Nuclear industry, but to focus on one facet in particular; cost.

Nuclear Power stations remain prohibitively expensive to build, manage and sustain. 'Not to fear', exclaim the government; they assure the electorate that the entire project will be funded by EDF and this new Nuclear era can be forged without cost to the taxpayer. Of all New Labour's audacious claims, this must be one of the most unbelievable.

In the past, Nuclear projects have invariably had to be bailed out by governments. The inherently risky nature of the sector is underpinned by the fact that British Energy had to be rescued by the government as recently as 2002. Add to this the experience of those who are also embarking on a new Nuclear future. As the Guardian reports, the first plant to be built in Western Europe for 30 years is in Olkiluoto, Finland. This project has suffered from spiralling costs, far higher than the original estimate. As we all know, the UK doesn't exactly have an A* record of keeping its headline projects within budget...From the Millenium Dome through Wembley (which was also under foreign ownership) to the Olympics; we have a glittering record of going over-budget.

Now consider our current economic climate. Analysts seem to agree that the global credit crunch is unparallelled in severity, save the depression of the 1930's. With the nationalisation of Northern Rock this government has already had to use vast sums of taxpayers money to prop up a failed institution. The country simply cannot afford for a failed Nuclear scheme to go over budget in the same vein. The EDF proposal is high risk for so many reasons and in our current state it is surely not a risk that Gordon Brown can viably afford to take...

Labour's 'outbreak of unity' and why a rebellion would have been more honest

2008-09-24T17:12:00.001+01:00

The dust settles on what Ed Miliband described as the 'speech of Gordon Brown's life', Harriet Harman triumphantly hails the 'Labour fightback' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7633536.stmand all is well with the Labour government again...

With trust so dangerously low in the government, I cant believe that the public (or the media) could bring themselves to believe that there has been a sudden outbreak of unity amongst Gordon's cabinet. What I find genuinely surprising is that the Labour strategists believe that a renewed message of unity and experience under the Brown banner is really the way to move forward.

We all know that the reality is markedly different, Ruth Kelly's surprise resignation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7632778.stm reaffirms to me the mood of discontent and unease that encircles the Prime Minister. Her resignation is just one chapter in the story of a conference dominated by whispers against Brown, from Miliband's 'Heseltine moment' to John Cruddas attempting to drum up support for a new 45% rate of tax.

The plotting goes on, from Miliband's Blairites to Cruddas' disaffected left wingers. Barring a miraculous and unforseeable poll turnaround, Gordon Brown remains on borrowed time. There are so many potential flash points between now and a likely 2010 election, I am convinced he will not survive to lead the party into the next election.If that is the case, then this shallow and short-term 'outbreak of unity' will look even more ill advised a few months from now.Particularly if Brown is ousted as soon as after the Glenthroes by-election.

The Labour party ought to have used this conference as an opportunity to oust Gordon and launch an open and honest leadership debate. Yes, the timing would not have been ideal, but there never is an opportune time to knife an incumbent Prime Minister. This 'show of unity' is dishonest and shallow. It is one that I am confident the electorate will not buy.

Perhaps it is not time for a novice Mr Brown, but it is not the time for a disunited, split cabinet to continue to govern either.

A Poll for Liberal Democrat Activists to Cheer...

2008-09-20T23:28:00.003+01:00

A Poll for Liberal Democrat Activists to Cheer...

No, Im afraid I don't bring news of a post conference poll that shows us ahead of the Labour party, all in good time...

I am referring to the publication of a fascinating marginals poll, unique in that it has a sample size of 34,000.
http://www.politicshome.com/Landing.aspx?Blog=2939&perma=link#
The headline news from the poll is that the Conservatives are on course for 146 seat majority and that Labour's support in the marginals has totally collapsed.

On surface value, the forecast that the Lib Dems are on course to lose 19 seats does not make for pleasant reading and would seem to be at odds with my title. However, the real story of this poll from a Liberal Democrat perspective is that a combination of the 'incumbency factor' and tactical voting will ensure that many of our MP's are in a strong position to defy the national Conservative tide.

