UUP manifesto contains an LGB&T section, but silence on marriage #ae16

You can almost knock me over with a feather as for the first time in history one of the two main unionist parties in Northern Ireland has launched a manifesto that has a very strong section on LGBT+ issues.

This is an extract from the UUP manifesto:

LGB&T 
We want to build a Northern Ireland that is inclusive and safe for all our people, and that includes the LGB&T community.  Our society should have no cold spots for anyone because of their sexual or gender identity. 

In the next mandate we want to see zero tolerance of hate-crime, tackle the high levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal feelings and self-harm and stamp out homophobic and transphobic bullying in the classroom.

We would: 

• Bring forward the long awaited Sexual Orientation Strategy;

• Equip our teachers to effectively deal with homophobic and transphobic bullying in our schools; 

•  Support the toughening of sentences for aggravated crime;  

• Support the introduction of a Gender Neutral HPV vaccine;  

•  Work with local agencies to tackle poor levels of mental health and wellbeing in the LGB&T community;  

•  Bring restrictions on the donation of MSM blood in line with the rest of the United Kingdom; 

•  Support age-appropriate sex and relationship education.

The only missing component is obviously the issue that has haunted the last mandate of the NI Assembly the issue of equal marriage. It is clear that the UUP are leaving this as a matter of conscience for its elected M:LAs which means that while it has a largely LGBT+ friendly manifesto, voters would be advised to ask their individual candidates where they stand on that matter before considering their preferences.

I have asked the three in North Down:

• Chris Eisenstadt is in favour and would vote for equal marriage.
• Alan Chambers considers civil partnerships are far enough, not realising that the fact these are marriage leaving some of the friends and associates he assumes are LGBT+ open to direct and indirect discrimination by certain portions of our community. But then as he never seems to enquire he probably hasn't heard about those incidents.
• Carl McClean responded positively but failed to address marriage directly telling me to await the manifesto (I have given him a further chance to answer that specifically).

Five Green Laws

For the 2015 General Election the Lib Dems give to you five green laws.

Looking to build on our record in Government as well as having a green thread throughout our manifesto there are five specific environmental areas that the Liberal Democrats will specifically highlight with five new green laws.

Zero Carbon Bill
Introducing a Bill in the next parliament to end Britain’s adverse impact on climate change for good by
2050.

Measures will include:

•  A new legally binding target for Zero Carbon Britain by 2050 
• A new legally binding decarbonisation target for the power sector by 2030 to support investment in all forms of low carbon electricity 
• Establishing an Office for Accelerated Low Carbon Innovation to fast-track new green tech including tidal power, renewable heat, ultra-low emission vehicles, energy storage and CCS 
• Applying Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) to existing coal plants from 2025 to end use of unabated coal generation 
• Full borrowing powers to the Green Investment Bank, to further boost investment in low carbon technology

Zero Waste Bill

Treble fines and claw back £500 million for the taxpayer by clamping down on organisations which fly-tip to deliberately evade tax and review the tax structure across landfill, incineration and collection.

A "Responsibility Deal" between government and business to ensure packaging for consumer products are designed for recycling rather than designed for dumping,

Commission a Stern type review to undertake a UK-wide review on how Britain’s waste can be used as a resource to generate revenue for the economy and the possibility of legally binding targets on waste.

Nature Bill

Establish the Natural Capital Committee on a statutory footing to provide advice to Government to ensure that nature is at the heart of government decision-making and that government departments are held to account for achieving progress against commitments to improving the natural environment.

Plans include:

• Bring forward a package to protect bees and pollinators and help them recover 
• Design and adopt a National Food Strategy and encourage local councils to adopt a food plan in order to foster the growth of local food economies, from field to fork. 
• Bring forward a package to protect bees and pollinators and help them recover.

Green Homes Bill

New Green Homes Bill will insulate up to 10 million homes by 2025 and offer at least £100 a year off Council Tax for ten years when energy improvements are carried out. The new Bill would ensure these achievements are built on, incentivising people to insulate their Offering at least £100 each year off your Council Tax for 10 years, when you significantly upgrade the energy efficiency of your home

Other plans under the bill would include:

• Reforming the Green Deal 'pay as you save' scheme into a new ‘Green Homes Loan Scheme’ which would extend the current scheme to include renewable heat and electricity 
• A new 'Feed out Tariff' for investment in Solid Wall Insulation, the most expensive and disruptive type of energy efficiency measure

Green Transport Bill

Transport has a significant role to play in reducing carbon emissions. In the UK, transport is responsible for around 25% of our carbon emissions and is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions. We will bring forward a comprehensive package of transport policies to continue to build a people-centred, sustainable, safe travel system that helps the economy grow.
 
