How the Lib Dems should take on UKIP

There is no doubt UKIP have evolved in the eyes of the voter.  For many years many looked at the euro elections as a referendum and UKIP was the 'no' vote.  They now have sufficient council seats to not be dismissed as a single issue party.

Already Cameron has been moving immigration up his agenda, Miliband keen to distance himself from the record of the Labour cabinet he sat in.  What about the Lib Dems?  Where does a Liberal and internationalist party sit when the issue of immigration and eurosceptiicsm charge higher up the political agenda.

Firstly we need to consider who is voting UKIP.  Of course you can't neatly define their supporters, you can't with any party, but I suspect they fall largely into 3 groups;

1.  Firstly the protest vote.  Farage will say his is not the party of protest, but a lot of their support will be.  The voters who are fed up with the establishment.  For years they have sought for an alternative to Labour and the Conservatives.  They would often look to the Lib Dems on their ballot paper to deposit their 'none of the above vote.  Since 2010 (and until 2015) the Lib Dems are a party of Government - we have moved from 'none of the above' to 'one of the above'.  Sacrificing our Liberal heritage with a few tough speeches will not win over these voters, you need a Labour or Conservative majority.

2.  Then we have the social conservatives.  The grassroots of many a Conservative Association. For them the Coalition is just too Lib Dem.  It was always going to happen, just as many Lib Dem voters felt the coalition was too Conservative and moved to the 'don't know', won't vote and 'Labour' columns in pollsters results sheet, the more authoritarian and right wing former tories have the hump and will sulk with UKIP - whether long term or just until the coalition divorce papers are through remains to be seen.  The clear message is, they don't like the Lib Dems - civil liberties and progressive policies combined with an instinct that challenges tradition and the status quo is, to Social Conservatives, a poison they're choking on.  No matter what Nick Clegg says or does - they are not likely be heading our way unless we change their views.

3.  Then the third group, often called the white working class, a rubbish definition as I am white working class.  The left of centre authoritarians that have previously switched between Labour and the Conservatives depending on who sounds most like representing people like them.  Anti EU, Anti immigration anti civil liberties, but pro unions and redistribution. Many have voted BNP in the past. They won't be wearing yellow rosettes any time soon unless they take a different view on life.

As we approach 2015, Labour will be hoping to get some of that protest to join up and settle on a party.  the Tories will be doing all they can to woo number 2's back into the fold.  Miliband will want to do enough to win over the 3's. 

Having chatted with a few UKIPpers at the count two things became clear.  Firstly apart from immigration and europe, there is nothing holding them together - talk welfare, taxes, education, NHS - and you can see Farage will have big problems keeping his troops together as he puts a manifesto together for 2015.  Secondly, whether he can maintain a united party or not, the deserters are likely to go anywhere but us.

Apart from the number 1's, our fortunes will not be altered dramatically by the rise or demise of UKIP.

(thanks to our electoral system is actually helps if you have more enemies as that means your enemies have more rivals thus splitting your opponents so you need less supporters to defeat them - but we have been trying to tell people that for years and they still haven't worked it out)

The Liberal Democrat response to UKIP should be - we're Liberal Democrats.  

We should be highlighting the benefits of EU membership.  We recognise the weaknesses too, we can only improve the EU if we're in it, but the benefits out weigh those problems.  And in UKIP style keep it simple - 

If Europe is so bad, why do so many countries want to join it?  Why has no Prime Minister ever tried to leave it? Why do other continents look to replicate it? Can you think of a Country that has left it?

or What have been prevented from doing that you really wanted to do today because of the EU?

Then there is immigration.  Again we accept that it is not perfect, we import some problems (I bet we export a few as well).  Some came here expecting life to be easier than it was.  

However the benefits of immigration are never covered - some 1 in 3 NHS staff were mostly encouraged to our shores to look after our ageing population, does anyone really want to stop that?

We need to remind those who want Britain to be as British as Marks and Spencer's that the founder, Michael Marks, was an immigrant.  

Then there are the myths - a quick look at the UKIP website where it suggests our population increased by 4m due to immigration during the Labour years.  Actually births exceeded deaths by around 200,000 a year and although we have no reliable way of knowing the true immigration figure (labour spent a lot of money on an IT project that went wrong - You can add that sentence to any policy discussion) best estimates are that for every 2 people who came to the UK, one left.  Yes a lot of Britain's choose to live and work abroad, do we want to stop that?

And of course there is illegal immigration - do we need a new tough law, surely by definition it is already against the law! 

There is work to do, but we should not trade Liberalism to react to misinformed populism. 

'Liberal Democrat' is not just a name, it is who we are, what we stand for, what we believe in.  Supporters of other parties believe in it to - and are more likely to look to us when their own parties announce policies to munch in to the UKIP vote share.

The race to find the toughest meanest and most illiberal policies is a race I would not want to win and would rather we didn't even enter.  

We must never stray from building a fairer society and stronger economy or forget the important role our relationship with the rest of the world plays in delivering it.

Parade of the pointless?

For the back ground you can read here or here.

This entry is not about the rights or wrongs of a housing number, but the honesty of our councillors.  Some credit has to go to Cllr Cubbitt.  Her motion suggesting the Council sticks to building 594 home a year is exactly the number promised by the Conservatives explained here.

