#RedLines (with apologies to Robin Thicke)

So Theresa May has said that the next Conservative Manifesto will commit to scrapping the Human Rights Act. Here was my reaction to the news:

Tories say: they'll ditch Human Rights Act after 2015? I say: There's a #RedLine right there.
— Andrew Brown (@oneexwidow) September 30, 2013

...and here's an effort at a parody of Blurred Lines:

All You Tories Shut Up
All You Tories Shut Up
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

You want to repeal 

the Human Rights Act.
You want out of E C H R
But you can't have it
We'll not allow it
With us it will not happen
All You Tories Shut Up

OK now we were close, tried to accomadate you
But you're reactionary, maybe it's just your nature
But let us liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
Human Rights define us
Hey, hey, hey
The HRA refines us

And that's why we're gonna take a stand
So if you want it
You really want it
I know you want it
You gotta sign up
We'll not let it past us
It won't get past us
Or you'll get blasted
Gotta have Red Lines
So if you want it
You really want it
I know you want it
You gotta sign up
You're quite a party
Some think you're nasty
So go on and sign up

All You Tories Shut Up

OK now we were close, tried to accomadate you
But you're reactionary, it's your very nature
Just let us liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
Human Rights define us
Hey, hey, hey
The HRA refines us

I did have ideas for further Labour themed verses... perhaps they will see the light of day some other time; for now they need a fair amount of work!

Andrew

Desperately Seeking A Spouse

Well, I've finally decided, I'm going to seek a spouse. At the age of 38 & three quarters & a bit, it's time.

But I don't want just any spouse. I want one who doesn't earn more than, say, £9,000 a year. Or, perhaps, one who earns substantially more whilst I stay at home - just as long as they're not a Higher Rate taxpayer (for now)...

Let's go with the latter option.

Perhaps that sounds a bit mercenary?  Hmmm... Apologies if you think it does, but money is, as they say, what makes the world go round.

Anyway, I've decided. You're just got to have to like it or lump it. As are they (whoever/wherever they are).

But I'm not asking them to marry me for nothing. No, that would be selfish. I'm going to make sure they gain out of the enterprise.

You see the average cost of a wedding is said to be around £20,000. And that's OK, I'll settle for average - I'm not the gold-digger you may imagine I am. It's going to have to be bought and paid for upfront, of course - but that's what their Gold Card is for, right?

Once we've got through all that "till death us do part stuff" and if I sacrifice my job and stay at home - or even if I just work for less than £9,000 p.a., the Government is going to give us some money. £200 p.a. to be precise. After 100 years, the wedding will be paid off and it'll be pure profit...

Of course, it's small beer - but I'm sure future Conservative governments will raise the bar and let us transfer more of my allowance to my spouse. They'll hopefully let him earn more too - after all, why should Higher Rate taxpayers note benefit too?

Now - there are those who say that this is unfair. Unfair on single people, cohabitees, other types of family. Bollocks, I say, I'll be providing a vital, unpaid, civic service looking after Spencer, my beloved Chihuahua.

Andrew

In Which I Agree with the @Conservatives...

Well, kind of... The Government's plans for the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 were defeated today when Liberal Democrats voted against the Tories in favour of a motion to delay Boundary Reform to at least 2018. And when I say that the Liberal Democrats voted against - I mean every last one of them - all 57, according to the BBC. (if you want to check Hansard yourself, feel free...) - and I am very happy with this state of affairs.

But why am I so opposed when I agree with the equalisation of constituencies and the reduction of the overall number of MPs? Well, it's not just about the Tory failure to deliver on Lords Reform - although that comes into it...

For context let's revisit the manifestos. The Conservative's 2010 election manifesto promised this:

"[to] reduce the number of MPs by 10 per cent"

and, in a section entitled "A new agenda for a new politics" it said:

"The Conservative Party has led the way in sorting out the mess of MPs’ expenses. In government we will go further, by cutting the size of Parliament, cutting the scope of Whitehall, and cutting the cost of politics. We will make politics more local, more transparent and more accountable. We intend to build a new political system that serves people rather than politicians. Together, we can change our politics for the better."