Other plans would include:

• Fast track support for the growing electric vehicle market, starting with implementing a full network of charging points for electric cars, and a target of 2040 
• Make progress towards implementing the recommendations of the 'Get Britain Cycling' report 
• We will update planning law to ensure new infrastructure developments are designed around walking, cycling and public transport 
• Oppose any increase to the national speed limit We will undertake a review of road transport taxation 
• Where 20mph isn't achieving the saving of children’s lives, give local authorities the power to reduce the speed limit outside schools to 10mph 

Ed Miliband and the quest for power

So Ed Miliband's big idea should he form the next government is to freeze fuel bills for 2 years until 2017.

A grand headline grabbing pledge, but it is doable?

Remember that Labour have been telling us for the last 5 years that this current financial crisis is a global situation that had nothing to do with their slack regulation of British banks. Or not spending all the taxation revenue on vanity projects rather than dealing with excesses in public budgets or dealing with improving infrastructure, indeed shipping spiraling debts on the public sector as a result of Private Finance Initiative funding.

So unto the next big idea. Most of our energy in 2015-17 will still come from oil fired power stations. The price of oil is not set by Westminster, but by global markets. So what if there is another war in the middle east that will affect oil prices once again. How would Ed Miliband deal with keeping everyone fuel costs as they are? How would he fund a pay freeze under such circumstances.

He has promised not to renationalise the energy providers, so how is he going to enforce a cost freeze on these companies? This is a very grey area, especially as some of the fuel companies that operate in the UK are not largely let alone wholly owned within the UK. Surely the only lever he could operate over costs would be the taxes he levies on fuel, but that would reduce the amount that ends up in the Government coffers.

I'm not even going to address the fact that our energy companies are saying they will only have 2% spare capacity come 2015 and will be needing to invest in infrastructure, a question mark over where that money would come from if they are loss making as a result of Ed's bright idea.

So is this a workable idea? Or is it just pie in the sky?

Remember Folks You Saw it here first

Facebook has just shown me this image....

Just remember folks you saw it here first and exclusive in 2010

Indeed here is the detail of what every Tax Payer will benefit from as of next April

We've been building a Stronger Economy and Fairer Society since 2010, and been promising it since long before that. We are delivering on what we and we alone promised in terms of fairer taxes to those hard working people.

Indeed here is what the Tories said about Income Tax in their 2010 manifesto:

Yes the Lib Dems in Government have given people 4 times more than the Tories promised them and lifted millions of the lowest paid, who can only work a few hours a week, out of paying Income Tax altogether. 

Lord's Reform and equal marriage: A reminder for the Conservatives

Whilst I was trying to be connected to the Inside Politics studio at BBC Radio Ulster I heard the chair of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party, Irwin Armstrong, say that nobody wants Lord's reform. It was a sentiment also expressed by Nadine Dorries MP on ConservativeHome earlier today.

May I just refer them and all other members of the Conservative party who think like that to page 67 of the Conservative Party Manifesto in 2010.b Where it says:

"We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence."

So you see this isn't a matter of the coalition agreement, this was in both parties' manifestos, as well as that of Labour. If Tories are calling this back they are calling back their own manifesto pledge.

Then there is the issue of equal marriage again raised by both Mr Armstrong and Ms Dorries. In the Conservative's Contract for Equality published on the Monday of election week in 2010 it said:

"We will ... consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."

So again though not in their manifesto, although in a last ditch addition, it was something that the current Home Secretary signed off on and spoke highly off in the campaign. Irwin Armstrong may not have seen a need to change the word to marriage, but his Home Secretary does, the reason is equality.

Equality because people out there don't see Civil Partnerships as legal. Guesthouse landlords think they can turn away legally partnered couples because they are not 'married'. There is a difference which unfortunately homophobes will continue to attack so long as the language is different. Labour failed to make things totally equal, even though the rights are there, because they failed to deal with people's prejudices by creating room for another one.

I'd just like to thank Mark Devenport and his production team for trying to get me on to the show this afternoon to put the Lib Dem point of view against the Labour and Conservative ones. Sadly timing and technical issues made this not possible today.

