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.

If You're Only Just Shy Of Support On LIT...

OK lets for a moment assume I accept the SNP's excuse for dropping Local Income Tax (LIT)proposals on the grounds that there was not enough support in Holyrood, even with the Lib Dems on side. What does that mean for the appointment of Mike Russell to his new role?

Now I'm not claiming to be good at maths (OK stats is what I do for a living) but surely there are 13 less MSPs* in favour of Mike Russell's new remit as Minister for Constitutional Affairs Independence than there was for scraping the council tax and replacing it with LIT. Indeed independence said Iain Grey in yesterday's FMQ's is the last remaining flagship policy on which the SNP got elected in 2007 that they 'currently' are still looking to implement before the next election. That is a disastrous only 21 months into a 48 month fixed term.

So we know that the SNP have over run the parliamentary process in Holyrood since taking office. No it appears that they think they can get away with overlooking the reasons that people voted for them as well. One by one the flagship policies are falling by the wayside.

Wait for the next good day to bury news for the announcement that the SNP will not bring forward a Bill calling for Independence for Scotland before the 2011 election.

*Instead of 16 Lib Dems they could maybe count on the two Greens and Margot MacDonald.

Just Who's For Eating Humble Pie?

In the 2005 General Election the Lib Dems in Scotland stood on getting 1000 more police on the streets. I remember it well as I erroneously gave the break down of these stats for Lothian and Borders at the hustings in Bo'ness when of course I should have given Central Scotland figures: only to have Michael Connarty correct me. So of course I fully support any increase in police officers that the SNP can manage.

However, the SNP when elected last May also promised 1000 more police for Scotland. They claimed they would do this by the end of this parliament. However yesterday when it was announce that there were either 118 or 74 additional officers the SNP spin machine has changed their definition in their target to recruits not additional officers:

"In addition to the 150 additional recruits which were recruited in 2007/08, a
further 450 additional officers will be recruited by the end of this financial
year, 200 additional officers in 2009/10 and 200 in 2010/11. This will bring the
total number of additional recruits to 1,000 over the life of this Parliament."

But hang on same statement does acknowledge that:

"We inherited the lowest recruitment since devolution with many officers due to
retire. We've tackled that challenge head on, and although these latest figures
are reassuring, there remains much work to be done."

and goes on to say:

"We have set out plans to deliver a more visible policing presence on Scotland's
streets and make an additional 1,000 officers available in our communities. We
are not just delivering on this but going substantially beyond, by also looking
at recruitment, retention and redeployment."

Well no doubt the Nats will take whichever thousand they want to as they have mixed up the two willy nilly through this statement of course redeployment may well meet a target of 1000 extra officers available in our community. Part of the Lib Dem pledge in 2005 was to do away with a lot of the red tape, provide better resources to free up more police time for them to be out on the beat. However look at what the Nats actually promised last May (page 58):

"That’s why we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more
police and will encourage Chief Constables to focus these new resources on
community policing."

There it is in black and white 1000 more police, not 1000 recruits, not 1000 more on the streets and actual increase of 1000 officers. Bearing in mind that in 2008/9 271 officers will reach retirement age and some 708 more before 2010/11. That's 900 officers that cannot be retained or redeployed leaving a net gain on the promise of 1000 recruits to be about 100 by the end of this parliament or 10%.

So when a spokesman for the Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill says:

"Labour and the Liberal Democrats are going to have to eat a big slice of humble
pie now that police numbers have increased to record levels – well over 100
above the position we inherited from them."

Maybe they should dig out their own recipe, check out exactly on off target their promises are and find out just what the facts are.

Were the Fifteen Truer on Principle?

Altogether yesterday fifteen Liberal Democrat MPs ignored Nick Clegg's call to follow the majority view of the Parliamentary Party to abstain on the issue of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. But did Alistair Carmichael, Tim Farron and David Heath resign from the front bench in vain or were they holding true to the manifesto promises? Did the 12 others who joined them on the two divisions get it wrong?

Personally I was sitting with 2005 manifesto in hand as I listened out the end of the days debate, which included my own MP who is also Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. The exact pledge to the public that is at issue is:

European enlargement means the EU needs reform to become more efficient and more accountable. The new constitution helps to achieve this by improving EU coherence, strengthening the powers of the elected European Parliament compared to the Council of Ministers, allowing proper oversight of the unelected Commission, and enhancing the role of the national parliaments. It also more clearly defines and limit=s the powers of the EU, reflecting diversity and preventing overcentralisation. We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain's interest - but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British Public.