That number appeared unrealistically low at the time, but meant they could delay admitting that they (the Conservatives) have been tricking people for many years about housing.

Anyway the motion was put.  Really simple for Councillors - either you agree with 594 as the target (until more infrastructure questions have been answered) or you don't.

How can anyone abstain.  I will assume that all those who did abstain have no idea what they are doing, ducking the tough decisions.  Whether or not a councillor who has no view is 'pointless' is matter for you - you're the one paying them.

Those mentioned are free to explain their abstention in the comments section.

If I mention Martin Biermann first.  As Mayor, Martin has to be seen to manage debates in a fair and even handed way and therefore he abstains as a rule and does not enter our list.

The following abstained - either they don't have a view or ashamed to share it with voters.

Cllr Bean, Cllr Burgess, Cllr Cherret, Cllr Court, Cllr Cousens, Donnell (cabinet member), Eachus (cabinet member), Cllr Eyre, Cllr Finney (cabinet member), Cllr Mrs Frankum, Cllr Frankum, Cllr Golding (cabinet member), Cllr Harvey, Cllr Hood, Cllr Izzet (cabinet member), Cllr Laura James, Cllr Jayawardena (deputy leader of the council), Cllr Jones, Cllr Keating, Cllr Miller, Cllr Osselton (cabinet member), Cllr Peach, Cllr Potter, Cllr Putty, Cllr Reid, Cllr Sanders (Council leader) Cllr Sherlock (the portfolio holder), Cllr Diane Taylor, Cllr Robert Taylor, Cllr Tucker, Cllr Gary Watts, Cllr Wooldridge.

Worrying that the cabinet were not able to support their own decision, not even the leader of the council agrees with himself at the moment- reassurring isn't it.

All the Labour councillors in attendance abstained as well, not prepared to provide any homes, let alone affordable ones.

All the Lib Dems and Indy's voted as did some Tories.  

Housing - where would I put it?

We probably have to go back a few years to understand where we are (in short).

Pre-coalition the number of new homes was dictated by a civil servant in Whitehall.  As we all know Labour Governments love control from the centre, they don't trust those pesky local decision makers to do what they wanted.  

We all hated top down planning, especially when it suggested that Basingstoke should expand rapidly and become the economic growth engine of the central south and imposed a target of 945 homes per year.

In comes coalition and suddenly we were free to build our own dream, well not quite.  Our plans had to be robust, evidence based etc by an inspector.

Part of the evidence gathered was local opinion, the results of which are here.  There was clearly no appetite to go for the growth imposed previously, and therefore the Council decided to use the accepted model - Zero Net Migration (ZNM)

The ZNM model, as the name suggests, assumes that the number of people moving into the borough will be offset by the number leaving.  Meaning that the number of new homes required will be based on the boroughs natural growth.

if you think about it, we're reluctant to build homes for outsiders wanting to come here, other areas will be the same.  We can't get to upset when we need to meet out growth needs, because no one else wants to.

Natural growth being, people live longer - births out pacing deaths.  And falling family size - the number of people in each homes is falling, therefore even if you had no more people, you still need more homes.  

The reason the above is important is it defines my principle on the allocation of sites.  If I'm against top down planning that means Whitehall tells Basingstoke what to do, what right do Basingstoke have to tell the town and parish councils to do?

So the first principle is to apply ZNM to every Parish (and yes, Chineham is a parish) and town council - that's their target - I am happy for them to tell me the best (or least worse) sites. If the village of little wobble needs another 150 homes in the next 15 years, then their target is 10 homes a year, it is up to them to find the sites, not for me to tell them.

This is what the Lib Dems did in Whitchurch (it was actually ZNM+*)  

That just leaves Basingstoke.  We should be using Brownfield sites where they can be delivered without a net negative impact on the existing residents.  The rest, beyond those sites where planning is already in place would be as a properly planned development at Manydown with the appropriate infrastructure.

Of course, the public will be consulted on the local plan and the Lib Dems will be listening to them before taking a view on each and every site.  

The one thing every Councillor should know is a number.  This takes us back to that motion moved by the Independent Councillors.

In short - Limit new home builds to 594 until the infrastructure issues have been resolved.

You either think 594 is about right, so support this motion 

or

I think 594 is wrong and you can hardly plan the infrastructure until you know where the homes will be built so I will vote against.

All councillors must agree or disagree with this, if not, are they just pointless?

After 6 years of evidence gathering, thousands of pages of reports and the consultation starting soon, every councillor must have a view.  If not I really see no point in them sitting on a planning authority.

Anyway tomorrow sees the publication of the list of Councillors who still have no idea what they are doing in the Council.  Who is picking up that tax payer funded allowance to make a decision but can't do it.  Is your Councillor pointless?

Find out tomorrow.

*ZNM+ is the Lib Dem position.  The + refers to adding a few homes to reduce the housing needs register over the plan period.  It doesn't mean adding 6000 many on the list can be helped by building the right homes and making better use of existing stock.

Strange leaflet Awards 3 - bizzare slogan for an election award

We will start with the bizzare slogan.  Any one who has been involved in leaflet design will know how much though goes into finding that magical sentence or slogan that captures what you want the electorate to remember.  Experience has taught us that a large number of leaflets we deliver will go from the doormat to the bin in about 7 seconds, that's how long it has to get your message across or make the reader stop and read a bit more.