Open Letter to Lib Dem MPs

Dear Nick Clegg and Lib Dem MPs,

Like all of you I signed a pre-election pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees and to seek to introduce a fairer alternative.

Like most of you I probably had a picture taken signing it. As you can see from the picture I signed it right next to the name of the Deputy Prime Minister up in Perth at conference.

I'm pleased that in light of the Browne proposals at least 30 of our Liberal Democrat MPs are prepared to honour the pledge that they signed before the election by voting against. I am ashamed that Vince Cable last night tried to persuade them otherwise and neglect what the people who voted for them said they wanted.

Greg Mulholland has said:

"I am trying to make it clear to government that we simply wouldn't accept a rise in tuition fees. I hope that the government will heed the message and will come up with a proposal that isn't an increase to fees."

That is what we agreed to. We have delivered on fairness to students here in Scotland and again at the weekend decided to maintain that is a challenging debate to change, I which Tim Farron also spoke strongly in favour of student. We have stood by this principle for a long time and now is not the time to compromise on such a long held position. Indeed this sort of standing up for our principles might just be the sign that tells the media we are not the Tories lapdogs, we are not Tory-lite, we are our own party.

Student funding is something we have long been distinctive on. I'm proud of that fact and that students and their families recognise that. We're now the ones to fight that corner. Let us stand up and be counted in doing just that.

Stephen Glenn
2010 Westminster Candidate Linlithgow and East Falkirk


Update: There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, joining other PPCs, AMs and others.

Labour's 11 Week U-Turn

In the Labour party manifesto for May they had as point one under The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

It is there in black and white.

So how do they respond to just such a bill that will be introduced to move to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections? The shadow cabinet, who bear in mind are largely the cabinet that framed said manifesto, say they will be voting against it.

Jack Straw says that the bill being introduced with a reduction in the number of members, which both Coalition partners stood on, which will require boundary changes is gerrymandering. How on earth Labour can thing equalling out the size of constituencies can be construed as gerrymandering is something I'd already dealt with. Though to summarise to resist equalising the representation for each MP is actually more like gerrymandering to any sane individual.

Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs minister sums up the reaction to Labour's ludicrous assertion by saying:

"All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour MPs do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom."

It does look like the inclusion in the manifesto was to try and wean some Lib Dem supporters back to vote Labour and to try and prepare the way for possibly a Lib-Lab pact after the election. Labour failed on both counts when it became obvious that they cannot be trusted in either circumstance. This new turning away from their own manifesto pledge is further proof of that.

Voting Liberal Democrat Brings Change in 2010

If you voted for me or any of my Liberal Democrat colleagues I'd like to say thank you and ask you to look at all the pledges from our manifesto that are now going to be enacted over the next 5 years of Government.


A Fair Start for Children

• Introduce a Pupil Premium to give all children a fair start.

Fairer taxes and Economic Reform

• A substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011 with a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective
• Reform of the banking system, ensuring a flow of lending to businesses and a Banking Levy. An independent commission on separating retail and investment banking.
• Capital Gains Tax reform

Fair Politics

• Fixed-term parliaments and a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.
• A power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing.
• A wholly or mainly elected House of Lords on the basis of proportional representation.
• Giving Parliament control of its own agenda so that all bills are properly debated.
• Enacting the Calman Commission proposals and a referendum on further Welsh devolution.
• A statutory register of lobbyists.
• A limit on political donations and reform of party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
• Radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups.

A fair and sustainable future

• Establish a smart electricity grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
• Establish feed-in tariff systems in electricity
• A huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
• The creation of a green investment bank.
• The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
• Retention of energy performance certificates when HIPs are scrapped.
• Measures to encourage marine energy.
• The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.
• Establish a high-speed rail network.
• Cancel the third runway at Heathrow and refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
• Replace the Air Passenger Duty with a ‘per plane’ duty.
• The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
• Make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
• Promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
• Reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
• Increase the target for energy from renewable sources.

Pensions

• Restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%.
• Phase out the default retirement age and end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.
• Implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders.

Civil Liberties

• Scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database.
• Outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• Extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• Adopt the Scottish approach to stopping retention of innocent people’s DNA on the DNA database.
• Defend trial by jury.
• Restore rights to non-violent protest.
• A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• Further regulation of CCTV.
• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
• End the detention of children for immigration purposes.