Many (most? all?) of my readers will probably agree with me that the claim that the Tories led the way in reform of expenses is, ehm, dubious, at best. A further section takes the theme further:

"We will also cut Ministers’ pay and reduce the number of MPs in Parliament. Then we will go further, far further, since the expenses scandal was just the trigger for a deeper sense of frustration. We promise a total overhaul of our system of government, so that power is passed from the politicians at Westminster back to the people of Britain. But this is the very least that is needed to fix our broken political system."

What of the Lib Dems? Didn't we propose a cut in the number of MPs - an even bigger reduction in fact? Well, yes we did:

"Liberal Democrats will [c]hange politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties. Under the new system, we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150."

And what is more, it was proposed as part of a package of measures which included this one:

"Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House."

You can find the Tory Manifesto here and the Liberal Democrat one, complete with a full range of proposed constitutional reforms to support House of Commons reduction, here.*

Equalisation of constituencies whilst retaining First Past the Post would, of course, broadly favour the Tories - and this is the unspoken purpose of its inclusion in their manifesto. But the Liberal Democrats exist to promote fairness, so we cannot oppose them on this basis alone - although it would have been easier, politically, to have made the stand against the boundary reforms if the reduction in number of MPs hadn't be part of the same "bullet point" in the coalition agreement.

 

It is spurious to argue for constitutional changes on the basis of cost to the public purse. When it comes to public representation, I'm a bit of a Chartist: democracy costs, and we should not be ashamed of that. Yes, we should be against excess and profligacy but MPs should be properly rewarded for a (pretty much) 24/7 job and recognised for the employment they provide (an MP's office doesn't run itself).

It's also odd to argue that you will make politics "more local, more transparent, more accountable" when the net effect of the reduction of MPs (notwithstanding that some constituencies will shrink whilst others grow) is to increase the number of electors per representative and, therefore, reduce how local each MP would be. (Indeed, some of the odd constituencies proposed as a result of the various boundary reviews, Clackmannanshire and Dunfermline West & Bideford, Bude and Launceston ("Devonwall"), for example, illustrate this point).

 

This point about accountability becomes odder when you consider that a smaller Commons will lead to a stronger executive. Without other reforms: PR and an elected Lords, a smaller Commons weakens our parliamentary democracy - and does the opposite of  "passing power back to the people of Britain".

 

To truly pass power back to the people we need wholesale reform of the Commons and Lords. As things stand, the Lords is not only unchanged, but is ever-increasing in size (another batch of en-noblements is expected to be announced this week). Every new Peer reduces the democratic accountability of Parliament. Every new Peer concentrates more power with politicians at Westminster. Meanwhile, the Commons is unrepresentative of the electoral will of the people.

If we had an elected second chamber, the additional representation that this provided would allow for the number of MPs to be reduced to compensate for reduced workloads. The weakening of the Commons which would be a problem with no other changes is rectified by presence of additional representation. A weaker Commons could be balanced by a democratic Lords.
 

So I whole-heartedly agree with the Conservatives that we should reduce the size of the House of Commons. I even agree with some of their (stated) reasons. But not without changes elsewhere in our parliamentary democracy. I want to see a House of Commons which is smaller - but not for reasons of cost. I want to see equal constituencies but not for (Conservative) Party Political gain. I want these things for reasons of fairness - and as part of a proper programme of reform not as a standalone measure that further skews the system in favour of the Government - any Government.

 

Boundary reform is now off the agenda until 2018. I've said before that I don't think that at the next election (and in any coalition negotiation that may follow), we should bang on about constitution reform. In the absence of any further moves in that direction, the most we should do is support equalisation without reduction.

 

The Tories broke the coalition agreement over Lords reform - not in the Lobby, granted, given that Cameron couldn't drag his MPs anywhere close. Clegg was right to lead his troops to, and through, the Lobby in opposition to a Tory manifesto policy. Tonight, I am proud of every single one of them. 

Andrew

* Just a gripe: it bugs me that this isn't more prominent on the "What do we stand for?" page of our website rather than the Coalition Agreement. We may (broadly) support the coalition agreement, but it isn't what we stand for. I've just visited the aforementioned page of the website and note it has had a revamp.