Does the Lisbon Treaty not set out to do all the things listed above? Is not what 62 of those MPs, the exception being the MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, myself and hundreds of others stood on just under 3 years ago? Isn't that what we our party approved at conference almost exactly 3 years ago?

In my view the three front bench spokespersons got it right along with John Pugh, Annette Brooke, Richard Younger-Ross, Martin Horwood, Greg Mulholland, Sandra Gidley, John Leech, Mark Williams, John Hemming, Paul Holmes, Andrew George, and Mike Hancock. We are a party of principle and these 15 maintained theirs.

The Very Model of a Modern Post Master General

I always marvel at the relevance of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, the latest Making Money is about Moist van Lipwig who we first met in Going Postal when Lord Vetinari appointed him the new Post Master General for Ankh Morpork. He has now been given control of the biggest bank and mint in the city because he has turned around the post office making it reliable, efficient and profitable. As the title suggests he has now been charged with making money.

It appears that possibly Terry in his infinite wisdom has taken a look at the current Labour government's policy on Post Offices and twisted it towards this logical conclusion. Yesterday when I returned home after writing about the closure of Post Offices coming to parts of Scotland I turned on the news to be bombarded my 'loyal' Labour Glasgow MPs being up in arms about the reduction of access to their constituents of much needed services, especially the elderly and those without access to private transport.

But what have they stood on at the last three elections as far as Post Offices are concerned. (Parenthesises mine)

In 1997 Labour promised in their manifesto:

'We will ensure that self-financing commercial organisations within the public sector - the Post Office is a prime example - are given greater commercial freedom to make the most of new opportunities.

'Life in our countryside

'Labour recognises the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas. The Conservatives do not. Public services and transport services in rural areas must not be allowed to deteriorate. The Conservatives have tried to privatise the Post Office. We opposed that, in favour of a public Post Office providing a comprehensive service. Conservative plans would mean higher charges for letters and put rural post offices under threat.'

In 2001:

'The Post Office and postal services

'We are committed to high-quality, universal postal services, and a dynamic Post Office which can thrive in a world of technological change and increased competitive pressure. Labour is working with the banks to offer a new universal banking service. This will allow all benefit and pension recipients to receive their payments, at no charge, in full at the post office after the switch to Automated Credit Transfer in 2003.

'We also intend the local post office to become an invaluable resource for access to government information. There will be increased incentives for people to take over and modernise post offices. Business customers, representing by far the majority of the Post Office’s turnover, want a full range of express, parcels and logistics services. We have given the Post Office greater commercial freedom in the public sector. It needs to be able to gain an advantage in the new postal market and become a leading force in domestic and international postal services through alliances and joint ventures. We want to help the Post Office keep up with the best in a fast-changing market.

'Rural life

'Labour is pledged to a rural services standard to set out specifically what rural people can expect from 21 public service providers - with annual auditing and commitments to service improvement. The rural school closure programme has been ended; 3,000 new, affordable homes a year are on the way; a £30 million police programme will help cut rural crime; £239 million over three years has been set aside for rural transport services; and the Post Office is now obliged to prevent closure of rural post offices except in unavoidable circumstances, with £270 million to help achieve this and recruit sub-postmasters.'

And in 2005:

'Thriving rural areas

'Since 1997, Labour has made it more difficult to close rural schools, put in £750 million to support rural post offices and introduced a 50 per cent rate relief on village shops.Through our £51 million Rural Bus Subsidy Grant we have delivered over 2,200 new bus services in rural areas this year.'

Whoops!

Not only has Labour been saying less an less about Post Offices over the last 10 years they have also clearly not been delivering on their own promises. Promises about how important the post offices should be, how everyone should still be able to get their benifits in full from their 'local' post office and that the Post Office will become a leading force in industry to take but three.

114-1

No it's not the cricket score. Nor the odds of France breaking their world cup duck of four games without scoring in the World Cup, strange that their last goal was the winner in the 1998 final.

No its the 114 MSPs who yesterday voted in favour of the Borders' rail link. Bristow Muldoon did cause a bit of a ruckus with his doomed ammendment. He was accused of politicising and electioneering as his proposals to do without the station at stow and allow the contractors to not build the whole line as a job lot. This could have led to the line reaching only as far as Gorebridge in Labour held Midlothian and not continuing to Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank in Liberal Democrat held seats.

When you consider that the Lib Dems had the restoration of the line as an election pledge in 2003, and Labour only took it on as part of the partnership agreement that sort, this would have been denying a sizeable number of voters who voted for the line being denied access to it.

Fortunately Bristow Muldoon did join the 113 other MSPs voting for and only Brian Monteith voted no.