The poll clearly shows that the party benefits hugely from our ability to convince Labour leaning voters to switch to the Lib Dems in constituencies where we are either the incumbents or the main challengers to the Conservatives. The third party squeeze is a message that we have perfected over the years; it is not something that can be delivered from on high, but can only be mastered by constantly reminding the local electorate that regardless of the national situation, the battle in their constituency is a 'two horse race'. As Lib Dems across the nation know, this message is constantly driven home in the form of focus leaflets and targeted mailing. Without this local campaigning edge, our squeeze message would never work. It is a testament to Liberal Democrats across the country that we are so effective at this practice.

As this poll makes clear, the Liberal Democrats are far ahead of either Labour or the Conservative party at applying this squeeze message and it has been particularly successful in the South West, where we have been relentlessly targeting the Labour vote since the mid 1990's.

The poll also shows that there is room for improvement, in honing our squeeze message in many of the new Lab/LD marginals. Our national advance in 2005 created marginals between us and the government that would have previously been considered safe Labour seats.

The task now is for campaigners in places such as Liverpool Wavertree, Hampstead and Kilburn and the City of Durham to convince the local electorate that the Liberal Democrats are the only viable challengers to Labour in these seats. If the local activists in these areas can fashion local campaigns similar to those in the South West (albeit with different opponents) then I am convinced that we can secure sizeable local swings and win a string of seats from this discredited, tired and directionless Labour government.

Bring on the election and bring out the bar charts, 'only the Lib Dems can win here!'

The Liberal Democrats and the 7th of January conspiracy...

2007-12-23T23:09:00.001Z

There has again been a significant time lapse between now and my last blog post...In the near future i plan to write a piece discussing the issue of localism and public services-but nothing so heavy today!

The 7th January conspiracy...

- Nick Clegg, current Liberal Democrat leader:
Born 7/1/1967

- Andrew Lewin, author of current vision, Lib Dem activist who has a lifelong ambition to lead the Liberal Democrat party:
Born 7/1/1987
(20 years to the day after clegg- and doesnt 20 years constitute a generation?!)

-Charles Kennedy, former leader- announced that he was stepping down from the leadership and not seeking re-election as party leader:
7/1/2006

Just like Nick Clegg, i dont believe in God but perhaps i ought to believe in destiny...

Happy Christmas to all

Im off down the bookies to put a £1 on myself being the 2nd Lib Dem leader born on 7th January...

How this blog influenced Chris Huhne's leadership campaign!

2007-10-21T15:47:00.000+01:00

The claim may be slightly exaggerated... Yet, just a few days after i commented on the need for a debate over the mechanism of choice in public services, Chris Huhne has made the first soundings on the issue. I can't find the links at present, but several papers were reporting that Huhne was warning against embracing the choice and competition agenda that both the Conservatives and Labour have relentlessly pursued over recent years. I am delighted that this issue has been raised so early on in the leadership campaign; in my view there exists no more important debate in domestic politics today. I fervently believe that New Labour's decade long experiment with this agenda has had a damaging, fractious impact on our public services, serving only to entrench a two tier system that leaves many with a 2nd class education or substandard local hospital. Consequently I view it as our duty as Liberal Democrats to have an upfront debate on this topic during and beyond the leadership election. My focus today will be upon education.

It is important to note that when i make such grandiose claims about the state of our education system, i do not do so without a degree of supporting evidence. Just days ago the Guardian ran yet another story on the lack of upward social mobility in the UK ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,2195680,00.html). Obviously, social mobility is intrinsically linked to education and a static level of social mobility is a sad reflection of an education system which is clearly not succeeding in boosting the prospects of children from the least advantaged backgrounds. I am convinced that the 'choice' agenda for secondary education has been the central reason for the governmnent's failure.

Diagnosing the Problem
-Parents are provided with a 'choice' of secondary schools to subscribe to. Very often, there are 1or 2 outstanding schools in the area (as is the case in my own home town of Bishop's Stortford) which are vastly oversubscribed. The third or fourth 'choice' schools are invariably far less succesful and attract far fewer subscribers. Yet, because of oversubscription it almost becomes a lottery as to where children finally end up. The students who ultimately attend their 3rd or 4th choice institution are then condemned to an inferior standard of education simply because they were 'unlucky' in the lottery.