I'm sure you'll agree that is a great deal there to be proud of. I'm somewhat upset that more of our fair start for children proposals don't appear on this list especially the things that many young families were so enthused about like shared parental leave. Maybe we'll just have to lobby Iain Duncan Smith about going further.

Thank you for voting for a fairer Britain, I'm sure my colleagues in cabinet or parliament will carry on making sure we built upon the trust that you have put in the Lib Dems on May 6th.

Miliband Anti-Politics Attack is Thin Edge of the Disappearing Wedge

So David Miliband thinks in today's Guardian it is anti-political to stand up against the social injustices, the political corruption, stand up for our planet, economy and children. That is in essence what he is saying erroneously "Nick Clegg is only clear what he is against." Anyone who has encountered the Liberal Democrat manifesto and it is clear that David Miliband will know that isn't true.

There are plenty of constructive, progressive policies in there. There is also a big thrust to sort out the regressive nature of things that the Labservatives between them have managed to mess up.

• The reversal since 1997 of the top 20% paying proportionately less of their income in tax than the bottom 20% can only be sorted out with the Liberal Democrats policy of fair taxation, even my SNP opponent agrees with me on that one.
• The many inroads into our civil liberties over the last 13 years of Labour rule are going to be dealt with though a comprehensive Freedom Bill.

However, we have constructive plans for better arrangement for mothers and fathers in caring for their children in the early years. For our young people to get the training, qualifications or apprenticeships that suit them, not aiming merely to get 50% into University. There are plans to make the recovery one powered by greening our production, which also greens our planet and helps combat climate change and meet our progressive energy targets making energy production carbon neutral by 2050.

Heck if Billy Bragg the reddest of Red Wedges from my youth (and the last election I couldn't vote in 1987) is turning to the Lib Dems maybe it'll be up to David Miliband to turn out the lights on the Labour party. Billy Bragg is not someone who is swung by the superficial he is all about substance. You know I think even Bragg is now saying maybe I wanted to change the world, I was looking for a new Britiain, and I've found it now in the Lib Dems, as opposed to his 22 year old self.

Miliband claims that Labour have taken on the "forces of inertia", you know he may be right (in the first couple of years of New Labour) but inertia has not only won, but overcome and is dragging them backwards now.

Just Which Sort of Future Business Gordon?

Earlier today Gordon Brown launched the Labour manifesto with the words, we're in the "future business". Now me being a sci-fi fan know there are two types of future as I tweeted*. There is the Utopian sort look at Star Trek for an example where the earth lives in harmony. Or there is the apocalyptic type see Mad Max for a prime example.

Therefore one has to wonder if these may well be the cover of their manifesto before airbrushing.



* Apoligies for the predictive text error at the start.

What is the SNP and Plaid Cymru's 'Fairer Funding'?

I've been reading that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are saying they want fair funding. Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid's leader has said of demands of the other parties in the event of a hung parliament:

"We would demand fairer funding for Wales and Scotland to protect jobs, our schools, our hospitals and the most vulnerable in society.

"At the heart of our platform there would also need to be a real commitment to grow our economies through fast transport links and additional support to create thousands of high-quality jobs in the green and creative industry sectors."

So looking at the departments they want:

• Enterprise - protected/increased


• Education - protected


• Health - protected


• Business - increased


• Transport - increased


• Environment - job creation - increased

By my reckoning that is every single Scottish Department that they either want to see no cuts or increased investment in.

Now watching the Ask the Chancellor's debate I know that what the nationalist parties are asking for above seems to be beyond the reckoning of the UK economy. While yes the most vulnerable in our society should and ought to be protected (I know under the Lib Dems they will be) there is issues in the others. Creating jobs in green and creative industries is something that the Lib Dems promise and the Labour budget has actually gone some way to help with. The Lib Dems are also promising a pupil premium for the most disadvantaged children. Guess what? As a result of the Barnett formula this will mean additional money for Education coming to Scotland and Wales through the calculator.

But let's not beat about the bush while both Alistair Darling and George Osborne failed to answer the question of what cuts they would bring, Vince Cable was honest to say 'None of us can guarantee no cuts in any department'. However, it is how you make those cuts that is significant and how you fund them. There are some things that the SNP would agree with Vince scrapping of Trident, doing away with the ID card database, all projects that will release billions to be used elsewhere meaning less cuts. But the SNP have failed yet to look closer to home. they have failed to look at what they can do to make savings to allow the very goals they expect from others to be as well funded as they want.

