The prime minister has written to Sir John Chilcot to clarifythe evidence he gave to the Iraq inquiry. Mr Brown claimed that defence spending had risen in real terms every year, however the letter to Sir John Chilcott shows that defence spending actually fell in real terms during four of the years that Mr Brown was chancellor.

Here is the full text of the prime minister’s letter:

“It is time for a simpler, more cost-effective system which helps farmers get their payments efficiently, effectively and on time,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary.

Commenting on the UK’s £15.9milliuon fine for failing to comply with Common Agricultural Policy rules, Tim Farron said:

“The British taxpayer is now stumping up for the Government’s incompetence but British farmers have already paid a high price.

“The Government’s failure to issue payments promptly in 2005 pushed many farmers to the brink.

“The chaotic handling of the Rural Payments Agency has now cost the British taxpayer £90million in fines to the EU.
 
“It’s absolutely staggering that Defra is throwing money down the drain at a time when all Government departments are being asked to tighten their belts.
 
“It is time for a simpler, more cost-effective system which helps farmers get their payments efficiently, effectively and on time.”

“The Liberal Democrats will guarantee that a million unpaid carers who work the longest hours get a week’s break every year – to be taken in whichever way they choose,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary.

Commenting on today’s Princess Royal Trust for Carers report, which reveals that next year Primary Care Trusts only plan to spend 25% of the £100m they have been allocated to increase services for carers for this purpose, Norman Lamb said:
 
“This report makes clear that Labour has completely let down millions of hardworking unpaid carers across the country.
 
“Yet again we see that ministers have chased headlines with grand spending commitments but completely failed to make sure the money gets through to the people who really need it. This is tantamount to a fraud on vulnerable people.
 
“The Liberal Democrats will guarantee that a million unpaid carers who work the longest hours get a week’s break every year – to be taken in whichever way they choose. Only a guaranteed right will stop vital funds for respite being diverted into other parts of the NHS.”

“Only the Liberal Democrats will provide the investment in green jobs we need to get Scots back into work,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary.

Commenting on new figures which show Scottish unemployment is still rising while overall UK unemployment falls, Alistair Carmichael said:

“The Government’s claim that their action is ‘making a difference’ clearly doesn’t extend to Scotland.

“Yet again it looks like Labour is taking Scotland for granted.

“Only the Liberal Democrats will provide the investment in green jobs we need to get Scots back into work.”

According to the Standard newspaper, one of Gordon Brown’s senior officials at No 10 is being paid by the Unite trade union.

Clare Moody, who is a national officer for the union that is involved in the BA cabin crew strike, has been given a desk in the Prime Minister’s political office that deals with policy development and government relations, and although she works in the heart of the Government her salary and pension are being paid for by the union.

The revelation has been made amid growing concern amongst Labour supporters about the growing influence that the Unite union has over the Labour party, and the four days delay before the Prime Minister eventually criticised the union over the British Airways dispute.

Lord Mandelson is known to be worried that the union is using Labour candidate selection meetings to control the next Labour MPs, and he has made a point of helping a Blairite moderniser onto the shortlist in James Purnell’s old parliamentary seat, in defiance of Unite officials who had blocked the choice.

The Standard is reported to have telephoned Ms Moody this morning. She answered with her name at her desk in the political office, and when she was asked if the union paid her salary, she replied:

“Can I get back to you. This has come a bit out of the blue. I will come back to you.”

M/s Moody works at No 10 with Joe Irvine, the Prime Minister’s political secretary, who is a former Unite national official, whose salary is paid by the Labour Party.

Ray Collins, Labour’s general secretary, also used to work for the union and is described as “extremely friendly towards Unite”.

It also emerged today that a number of members of Unite, including leader Tony Woodley and Political Director Charlie Whelan, have been given security passes to the House of Commons.

The passes give the union barons a free run of the Commons estate, including access to bars and lobbies where they can approach MPs. They could also use Commons facilities like the library researchers if they were listed as a researcher to an MP.

Tory MP Ben Wallace said:

“Union bully boys like Charlie Whelan and Tony Woodley strut around Parliament like they own the place.

“As BA passengers struggle to make alternative holiday plans, the Labour Party engages in buying votes and twisting the truth with union money.”

Mr Woodley has a pass from Labour MP Rob Marris while Mr Whelan’s is sponsored by the Labour Party HQ.

Ms Moody also has a Commons pass, courtesy of Labour select committee chairman Terry Rooney. She is listed in the Commons records as an officer for Amicus, Unite’s predecessor union. She flew to America in 2008 on behalf of the union to study the presidential elections and learn lessons for Labour’s campaign for a fourth term. She has also stood for Parliament in 2005 in Salisbury.

A Downing Street spokesman would not confirm who paid her salary but said it did not come from public funds, and neither No 10 nor the Labour Party would confirm or deny that Ms Moody was unique in being paid by a trade union rather than a party.

The Pocket Guide to Policy summarises the party’s key policies at a page per portfolio, for use by the party’s campaigners and for anyone who is interested to know what we are proposing.

The document has no formal status, although the policies summarised within it have all been passed by local party representatives at party conference.

The Electoral Commission consulted four lawyers – two Queen’s Counsel and two junior counsel – at a total cost of £81,000 before it cleared Lord Ashcroft’s donations to the Conservative Party through Bearwood Corporate Services, according to a Parliamentary answer to the Liberal Democrats.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

“It is appalling that the Electoral Commission has had to go to four different lawyers, on top of its own legal team, at a total cost of £81,000 before they got the answer that they wanted, which was to give the all clear to Lord Ashcroft’s dodgy donations.
 
“The Electoral Commission should now publish all the legal advice so that others can make a judgement about whether to challenge this decision in the courts.
 
“This smacks of the sort of legal tourism we saw in the Government over the illegal war in Iraq and at Lehman’s before it collapsed, where some lawyers wouldn’t give the opinion they wanted so they moved on until they found one who would.”

“Both parties need to agree to a cross-party Commission designed to reach agreement within a year,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary.

Commenting on today’s King’s Fund report on social care, Norman Lamb said:

“Today’s report supports the Liberal Democrat view that the fairest way to fund social care in the future is through a partnership between individuals and the state.

“While everyone agrees that the social care system is in urgent need of reform we have to be realistic about the state of the public finances. That’s why it’s so important that all the major parties sit down together and work this out.

“Older voters won’t be fooled by Labour and Tory attempts to win their votes with piecemeal policies. Both parties need to agree to a cross-party Commission designed to reach agreement within a year.”

The Liberal Democrats will today call for tougher immigration control in densely populated areas like London and the South East while allowing more migrants elsewhere.

In a keynote speech to Policy Exchange today, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne will say that an overall national limit of the sort proposed by the Tories would be too lax in London and the South East and too tough in Scotland.

Commenting, Chris Huhne said:

“Immigration is vital to our economy but lots of people are worried by the issue because of Labour’s catastrophic mismanagement of the system.

“If we are to make the case for a liberal immigration policy, we have to give the public confidence that the flow is properly managed and the pace of change is reasonable.

“The Liberal Democrats are the only party offering a hard-headed assessment of the needs of different regions and parts of the economy.

“We need a system that makes migrants go to those areas that most need them.

“The Tory policy of pulling up the drawbridge because we have reached an arbitrary national limit would bring in the worst of all worlds.

“Immigrants would continue to crowd into the most populous parts of the country – making the policy too lax for the South East of England and too tight for Scotland.”

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today gave a speech to the IPPR on deficit reduction.

Something big is missing from the public debate about the deficit.
The public.
Politicians, economists and business leaders have been firing pot-shots at one another for well over 18 months on this issue.
But so far it has been a process largely confined to a political and economic bubble in Westminster, Whitehall and the City of London.
The debate has been cut off from the realities of people’s everyday lives.