I used the qualification of saying it was 'almost' a lottery as to how places are decided, because one of the biggest injustices to the current system is that it is open to manipulation by some families and not others. Parents universally realise that their son or daughter is more likely to get a place in a certain school if they move closer to the catchment area. Yet, self evidently, some families can afford to move, whereas others will not be able to do likewise. Nobody would begrudge these parents doing the best thing by thier child, yet it surely it is a great injustice that this is an advantage that is denied to the poorest families. An injustice that has greatly hampered the prospects of many of Britain's least advantaged children and is surely a major contributory factor to our stalling level of upward social mobility.

The Solution ?

An obvious practical solution is not forthcoming, but i am completely convinced that simply maintaining the status quo and offering parents this 'false choice' between secondary schools is not a viable policy. I would tentatively support an open lottery for places as a stopgap measure. At least this would be an honest lottery, that would not disadvantage families who cannot afford to move closer to the most succesful institutions.

Beyond that, i believe we need to display a steadfast commitment to being more pro-active in boosting the performance of the lowest achieving schools. Perhaps by contemplating ideas such as offering higher wages for teachers willing to work in less succesful schools.

I keenly await to hear what Clegg and Huhne say on the issue- and any other comments people have on this article...

Lib Dem Leadership Contest: Charting a new policy direction

2007-10-18T00:41:00.000+01:00

The cult of celebrity permeated British politics long ago. Principally driven by the 24 hour media circus, each and every election campaign becomes more ‘Presidential’ in nature. There is a fascination surrounding the personalities at the top of British politics that often detracts from having an open and informed policy debate. I am hopeful that a similar fate does not befall the Liberal Democrat leadership contest. Whilst accepting that a candidates’ leadership skills (speechmaking, media presentation etc) will be of importance to prospective voters, it will be the individual with the most impressive policy suggestions that will capture my 1st preference vote.

The leadership race must not descend into a ‘beauty contest’ that focuses disproportionately on personality traits. By contrast, this contest ought to provide the party with a unique opportunity to engage in an open debate about our future policy direction. In the next few days, I will be commenting on the policy challenges that I believe we must most urgently address as a party. Below is a brief summary of the topics i will be posting on and where I believe our focus must lie:
1. Education and the ‘Postcode Lottery’

As yet another major report reveals the scope of the educational divide in the UK, it is even more crucial that we establish how to close the gap between the best and worst performing institutions. It is an appalling injustice that there is such chasm between the best and worst schools in our Country. We must be the party that thinks imaginatively about how best to extend opportunity for all. Building upon the ‘pupil premium’ policy will be a good starting point.

2. NHS – Choice and Competition?

The same ‘choice and competition’ agenda favoured by both Labour and the Conservatives has arguably had a fractious impact upon the NHS. As some hospitals thrive, countless others face spiralling debts and the threat of closure. I will recount the debate i had a while ago with Norman Lamb MP about ‘choice’ in the health service; arguing for ‘pragmatic choice’ to replace the choice and ‘contestability’ agenda of New Labour.

3. Environmental Policy

Whilst warmly welcoming our vision of a carbon neutral Britiain by 2050- i am convinced that the party must be even more imaginative in respect to our environmental policies. This would ensure that we move away from having a largely punitive approach to curbing pollution. Yes, green taxes have merit, but so too would providing greater incentives for people to go green; such as scrapping VAT altogether on the least polluting cars. Equally I am personally convinced that we must invest far more heavily in research and development projects for renewable energy sources.

So, that is a flavour of what is to come... I look forward to receiving contributions from any quarter (Lib Dem or not)-as to your views on the policy debate and the leadership race in general.

A battle we must win- Liberal Democrat Income Tax Policy Vs Conservative Inheritance Tax cuts

2007-10-06T20:45:00.000+01:00

U-Turn, retreat, humiliation; brand it what you will, Gordon Brown's lengthy flirtation with a November election is officially over. The inherent cautiousness of the man aside, this decision has undeniably been hugely influenced by the spate of opinion polls that have shown a Conservative resurgence in the last week. Delve deeper into the poll data and you will discover that the reason most commonly cited for a floating voter switching to the Tories is their enthusiasm for Cameron's policy on inheritance tax. Announced at the Tory conference earlier this week, Cameron's party pledge to use money raised from a new tax on non-domiciles to raise the threshold at which inheritance tax has to be paid on an estate to £1millon pounds.