So here we are, it's mid April, the local elections are upon us.  You are not in power locally or nationally.  

How do capture the mood of the moment?  
How do you sell your best bits?  
or do you highlight the short comings of your rivals?  
Maybe stick to your local credentials?

Can you guess what the finest minds of UKIP came up with?

Strange leaflet Awards part two - Most confused message award

Far too many leaflets come up with the usual stuff, we'll make things better, make our streets safe etc.  They never tell you how they will deliver these promises or where they're going to get the money from, just pointless noise aimed at appealing to everyone, without upsetting anybody.

Labour love this kind of thing, perhaps too much.

During this election they've put out lots of stuff about their priorities.  But they've changed.  You may think it's one of those things that happens.  You start a campaign, knock on some doors and discover that there are issues you've not covered or that some of your priorities are not really connecting with the voters.

Where Labour are ahead of everyone else is the pace at which they change their priorities as you would have seen from the full colour lealfet that went out across many parts of the town.

Page one - Labour logo - our local priorities are............
Page two - candidate picture - my priorities are............(totally different to my party)

Yep, between the first and second page the priorities have changed completely   What matters to the party bares no relation to what matters to the candidate.  Is there a split?  does the candidate not agree with the party.  Why did none of the candidates agree with the party, yet they agree with each other (they were standard leaflets with the names changed).

Our local Labour party have got themselves into a right spin (was always going to happen)    But spun themselves to an award, so well done.

Tip - if you're a candidate, check every leaflet to make sure you agree with it.  Although the promoter is mentioned in the small print, it is the candidate who will look a bit of a wally if it looks like they've changed their mind about things half way through making a leaflet.

Strange leaflet awards - First the award for the strange bar chart

For the past two years I have selected a leaflet to win the coveted prize of most dishonest leaflet of the year award here was the 2012 teaser, the 2012 worthy winner and the winner way back in 2011.

Obviously I'll need to wait until the elections are over and I've seen leaflets from across the borough.  But to commence the build up I have spotted a few bits to keep you going starting today with;.

The Award for the strange bar chart.

Although Labour have run with the two horse race Con vs Labour and Lib Dem vs Labour in different leaflets on the same patch, but they have been pipped by this one.

What does this represent?  

Firstly the Borough is represented by 3 MPs - all Conservatives, so that's not it.  

The Borough Council is 30 Conservatives, 14 Labour, 11 Lib Dem, 4 Independent and 1 UKIP (and that was a Tory defection) - not that then.  

I don't think UKIP contested this seat last time - not that.  In fact I don't think UKIP have ever been second in an election in the borough, let alone clear winners and it's a while since Labour came fourth in Basingstoke.  Not that.

So what is it?  apparently the Eastleigh by-election result.  But the Lib Dems won! I hear you cry.  You're right we did so how did they arrive at this bar chart? click 'read more' for the answer, but try guessing for a while first, go on, it'll be fun.

A different kind of poll reveals the UKIP voter.

Political betting has an interesting widget you can see HERE.

Rather than the usual "who would you vote for if a General Election was held tomorrow" sort of question it asked for a preferred outcome.

The overall figures are not especially interesting with 29% wanting a Conservative outright win, 29% Labour and 22% a coalition.

I assume the rest wanted a different result to the 4 offered or were don't knows.

When you break it down by party it starts predictable enough until you get to UKIP.

88% of Conservative voters wanted a Conservative majority, with 11% wanting another Con/Lib coalition.  There are bound to be Conservative voters who float between the Lib Dems and Conservatives who are perhaps in favour of Europe, fairer taxes and Human Rights etc and find the Lib Dem influence attractive.  Equally they could be natural Lib Dems who tell pollsters they'll vote Conservative having factored in the Lib Dem chances in their area.

77% of Labour voters want a Labour majority, with 14% preferring a Lab/Lib coalition.  As above the 14% could be floating voters who would want the sensible economic approach and liberal influence over the authoritarian approach or tactical voters.  

Only a few Labour voters would want to see either a Conservative or Con/Lib coalition, In every party there are supporters who have given up with national government and are more into local politics.  If you're a Labour supporter hoping to gain control of the local Council, I guess it is appealing to have your rivals saddled with burdens and blame that come with being in Government.

Then the Lib Dems.  A few more other/don't knows as you'd expect as a Lib Dem majority was not offered, but still as you'd predict.  45% would want a Lib/Lab coalition.  36% a Lib/Con.  Again a small number are looking towards local elections and would rather someone else had the thankless task of being in Government or those tactical voter whose first choice can't win in their area.

Finally the UKIP voter. A UKIP majority or even UKIP coalition was not offered as a choice, so a third of UKIPpers did not provide an answer.  Of those that did - 40% wanted the Conservatives to win a majority, good news for Cameron who will feel he can win these over in 2015.  6% wanted another Con/Lib coalition - perhaps to advance their chances in local elections, but a high response.  What shocked me was 1 in 5 UKIP voters would like to see Labour in Government, either alone or in coalition with the Lib Dems.  1 in 4 want either the Lib Dems or Labour to be sitting at the cabinet table.

When you consider that UKIP are a party run  by a banker who wants to cut taxes for the super rich and quit the EU and the most socially Conservative of all parties, why would so many of their voters want the two parties who tend to advocate the complete opposite?