A free iPad mini for everyone!

What would you do with £267? I’m sorry, I’ll re-phrase that – what will you do with £267. Add a couple of quid and you could have an iPad mini.

Imagine, an extra £22.25 per month in your pocket. Perhaps you’ll have an extra night in with a takeaway pizza each month. Or perhaps a night out down the boozer? Or perhaps it’ll just take the pressure off all the bills and expenses of everyday life.

In yesterday’s Autumn Statement, the chancellor announced that the Personal Allowance – the amount you can earn before paying any Income Tax – will increase to £9,440 in the 2013-14 tax year. The effect of this, all things being equal, will be to put £267 back in the pocket of every basic rate taxpayer (e.g. those earning up to £41,450 gross) when compared to this year.

Since 2010, when this government took office, the Personal Allowance has risen from £6,475. Come April, millions will have been taken out of Income Tax altogether and millions more have seen their income tax bills fall by £593 p.a. It may not feel like it, given all the other pressures on finances at present, but this is a real achievement - and a real help, especially at the lower end of the income spectrum where the marginal impact is greater.

And it’s ONLY happened, thanks to Liberal Democrats in government. Raising the allowance to £10,000 was – and is – a key commitment and one we have delivered. How can I be sure it wouldn’t have happened had Labour or Tories been in power alone? Well, I’m glad you asked – it’s time for a history lesson...

Let’s go back to 1992 – Britain was in recession but John Major won the general election to maintain power. What to do? Well, one of the measures taken was a freeze in the Personal Allowance for three financial years, with a small rise in the third financial following the election.

The size of the rise in that third year following the election? £80 – just 2.32%. Bear that figure in mind... By the end of Major’s tenure in office in 1997, the Personal Allowance was £4,045 – a rise of 17.41% on the 1992 level.

But, of course, that was the Conservatives – surely Labour would perform better. After all, the economy had recovered and Britain was headed for (an all too brief) surplus. Surely, the Chancellor could afford a bit of largesse...

Well, let’s apply the same three year analysis – how much did the Personal Allowance grow in the first three years of the Blair government? Well, it rose from £4,045 to £4,385: 8.41%. So yes, much better than the Tories. By 2010, the Allowance had grown to £6,475 – a whopping 60.07% growth. Remember that number too...

Actually, though, it had grown to that level by 2009 – Labour decided to freeze the threshold in 2010. Effectively this meant a real-terms tax increase for every taxpayer. But times were tough again and Britain was in the grip of recession once more.

Following the election in May 2010 the coalition government was formed with the Tories as the senior partner. And they, too, had form in dealing in freezing Personal Allowances...

But, what has happened? Well, the allowance has been raised – not by 2.32%, nor yet 8.41% but by 45.79% so far - three quarters of the level achieved by Labour over 13 years in power. A rise only achieved because of a Lib Dem manifesto commitment and with Lib Dems as part of the coalition.

And here's another thing, for comparison. For someone on a full time contract (39 hours per week) paying National Minimum Wage, the marginal tax rate (e.g. the amount of tax taken in comparison with the gross wage) has fallen from 6.67% in April 1999 at the time it was introduced to 4.96% once the latest changes come into force in April 2013. Put another way - the Full Time NMW has gone up by 71.94% whilst the tax taken, in cash terms, has risen by just 27.86%.

So, if you'll forgive me, I may well bang on about this one for a while yet!

Andrew

*NB this post does not take into account National Insurance contributions. Whilst this is another form of income tax, payment of it also helps earn entitlements to the State Second Pension and various other benefits. Even allowing for rises in the rate at which this is paid, I’m sure that the overall picture would be similar: this government has lowered the effect of Income Tax for those on low salaries since 2010.

Some thoughts on... the Autumn Statement

Today it was the Autumn Statement  - as ever there was a mixed bag of measures: some good, some bad. Here are some of my thoughts on a handful of the key areas:

Growth

Growth - or the lack of it - is the biggest issue stalking our economy. Labour would have us believe that we could have spent our way out of the aftermath of the 2008/09 recession, created growth and maintained our international standing. The Tories (and the Government) are adamant that we had no choice in the course of action we took, that we are more stable as a result and that lack of growth is a global, not national, issue. Many Tories would have liked to go further, of course.