We have had groups of economists trading letters in the newspapers about the best time to begin fiscal contraction.
We have had Alistair Darling and George Osborne, Gordon Brown and David Cameron using these disparate economic analyses to score points off one another in TV studios and the House of Commons.
We have had lists of demands from the CBI and the Institute of Directors.
We have had commentary from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Half of the debate has been political posturing, and the other half elevated economic theorising.

There is an enormous risk ahead.
In a democracy, dramatic change cannot be imposed from above or it will fail.
It has to be led by a process of political engagement.
You only have to look at the scale of industrial unrest in Greece to see that it is impossible to reduce a public deficit quickly if you do not find a way to persuade people to go along with the process.
And you only have to look at the success of the fiscal contraction in Canada, where a purposeful attempt was made to engage the public, to see that it is possible to rally support for deficit reduction, and it makes it easier to achieve the necessary cuts.

My point is simple:
If we do not find a way to take the people of Britain with us on this difficult journey of deficit reduction…
We will not be able to make the journey.
We will instead follow Greece down the road to economic, political and social disruption.

In my view, regardless of the outcome of the next election…
It is unrealistic to presume that this level of change can be driven through by the standard procedures of Westminster politics.
Our current government was elected with the support of just 22% of eligible voters.
How can a government elected without majority support ever command majority support for something as painful as deficit reduction on the scale required?

If a government tries to ram through major change to public spending solely through the usual Westminster combination of machismo and threats from the Whips, it will not only fail…
It could find itself torn to pieces.

The debate on public spending has been too narrowly focused on timing.
It has forgotten the biggest and most essential ingredient of all: how to win public support.

Economists and politicians alike need to remember what public spending is.
Yes: your approach to public spending says a lot about your political identity.
But no: that doesn’t mean the sole purpose of public spending is for ideological positioning.
Yes: the big numbers and the economic trends are important.
But no: that doesn’t mean public spending is just numbers on a balance sheet that can be increased or decreased at will to fit with an economic theory.

Public spending is not just numbers.
Public spending is nurses’ and doctors’ salaries.
It is text books and computers in the classroom.
It is police on the streets and judges in the court room.
It is the difference between decent tanks and soldiers dying from roadside bombs.
Public spending is the difference for millions of families between making ends meet and having to go without.
Reducing it is going to be extremely difficult.
And it will be painful.

The scale of the deficit we are dealing with at the moment is enormous.
£175bn this year.
12 and a half percent of GDP.
A deficit of which the Government thinks up to £80bn is structural, meaning it will not be eliminated by anticipated economic growth.
One of the worst myths being peddled by some within both Labour and Conservative parties at the moment is that the deficit can be eliminated simply through better management, efficiency drives and waste reduction.
As if we can reduce public spending by as £80bn or more a year without anyone noticing.
That is not true, and it is wrong to pretend otherwise.
Even efficiencies usually mean redundancies, and that means more people out of work.
The truth is that to eliminate the deficit, we are going to have to look in detail at everything the government does…
And some of them will simply have to stop.

This is an unprecedented challenge in the modern era.
We need to bring about the biggest fiscal contraction in post-war political history.
This will mean enormously tight spending rounds for many years to come.
Liberal Democrats will be setting out in advance of the election a full plan for £15bn a year of savings that can be delivered by 2012…
Assuming the economy is in a strong enough position by then to bear this level of fiscal restraint.
But we are the first to admit that our plan does not yet go far enough.
Even by end of the next Parliament, there will be another £10-15bn of savings to find over what we have announced and the Government has already found.
With another £40bn of savings in today’s prices that need to be identified by 2018.
And those figures, enormous though they are, are all built on the presumption of decent growth and that the government’s proposed 8-year timetable for deficit reduction remains appropriate.
Liberal Democrats believe we may need to revisit both the timetable and the level of savings required…
If borrowing conditions worsen dramatically, if growth does not match up to Treasury expectations or if the structural element of the deficit turns out to be larger than estimated.

Let’s be absolutely straightforward about this.
There is no serious doubt that at some point in the next eight years…
The government is going to have to stop spending as much as 10% of what it spends today.
This is not just a huge challenge for the mandarins and the politicians who will have to pore over the books of every department in search of cuts to make…
It is a huge challenge for every citizen of the United Kingdom…
All the millions of people who have to adjust to a new kind of environment for public spending.

We have to ease the pain.
We have to make sure people are bought into, not alienated by, the process of deficit reduction.
And ensure that cuts do not undermine fairness, but strengthen it.
I have identified three principles on which the process of deficit reduction should be based.
They are timing, consultation and fairness.
By sticking to these three principles, I believe we can buy people into the process of governmental change ahead.

First: timing.
This has, at least, been the subject of extensive debate, but good economics has been crowded out by political dogma.
My approach is simple:
We must get the timing right because if we cut public spending too quickly, we risk undermining a nascent recovery…
And undermining the growth in tax receipts that is so desperately needed.
It’s like cutting back a tree – do it at the wrong time of year, and you will kill the tree.
Do it at the right time, and you help it to grow strong.

That is why Vince Cable and I have set out five objective economic conditions that we will assess when judging when public spending should begin to be cut.
These are: the rate of growth; the level of unemployment; credit conditions; the extent of spare capacity in the economy and the cost of Government borrowing.
Our working assumption is that the conditions will be right for cuts from 2011-12, but not before.
So in our first year of office, we will recycle the money from any cuts we can identify…
Like taking the top 20% of claimants out of the tax credit system…
Into an economic stimulus and job creation package…
To help kick-start the economy on a greener footing.

This jobs plan will be fiscally neutral…
But it will get up to 100,000 people back into work.
Demonstrating a clear commitment from government to put jobs and growth first.
Ensuring there is a clear benefit to individuals from the initial cuts we make…
And helping win public support for change.

The second principle on which deficit reduction plans should be based is consultation.
It would be completely wrong for officials and ministers of whatever government is elected on May 6 to lock themselves in a room for a few months and announce a plan.
The outcome would be instant anger and alienation.
Imagine it:
Knowing nothing for week after week about whether your job was secure…
Your benefits were protected…
Or your school was safe…
Waiting for the announcements, unclear about the future and unable to influence the outcome.
And when the announcements came…
It would be like twenty Budget days come all at once.
Everyone desperately trying to work out from the small print how they will be affected.

You simply cannot cancel one in ten pounds of government spending without asking people – the people who run public services and the people who use them – how best to do it.
I believe Britain must learn from the approach taken by the Liberal government in Canada in the 1990s.
At that time, Canada had an annual budget deficit a tenth the size of its economy…
Almost as large as the UK’s is today.
Rather than making cuts behind closed doors, the Liberal Government realised that if people were to understand what needed to be done they had to talk to them.
They held a massive consultation.
About every last line of public spending.
Asking the people who really knew: what to cut and what to protect.
And they managed to eliminate that vast deficit in four years…
Taking the people with them.

Liberal Democrats will follow Canada’s lead.
After the election, we will hold an emergency budget and interim spending review which will put in place cuts which could be realised within the financial year, such as scrapping the Child Trust Fund or restricting tax credits, to release money for our job and infrastructure package.
Subject to our five economic tests being met, that interim spending review will also put into place the cuts for 2011-12 identified in our manifesto.
Then, throughout the summer and early autumn…
We will hold a comprehensive spending review of all departments…
Consulting for three or four months with people in every part of Britain…
In every industry…
Of every age.
Not just to win support…
But to seek ideas.

The people who use public services and the people who run them know far better than ministers and mandarins what is needed and what is not.
Last autumn I set up a website called Ask the People in the Know, where I sought ideas from public servants about how and where to cut.
We were flooded with hundreds of suggestions.
From wasteful procurement practices to unnecessary projects.
People out there in the country are full of ideas.
We just need to harness those ideas, using the innovative capacity of everyone in Britain to tackle this unprecedented national challenge.