It would seem to demonstrate that despite Farage claims, UKIP is a protest vote.  With Conservatives and Lib Dems in coalition their individual identities are bound to be a bit blurred to the ordinary voter.  After 13 years of Government Labour are not forgiven by many and are still yet to define what they are.  

The voter either stays at home or picks something else.  With the Greens (this puzzles me a bit so will probably be blogged another day) invisible in large swathes of the Country, UKIP are all that's left.

It appears when we get to a General Election and people start actually looking at UKIP's policies, their demise is pretty inevitable.

Am I losing my Focus - no, just forgetting to put it online

Here it is in case we've missed you letter box of it got buried among the pizza menus. (or you live elsewhere but want to see what we're up to)  this is the Focus we were delivering in February/March

Are young people all the same?

Silly question, the answer is no.  I know that, and I'm not young anymore, but it was the same when I was young.  What is odd is that anyone would think that unlike any other generation, young people would all slip happily into a huddle of complete agreement.

During the budget speeches back in February once councillor pretty much said as much.

It had all the trappings of a 'new Labour' speech.  No argument or ideas, no direction or bold statement, just a collection of slogans.

You know the ones; remember Blairs 3 most important things -"education, education, education" how everyone loved that - it meant bugger all - but everyone cheered.  When it finally went on to mean - Academy Schools, tuition fee increases, SAT tests, more sat tests, and then a few more, with league tables and a few more academies and a bit more private sector and selling off the odd school field, few less people cheering now.

Well the youth speech was the same.Rather than a speech focussing on specific commitments it seemed to be a collection of meaningless phrases "we will stand up for young people" and "we will listen to young people". 

We will first deal with the we'll stand up for young people - how? what will you do?  The young person who wants the Council to invest in better cycle routes is competing for the same money that the young person who sees bus subsidies as the priority.  The young person who wants to protect the countryside from development, will need to compromise with the person who wants their politicians to end the housing shortage that means their dream of home ownership remains just that, a dream.  Lots of young people will want better services, many would prefer lower taxes.  Some will want to protect the environment, some will want cheap flights around the world and take offence to green taxes.   

The 'we will listen' pledge is hardly a defining feature.  I have never seen hoards of politicians from any party running from young people with their fingers in their ears to avoid listening.  I always listen to Labour party speeches - does that make me the perfect Councillor for Labour activists and supporters?  I listen out of respect and to understand their view.  It in no way means I can support everything they say or want.  I can't pretend that I want every idea they have turned into policy, but I do listen. 

Young people can look at all the political parties and make up their own mind which ones best represent their values.  With the Liberal Democrats they can even join the party and attend the conference and influence policy - Can they do that with Labour or the Conservatives so easily? 

The Conservatives have a reputation for having the oldest membership.  And socially have perhaps struggled with the young generation in every generation!  When it comes to social changes they have always been the reluctant followers of modern times.  From allowing non land owners to vote, then women to vote and be treated with equality has taken time.  Homosexuality was intolerable in the Conservatives during the 80's and even gay marriage now seems a step to far for many in the party.  It could equally be argued that young people need support from the state, whether in studies or on low incomes, when we are young and starting our journey in the adult world we depend on those services provided by national and local forms of government.  The Conservatives are the party most associated with reducing the role of the state.   

Labour have coped better with social change, but their approach to the economy has been without thought for young people.  A party that spends what it hasn't got and answers the problem of slow economic growth with more borrowing is making a bold statement.   The Labour party will try to solve the problems of today by borrowing money that can be paid for by the next generation.  (I say paid for, rather than paid back as government's don't reduce debt in cash terms, simply hope that over time economic growth will reduce the value of the debt relative to the size of the economy).  Our young people face a future of a large portion of their taxes being spent, not on services they will use or investments they'll benefit from in the future, but on the interest on the debt that Labour not only created, but want to increase.   If I told my children I was going to borrow lots of money, spend it on me and then passed that debt onto them to service, they'd be miffed - that is exactly what Labour do.  Of course some young people will consider that a price worth paying to avoid the tough spending decisions today. 

Then of course the Lib Dems.  Protecting the environment and reducing climate change is part of the Lib Dem DNA.  And you would think that young people are more concerned about how the planet will look in 30 years time than the other end of the age spectrum.   The cheap fuel has gone forever and alternative technologies are important.  Liberalism as an ideology can face social change without flinching.  Even those who read this shouting "tuition fees" at their monitor will have to recognise one of the few things the big three parties have in common is failing to deliver free tuition or freezing fees.  

The difference is Labour have done it twice - both times when the economy was growing and the deficit lower than it is today.  Perhaps more importantly Labour did it after winning elections with a big majority, in 97 and 2001.  The Conservatives dropped their pledge after losing the 2005 election.  The Lib Dems couldn't get it in the coalition agreement after losing the 2010 election.  

But the party has supported re-balancing the economy to reduce the chances of our young people living through an economic crash like the last one.  It has also supported steps that mean the next generation don't have to pay the price for the last governments mistakes.  It has cut taxes for those on medium and lower incomes (where most careers begin) and made sure the old tuition fees scheme has been replaced with something far more progressive.  
I am bound to think that the Lib Dems are the best choice for most young people, but like all individuals of any age, they will decide what they believe in and then find the party that most closely represents that view. 