Look at the fact that we are now on our third consultation regarding Independence. We have a Scotland Futures Trust that has yet to deliver. These are just two headline issues there are others in the quagmire or quangoism that the SNP have control over. Only a few weeks ago the SNP were saying they were opposed to any cuts in Scotland's budget, reality may have settled in slightly, though not from my reading of the above, now they are saying "More Nats, less cuts". May I ask after this launch, where? Where are they planning the lesser cuts for Scotland if all the devolved areas that they and Plaid Cymru in coalition in Wales have control over are to be protected or enhanced.

I know the song says 'you gotta have a gimmick' but I don't think wearing blinkers and not taking ANY responsible actions in this crisis is a very good look for either Alex Salmond or Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Hand me the Pitchfork! Round Up the Angry Mob! Not.

I probably fit into the target group that the BBC think they are talking about when they say:

"The move away from some of the [Lib Dem]'s key commitments is expected to anger some Lib Dem activists."

They probably think I'll be marching pitchfork in hand down to the spring conference in Birmingham to set the Lib Dems back on the path of the things I've been fighting for, campaigning on, and speaking up for for ages, instead of them being shelved. They think I'm outraged by Nick Clegg's announcement of this morning. But you know what? I won't be.

Unlike Cameron or Brown who have promised things and now that times are tough say they will never happen, Nick is merely putting them on a shelve for the time being. What do you put on the shelve generally? A treasured book to read again later. An ornament or memento of where you've been or what you are. The shelve is there for all to see and the things upon it. However, if you bury something that is it gone from the mind, covered up all trace gone, as if it doesn't exist.

The BBC's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg is also hinting that she thinks maybe Nick implied that we entered the 2005 election with too many spending commitments. I don't think he was. In fact if we had won in 2005 we wouldn't have to undo at this stage another 5 years of Labour's unfair tax regime in the first place, to pay for the recession, or for spending commitments.

So see that is the heart of our spending commitments first we have to raise national and local authority income fairly. That is still at the heart of what Nick has announced this morning. We have plans to make things fairer. The only problem is that Labour have left us with an awful lot more that needs to be paid for at the moment.

The Tory approach is to get that deficit cut down as fast a possible whilst giving the odd perk to the rich, and no advantage to those who can ill afford to.

Then you have the behemoth of Labour in the person of Stephen Timms, financial secretary to the Treasury, who said:

"Like the Tories, the Lib Dems are starting to realise their plans don't add up at all.

"Today, they're in disarray, making U-turn after U-turn and still failing to make their plans add up.

"And while they talk about fairness, they want to go even further than the Tories on scrapping Child Trust Funds that help provide for children's futures."

What he really means is:

"Unlike the Tories and Labour, the Lib Dems have realised their plans need to add up.

"Today, their honest, checking the sat nav but striving on towards their aspirations a little further off, when they will add up.

"While they talk about fairness, they want to go even further than the Tories by scrapping Labour's long term gaining Child Trust Funds to provide not for children's futures bit their presents."

Especially for the last bit as the money they would need from Labour to pay for tuition under the child trust funds wouldn't be needed under a Lib Dem government as those who are in the scheme are all at least 6 years away from acquiring it.

Only his Labour Rose tinted glasses won't let him see that being grown up about being honest about putting things on the shelve for now, until we can afford to take them down again and look at them properly. But then what would you expect from the party whose leader says let me get you out of this mess, without first owning up to any part of his in getting us into it.

Where is for Where did it go

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans part 8.

Yesterday with great fanfare the Conservatives launched chapter one of their manifesto with their health plans. They even put this on their website. I know I looked at them pretty soon after they came out and posted about them.

What I pointed out was a lack of specifics, things which had previously been talked about and published indeed in a draft version of their plans. These were not present yesterday and it appears that the Tories really are forming policy on the hoof.

Indeed several proposals had disappeared completely as well as the commitment to the others being blatantly non-expansive.

So it wasn't just shallow, it was even shallow by Tory own standards in the last few months. What was left was vague promises and platitudes.

If this is the best that the Conservative party can give us after they themselves have kick started their election campaign into full swing they clearly need more time to prepare for Government. Maybe the Lib Dems who have been talking from the same page for years are the most prepared to take the country forward. After all our proposals are coming from principle and not from what we expect the voters to hear.