The third essential principle is fairness.
It’s a fundamental British value.
It’s something everyone instinctively understands.
It must be right at the centre of our minds when we look for savings that can be made.
Not just because it is right in principle…
But also because it is the only way to maintain solidarity…
And ensure continued public support for deficit reduction.
No-one will support cuts to public spending that seem to have an unfair impact on the people most in need of help.

So we need to choose cuts that have a fair impact.
We need to keep the door open to limited new spending, where it is essential for fairness.
And we need to put fairness into our tax system, too.
So people do not feel they are being forced to pay through the nose for disappearing services.

Identifying cuts that have a fair impact is challenging.
But possible.
Our proposal for restraint in public sector pay, for example.
Instead of proposing a blanket freeze, like the Conservatives, or a 1% pay rise like Labour…
We propose a cash limit on pay rises of £400.
That will ensure the lower your salary, the higher percentage pay rise you are eligible for.
For an NHS manager on £90,000, £400 is a tiny increase.
But for a janitor on £12,000, it would be a substantial 3% pay rise.
This proposal is not only right in principle, because it means those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest strain…
It is also right for practical purposes because it is fair, and will therefore secure broader support for pay restraint that may have to last for several years.

In other areas, it is only possible to make cuts fair if you redirect some of the money into alternate spending.
Liberal Democrats will not, for these reasons, put every penny we can save into deficit reduction…
We will use one third of that money for alternate spending…
To really enshrine fairness in our society.
We propose a pupil premium, worth £2.5bn a year for our schools, targeted at helping children from the most deprived backgrounds, but making it possible for schools to cut class sizes and increase one-to-one tuition to the benefit of everyone.
We propose 3,000 more police on the beat
We propose a pay rise for our troops, especially those at the more junior ranks.

If all people hear is austerity and cuts…
They will lose hope.
If people see that there are choices being made…
That some cuts are being used to improve their lives or the lives of those in tremendous need…
They will be readier to support the process.
And rightly so.

Fairness must not just be constrained to what government spends money on, however.
We need to put fairness into our tax system, too, to win support.
That is where our fair tax package comes in.
Liberal Democrats propose the most radical reform of our tax system in a generation.
We will ensure no-one pays tax on the first £10,000 they earn, paid for by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit those at the top and increasing taxes on polluting aircraft.
That means complete freedom from income tax for 3.6m low earners and pensioners.
And £700 in the pockets of tens of millions more.

This is the right thing to do for the sake of fairness, correcting the imbalance that has long meant the poorest pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest.
It is the right thing to do for economic recovery, too, as it will put money back in the pockets of millions of people who are currently struggling…
And the evidence suggests a high proportion of that money will be spent, circulating in the economy and driving consumer demand.
But our tax changes are also part of a grand bargain between a future government of whatever composition…
And the British people who want to see they are being looked after and supported even as the deficit is reduced and public spending falls.

Most people recognise that paying taxes is a social obligation, by which we contribute to shared services that we depend on as a community.
But how can anyone feel positive about paying taxes when they see the wealthiest people getting out of paying their dues?
And how much anger will it create if people feel they are paying too much tax at the same time as losing public services on which they depend?

Our tax package offers a way forward: the means by which public support for his long and difficult process can be won and maintained.
Tax cuts for millions will sweeten the very bitter pill of the largest fiscal contraction in modern history.
If we do not implement these changes…
It will be impossible to rally people behind public sector spending cuts…
And any serious attempt to cut the deficit will fail.

By making the tax system fair…
We can ensure people see the benefit of change…
We can ensure that cuts to public spending do not hurt individual families who cannot take the strain.
And we can ensure that the process of reducing the deficit carries public opinion instead of alienating already disenfranchised voters from the political process.

Reducing the deficit will be one of the biggest challenges for the next government, whatever its complexion.
With several public sector unions already campaigning against government proposals for spending restraint…
While business organisations campaign for tax cuts…
It is clear that the political challenge will be as large, if not larger, than the practical challenge.

Deficit reduction will take the best part of a decade.
It will take great courage and effort to maintain public support for restraint and austerity for such a long period of time.
One-off bribes such as those Labour is predicted to include in the budget will not sustain support over the long term.
But I believe if fairness is put first in identifying cuts…
If tax reform is brought forward to put money back the pockets of the millions of people who depend on public services…
If government makes the effort to ask the people who run public services and the people who use them for their ideas on how and what to cut…
And if growth is nurtured by maintaining public spending for one more year, while recovery is still fragile…
It will be possible.
We will be able to reduce the deficit…
Protect the nation’s financial position…
And build a stronger, fairer and more united Britain.

“Labour has failed when it comes to our children’s health,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary.

Commenting on the Chief Medical Officer’s report released today which calls for fitness tests for children in secondary schools, Norman Lamb said:
 
“Sir Liam Donaldson is right to raise concerns about the state of our children’s health but routine ‘bleep tests’ won’t by themselves solve the obesity crisis facing the country.
 
“Labour has failed when it comes to our children’s health. Gordon Brown claimed three years ago that every child would get the chance to do five hours of sport each week but less than a third are doing it.
 
“It’s hardly surprising that physical activity has declined and obesity soared when ministers spend all their time obsessing about targets, process and surveys.

“Physical activity should be a central part of our children’s lives, not an optional extra. This means protecting playing fields, ensuring lottery money is spent on facilities and improving links between schools and community clubs so kids have somewhere to keep playing sport once they leave school.”

“This is a pretty desperate attempt from Ed Balls to re-package existing deprivation funding for schools,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary.

Commenting on the Government’s launch of a consultation on the future of schools funding, David Laws said:
 
“This is a pretty desperate attempt from Ed Balls to re-package existing deprivation funding for schools.
 
“What is missing is any suggestion of additional money.

“Since it would be politically impossible to cut the budgets of some schools to shift money to others, what Ed Balls is talking about is political posturing not serious policy.”

“If any Government tries to cut back too soon, it will aggravate unemployment, making the deficit worse and compounding the country’s problems,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

Responding to the Bank of England’s latest quarterly bulletin and its warnings of job market uncertainty, Vince Cable said:

“This is strong confirmation from the Bank of England that the British economy is still weak.

“Although unemployment is not as bad as it could have been given the extent of the economic collapse, there is still worrying uncertainty.

“The clear implication of the Bank’s analysis is that if any Government tries to cut back too soon, it will aggravate unemployment, making the deficit worse and compounding the country’s problems.

“Each party must set out a clear process of what and how it will cut to tackle the deficit, but when this starts must be guided by economics, not political dogma.”

The Government is now involved in a damaging row with the country’s biggest union after a cabinet minister launched an extraordinary attack against a planned strike by British Airways cabin crew.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said the planned seven days of industrial action could put the future of the airline at risk, calling the walkouts “totally unjustified.”

Unite hit back at the minister, saying he was “badly informed” about the long-running dispute, adding that he should be urging the airline to reinstate an offer it withdrew last week.

It is understood that the union has made representations to 10 Downing Street about the minister’s intervention, and it is now expected that the Prime Minister will directly intervene.

Lord Adonis appealed to Unite to return to the negotiating table in an attempt to avert the industrial action planned to begin with a three day strike from next Saturday, followed by a four day stoppage from the following weekend.

Lord Adonis told BBC1’s Andrew Marr show:

“The impact this will have will not only be deeply damaging on passengers, it will … threaten the very existence of British Airways.

“The stakes are incredibly high in this strike. I absolutely deplore the strike, it is not only the damage it is going to do passengers and the inconvenience it’s going to cause - which is quite disproportionate to the issues at stake - but also the threat it poses to the future of one of our great companies in this country.

“It’s totally unjustified, the strike, on the merits of the issues at stake. I do call on the union to engage constructively with the company at this late stage.”