The good news is the internet generation are better able to work it out  rather than just accept a hollow council speech telling them they should support Labour rather than think for themselves.

Most of the borough's Councillors should be ashamed of housing silence

It is an issue I have blogged many time before here is one example or you can read lots here.

Many of the problems we face as a nation could be resolved by boosting the supply of housing.  The sharp increase in the cost of housing benefit has been due to excessive rents charged by landlords as demand outstrips supply.  The potential first time buyers are priced out of the market due inflated house prices caused by a lack of supply.  And the 'spare room' rule changes to housing benefit would have passed with little notice if you could be certain that smaller properties existed for people to downsize to.

At a national level you'll find the 3 main parties calling for more homes to be built.  A consensus that housing is needed fast.

As a planning authority we have considerable control over this.  As elected borough Councillors we are responsible to this and future generations to make sure we plan for the housing needs of the population.

As I have said before, if you get a budget wrong, you can amend it a year later.  If you get planning wrong, the mistake will last generations.

So if there is one thing we should be confident about, especially after years of evidence gathering, it is roughly how many homes we should build over the next decade or so and where we build them.  

In fact if you don't know, then it is rather pointless being a borough Councillor.  We can argue about what type, affordable, social, shared ownership, for sale etc - but the need for housing to accommodate the extra generation caused by increased life expectancy can't be avoided.

In the last Council meeting, the Independants put forward a motion to limit the number of new homes the Borough should plan for, a figure lower than any evidence we've seen or that a planning inspector will see as realistic without harming the economic and social future of the area.

I didn't agree with them, but they can have some credit for putting forward a number and sticking to it.  What was more shocking was the confusion it created in the chamber.

The Conservatives were sent into complete panic.  They didn't want to oppose the number in the motion - cheekily it was the unrealistic number they promised in last year's elections.  They couldn't easily support the number as they know they will be submitting a very different one to the inspector.  Even if collectively they didn't have an agreed position, they should have had the courage to vote one way or the other.  Many didn't - even members of the cabinet 'abstained' suggesting they don't agree with both their own current position or their own pledges on the issue.

The Labour group tried to pretend they were not there.  Some strange belief that if they said nothing and didn't vote, no one would notice that a major group sitting on a planning authority doesn't know what it thinks on the biggest and most important issue.  They carry on campaigning for more affordable homes, then oppose every development. They want more homes, but no idea how many.  They know where they don't want to build, but offer no alternatives.

So many abstentions meant that in a chamber of 60 councillors, 11 Lib Dems could bring down the motion.

I know it can be difficult.  As a Councillor you know we need to build more homes, when you represent a ward likely to receive much of that new build it is easier to pretend we don't when faced with a well organised local pressure group.  Being a Councillor is not always easy - you don't have to do it.

I will not be over critical of the pressure groups either.  They pop up to protect their Countryside view or highlight the limited capacity of their roads and schools, which is fine.  They are reluctant to say "save my precious field, build on someone else's", again I understand that.  It is not their responsibility to plan the borough.

It is the elected borough Councillors responsibility to make the difficult decisions, it is is the only reason we are here.

The entire Labour group and the vast majority of the ruling Conservatives appear to have no policy, no idea and therefore could be considered utterly pointless.   Where's the honesty and integrity?

If it was a recorded vote, I will be able to get a list of the 'utterly pointless' Councillors and publish it so you check if yours are featured.

Obviously I opposed the motion.  Lib Dems have consistently I have backed all the evidence that suggests 730 homes are the minimum needed each year for the next plan period.  It may not have been the most popular position to take, but it is the honest one and voters increasingly expect honesty as the minimum requirement of those they are prepared to vote for.

A respectful mention of Mrs T

 Whatever views you have over her policies, she'll have family and friends who will know another side to Margaret Thatcher who will feel a great sense of loss.  Out of respect for them I have not written until the funeral had been held.

Having known little of life before Maggie (I was 8 when she became PM), her exit from Downing Street back in 1990 felt strange.  She had the Marmite qualities (you either loved her or hated her) that made reading various books about her hard to resist.  In the past few weeks so much was credited to and blamed upon this woman which is probably undeserved.  Attempts to blame Thatcher for the banking crisis of 2008 is an insult to the 4 Prime Ministers who run the country for the intervening 18 years, including a Labour Prime Minister who had 11 years in which to roll back Thatcherism, but didn't.

To her credit from those early days when she was an MP, she set about challenging the status quo.  It was her actions that transformed local Government from secret meetings in smoke filled rooms to governance open to public scrutiny.  Her dislike for the 'institutions' that governed our lives remained a feature throughout her career.  Whether it was the Stock Exchange, the huge state monopolies or the Unions, she rolled back their power and practices to give the individual more control.  That was a powerful achievement, it was a very Liberal thing to do and that legacy should not be forgotten against the failures that she, like all other PMs had.

Of course there are many things that Maggie got wrong.  She was friends with Pinochet, defended the Apartheid regime in South Africa and of course she in inherited a problem with Northern Ireland that she managed to make worse when it seemed that was not possible.  She had a reputation for being strong and 'not for turning', but history tells us something very different.  She was influenced by her Ministers and allowed them to sell her an idea.  Once she'd bought it she would force it through - The rise of capitalism was the ideas of Hayek and sold to Mrs T by Keith Joseph.  Privatisation was never in the 1979 manifesto, but the brainchild of Nigel Lawson whom she respected.  And it should not be forgotten that despite the fight for the rebate and battles with Jack Delores, Mrs T was, until her retirement a pro European.