The truth is, of course, more nuanced and somewhere between the two positions outlined. I have no doubt that we needed to reign in spending and address the deficit and put in place a plan for the debt. I don't believe that we would have retained our AAA rating this long without doing so - although that is likely to go in the new year. I don't believe there was (or is) a magic bullet to creating growth and I think that continued spending would have created an illusion of growth whilst storing up greater problems for the future. 

And - just as Labour were right in 2008/09 to say that the recession was a global phenomenon (albeit they had squandered a surplus that could have helped us weather it) - the Government is right to point out that other countries have their own growth issues with forecasts abroad being revised down as regularly as ours. It is true, though, that we have lagged behind Germany and the US in this area over the past few of years.

But we patently haven't done enough on infrastructure, capital expenditure and bank lending. There are signs of movement on this but real action needs to be taken right across the country (and not just on Crossrail, the Northern Line, the M1 and M25!).

Benefits

Last year, the Lib Dems won the battle for benefits to be increased by the full rate of September's CPI (an unusually high 5.2%). This year, it is suggested that the Tories wanted a freeze but have conceded to a 1% rise for benefits (excluding Disability and Carer benefits, and the State Pension) for each of the next three years.

Whilst I was supportive of the move from RPI to CPI in indexation for benefits - and am sympathetic with those that argue that many working people have had to endure sub-inflation rises or pay freezes for many years now - benefit levels are set so low it seems iniquitous to increase them at a rate lower than the rise in inflation. Indeed, low income households are disproportionately hit by higher than inflation rises in heating and food costs.

Whilst working people haven't had it easier - those at the lowest end of the earning spectrum have benefit from rises in the Personal Allowance and the National Minimum Wage which will have (to some small extent) offset rises in CPI in a way that those on benefits will not be protected from at all.

Taxes

Good news - very good news - came in the form of the announcement that next year's personal allowance will be increased by an additional £235 to £9,440. That means that, from April, basic rate taxpayers earning more than this threshold will be £47 better off, over and above the £220 already earmarked. An extra £22.25 per month.

We may go on (and on) about it - but this is one policy that Liberal Democrats can be truly, truly proud off: the £10,000 Personal Allowance threshold is in sight, and our aim must move beyond that. Next stop: taking Minimal Wage earners out of Income Tax altogether.

Pensions

As someone who works in the Life and Pensions industry, I have mixed feelings about today's announcements. The added complexities and transitional arrangements that the new limits for tax relief on pension contributions (and what can be accumulated over a lifetime) will create more headaches in area already reeling from a series of reforms and changes.

Personally, I do think there's room to simplify the rules around tax relief, to save fund for the exchequer and to avoid pensions being used to avoid too many other taxes - whilst still encouraging pension savings. Reducing the amount that can be contributed annually to £40,000 does not seem unreasonable in the current climate. 

Historic note: Labour introduced the annual allowance in 2006, since which it has been cut twice - once to £50,000 and now to £40,000. It's starting level? A cool £215,000 rising to £255,000 before being slashed by the coalition. The Lifetime Allowance has gone on a similar journey - from £1.5M to £1.8M and back to £1.5M, with a cut to £1.25M now announced for 2014...

I think, on balance, I'm now in favour of tax relief being limited to the basic rate on contributions made - and an annual allowance around the level at which higher rate tax becomes payable (which the current level of £50,000 would be - I'm not going to quibble at the £40,000 level, though!)

I do think more work needs to be done on the passing on of pension savings - allowing them to inherited on the basis that they remain pension funds, subject to pension rules on the taking of benefits. At the risk of introducing complexity, such inherited funds could be made liable to taxation prior to the inheritor becoming eligible to (or taking) benefits. Thought should also be given to allowing earlier access to a proportion of pension savings - this may help people who would otherwise baulk at locking their funds away to save more.

What is needed, more than anything, is a long-term, sustainable, stable approach to pensions which encourages savings, gives certainty on the benefits and introduces some flexibility into the system. 