The message from the Tories is clear; we will virtually eliminate the dreaded 'death tax'. Millionaires alone will pay inheritance tax, whilst the rest of the hard working British population can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that their final legacy to family and friends cannot be touched by the greedy chancellor. As a Liberal Democrat, i recognise it is imperative we never understimate the Conservative party. This is unquestionably an extremely astute move. Cameron has recognised that swathes of 'Middle England', (Express, Mail, Sun readers) live in perpetual fear of having to pay so called 'death taxes'. Accordingly, when the Conservatives announce that 'normal people' will no longer have to pay inheritance tax, 'Middle England' feels a collective sense of relief and believe that they have been awarded a significant 'tax cut'. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the hysteria generated on the subject, Polly Toynbee rightly recognises (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2181677,00.html) the reality is that only the wealthiest 6% of estates have ever actually had to pay inheritance tax. If we wish to maintain this state of affairs, the threshold at which estates pay inheritance tax needs to rise in accordance with rising house prices. It is for this very reason why the Lib Dems have already stated that under our fully costed tax plans, only estates worth over £500,000 will have to pay inheritance tax. This is entirely the right approach, ensuring that middle income earners are not burdened by inheritance tax and quashing any notion that this is a tax that will impact upon anyone one other than the most affluent in society.

The most important task for the Liberal Democrats is therefore to expose the myth that the Conservative policy on inheritance tax represents a unique tax cutting policy for middle earners in the UK; it unequivocally does not. Despite the furore over 'death taxes' caused by papers such as the Daily Mail; the reality is that with the threshold rising to reflect house price appreciation, it will remain the case that only the very highest earners will have to pay any form of inheritance tax. The Conservative policy is not a tax cut for middle Britain, it is a tax cut for high earners and for obvious reasons, it is a tax cut that wont make any immediate impact on people's livelihoods.

The Liberal Democrat inititative to cut 4p in the basic rate of income tax could not provide a more stark contrast to the Conservative proposals. Here is a bold proposal that will disproportianately benefit the lowest earners and most unfairly taxed people in our society. A cut in the basic rate of taxation from 20p to 16p in the pound will make an immediate and drastic difference to the quality of life for someone earning the average wage (or below) in the UK. It means that industrious, low and middle income earners will recieve greater rewards for their efforts and will have a significantly greater dispensable income. Under our complete tax proposals (which can be found at www.libdems.org.uk) the IFS have confirmed that the great majority of people in the UK will be better off than they currently are.

Our tax policy is an embodiment of timeless Liberal principles; it is progressive, rewards effort and only increases the burden upon the very wealthy. It is imperative that every Liberal Democrat campaigner makes this same point across the length and breadth of the country. If you want a fairer tax burden for Britain, it is the Liberal Democrats and not the Conservatives to whom you must now turn.

Gordon Brown's affront to progressive and honest politics...

2007-03-26T12:46:00.000+01:00

Much time has passed since my last blog entry, the busy life of a student has been all consuming; whether i have been partying, playing poker or just occasionally working, i seem to have forgotten about current vision. But no longer, Gordon Brown's tricky, complex and ultimately shameful budget has provided me with sufficient ammunition to launch myself back into the world of 'blogging'. I intend to expose both the costs and missed opportunites of Brown's final budget, one that tries to please everybody and ultimately succeeds only in harming those most in need of governmental aid.

Where else to start but with the 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax. It is blindingly obvious simply from the way that Brown delivered his speech to the House that this policy was primarily designed to throw the Conservative's off guard. To the tune of roars of delight from the Labour backbenches, the Chancellor waited until literally the last minute of his speech to announce the tax cut, sensing that this would leave Cameron all at sea and ruin his preprepared attack on Brown as a compulsive tax riser. For the record, Cameron didnt appear particularly flustered, his response was littered with personal jibes at the chancellor and his poll ratings, much of which had little to do with the budget. As Ming Campbell wisely pointed out, it was a response critically lacking in 'intellectual rigour'.