A Unite spokesman said:

“Lord Adonis appears badly informed. We all want to avoid strike action and Unite is always ready to negotiate. Unite was preparing to put BA’s offer to our members. Had they accepted it, there would be no strikes.

Unite is a major Labour Party donor and critics have claimed the Government is unwilling to condemn the union’s actions.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said:

“BA and the Unite union are behaving like spoilt children in the playground and as usual it is innocent passengers who will suffer. They should call off their strike immediately and find some other way to make their point.

“The fact this strike is due to occur at roughly the same time as the Network Rail dispute looks suspiciously like co-ordinated union action. The unions are trying their best to wind the clock back to the 1970s and create a Spring of Discontent.

“The consequences for the Labour Party will be the same as they were in 1979.”

You can watch a video of Nick Clegg’s speach to the Liberal Democrats Spring Conference by clicking on the picture below

Liberal Democrat Work and Pensions Spokesman,Lord Oakeshott said that he was surprised that the CPS has decided that Baroness Uddin will not be charged over her expenses, but he added that it was now time for the Lords’ interests committee to deal with her.

He said:

“If the courts can’t deal with her the committee must,”

Lord Oakeshott said it “can’t be right” that she can claim a home as  her main home where she has reportedly never been seen by neighbours, and added that he was “very surprised” that the DPP had chosen not to proceed with charges.

“Vote for what you believe in… or you will wake up on May 7th facing another five years of more of the same,” said the Liberal Democrat Leader.

Shall I tell you the one phrase that bothers me more than any other? It’s this.
“That’s just the way things are”.
No. The way things are is not the way they have to be.
 
We do not have to live in a country where the poorest pay the biggest chunk of their income in tax. We do not have to live in a country where politics is the plaything of wealthy donors and corrupt MPs. We do not have to live in a country where the banks can profiteer at the expense of everybody else and our climate is in jeopardy. We do not have to live in a country where children’s chances are determined more by their parents’ background than by their own hopes and dreams.

There is a better way.
 
Imagine instead a primary school with classes of just 20 pupils. Imagine being able to take home the first £10,000 you earn completely free of income tax. Imagine a generation of young people finding work in thriving local manufacturing companies. Imagine being able to sack corrupt MPs, instead of just shouting at them on TV. Imagine knowing your vote counts. Imagine it.

These are not dreams. They are ambitions. Our ambitions. And they are ambitions which can come true if we do things differently.
 
But we will never do things differently as long as the job of governing this country remains a game of pass-the-parcel between the two old parties. For 65 years now we have had Labour and Conservative governments. First the blue team. Then the red. Then blue, then red, and yet nothing really changes. The same old promises, always broken.

No wonder people feel let down. No wonder people feel they shouldn’t expect too much. The old parties have drained our ambition to do things differently. They seem to say: we’ve been in charge for decades – don’t now start hoping for more. That’s just the way things are. No.
 
This year’s election is a huge opportunity. Everybody knows, in their heart of hearts, that we need real change. Everybody knows that the way we got here is not the way out.
 
The time to believe in our ambitions starts today. The time to do something different in politics. The time to fight for a fairer Britain. The time to bring real change. It starts today. Change that works for you.

Something really important has been happening in our politics for years. Something big – but gradual – so you wouldn’t notice it from day to day. There is a vast and growing army of people who look at the two old parties and say “no thanks.” People who, like me, like you, want something different.

In 1951, only 2% of voters chose someone other than Labour or the Conservatives. At the last general election, it was 32%.
 
Now, a gimmick here, or a lucky break there may boost Labour or Conservative poll ratings for a few weeks or months, but it cannot, and will not reverse the trend. Who seriously believes that the British people, offered so much choice in every aspect of our daily lives, will ever again settle for a two-party system? If you have two parties, you only ever have two ideas. Actually that’s on a good day. Most of the time they can’t even rustle up a single good idea between them.
 
Labour: the party of the many. The many disasters. You know their new slogan: a future fair for all.
If that sounds familiar, that’s because they’ve used it before. Seven years ago. Well based on what’s happened since then: it isn’t a slogan – it’s a warning. It’s like advertising a second trip on the Titanic. Gordon Brown’s unsinkable economy. Actually, there is one thing I have to give Gordon Brown credit for: He handled Piers Morgan a lot better than I did.
 
As for the Conservatives: the world’s first offshore political party. It used to be a British party. Now it’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lord Ashcroft, a man who collects tax havens the way some people collect beer mats. How can David Cameron claim to clean up politics, when he can’t even clean up his own party chairman? The label still says Made in Britain, but the money says Made in Belize.
 
With these two old parties, it is a dismal choice between the party of the few and the party of no-one. A choice between the wrong direction and backwards. They haven’t noticed people are tired of being told there are only two answers to every question. They haven’t noticed people are ready for something new. Ready for something different. And ready to make it happen.

We have had a great weekend. Coming together, here in Birmingham. To vote through the four big promises that will be the heart of our manifesto. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket. A fair start at school for every child. A fair economy: protecting and creating jobs by reforming the banks and investing in a green future. And a fair deal for you from politicians, cleaning up and clearing out the rotten old system.
 
We have been rigorous in focusing ourselves on these four pledges. We understand that the days of shopping list manifestos are over. The economic and financial circumstances mean we must choose. To focus on what is essential, and not promise more than we can afford. The party which will win the argument during this General Election will be the party which strikes the right balance between generosity and restraint, hope and realism, spending and saving.
 
That is why I make no apology in stating bluntly that we will never take risks with the public finances. Whether we like it or not, we will have to fix the mess Gordon Brown has made. Without sanity in spending, we won’t be able to protect our public services. We won’t be able to give our brave troops the equipment and support they so desperately need in Afghanistan. We won’t be able to provide the fairness we want for all. The question facing us is not whether to cut the deficit. It is how and when.
 
Everyone who’s ever cut back a tree knows there are many ways to do it. You can cut back badly and kill the tree. Or you can do it in a way that helps the tree to flourish in the future. Encouraging growth in a new direction. So as we reduce the deficit. We must cut in a way that does not make the country less fair.  Or less green. That does not jeopardise front line services in the NHS and schools we all depend on. And does not choke off recovery.
 
Labour is in denial about the need for cuts. This week Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown confirmed the pre election budget won’t include any more details on how to bring the deficit under control.
No courage. No honesty.
Just a miserable attempt to save their own skins.
 
Meanwhile the Conservatives have started to make threats. David Cameron, George Osborne and Ken Clarke marched into the City of London the other day and declared that if voters didn’t give them the result they want, the markets would tear the house down.
Cynical. Desperate.

The Tories think they’re entitled to victory – the moment they feel it slipping from their grasp, they start lashing out. It’s a political version of a protection racket: do what we want, or else.
 
Liberal Democrats are, I believe, the guarantor of good sense. After all, we are the party of Vince Cable. We are the guarantor – whatever the outcome of the election – that no risks will be taken with Britain’s financial position. Liberal Democrats have gone further than any political party in identifying cuts – we will be setting out a programme of savings of £15bn a year by 2012. From ending government contributions to Child Trust Funds to removing the top 20% of claimants from the tax credit system. From cancelling the ID card programme to abolishing the Government Offices for the Regions. We have put together, line by line, the most substantial and deliverable programme of deficit reduction in British politics. And we have taken the bold step of cutting back, dramatically, our proposals for new spending.

Postponing ideas that have long been close to our hearts but which are not immediately affordable. So we can put two thirds of the money we save straight into reducing the deficit.
 
It is the first time in our history that Liberal Democrats have ever set out a plan for net reductions in government spending. But I am the first to admit that it does not go far enough. There will be more to do, and we will have to find these savings together, as a nation. Our plan is a down payment – a declaration of intent. Your guarantee that Liberal Democrats are putting Britain’s financial future at the heart of our plans for government.