Many will say she was fortunate with her electoral success.  As much as the Falklands victory supported her strong image, the split in the Labour party handed her victory in 1983 despite high unemployment and the dispute with the Miners.  Labour were still infighting at the time of the 1987 election easing her passage to victory.  Perhaps more important she, under the tactical eye of Bernard Ingham, became the first in a new breed of politician able to use the modern media.  Detailed manifesto's that voters never read were replaced by clever speeches and sound bites that would fit neatly with the 2 minute evening news item where the impact on the voter would be greater, a method copied and more by Tony Blair later.  

It is impossible for me to imagine how hard it was for a woman born in the 1920's to walk into the male dominated world of Parliament and become Prime Minister, especially within a Conservative party who had struggled throughout history to see men and women as equals.  So many glass ceilings needed to be smashed.  You sometimes wonder whether the 'Iron Lady' persona was purely natural or, in part, a skin she needed to create to survive and flourish in the gentlemen's club of politics, especially Conservative politics.  It was this persona that won her so many admirers and enemies and the reputation that lead to her success, but also her downfall.

To read Allan Clarke's 'The Tories' is a fascinating insight.  Mrs T was deeply distrusted by large parts of the Conservative Party when she replaced Heath as leader.  A conservative party naturally opposed to any interference with the traditional institutions had a radical woman leader, determined to do the opposite.  Her ability to deliver election success kept her party on-side.  After the Poll tax debacle and election defeat looming it was the Conservatives who got rid of her.

Defining her legacy is impossible.  She spent so much of her career being disliked and ultimately removed by those Conservatives who spoke about her with such affection over recent weeks.  Yet so much of what she did and the way she did has been adopted by the Labour party who will relish unpicking the faults and failures of her time in politics.  

Removed by those who admired her, copied by those who didn't, Unlike Marmite,  Maggie was altogether more complex.

What happened to Social Security?

Those on the left have criticised the coalition for the welfare reforms many of which are now with us.  The temptation for many Liberal Democrats is to do the campaign equivalent of hide under the duvet and talk about something else.  We shouldn't. 

We should not forget that it was the Liberals who introduced free school meals in 1906, state pensions in 1908 and in 1911 sick pay and health insurance all came about.  It was another Liberal, Beveridge who designed a more wide reaching benefits system that would be paid to the sick, unemployed, retired and widowed.  The idea was a system that would provide a minimum standard "below which no one would fall".  The system was implemented by the Attlee's government and called 'social security'. 

That of course was nearly 70 years ago.  Since then, something has changed..... 

From limited polling, the change has been most in the past 15 or 20 years........... 

Social Security has lost something that it had in great abundance when it was first created........ 

Wide spread popular support. 

When asking society to contribute some of their wages in to a fund, you need them to support how that fund is used.  We all contribute the NHS.  Sick or not we happily contribute so those needing health care can get it, knowing one day it may be us that needs it.  We need the nation to have the same passion for our benefits system, which is even more expensive to run than the NHS, but they increasingly don't. The suspicion is that all to often some are getting more in payments than the tax payer is happy to fund.

Successive Governments have taken a great Liberal creation and destroyed it.  The great ideal that would set a line under which no one could fall, without restricting how far someone could rise is now viewed with scepticism by a majority of people. 

It is once again the task of the Liberals to restore Social security.  We need to get it back to what it was and fit for the purpose it was originally intended. 

Our role in the coalition has started that journey.  Social Security was never supposed to be paid to people earning nearly double the average salary.  The tax credit system was too complex for recipients to understand or the Department of Work and pensions to administer.  

A system designed to 'set a minimum standard of living "below which no one would fall" was never intended to include a spare room or a total benefits claim of more than £26,000.  The changes the coalition have made are bringing welfare reform back in line with the original purpose. 

We know the Conservative view.  They were always reluctant followers of the Beveridge report.  Even now they will stand up in the Council chamber and talk about benefits as if they are only claimed by the undeserving and gloss over the reality that some are to ill to work, some always will be and most of those on JSA are only there for a short time and actively job seeking throughout.  These are the people who need and deserve Social Security, the Tories can't see it. 

Labour started in 1997 promising welfare reforms, but never delivering them, they created the complex tax credit system that expanded the cost, whilst not delivering the fairness.  In his 2011 conference speech, Ed Miliband went all Tory and indicated he would take Council houses off those out of work (I found very offensive), a move that he and his party quickly forgot during the housing benefit reform debate.  When it comes down to action, Labour have shown no appetite to reform welfare.  Even now the grass roots bemoan welfare changes, whilst the Labour leadership resist promising to undo them.  A tricky act of balancing the views of the membership with those of popular opinion remains Ed Miliband's biggest challenge.. 

The Liberal Democrats have a history that shows how passionate we are about supporting the poorest in society with pioneering social reforms.  We have action to prove how passionate we are about those working on lower wages by reducing the tax they pay.  And I believe the Tories alone would have axed social security without discretion, our influence has maintained that principle of fairness.We are truly the only party of fairness, not just in the things we say, but the things we do. 

In 2015 building a system of Social Security that protects those who need it with the consent of those who fund it should be a major part of our manifesto.