What does this theatrical display really tell us about Gordon Brown, Prime Minister in waiting? It is striking evidence that he is just as corrupted by the culture of spin and the aim for short term political headlines as Blair's New Labour. This was undeniably a 'political' budget, one that seeked to undermine the Tories and challenge the image of Brown of a tax rising chancellor; but budgets have a more lasting impact than a single headline and the impact is one that will damage those members of society that Brown claims he wishes to help.

After the dust had settled, economists and politicians alike have quickly realised that Brown's abandonment of the 10p tax rate is the single most damaging feature of this budget, a policy that has the potential to hurt individuals and families earning under £17,000 per annum. The loss of the 10p rate means that the lowest earners will have to pay a greater share of their income at the 20% tax band and accordingly pay a greater share of their income to the chancellor. Brown assures us that this is not the case, as most people who earn £17,000 or less are available for working tax crdits, or other support mechanisms such as child tax credit etc. What Brown neglects to mention is the fact that single people who earn around or fractionally under £17,000 will not qualify for any of these credits and accordingly will definitely be worse off. Eqaully, we must all remember the shambolic way in which tax credits have operated under this government, simply because you qualify for them is no guarantee that you will recieve them. So Brown's true budget legacy is a policy which takes away from all of the lowest earners in society and for what purpose, so as to score political points against a Conservative party that he is so clearly fearful of.

I have a different thought as to who Brown ought to be afraid of post the 2007 budget; the millions of low earners in this country, those who have bought the spin of the 'tax cutting budget', only to realise that as a consequence of the abolition of the 10p rate they will in fact be the group that feels the fiscal pinch. This is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs; just at the time when the Liberal Democrats are rightly making the argument for having a lower tax-burden on the lowest earners, through the medium of stealth and deciet Brown has managed to increase that burden.

I have a call to action for Liberal Democrat sympathisers everywhere; expose this fradulent budget, go out and prove that despite the rhetoric Gordon Brown has done and will do nothing to help the lowest earners in society. We must take this message to Labour supporters and swing voters everwhere; this budget is the perfect illustration that there will be no new dawn for Labour post Tony Blair, simply a continuation of the tired, outdated New Labour project...

Perceptions from the Front line...Pro Lib Dem but Anti Ming Campbell students...

2006-10-15T21:50:00.000+01:00

I spent much of yesterday amongst starry eyed freshers at the University of York's annual freshers fair, trying to convince all comers to ignore the lure of many of the other more extravagant student socities and throw their lot in with the Lib Dems. As ever our stall was very well supported and generated a lot of interest, even if the odd client was more interested in getting their hands on one of the iconic 'homophobia is gay' badges, than actually joining the party. Although we appeared to attract as many supporters as in previous years, there was one recurrent theme amongst a significant proportion of the students that i spoke to; that of hostility towards Ming Campbell.

Comments ranged from the predictable 'politics is all about image now', to "David Cameron just seems a more approachable man", comments that would be music to the ears of the Tory PR machine. In a majority on instances, once one of us on the stall engaged the students on the relative merits of Liberal Democrat policy and steered the conversation away from Ming Campbell, the reception we received was far more positive. I do however believe that this hesitancy towards Ming Campbell amongst students is something that the party needs to actively look to combat. Ming's pledge upon becoming leader about surrounding himself with a young team needs to be fulfilled; as although we certainly have many young stars in key frontbench positions, the public profiles of the likes of Clegg, Goldsworthy etc is still very limited. Equally, i am not claiming that we should patronise our student voters by arguing that they only respond to youthful faces; alongside promoting our young stars, it is imperative that we continue to paint Cameron's Conservatives as being opportunist and wholly bereft of substance. The key being to engage young people not on the relative merits of Cameron vs Campbell (a battle i fear we would lose) to a battle between the party's relative positions on the major issues of the day. With a special focus on the the environment, foreign policy (particularly Iraq) and public services. Let battle commence!

Oh and if you happen to be reading this post on my York facebook account- then please come to our Lib Dem welcome event- &:30pm on Monday 16th oct- see
www.yusu.org/libdems

Andrew

Priceless humour as ever-Conservative party members make both themselves and Mr Cameron look a little silly...