People often ask me what the Liberal Democrats will do after the General Election. I’m flattered that people think I can predict the future. The newspapers certainly think they can. Some days I read we’re planning a deal with Labour. Some days that we’re planning a deal with the Conservatives. Other days that we’ll refuse to talk to anyone at all. Yet, when all the speculation is said and done, I keep coming back to some simple truths:
I am not the kingmaker.
The 45 million voters of Britain are the kingmakers.
They give the politicians their marching orders, not the other way round.
It’s called democracy – and I kind of like it.
 
Almost 1 in 4 voters chose the Liberal Democrats at the last election. If that increased to 1 in 3, we could lead the next government. This election is a time for voters to choose, not a time for politicians to play footsie with each other. The party which gets the strongest mandate from the voters will have the moral authority to be the first to seek to govern. And voters are entitled to know what Liberal Democrats will do – in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

This weekend we’ve given the answer:
We will give you fairer taxes. We will make sure your child gets the fair start in life they deserve.
We will create a new, fair economy where we are no longer held hostage by the greed of bankers in the City of London. And we will give you a fair, open and transparent politics after the gross betrayal of the expenses scandal. It really is as simple as that. No-one can guarantee what the election result will be. But I can guarantee what we will always fight to deliver.
 
And if you like what we say. If you share our values. If you want fair taxes, a fair start in life for your child, a fairer economy, and a new, fair politics. Vote for it.

Tax

One of the biggest changes we offer is to your tax bill. My philosophy on tax is simple. A fair tax system is one that rewards hard work, enterprise and initiative. It penalises pollution and other threats to the common good. It bears down on unearned wealth. That is what we will deliver.
 
Under the Liberal Democrats, no-one will pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn. Let me repeat that: Because this is one of the most substantial changes to tax that a party has ever offered at a General Election. Under the Liberal Democrats, no-one will pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn.
 
We’re not talking about tinkering or tweaking. We’re talking about fundamental, substantial and irreversible reform. Under the Liberal Democrats, no-one will pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn.
 
3.6 million people will be freed from paying tax altogether. Tens of millions more on low and middle incomes will get a tax cut of £700 back in their pockets. A real change to deliver lasting tax fairness for everyone.
 
The Conservatives may want tax cuts for millionaires. We will deliver tax cuts for millions.
 
But it has to be paid for. No-one is going to fall for a false promise of a giveaway. So we will make five simple, but substantial changes to pay for this tax cut. One: Equalising pensions tax relief so top earners no longer get more than everyone else. Two: Equalising Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax so people who make their money trading shares and properties pay the same rates as everyone else. Three: An increase in aviation taxes. Four: A crack down on tax avoidance. And finally – a new mansion tax on properties worth over £2m. This is one tax even oligarchs and billionaires will not be able to avoid. You can’t put a mansion in a briefcase and take it to Belize.
 
Just imagine the difference this change would make. You know anyone working full time on the minimum wage pays more than a £1000 in income tax every year? Under the Liberal Democrats, their tax bill will plummet to less than £6 a week. They’ll be £700 better off. £700 to pay for children’s school clothes, to fix the car, to pay the heating bill.

That is change that works for you.
 
Children

Liberal Democrats will give every child the fair start they deserve. By reducing class sizes and increasing one to one tuition in our schools. Children have to be nurtured and cherished, right from the start.
 
Miriam and I know this as parents of three lovely little boys. We see for ourselves that what happens to our 8 and 5 year old boys in the classroom has a dramatic effect on their enthusiasm to learn and their self confidence which will shape them for the rest of their lives.
 
Mind you, I think both Miriam and I were a little surprised when our eight year old son declared the other day that he had a plan for winning the election. He’d been counting up his pocket money, and suggested we could pay everybody off to vote for us. It’s not so much the suggestion I mind, it more that he’s clearly giving his best ideas to Lord Ashcroft first.
 
But as much as children depend on us today. We are going to depend on them for far longer. Think about a child in your local primary school, doing experiments with egg cartons and elastic bands. That child could be the inventor of a cure for cancer which saves your life thirty years from now.
 
We don’t know what the future holds. We don’t know what our children will achieve. All we know is that our country is still not a place truly fit for them to grow up in.
 
Labour’s target for school achievement is to ensure that at least three out of every 10 children in a school get five good GCSEs. Three out of every 10. Imagine being in a class where just passing means you are the exception. We are teaching our children to drop their expectations. Telling them to aim low.

It has to change.
 
Liberal Democrats are the only party promising new investment in our schools. We’ll be putting more money, £2.5 billion every year, into schools to pay for more teachers, better discipline and catch-up classes. An average primary school could cut class sizes to just 20, ensuring children starting out at school have the personal, nurturing relationship with their teacher they need. An average secondary school could put the money into catch-up classes for 160 pupils. Making sure no child is ever left behind.

That is change that works for you.
 
Economy

The recession has hurt millions of families. But the problems run deeper than just the immediate crisis. For too long, a succession of Conservative and Labour Governments have been obsessed about looking after just one square mile – the City of London. It’s time to invest in the other 100,000 square miles of Britain. Creating jobs and growth that lasts for every town, city and village of this country.
 
After the economic crisis that rocked the world. We must not rebuild the fortresses of old. We must use this as an opportunity to build something new. Not least to ensure we can pass on to our children a planet worth living on. We now know that the next few years are probably our last chance to avert unstoppable climate change. This is not a problem, it is an emergency. It must guide everything we do as we rebalance our economy.
 
Growth that lasts does not threaten our children’s future. It recognises that our planet is a gift that must be cherished. That tomorrow is our responsibility as much as today.
 
And growth that lasts does not leave an underclass behind. It brings everyone along, sharing prosperity – because the more people are included. the more people are enabled to seize opportunities, the more prosperity there is for all.
 
But we cannot have a new kind of growth with the old kind of banks. It is time to break them up.
Bring back competition. Bring back diversity. Bring back building societies.
 
And until we do it we should insist that banks pay a premium on their profits to the taxpayers who have bailed them out. We will separate low risk utility banking from high risk investment finance once and for all. So banks never again take insane risks which jeopardise your everyday savings.
 
Some people say it is impossible to split the banks like this. They’re usually – you guessed it – the bankers themselves. The governor of the Bank of England says it is not only possible but essential to break up the banks. He’s right. They’re wrong. Only the Liberal Democrats say: The banking industry, no industry, must ever again occupy such a privileged position that it can hold a gun to the head of rest of the economy. Never again.
 
But reforming the banks should not be an act of retribution. It is about getting money flowing to the thousands of businesses starved of credit today. Without support from banks, companies go bust, and the jobless remain without hope.
 
I was staggered when I heard that RBS, a bank we own, was lending millions of pounds to help Kraft buy Cadbury. A great Birmingham company. RBS was funding this deal which everybody knew would cost jobs in Britain. While small business customers of this very bank were being turned down for loans or charged extortionate rates. This was a scandal. And Labour let it happen. When we bailed out the banks: Did you ever imagine your money would be used to put British people out of work? Only Liberal Democrats say: never again.
 
Once the banks are lending again. We can turn our attention not just to protecting jobs, but to creating new ones. In our first year in office, we will use the money from that banking levy. And the money from reforming tax credits. To create as many as 100,000 jobs in green industries. Kick-starting the economy on a new, sustainable footing.
 
I was standing in a shipyard on the Tyne just a few weeks ago. It was deserted. And I thought back to the days gone by when it would have been humming with activity. It’s heartbreaking to think of that decline. And the devastating impact it had on whole communities.
 
But it is inspiring to imagine these old shipyards. Once the pride of Britain. Coming back to life as a hub for building the vast new turbines needed for offshore wind and tidal energy. Helping to power Britain and Europe with clean, safe energy for all.
 