Fuel 

The cancellation of the latest (and already postponed) rise in fuel duty will be very much welcomed. I, though, must pronounce myself sceptical on this: the logic of the fuel escalator (present for year, and formalised by Gordon Brown, let we forget) is that as fuel becomes more expensive, people are encouraged to seek alternative forms of transport. Whether or not incremental changes would or do achieve such an aim is, perhaps, a moot point.

The escalator was put in place prior to the some pretty steep rises in the price of oil (and exchange rate fluctuations haven't helped, even if the Dollar price has eased). The price has gone up (seemingly*) constantly but people are still buying fuel. These external pressures have meant, though, that the escalator has, more often than not, stalled.

As things stand, prices of Unleaded Petrol have dipped from their high point in the summer; the three pence (2.25%) rise in duty would have resulted in prices still six pence per litre shy of their high point. For comparison, rail fares are due to go up by (on average) 4.2% in January.

This may not be popular, but I'd have left this rise in duty in place.

There is, of course, much more that can be said about the Autumn Statement - and I'm sure much of what I would have said will be said elsewhere. For now, though, I've said enough.

Andrew

Protection of Freedoms Bill - Cross Post

Cross Posted from Lib Dem Gains

Today the government unveiled it's Freedom Bill. As is tradition with these posts, I'll quote from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Manifestos... and the Coalition Programme for government:

First the Conservative Manifesto:

"To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights."

Now the Liberal Democrat Manifesto:

"Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill"

"Introduce a Freedom Bill. We will regulate CCTV, stop councils from spying on people, stop unfair extradition to the US, defend trial by jury, and stop children being fingerprinted at school without their parents’ permission."

"Remove innocent people from the police DNA database and stop storing DNA from innocent people and children in the future, too."

"Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act."

And finally the Coalition Agreement:

"We will introduce a Freedom Bill."

While the Conservative idea of a UK Bill of Rights sounds attractive on some levels, repealing the Human Rights Act and (potentially) leaving the European Convention on Human RIghts would have been a retrograde step. Now we have a bill which has the following statement on its very first page:

"Secretary Theresa May has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the
Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill are compatible with the
Convention rights."

While it may not (quite) cover all the areas listed - although it also covers a number of other areas - the Protection of Freedoms Bill would not have happened without Liberal Democrats in Government.

Here's a video of Nick Clegg addressing the issue of criminal record checks for those working with children, courtesy of the BBC:

Caron's Musings , Richard Baum , and Duncan Stott have more and if you're so minded, you can read the bill here.

Andrew

The Pupil Premium

On this post on Lord Bonker's blog he laments the lack of publicity given to the announcement of the Pupil Premium even amongst Lib Dem bloggers. This will give schools an additional £430 for each of the poorest pupils and can be spent at the discretion of the head teacher. In my area - Bristol South - this will amount to £1,490,810 p.a.

Some of the responses he received to this have been churlish, suggesting that as this was a Conservative policy too, the Liberal Democrats cannot claim it as a triumph. This led me to look back at the manifestos and see what was promised in each. First from the Tory's "Invitation to Join the Government of Britain":

"Education’s real power lies in its ability to transform life chances, but we can’t go on giving the poorest children the worst education. That is why we will introduce a pupil premium – extra funding for children from disadvantaged backgrounds."

and now from the Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010:

"Increase the funding of the most disadvantaged pupils, around one million children. We will  invest £2.5 billion in this ‘Pupil Premium’ to boost education opportunities for every child. This is additional money going into the schools budget, and headteachers will be free to spend it in the best interests of children.

The extra money could be used to cut class sizes, attract the best teachers, offer extra one-to-one tuition and provide for after-school and holiday support. This will allow an average primary school to cut classes to 20 and an average secondary school to introduce catch-up classes for 160 pupils."

It was, indeed, part of one of the four key commitments of the manifesto and the promise of a fair chance for every child. 

Finally, for completeness, from the Coalition's Programme for Government:

"We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere."

Now, the policy as implemented is at a much lower level than the Lib Dems proposed, and isn't, yet, "a significant premium" although it will increase through the term of this parliament.