2006-10-02T22:08:00.000+01:00

The revolution didnt last too long; just months after we were all urged to 'vote blue and go green' the Conservative party membership today delivered a stunning rebuke to David Cameron's environmental credentials. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5400084.stm) In the days 'hot topic' debate, the Tory faithful were asked to support a motion that rightly claimed that cheap flights are flourishing in a 'false economy' and action must be taken to increase the price of flying so as to reflect its huge cost to the planet. Yet, despite their green local election campaign, their shiny new green logo and the green backdrop to the conference hall, the delegates stubbornly refused to give in to the not-so subliminal message being sent to them about the need to establish some environmentally friendly policies. After a debate that included some truly memorable quotes, they declared by a margin of 57-43% that there was nothing really wrong with cheap flights and they certainly would not be prepared to fork out anymore of their hard earned cash for their habitual weekend trips to the continent! One delegate boasted of the 100 flights that he had racked up in the past year, whilst another announced that "aircraft produce 2% of the world's carbon emissions - exactly the same as the world's cow population, I would rather give up beef than air travel". I feel i need add no more, as these comments quite obviously speak for themselves and provide the uneducated with a real glimpse inside the mind of an average conservative party member and the deep concern that runs through them all over the need to cut carbon emissions...

Although i can and will be dining out on the cow quote for many weeks to come, todays vote represents much more than the latest chance to poke fun at the Tory party membership. It proves to David Cameron just how epic a task he has in front of him to persuade his party to ever adopt a serious policy on the environment. This conference has already displayed that the Tory party membership dont have time to talk about this green nonsense, they have come to Bournemouth with a unified desire to talk about the issues that have always mattered to them most, upfront tax cuts, immigration and Euro-scepticism. The party have shown today what a callous disregard they have for the defining political issue of our time and have served to remind the public that just in case they were falling for Dave's brilliant PR message of 'change', the Tory party at heart is as unrepentant, uncaring and nasty as it ever was before.

Gordon Brown- the unlikely master of spin?...

2006-09-27T23:16:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown's greatest asset is his 'substance', his passion for politics and his contempt for the modern fascination with PR and spin doctors, or so we are led to believe...

When watching Brown's speech on monday, i felt a definite sensation of deja-vu, one that was not simply brought about by seeing Tony Blair's ability to go yet another Brown address with that so obviously (but well practiced) insincere smile. No, my deja-vu eminated from the fact that even though this speech was intended to set the tone for a new era of Brown's labour, all of the policies that the chancellor proclaimed as to being key in his vision of the 'good society', we had heard before!

His bold claim to raise spending per pupil in the state sector to match that of a private school pupil was also one of the centrepieces of his budget address. He repeated a call he had already made to the United Nations for a new global fund to provide cleaner energy for developing nations and he told us that the minimum wage was rising again; a policy that was already very well documented. For the record i don't disagree with any of these particular proposals, though it seemed very odd that the prime minister in waiting brought us nothing new in this critical speech. Particularly so, when the rhetoric was so obviously intended to be new and uplifting, the 'good society', the 'moral compass' etc etc.

So, i would have to conclude that Brown has certainly learnt one trick off Mr Blair, the ability to make a speech in which the rhetoric behind it is intended to sound new and exciting, backed up with the policies we have all heard before, jazzed up for the crowd; that sounds suspiciously like spin to me... Oh and if you aren't convinced yet, the clincher that proves Gordon to be as guilty of 'spin' as any other member of new labour was his budget in March-a budget he claimed was 'green', on the strength that he was cutting car tax on the most fuel efficient cars in the UK to zero- WOW! Yet the real sensation was later finding out that the two models of car that are clean enough to fall under this zero percent tax rate are not even available to buy in the UK! Superb!

Your opponent is never quite as they seem and at this early stage i think there is sufficient evidence that Gordon Brown is far more new labour than i could have ever feared!

Lib Dem conference- "The Green Tax Switch" and Beyond!...

2006-09-24T17:31:00.000+01:00

The first thing i feel i should clarify is that despite booking months in advance and eagerly anticipating my 1st autumn conference, i never actually made it to Brighton (due to an annoying virus i have been suffering with), as a consequence my views on the proceedings are not based on soundings from the conference floor, just from what i have seen as one of the many avid viewers of the bbc parliament channel!