Britain used to lead the world. We built ships. We designed railways. We laid the first telegraph cables across the oceans. This is the nation of Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone. Of Isaac Newton, who made modern science possible. Of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the greatest civil engineer in history.
 
We have to harness that inventive spirit once again. We have been blinded for too long by the glitz of the financial services sector. Blinded to the real, solid virtue of making things. It has to change. Under the Liberal Democrats, it will change. No longer just betting on things. We will start Britain building things again. That is change that works for you.
 
Politics

But there’s something standing in the way of change. Our political system. All the pomp and ceremony of our Parliament. All the adorably daft rituals. Have been camouflage for corruption.
 
It is just plain wrong that a government elected by the votes of just 22% of people can rule however it likes. It is just plain wrong that a government can commit us to an illegal war against the will of the people. It is just plain wrong that some MPs were so out of touch with the basic principles of right and wrong that they thought it was ok to do up house after house at taxpayers’ expense, flip them and flog them off for a profit.
 
People say all politicians are the same. They are not.

Of course, Liberal Democrats are not perfect. But no Liberal Democrat MP “flipped” their home in this way. None of our outer London MPs even claimed a second home allowance. And it was Liberal Democrats who fought against Tory and Labour attempts to keep the whole scandal hidden in the first place. So don’t let them tell you we are all the same because it isn’t true.
 
Liberal Democrats are the only party that understands expenses were just the tip of the iceberg. Our whole political system is a mess. David Cameron and Gordon Brown talk about political reform. But they won’t even contemplate the really radical changes we need.
 
Only Liberal Democrats will get big money and corrupt donors out of politics altogether. Change the voting system to abolish safe seats and make every vote count. Reduce the number of MPs by 150.
Reverse the tide of decades of centralisation. Devolve power over the police and NHS to local communities. Pass a freedom bill to protect our hard-won rights and liberties from the whims of government ministers. And give constituents the right to sack corrupt MPs.

That is change that works for you.
 
Conclusion

Four steps to a fairer Britain:
Fair taxes.
A new, fair start for all children at school.
A rebalanced, fair and green economy.
And clean, open, fair politics.
 
For Gordon Brown, change is what you promise when you want everything to stay the same. For David Cameron, change stops on May 7th. It’s change for him, not change for you. We are different.
 
I want to warn you about something that is coming in the next few weeks. We are going to hear a nonsensical claim from the two old parties. Designed to scare people into voting against their best interests. The Conservatives will say: vote Lib Dem… get Brown. Labour will say: vote Lib Dem… get Cameron.

Don’t believe it for a second. They are wrong.
Vote Lib Dem… get change.
Vote Lib Dem… get fairness.
A vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a vote for anyone else.
It is your guarantee of real change that works for you.
 
A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a commitment to hope and opportunity.
It’s a vote that says:
I want government to be honest and open.
I want a green economy.
I want fairer taxes.
I want a fairer future for my children and for all our children.
 
I know there are many people who listen to the Liberal Democrats and really like what they hear.
But you worry that your vote would be wasted. You worry that your choice won’t make enough of a difference. So you are thinking of giving your vote to someone else. Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Brown just to keep out the Conservatives. I say to you: don’t do it.

Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Cameron just to get rid of Labour. Don’t do it. You have a once in a generation opportunity for real change.
A wasted vote is one that throws that opportunity away.
A wasted vote is one for a party that is stuck in the past.
A wasted vote is one for a party you don’t believe in.
 
How do you want to feel when you wake up on May 7th and hear the news? Would you smile at the prospect of five more years of Gordon Brown? Would you be thrilled if a Conservative government was now in charge?

If the answer is no, then don’t give them your vote. If you vote for less… you will get less. If you compromise on them… they will compromise on you. Just good enough – is not good enough any more.
 
When you think about who to vote for remember that the future of your country is at stake. Whatever you do… do not settle for the way things are.

Be demanding.
Vote for what you believe in.
Vote with your heart.
 
If you once voted Labour but have lost hope. If you once voted Conservative but don’t know what they stand for any longer. If you have given up voting altogether because nothing ever seems to change. Vote for something different this time.
 
Vote Lib Dem: get fairness.
Vote Lib Dem: get change.
Vote for what you believe in… or you will wake up on May 7th facing another five years of more of the same.
This is your chance.
This is your opportunity – for the sake of our future, do not waste it.
 
Choose the Liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference today backed plans to rebalance the economy and create thousands of new green jobs.

The plans will play a vital part in a fair recovery that locks in investment and ensures a path of low-carbon growth.

The plans for a green economic stimulus package are a core part of the Liberal Democrat election manifesto and include:

•  Immediate investment to expand our green energy infrastructure
•  Bringing hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use
• Insulating schools and other public buildings
• An ‘eco-cashback’ scheme to reward people who make energy efficiency improvements in their homes
• A National Infrastructure Bank to promote long-term investment in sustainable public transport and renewable energy

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Simon Hughes said:

“The Liberal Democrats have set out a blueprint for a fair economy that’s fit to last.

“A green stimulus package will help boost investment in clean energy, reduce fuel bills and create thousands of new jobs.

“Labour and the Tories can’t be trusted to deliver the green growth we need.

“Only the Liberal Democrats have bold and credible plans to rebalance the economy and put Britain at the forefront of this vital transition.”

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference today passed plans to clean up politics and urgently create a fairer and more local political system.

The proposals include:
 
 - A fairer voting system
 
 - A requirement for those who stand for Parliament or sit in the House of Lords to pay tax in Britain
 
 - A fully elected second chamber
 
 - The right for voters to sack their MP
 
 Commenting, Liberal Democrat Manifesto Chair, Danny Alexander said:
 
“Our broken political system desperately needs to be cleaned up.  Public confidence in politics is at an all time low, and the way the country is governed needs urgent reform.  
 
“The Liberal Democrats have passed plans today to make politics fairer, local and more transparent.  
 
“Labour has had 13 years to change our broken politics, and it’s failed to do so.
 
“Only the Liberal Democrats would end safe seats, reform the voting system and give local people a real say over how their neighbourhoods are governed.”
 

David Cameron had failed a key test of character and leadership by failing to confront Lord Ashcroft over his broken promises said the Liberal Democrat shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne.

The full text of the speech is below:

Conference, I have been in our party for 29 years – almost a generation – and I am just as angry at our unfair voting system today as I was when I joined. 

The first general election I fought was in 1983  - I lost three times before I started winning – when we won almost as many votes as Labour but just a tenth the seats.
 
That election night, I knew this is not right.
 
It is not fair.
 
It is no way to run a democracy.
 
Since then, the system has got even worse. 
 
This Labour government has won more than half the MPs with just a third of those who voted, and a fifth of those entitled to vote.
 
No majority government has ever been elected with less support.
 
We have a parliament that reflects our nation as badly as a distorting fairground mirror, a muddle of bulges.
 
This voting system means that we can predict now about half of the MPs in the next parliament.
 
The seats are so safe that the only real contest is for the party ticket.
In safe seats, the general election is just a charade.
 
And we know about human nature.
 
Give someone a job for life, and they will take advantage.
 
Dip their fingers in the till.
 
Clean a moat.
 
Buy a duck house.
 
Claim for a non-existent mortgage.
 
MPs in safe seats were three times as likely to have fiddled their expenses as MPs in battleground seats.
 
Remember not a single Liberal Democrat MP flipped their home.
 
Not a single Lib Dem MP avoided capital gains tax.
 
Not a single Lib Dem MP in London claimed a second home allowance at all.
 
I don’t say we got everything right, but our respect for public money is bred by winning our seats vote by hard-won vote.
 
It’s why we have not been involved in the worst expenses abuses.
 
It is why Liberal Democrat MPs claim lower personal expenses than Labour or Tory MPs.
 
It is also why the same discipline should apply to every MP.
 
Let’s abolish safe seats.
 
Labour has taken a teeny step in the right direction by arguing for one-two-three voting.
 