U is for U Turn

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans Part 6.

They say that a week is a long time in politics. But an hour and forty two minutes!

Yeah that is how long it took the Dave to spell out that "could not guarantee a Conservative government would be able to offer a tax break to married couples".




Until he, well, he had to correct himself. So less that just two days into spelling out just what the Conservative policies are going to be and they have to get out the Tippex*. Oops.



* Other correction fluids are available, probably on a Conservative HQ desk right now.

U is for Uncosted

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans Part 4.

I've just taken a quick look through the Conservative Party's manifesto chapter on health (you can access it here). Now on a cursory glance although expense and savings are mentioned many times there is no actual figures for much of this. Indeed apart from a line of in the introduction that says:

"By the time you've finished reading this sentence we'll have racked up £33,000 more in [national] debt"

There are only three figures of actual costs either current or future of what is involved.

First up we have we have that poor mental health costs the economy £77 billion each year. Before they go on to say that rules preventing welfare-to-work providers and employers purchasing services from Mental Health Trusts.

There is of course the one-off payment upon retirement of £8,000 for their 'free personal care for the elderly' as I blogged earlier during their conference this is but a poor imitation of what the Lib Dems have been proposing for a number of years now, and delivered in Scotland.

The only other monetary amount to be mentioned is a £10 million a year commitment beyond 2011 to support hospices in their vital work with children.

In the past the Tories have often thrust the argument out at the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledges that they were uncosted and meant nothing. That of course is no longer the case Lib Dem manifestos are fully audited and costed. For all their talk of expense and savings the Tories have not indicated one costing of what will be saved or what will be committed in what is Chapter one of their manifesto.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb had this to say about the announcement this morning.

"All today’s announcement confirms is that the Tories can’t be trusted with the NHS and have every intention of playing fantasy politics all the way up to the election.

"The NHS is facing enormous shortfalls in funding over the next few years yet the Tories continue to promise extra health spending without any details of where the money will come from.

"The time has come for David Cameron to be honest with the British public. If the Tories want to pledge extra spending on health in some areas then they must admit that without extra funds it will lead to cuts in frontline services elsewhere. And if they plan to remove all central targets how do they intend to prevent a return to the waiting lists of old?

"The sad truth is that David Cameron knows his health policies don’t add up. How else do you explain the sudden U-turn today on their flagship single room’s policy?"

Alistair Darling meanwhile has pointed out:

"The Tories have made over £45bn of promises, but can barely explain how they can pay for a quarter of this. This leaves them with a credibility gap of £34bn.

"These are not long forgotten promises from another time. All have been confirmed in the last two years. Most have been repeated in the last few months.

"You can't fight an election on a nod and a wink; sometimes claiming you are committed to these promises, and when challenged claiming you are not."

Maybe he has a point.

V is for VAT

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans Part 3.

At the end of last year I noticed that Iain Dale had said that VAT would rise to 20% in his predictions for 2010. Speaking yesterday David Cameron said:

"Britain needs responsible economic policies that deal with our debts, so we have stability to create jobs and keep mortgage rates and taxes lower."

However, in today's Sunday Torygraph the last Conservative Chancellor Kenneth Clarke said:

"It is something that every Conservative tries to avoid but I didn't avoid it when I was getting us out of recession before [in the 1990s]. Coming out of a recession when you have such a severe deficit you can't rule out putting up taxes.

"If you can't get it down quickly enough, in order to maintain the confidence of the markets and to create conditions for growth and employment, then you may have to look at tax increases."

When asked specifically about the fact that many commentators have sad that the Tories will but up VAT to 20% even temporarily he went on to say:

"When you're the most indebted country in the western world, and people are talking about looking at the credit rating of the country, and we're not sure that foreigners are going to buy gilt-edged bonds to finance our debt, then you cannot start promising you are not ever going to start increasing taxation.

"We will try to avoid it, we'll minimise it if we have to by having proper control of public spending, which we haven't had in this country in the last 12 years."

So the Tories look set to carry on the Labour policy of increasing regressive taxes. The tax policy that has led to the poorest paying a considerable higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest. VAT affects everyone at the same rate on the same items, there is no threshold to help the poorest escape it. National Insurance which has been Labour's toy in recent years does have a threshold, yet even those who are on the 'minimum rage' are above that threshold. Surely that cannot be right.