Basic government finance lesson 2

If you missed lesson 1 the you can view it here

For those who saw lesson 1 welcome back, especially Ed Balls, who I know found lesson 1 very tricky*

normal warning applies.  I don't have the knowledge to speak with any authority about government finance beyond the bloody obvious, that only really silly people can't understand.  Fortunately there is a scheme to help you identify the 'very silly people' -  They will have to wear a red rosette in public during election periods.

Tax and spending for key stage 1 (and Labour activists)

Reading about someone getting hot and bothered over the changes to the housing benefits system reminded me of my earlier promise to publish a picture guide to government finance.  As a reminder, this is where the hard up government is right now;

1. it has a chronic shortage of housing - some 2 million on the waiting list.  

2. it has around quarter of a million people in badly overcrowded accommodation.

3. it currently pays the rent for 1 million rooms to sit empty through the housing benefit bill.

4. it can't afford to pay the housing benefit bill.

It is easy to see why you'd want to change things, it is hard to understand why anyone wouldn't

Any way back to government finance - here is lesson 1.

Warning.  this is designed to give those who think you can keep spending money you don't have an idea of how it can go horribly wrong.  If you are thinking of running your own small country, you may want to access a more detailed study. 

Full Council - The Budget

It was over a week ago now, but I did promise to tell people how I voted in every full Council.

I voted against the Council plan.

The plan didn't have a lot in it, that in itself was not too much of a problem.  Previous plans have things like "we will keep our streets clean" as if any Council actually tries to make them dirtier. So I quite like the shortness.  The thing is all the main events in the Council over the past year - Getting the local plan horribly wrong, being described as unlawful by judge and starting all over again having wasted hundreds of thousands and three years of Council time in achieving the irrational was never in the plan.  New Air kicks facility - nope, not in last years plan either, so I opposed the plan, not because it contained anything awful, just didn't contain anything exciting and will bear no resemblance to events in the Council in any case.

Then the budget.  It had some things I liked, many of the things I had mentioned as essential if the Tories looked like they'd need the Lib Dems.  And credit to the leader, when he realised he didn't need our support, he kept many in.  But overall the budget said loud and clear, "this council is only interested in freezing Council tax and it will happily stop doing everything it has to to achieve that"

I will try to remember to add my speech, but at the moment I can't remember which computer/tablet I last saved it on.

Basingstoke Live lives (for now)

Firstly the Basingstoke Live panel meetings and then budget time.  In all the reading through the Councils Council Plan (that didn't take too long) and the budget and medium term financial strategy,  Then asking the Councils finance department to explain some of the variations and changes.  And once you have received those answers read them 3 times (including once backwards), you then have to find that rare breed who can talk in English and finance to decipher the answers you have been sent, the blog is a bit behind.

This is the kind of thing I seem to spend late Jan/ early Feb reading when you ask questions;

Increase expenditure  reflects an increase in re-charges this business unit recharges to the agency account.  The deficit on the agency account is then charged to this service.  This increase is more than offset by a reduction in business unit recharges directly to this service.

and

Reduction in charge from this service reflects a change in the way the relevant services costs are shown.  The full cost of this services work by the business unit is now recharged to the agency account before the deficit on the agency account is allocated back to this service.

Any way that's the excuse for being behind on the blog, but the good news is Basingstoke Live is on for this year.  It seemed unlikely back in December that 'Live' would happen. I was concerned when the Tories were keen for me to chair the panel set up to keep it, that it may be a case that it was beyond saving and they just wanted someone to share the blame with.  

Any way it is on that's the important thing.  

Cameron's European journey

I generally don't do Europe.  As I get up in the morning, go through my working day, get home etc, I've never felt that our membership of the EU has prevented me from doing what I wanted to do.  I am puzzled that an issue so far down the agenda gets so much attention from the media and a large part of the Conservative party.

If you listen to the eurosceptics, you'd wonder why we joined and why we have stayed for so long in this apparently hellish club.  But stayed we have.  And whilst it would be easy to draw up a list of nations who have applied and joined the EU in the past 20 years, I don't think anyone has left.

For whatever reason Prime Minister after Prime Ministers have  signed the treaties and continued membership.  It is often forgotten by the eurosceptics that Margaret Thatcher was a pro-european, yes we all remember that 'up your de'lores' headline, but as PM she signed more treaties than anyone else. 

John Major should be remembered for the way we recovered from the last recession far quicker than we are from this one (albeit a smaller and less global one), but Instead any achievement of his government were overshadowed by his acceptance like all those before him that being in the EU with all its warts was better than the alternative much to the annoyance of his vocal eurosceptic colleagues.

In opposition Tory leaders were obsessed with leaving the EU, Hague, IDS and Howard were all picked by the Tory membership easily swayed by an anti euro speech, this was cited as one of the reasons for their eventual defeats.  Cameron appeared to be the new champion of the eurosceptics.  An electable leader arrives at a time of New Labour's demise, was our love affair with Europe about to end?

Well firstly coalition put the brakes on that, but it now appears it is not the only reason.  For all Cameron's words the summary is clear.  Cameron wants to change a few things and then campaign to stay in Europe.

His position is little different to that of Clegg and Milliband.  Europe is a good idea and we're better in than out, but we need to treat those warts.  Of course Cameron may see more warts and be a little more worried about them than Clegg or Milliband, but there is no doubt that during Cameron's journey from opposition to government he has learned much about our membership of the European union that he likes.