The point of reproducing the above, however, is to show the difference in approach. The Liberal Democrat policy was thought through, costed and a major part of the manifesto, whereas evidence of this is lacking in the Tory plans which didn't even quote a ball-park figure.

So, whether or not it was in both manifestos, Liberal Democrats should be trumpeting that the pupil premium as a major piece of Lib Dem policy being implemented by the coalition - and detailing how much further we could have gone.

Andrew

Prison Works?

Once upon a time the Conservative line on crime was that "Prison Works". Michael Howard, Home Secretary from 1993 to 1997 and subsequently Tory leader before Cameron, coined the phrase at his party conference in 1993. Since then the prison population in England has almost doubled both under both major parties.

In the election campaign the coalition partners took contrasting approaches to Criminal Justice. The Liberal Democrats' most striking policy was to introduce a presumption against short prison terms on the bases that these put pressure on capacity, could be better dealt with by alternatives to custodial sentences and that prisoners in such a situation do not benefit from rehabilitation programmes. The Conservative policy, while more nuanced than previously, was still very much that of "Prison Works".

Fast-forward two months and the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has began to lay out the new government's approach as outlined in the Coalition Programme for Government. The harsh language of yesteryear has been replaced by a focus on developing programmes to reduce recidivism.

The plans draw on Cameron's "Big Society" idea with the outsourcing of programmes designed to reduce the number of ex-prisoners who re-offend and Liberal Democrat ideas on restorative justice and Neighbourhood Justice Panels. Sentencing policy will be subject to a review which will focus on its effectiveness as a deterrent, as punishment, as a means of protecting the public and - crucially - preventing re-offending.

Most significant today was Clarke's tone and his focus on the "revolving door" created by the current system. While the Conservative manifesto had included a commitment to increase capacity if required, Mr Clarke was critical of the growth in prison numbers. Of course, he has gone through a revolving door himself - prior to Mr Howard and the doubling of prison numbers it was he who was Home Secretary!

Unusually, crime and punishment did not feature largely in the election campaign. It didn't feature in the initial Coalition Agreements. It is still, however, a hugely important area and one which has often been used to pursue populist policies. In this regard it is an area where the Liberal Democrats have been able to temper this tendency and to prevent the government from pandering to its right wing - and to the right wing press.

Andrew

The Liberal Conservative Coalition

A lot has happened in my absence, some of which I may never now comment on. The main thing, however, has been the election and the brave new world that is Coalition Government.

As a Scot who lived through the Thatcher years, someone who has always been instinctively left of centre, and a lifelong Liberal Democrat, you'd be forgiven for thinking that I would not be in favour of a deal with the Conservatives.

You'd be wrong.

Much has been written about the making of the deal and the deal itself and I don't want to retread those arguments. Instead I want to applaud the fact that we have arrived a pragmatic solution in a situation which could have resulted in either an unstable minority Tory government or an unstable and politically disastrous minority Lib-Lab coalition.

While the idea of a re-alignment of the left is attractive, seeking to achieve this in these circumstances would have been electoral suicide, in England at least, for the Lib Dems. It would also have been damaging to Labour who would, I believe, have been seriously punished in future elections.

A Liberal Conservative government was, therefore, the only serious contender once it became clear David Cameron was serious about negotiations. The concessions he made went much further than a minority coalition partner could have reasonably expected. The Lib Dems have got more than they could ever have imagined. While voting reform may not have been promised, it is striking how many actual Lib Dem polices have been adopted by the new government.

And government is where the challenge now lies - proving that Lib Dem policies can make a difference and improve people's lives. That Lib Dem ministers can be effective, promoting the ideals and principles of Liberal Democracy through actions rather than rhetoric.

Entering coalition is not a sacrifice or surrender - it's a grown up acknowledgment of the need for strong government when the parliamentary arithmetic did not support one party. It is not about abandoning long held principles but rather about pragmatic comprise within those principles.

Most parties are, in any case, coalitions of differing factions. Most people do not get 100% of the policies they personally would choose or vote for. We may be entering a Brave New World but we may well find it's not as new as we think!

Andrew