Green Tax Switch

For all the furore about the returning Kennedy and Ming's first major address to the party faithful, the big shift in tax policy was for me always set to be the seminal moment of conference. We have left Brighton with undoubtedly the most radical, redistributive and bold set of tax proposals of any of the three major parties. I am confident that with a public consensus now building on the urgent need to do more to combat climate change, the 'green tax switch' will play well with the public. I believe that people will accept that the polluter must bear a cost for his actions and higher car tax duties and airline fees are a responsible way of taxing people. I was also reassured by both Vince Cable and Chris Huhne's insistence that all the research into green taxes shows unequivocably that the welthier an individual is, the more they tend to pollute. Thus, helping to allay fears that i had originally harboured about green taxes not being as progressive as those on income. Obviously the greatest selling point of the 'tax switch' is that the estimated £8bn increase in revenue from green taxation can be used to fund tax cuts for the lowest earners in society. The fact that these proposals take 2million of the poorest Britons out of having to pay tax alltogether is an undoubted triumph and a policy that will be crucial in proving our crededtials both as the party most serious about tackling poverty and in attracting yet more disillisoned labour supporters to our cause. If presented wel, this policy could prove to be a pivotal votewinner and im sure one that i will return to in the future. For today, i wish to focus on the green tax element of tax policy and environmental policy in general...

The New Carrot and Stick Approach

Although i understand the necessity of higher green taxes in order to try and change behaviour and dissuade people from using cars and aircraft, i believe that punishing the polluter represents only a small part of what should be the agenda for the environment. Firstly, if green taxes are the 'stick', punishing people for polluting, we have yet to see any attractive 'carrots' to those innovators who are trying to create green modes of transport for the future. A classic example of the lack of incentives on offer, would be the situation with bio-diesel fuel which was introduced in my local Tescos garage over a year ago. Yes, bio-diesel pollutes only marginally less (around 5% im led to believe, but im not a scientist)than normal petrol, but nevertheless it is unquestionably better for the environment. Yet despite this, bio-diesel fuel was actually more expensive than petrol and diesel; so in order to buy a more clean fuel the consumer actually had to pay more, a complete nonsense. The government should have stepped in and placed a significant tax break on bio-diesel fuel, making it cheaper than anything else on the market. If that had happened i am sure that bio-diesel fuel could have been all over the UK by now and we would have had made some progress on clean fuel; instead bio-diesel is not available anywhere that i am aware of, because the public understandably refuse to pay more for it than regualar petrol and diesel. This is just one example of many instances in which i believe the government has a responsibility to intervene in order to promote and aid the development of new and potentially revolututionary green technologies. Some liberals of the more 'laissez faire' variety may argue that government interference in markets is inherently a negative phenomenon, but i passionately disagree. When the future of the global climate is on the agenda, i believe it is perfectly acceptable that national governments provide generous tax breaks and subsidies to those companies that are struggling to produce the green technologies of the future. Allowing the backers of bio-diesel fuel, toyota hybrid cars and many many more to beat the market forces that currently do such damage in holding them back.

'Nothing comes for free'

A further element of environmental policy that deserves closer scrutiny is the proportion of government spending that is accounted for by the department of the environment. Although we are promising to raise green taxes, i have yet to see a single party pledge to increase the environmental budget, which is surely a huge oversight. This is particularly the case from the Liberal Democrat perspective. We are passionately opposing a new generation of nuclear power plants on the grounds of cost, safety and the benefits of a renewable energy revolution. Yet, a 'renewable revolution' will most certainly not come without great cost to the treasury. At present, renewable technologies are grossly expensive and quite inefficient, so in order to see wind, tidal and solar power having a perceptable difference to British energy i expect (without knowing any official figures) that we are going to have to invest hundreds of millions into sponsoring the development of latest and best solutions. Just another problem in the complex area that is environmentalism...

I wait to see whether 'Dave', Gordon or Tony address any of these issues at their party conferences, but am doubtful to say the least! The wind is blowing the right way on combatting climate change and as usual the Lib Dems and Richard Branson (with his commitment to millions in green technology development)are out in front. My only warning is, that the biggest challenges and toughest decisons are yet to come.