Talk about deathbed conversions.
 
Thirteen years doing nothing, and it takes the spectre of defeat to spur them to do anything.
 
But so little, so late.
 
True, preference votes remove the need for tactical voting.
 
They let people vote honestly for who they want, without fearing that they will let in who they hate.
 
But they still leave us with far too many safe seats, and the political parties will still decide who stands and wins in Toffshire South or Labour rotten borough North.
 
Instead, our Liberal Democrat system will give every voter the choice of two or more candidates for each party in a three to five MP constituency.
 
Of course, you could still vote to change the party in power.
 
But you could also keep the same party, but vote for another MP.
 
Voters will have the power to vote for the person as well as the party.
 
In Ireland, the professional politicians hate this system.
 
Why?
 
Because a third of those who lose their seats lose to members of their own party, not the opposition.
 
For the first time, every MP will have a strong incentive to answer the letters of their constituents, take up cases, champion local interests and causes.
That’s the real local link.
 
Nor does a representative parliament mean weak government.
 
Greece is the country in most financial trouble, and yet it always has single party government.
 
Britain is next in line, and so have we since 1945.
 
So which part of strong government do David Cameron and Gordon Brown most like?
 
The boom and the bust?
 
The legislative diarrhoea?
 
Or the illegal war in Iraq?
 
Take crime.
 
It is not a sign of strength that the Government has created 4300 new criminal offences since 1997.
 
We do not need these useless laws.
 
Some 60 criminal justice bills.
 
Nine immigration bills.
 
This is the political equivalent of attention-deficit disorder.
 
We need less law and better law.
Law that is properly scrutinised, settled and long lasting.
 
We need a simple penal code that magistrates, police officers and offenders can understand.
 
And we need a focus on what works to cut crime.
 
Liberal Democrats will take no lessons from the Tories or Labour on crime.
 
In Lib Dem council areas, preventive measures have pushed crime down further and faster than anywhere else.
 
In Tory areas, crime is down since the peak by 16 per cent.
 
In Lib Dem areas, it is down 20 per cent.
 
Imagine what more we could do in Government.
 
Labour and the Tories love to posture about tough penalties.
 
But penalties cannot make a blind bit of difference when only one in a hundred crimes ends in a court conviction.
 
The real deterrent is the fear of getting caught, and that means more police on the beat.
 
We are the only party committed to raising police numbers.
 
That means better policing by raising standards.
 
It means prison that reforms offenders, and does not enroll them in a college course in crime.
 
**
 
Whether on crime, or taxes, or the economy, fair politics must surely mean a battle of ideas, not bank balances.
 
As Nick has pointed out, the Ashcroft scandal shows why we must clean up party funding.
 
A billionaire baron from Belize has bought the Tory party like a banana republic, and it stinks.
 
Ashcroft made solemn and binding undertakings to become a permanent resident, and then broke them.
 
He does not pay full British taxes, but he thinks that he should pass laws for those of us that do.
 
Ashcroft wants to run the club, but not pay the sub.
 
This scandal tells us a lot about David Cameron.
 
He would not stand up to Ashcroft.
 
We named and shamed Ashcroft as a non-dom at prime minister’s questions, but even then Cameron failed to ask his over-mighty baron whether he was keeping his promises.
 
If that is the smack of strong management, heaven help the country if Cameron wins.
 
If he can’t clean up his own party, he is not fit for number 10.
 
We have heard a lot about bullying recently.
 
Real bullies sack the weak and suck up to the strong.
 
This was Cameron’s big test of character and leadership, and he failed.
 
He’s rattled.
 
He’s rumbled.
 
And he’s humbled.
 
And fair politics means local politics too.
 
Less power for the centre.
 
More power for Edinburgh and Cardiff.
 
More tax power for communities across England.
 
The business rate back to councils as a first step.
 
Elected health boards.
 
Elected police authorities with real powers to set the precept, and sack the Chief Constable.
 
Only local power can unleash the creativity that we need in tough times.
 
There are two parties in this election
arguing about changing faces and changing places, not changing Britain.
 
What matters is not playing ministerial musical chairs, but transforming the whole way we do politics.
 
By making every vote count, wherever you live, we will give every person in our nation a voice in its destiny.
 
Everyone, however rich or poor, low or high, will have their proper say.
 
You cannot build a fair society on an unfair voting system.
 
In this election, we have the chance of a generation to remake our politics and our society.
 
Don’t miss it.
 
Don’t mess up.
 
Don’t wake up on 7th May saying
“I wish I’d done more”.
 
Wake up saying
“Thank God I did enough.
We’ve won the power to build a fairer Britain.”

Liberal Democrat MEP for Yorkshire & the Humber, Diana Wallis since 1999, has welcomed the news that her parliamentary colleague and ex-Conservative MEP, Edward McMillan-Scott, has joined the Liberal Democrats following his expulsion from the Conservative Party over his opposition to the Conservative position over Europe.

Diana Wallis said:

“I have known Edward for many years and I am delighted he has agreed to join the Liberal Democrats

“Edward has proved himself to be a pro-European and a strong advocate of human rights across the world.

 Liberal Democrats is now the only party in the region to have two MEPs and it means that the two British Vice Presidents of the parliament are both Liberal Democrats and are both from Yorkshire & the Humber. It reinforces just how much more influence the Liberal Democrats

Liberal Democrat PPC for Great Grimsby, Andrew De Freitas also welcomed the news:

“ We already have the hard working Diana Wallis and with Edward McMillan-Scott, who is a very compassionate and sensible Conservative, this area will only benefit.

“It was a big problem when the Tories broke away from the mainstream grouping and aligned themselves with the right-wing parties. It leaves them as a small group now and if we get a Conservative government after the general election, it will leave them with little impact in Europe.”

This article was written by Vince Cable and appeared in today’s Mail on Sunday:

Does trade matter? Should we be bothered if Britain has a whopping deficit in manufacturing trade?

Well, yes, we should. A problem which haunted a generation of political leaders and chancellors is returning in a new form.

For a long time the country’s balance of payments disappeared as an issue: something that belonged to the era of steam trains, black and white TVs, The Beatles and Harold Wilson’s pipe.

Manufacturing: Britain needs to engender respect for people who make and build things

Except for a few, unhappy years in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism – remember Black Wednesday? – our sterling exchange rate has floated against other countries’ and, as a consequence, the balance of payments has, sort of, balanced itself.

If the trade deficit or the overall payments deficit got too big the pound could fall to help exporters and vice versa. A good theory. One less headache for Chancellors.

But there is a problem.

When I spoke at a conference of British manufacturers last week someone showed me a chart that described how, after being broadly balanced for half a century, in the decade after 1997 Britain’s balance of trade plunged to £60billion – five per cent of our economy.

This was the boom time on our Fantasy Island when imported goods were consumed on credit and exports suffered. Another £20billion or so went on travel.

Much of this deficit was paid for by financial services: banks and the rest of the City. But, as we have painfully discovered, banking is not some London-based El Dorado, pouring out everlasting riches for the economy to consume, but a highly precarious, risky industry that ultimately collapsed in a heap, and which we rescued.

The economist part of my brain says this problem will sort itself out because the pound will fall to make British manufacturing more competitive. 

The pound has indeed fallen – by 28 per cent against other currencies since before the credit crunch. Unfortunately the latest trade data tells the opposite story: exports in January fell (the worst monthly fall for eight years) and the deficit deteriorated.

One explanation for the January disappointment is that the developed world markets to which we export are also growing very weakly or not at all.

For all the talk about the new ‘gold rush’ to Asia and other emerging markets, trade with Ireland is larger than with China, India and Brazil combined.

The euro area generally is struggling, the US is also faltering badly. World trade fell by 12 per cent last year.