Cameron used to sound as if he was persuading the public it wanted to leave Europe, now he sounds like he's trying to convince his party it would be worth staying.

Benefit debate - politicians at their worst - part 2

If one extreme of the argument was arguing from the gutter of politics, they would not have had to look too far for their Labour opponents.  You know who they are, they say something along the lines of 

You're taking money off vulnerable people whilst cutting taxes for millionaires".

Any Labour politicians who say this either have a very short memory and therefore so thick they would be dangerous if given power, or they are so dishonest they are not deserving power.  The statement is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

Firstly the millionaires thing.  This is about the governments decision to put the top rate of income tax at 45% from April 2013.  As we know it was never more than 40% in any full year under Labour, so high earners will pay more now that they ever did under Labour because of the coalitions tax cut!

Next issue, A millionaire has assets of over £1m.  They don't necessarily earn anything like that in a year. Imagine a man (we'll call him Ed) with a house worth £2.3m and a mortgage of £400k - he is a millionaire, however his salary (as leader of the opposition)is £137k per year.  It's a good wage but no over the £150k threshold for the top rate.  Someone in this position wouldn't have seen their income tax change at all, (but would have lost some benefits).

It is only a minority of millionaires who pick up a payslip at the end of every month.  Most will own their own property, business and other investments and therefore subject to things like capital gains tax - under Labour the higher rate of Capital Gains Tax was cut from 40% to just 18%, that move halved the tax bills for mega rich (well those who paid tax in the first place).  It has now been increased to 28%.  

In summary.  If you earn more than £150k a year you pay more tax now than you did under Labour.  If you receive a high income from your investments, you will pay much more tax now, than you did under Labour.  

I am really struggling to find where a millionaire has received a tax cut!  It is probably impossible for a millionaire to be paying less tax now than they would under Labour, unless they are evading tax, which of course was much easier under Labour as well!

Then we get to the 'vulnerable person'.  The Oxford dictionary defines this as (of a person) in need of special care, support, or protection because of age, disability, or risk of abuse or neglect.

Just as it is wrong to label all benefit claimants as scroungers, we can't label them all as vulnerable.  

Beveridge would look now in horror at how the governments over the years have destroyed the welfare stated he started.  Rather then being a system to support the poorest in society, it hands out money it hasn't got to everyone. The last government got very good at taking extra money out of your pay packet in tax and then expecting you to be grateful when it gave half of it back, as long as you'd filled out the 48 page form properly and sent it back on time.

The biggest losers from benefit changes announced in the 2012 budget were the richest 10% - how are these people vulnerable?  Families with an individual earning over £60k a year will lose child benefits, they're hardly 'vulnerable'.

Breaking the link between inflation and benefits, setting the increase at 1%, against a backdrop of inflation higher than that, is it fair?  Equally when those working for the state have had no pay increase, those on benefits have had bumper increases due to inflation, is that fair?  Is it fair to attach out of work benefits to inflation when the cost of commuting to work has pushed inflation rates high in recent years?

These have a place in a sensible discussion. Sadly politicians decided to repel the public with lies and nonsense, the same politicians who will pack out the studios on election night looking puzzled by the voter apathy. really sad.  

Benefit debate showed politicians at their worst part one

Although Parliament has been voting this week, the debate on benefit reduced increases/decreases has been raging all month and demonstrated all that I hate about politics.

On the Conservative side of the debate we've had comments like 'strivers vs skivers' and 'workers vs shirkers'.  Of course such comments have been used before by Labour (see the video below), but it doesn't make it any less wrong to label all those on out of work benefits in this way.  In my experience those on benefits fall into 3 categories;

'I want to work but can't at the moment'

This the vast majority.  Did a million people during between 2007 and 2010 become lazy? No, when the economy sunk, businesses unable to weather the economic storm let people go, others stopped recruiting in order to survive.  These people are desperate to get back into work, they are prevented by either health or opportunity.  It is for these people the welfare or social security was designed - looking after good people in hard times.

'I can't afford to work'

I've met an alarming number of people who tell me they would like to work, but doing so risks the family finances!  Our benefits system is best described by the money saving expert website "Unsurprisingly, the social security system is a nightmare of complexity, so it's impossible to easily summarise exactly who's eligible for payments.".  Even working out whether you're better off working or not can be tricky.  For many by the time you add the cost of new clothes or safety wear, travel costs etc they would be worse off if they took low paid employment.  Social Security was always about offering enough money to keep going until they were able to get back into work.  It has ended up as a trap, a mountain of forms that create a tsunami of brown envelopes that tie families to state dependancy.  Changes to the income tax threshold, housing benefits and the introduction of the Universal Credit are all designed to rescue these families.

Only a small minority of people actually view benefits as a lifestyle choice.  Those who look out of the window watching their neighbours go to work and pay tax so they can sit and do nothing.  They are out there and it simply isn't fair.  It is unfortunate that because a few abuse the benefit system, Labour introduced Work capability assessments, (though predictably been criticising such assessments since 2010) to start the clamp down.

There is a proper debate to be had about how to make sure benefit rises are fairer and affordable, but labelling those on benefits as shirkers or skivers is a pretty crap way of starting it.