The Liberal Democrats are promising to sort out the tax system in this country in a fair way. We promise to raise the tax allowance to £10,000, it currently stands at £6,475. Somebody currently on a 37 hour week at the full minimum wage (currently only required for those over 22) would be earning £11159.20. So 42% of their so called working wage is taxable for both Income Tax and National Insurance, plus anything they purchase which has VAT is now taxed at 17.5%. The Lib Dems while not completely removing the poorest from the first two taxes will at least reduce that amount to 10.4%.

Yes as Kenneth Clarke did point out we are the most indebted country in the Western World and we do need to find a way to get ourselves out of that, but we need to be fair in who we affect by those decisions. We need fairer taxes, taxed that are based on the ability to pay. The concentration on VAT must be at the end of any changes to help pay our way out of recession. Yet it seems to be something that the Conservatives are contemplating very soon.

W is for War

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans Part 2

"In that spirit of unity, of a greater purpose than the simple pursuit of politics, I have an announcement to make.

"We have said that from day one of a future Conservative Government, a national security council, with the key ministers and defence chiefs, will sit as a war cabinet.

"And I can announce today that if we win this year's election, I will invite leaders of the main opposition parties to attend the war cabinet on a regular basis so they can offer their advice and insights.

"When a nation is at war, it needs to pull together.

"I am determined that with a Conservative government, it will."

Well there you have it folks the full extent of co-operation that David Cameron is prepared to announce in today's Woodstock speech. And it tucked down there at the very end the bit about working with others. It comes shortly often the comment, "And over the past four years, we have always tried to work with other parties rather than looking for political dividing lines where none exist."

Woah! Take me back there a minute.

We have tried to work with others...not dividing lines...we'll set up a cross party war cabinet.

Ok surely by having a war cabinet you are admitting dividing lines with someone else. Do they really exist? Surely if you are taking one approach domestically and another internationally you are all messed up. If you are trying to ignore some dividing lines yet not seeking to understand others, either across Europe, with fundamentalist Muslims, or whomever, what is it you are trying to achieve?

How about a national peace cabinet? To look for solutions. Or is that too far out there for the Tories. Or a cross party Economic cabinet to get us out of this recession? But then that would admit that the long believed Tory strong hand of economic responsibility is something you could not uphold.



The war on 'terrorism', as I suspect this is the war that Dave is spelling out today, is actually gaining us more enemies from our reactions to it. Indeed the enemy is no longer over there is some place outside our imagining but the actions of Blair and the Tory opposition have disaffected some of our own citizens.

We do need solutions but the might of the forces seems to be the default position. What was the lesson that 9/11 tried to teach us. The targets hit were our economic prosperity in the World Trade Centre and our military might in the Pentagon. The speculation of what the fourth plane's target was is that the Capitol or White House may have been the other, so that is the fact that our politics ignore and don't engage with certain groups.

So what have we done about it in the past 7 years to look at these issues?

I think we all know the answer to that. Little for the economies, at least little that doesn't benefit us in the West. Tried to impose our own democracy on them. Have we engaged across the political divides with those we don't agree with? Not much. What we have done is gone in militarily, imposed regime change in two countries, holding a threat over others.

How anyone can end a speech that sets out plans for a war cabinet with the words, "So let's face this new year with confidence, optimism and hope," is beyond me? We are so optimistic that we will be at war for some considerable time that we will be going to a war footing.

UPDATE: Thanks to Darryl Goodliffe for pointing out the true result of having 'have opened up our party and have more women candidates and candidates from ethnic minorities ready to bring their expertise to help change this country' really means at grassroots level. Just where that war is going to be fought and who it is going to fought against.

P is for 'Progressive'?

Speaking as in Woodstock today David Cameron has launched the Tories election campaign. He said:

"The next general election is no more than 153 days away and I don't think it can come soon enough.

"Let's make this the year for change - the year when the positive defeats the negative.

"We can't go on in these difficult times with a weak Prime Minister and a divided government."

He also said that he would from today and every day until the General Election he would spell out what that means. That is a good idea I'll be waiting each day to see just what Dave D.A.V.E. Dave spells out and reporting back.

Well to be fair he did give us three of those letters today, n, h and s. He said the following:

We are progressive Conservatives.

"Our goal is to create a fairer, safer, greener country where opportunity is more equal.

"It's because we are progressives that we will protect the NHS.

"In its bricks and mortars, care and compassion, it is the embodiment of fairness in our society.