2006-08-22T12:16:00.000+01:00

After the dust settles...A new Middle East?

2006-08-15T21:45:00.000+01:00

A day after the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East, an emboldened Syrian President confidently announces that in the aftermath of this conflict there is no need for Arab 'defeatism' and that Hezbollah's 'victory'has ushered in a 'new Middle East' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4794363.stm).

It was inevitable that a conflict in which Hezballoh's capacity to wage war surprised many observers would strengthen Anti-Western rhetoric; but behind Assad's deliberately provocative comments, what is the reality of the situation and what challenges lie ahead for Israel, Lebanon and the wider Middle East?

From my perspective the most damaging aspect of this conflict has been the breakdown in relations between the Lebanese people and Israel. This may have been a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, but the real worry has to be the way in which the last month has hardened attitudes towards Israel across the entire Lebanese population. The disproportionate Israeli military response has angered countless thousands of Lebanese civilians. One time moderates who had no affiliation with Hezballoh have been rallying to their cause amidst an ever mounting death toll. The ground in Lebanon is now ripe for recruitment, obviously this is strictly hypothetical but it is quite plausible that Hezbollah will enjoy a net gain of supporters over this conflict, as felled soldiers are replaced by youthful recruits who bear such great resentment towards Israel after witnessing such devastation in their homeland. This cycle must be broken, Israeli aggression may destroy a few rocket installations and tanks, but it will never succeed in destroying the militant ideology that underpins Hezbollah.

The only possible means of controlling the Hezbollah threat is through a sustained period of diplomatic engagement between the Lebanese and Israeli governments’. The legitimate Lebanese government represents everything that George Bush purports to believe in when he calls for the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East; it is moderate, secular and certainly no ally of Hezbollah. In the next few months and even years the chief goal of an Israeli government seeking a lasting peace will be to rebuild relations with the Lebanese government, so that in time they can be persuaded that the Hezbollah militia are more their enemy than the Israeli state. Admittedly this will be a hugely difficult process, one that is dependant upon the success of the United Nations peacekeeping force. The first and immediate priority of UNIFIL must obviously be to maintain this fragile peace and establish this buffer zone on the border. Beyond this initial mission, I believe that UNIFIL can potentially play a pivotal role in ultimately restoring the Lebanese armies control of south Lebanon. This would hypothetically happen amidst a reconciliation between the Lebanese and Israeli governments, whom would agree to allow the UNIFIL force to disarm Hezbollah, as I believe that they are entitled to do under international law, as no nation is permitted to have an armed militia not affiliated with their government.

UNIFIL disarming Hezbollah with the full support of the Lebanese government may seem to be a massively optimistic scenario at this moment in time, but I believe that it is the result that we should all be striving for. For it to be achieved, Olmert needs to begin appealing to the Lebanese government to allow him a seat at a negotiating table as soon as possible.

Drum Roll...and Welcome to Current Vision!

2006-08-11T19:11:00.000+01:00

After hearing a bold prediction on bbc radio five live that 'everyone', would have a blog within five years i decided that i should act now and join the masses already 'blogging'and not leave it too late to join such an interesting emerging trend.

I have no intention of delving into my private affairs on my blog, rather i forsee using 'current vision' as a new and innovative way to share my views on everything from Islamic fundamentalism and climate change to Manchester United and the rapidly improving England cricket team.

As a politics student at the University of York and a committed Liberal Democrat activist the advance warning for this blog should probably be that it will be dominated by posts on political (and particularly Liberal Democrat related)issues. Yet for all those reading this, it is important to realise that as seriously as i take current affairs and my affiliation with the Liberal Democrats, there is far more to me than being a environmentalist, new labour critic and social liberal!

Like millions of others in the UK, i am also a huge sports fan; having followed cricket and football in particular since my pre-school days! I will doubtless be posting my thoughts on the pre-eminent sporting matters of the day, with perhaps the odd mention of my own cricket 'career' at my club and Uni IF things are going well!

Anyway- i will finalise the introductions here, hoping only to stress the point that i hope that this blog can grow to be as diverse and interactive as possible, with people from all walks of life discussing any and everything from people, politics and the Premiership!

Enjoy reading and contributing to 'current vision'.
Andrew