"We recognise its special place in our society so we will not cut the NHS, we will improve it for everyone."

So he is using the P word too progressive. But there are no cuts for the NHS, but hang on, bricks and mortar come top of his list ahead of care and compassion. Isn't Dave meant to be the caring, compassionate Conservative. The main concern that many of us have is that as part of his plans for the NHS certain aspects of it will be sold off. Putting brick and mortar ahead of care and compassion may not speak of the total fairness to society that Dave aludes to later.

Other P's that were used today include public sector pay. He announced he would freeze it for a year. All of it. Even those on the lowest grades. This in the name of fairness?

Those on the lowest grades suffer because the consumer price index is where the bulk of their spending is not the retail price index. The former is still increasing while the former may show deflation. To freeze pay for the lowest paid public servants as the Conservatives want to do is being positive to defeat the negative, indeed it will add to more negative for those people. There will be little 'aspiration' from the lowest paid public servants to be 'supported'.

The Lib Dems on the other hand have promised to freeze pay at the upper ends of the pay scales only and help out those at the lower end by lifted the Tax Allowance to £10,000.

However, Chapter one of the manifesto is promised on Monday, so obviously Sunday is a day of rest in this statement (precised by Woodstock above):

"We are starting our campaign to win the general election today and we will be spelling out exactly what that will mean every day from now until polling day."

See Also: Kasch Wilder isn't impressed saying it lacks radical change we need. Tory Blogger Byrne Tofferings even said in his predictions yesterday "Cameron to back-track on certain planks of Tory policy. I would expect Cameron to be very middle-of-the-road in his first term. I do not expect any major changes."

SNP Know More Than Me About Lib Dem Manifesto

I've just read this on the SNP website:

"Lib Dems to Include Referendum in Manifesto"

Now I thought I hadn't missed anything. I'm sure I would have been in a debate approving the Manifesto, because with the exception of 2007 I was at the one in 2003, both the National and Scottish Variations in 2005. But then I realised we have yet to even finalise the 2010 manifestoes let alone look ahead to 2011. So what are the SNP up to?

For starters they are talking about a highly public disagreement between the grass roots and the leadership. Surely this can't be the same debate which they complained about being held in private in the autumn, when a consensus was come to. A consensus that said not in this Scottish Parliament but not to be ruled out. Indeed there was no decision made as to whether offering one in the next Parliament was to be made. Such a decision was to put forward.

They are also perpetrating the lie of Labour and the Treasury claiming that the economy would be back on track by 2010 as a reason to not hold off in this Scottish Parliamentary term. Westminster have singular failed to meet the predictions that the Chancellor made in his budget earlier in the year. Which his pre-budget statement due this week it will interesting to see if and how Mr Darling actually adjusts his predictions of the UK's recovery.

So I went to some of my friends on the Policy Committee to ask had such an issue been discussed. The answer was simple. "No". I was also told of course what I already know that the inclusion of anything in the manifesto would have to have been a policy voted on by conference. Guess what? The Scottish Liberal Democrats haven't had a vote on the question of a referendum in the next Parliamentary session.

So the SNP have got their facts so wrong to be in fact lying one has to ask why SNP MSP Dr Alasdair Allan should allow his name to be associated with such underhand so soon after his leader called for proper use of the Internet, in not casting scurrilous lies about the opposition.

Cash Flow Crisis Could Affect Police Numbers

Strathclyde Police, Scotland's largest police force, is facing a budget crisis that may result is redundancies. The force is key to the SNP's election pledge to add 1,000 officers to the beat, earlier this summer they were pleased to announce that 846 had been added.

However, the force that has claimed 465 of the new officers is looking at having to make £34.7 million which they say may result in some of those officers not being put on front line duties, or having exceeded 8,000 officers. Although with the discrepancy between income and outgoings set to increase to £65.6 million in 2013-14 making it unlikely that additional recruitment will take place. Strathclyde also suggest that other forces will also face the same issues.

But their report does suggest that reductions in staff numbers may be required:

"What we are worried about is how much the government is going to be able to give us next year, and about how much the local authority is going to give us next year."

"Dependent on the savings options that will require to be considered, it is inevitable that there will be some impact on personnel resources."

So bad news for Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill going forwards to meet the commitment. If the Police forces truly believe that no additional increase in force size and that even these may not all be employed in front line service the target looks like being failed by the end of the current parliament.