Crisis: Financial services cannot pour everlasting riches into the economy

So we have countries (like ours) trying to boost their economies through ‘export-led growth’ – but there aren’t buyers at the moment.

However, there are causes for hope and celebration – impressive British manufacturers who have survived and who are battling on.

A couple of weeks ago I visited Cosworth in Northampton. This company makes the engines for four of this year’s F1 teams and has branched out into various specialised areas of engineering where it is as good as anyone in the world.

On top of this, the firm is producing apprentices.

Last week I had lunch with an entrepreneur from Leicester who makes bushes for large electric insulators exported around the world, including to China.

A firm in my constituency also sells much of its production – a key component of wind turbines – to China.

In Luton, I met an impressive businessman who set up a company turning plastic waste into a substitute for plywood – a new British technology.

His customers want far more than he can produce.

These manufacturers have several things in common: advanced technology; high-quality specialist products; totally committed British managers and owners; and loyal, highly skilled workers.

There are many success stories – in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, information technology, TV, music and computer games, as well as specialised manufacturers. But there aren’t nearly enough of them.

To turn Britain back into a successful manufacturing country, part of what is needed is a cultural change: a respect for people who make things and for businessmen and women who invest their money in genuinely wealth-creating industries.

The Government should not be involved in picking winners. There was too much of that in the past and a lot of money was wasted. What the Government can and should concentrate on is ensuring that young people are educated to a standard where they are trainable and employable.

It can and should encourage teenagers to see the value of vocational training in technical colleges as an alternative to university, which for many is becoming an expensive route to unemployment.

And it is the Government’s job to ensure that there is a functioning infrastructure – transport, ports, energy, digital – which is why I believe we need an infrastructure bank.

Unless these things are done, creating a platform for a manufacturing revival, there will be no base for Britain to pay its way in the world and those old worries about the balance of trade, and payments, will reappear – with a vengeance.

Vince Cable is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman

Shortly after Vince Cable’s Conference Speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Confernce, I received the following email from the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

In his email, Vince Cable outlines how the Liberal Democrats would make Britain a fairer and more sustainable society; they would invest in green jobs, change our unfair tax system, and improve the living standards of pensioners.

However, the Liberal Democrats would make some immediate and necessary savings, such as cancellation of Trident which is longer needed. Please take time to read the email from Vince Cable:

Dear Les,

I have a very simple message for you. We the Liberal Democrats were right about the financial crisis. We warned of the dangers and led the debate when the crisis came. And now we have a clear vision for the future of the British economy.

Now the public wants to know who can guide the country out of the present crisis. Who’s going to deal with the broken, discredited banking system. Who’s going to lead Britain out of the longest recession since the War. And who will deal with the unsustainable level of Government borrowing.

Today in my speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference I set out the Liberal Democrat answers to these questions. You can read it here.

The challenges are enormous. We have to be frank with people about the difficulties ahead. We have to be fiscally responsible. But the Tories and their cronies want to create a financial panic to frighten people into voting for them on May 6th.

Only the Liberal Democrats have identified £15bn of savings to make from bloated bureaucracy and unaffordable commitments. We will identify our priorities and debate them publicly. That’s open, democratic and Liberal.

Only the Liberal Democrats will invest in jobs with a Green New Deal.

Only the Liberal Democrats will change our unfair tax system so that 3.6 million people will no longer pay any income tax at all. Pensioners will be £100 better off and the average person’s income tax bill will be cut by £700.

People are desperate to see the back of this Labour Government. But they don’t want the same old Tories. And make no mistake, the Tories are exactly the same.

Thank you for what you are doing in the Liberal Democrat campaign to change Britain for real.

Best wishes,

Vince Cable MP
Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor

PS. You can read my full speech here. And if you want to get more involved in our campaign, please do make a donation, or get in touch with your local party to offer your help.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister, Sarah Teather has today give a speech to Spring Conference setting out the party’s plans to bring hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use.

The full text of the speech is below:

Conference, I blame the Labour party for disengagement with politics. 

Sure, expenses has been a total disaster, and has made people angry.

But actually, I don’t think that is where the rot set in.

It set in in 1997.
Just after the election.
It started the day Tony Blair got in his ministerial car and travelled to one of the poorest estates in the country and pledged to stand up for the forgotten people.

It started, in the euphoria and relief that we all felt when we finally saw the back of the Tories.

It started in the lonely journey of the loyal Labour voter, who stuck with them in the dark days of the Tories, and who heaved a sigh of relief when Labour came to power.

It started then, because every promise Blair made that day has since been broken, discarded, or left to whither away.

Labour forgot the forgotten people.
They forgot the people who elected them.
They forgot the people who needed them most.

And I am left wondering what the point is of a Labour Government.

They raise taxes on the poor.
They let the poorest children fail at school.
They stand idly by while families are destroyed by housing misery that they could easily fix.

Labour’s betrayal is where the rot set in.

The record speaks for itself.

1.8 million families languishing on housing waiting lists.
Three quarters of a million families in severe overcrowding.
One in ten children in my constituency in temporary accommodation.

I have spoken to families in my constituency with TB.
One family member picks it up on their travels, and when you live in an overcrowded damp Victorian hovel it isn’t long before the whole family gets it.

I have parents sharing beds with 8 and 9 year old children, because there is nowhere for the other child to sleep.

6 people in two bedroom flats,
Children with autism having to sleep in the living room with their brother,
Marriages devastated.
Education ruined.

How do they get away with this? For 13 years.

This is the Labour party.
This is what they have become.
This is their legacy.
The truth is, that housing is a deeply personal issue.
For too long, it has been swept under the carpet.
Until the Government feel they are losing votes over it, they think they can afford to keep on ignoring it.

A few weeks ago, the London Evening Standard began a campaign highlighting the hidden misery of thousands of Londoners stuck in poverty and poor housing.
It felt like a chink of light.
Thank God, finally a newspaper campaigning on housing.

We need housing on every front page.
It should be a political issue.
It should decide how people vote.
Labour must not be allowed to get away with this.
We will not allow Labour to get away with this.

Under Nick Clegg, we will be the only party going into this election promising a billion pound investment in this country’s housing stock. Because we understand that housing affects everything.

You can’t fix antisocial behaviour, or under performance at school, if children have nowhere to work or play.

It is no good having a great health service if the real cause of depression, chest disease, high blood pressure and goodness knows what else is actually the hideous stressful condition in which people are living.

This is fundamentally about fairness. Fairness for the poorest, fairness for our children, fairness for families.

Liberal Democrats, if we don’t make this case, nobody will.

We certainly won’t hear it from the Tories.

The Tories don’t know what they are talking about.
They have no idea how the other 90% live.
Scratch the surface and the old Tory party is alive and well.

A couple of weeks ago they issued a press release claiming that fifty percent of teenage girls in deprived areas are pregnant.
The figure was wrong. It was actually 5%.
But no-one in Conservative central office questioned it because it fitted with their stereotypes about poor people.

Just as it did when Chris Grayling claimed our inner cities are all like the US show the Wire.

They will do anything, say anything, to peddle their ‘Broken Britain’ slogan.
The Conservative party love to demonise the poor.

No, the Tories think the only way to solve the housing crisis is to change the law so that it is easier for big developers to stuff vulnerable families in to houses the size of shoe boxes.

That, and persistent rumours about their secret plans to whack up rents for social tenants to private market levels.
That would be a disaster.

Last year, a young woman came to visit me.
She had been on the housing waiting list for years.
In that time, she had taken a degree and was absolutely desperate to work full time.
But she couldn’t afford to work, because if she did, she would lose the benefit that paid her exorbitant private rent.

She had done a calculation of all the money she had received in housing benefit while she had been waiting.
Look – she said – they could have built me a house!

If you abolish subsidised rents for Council and housing association homes, all that is going to happen is that many more people will end up on housing benefit, and many fewer people will be able to work.

Put poor people into worse housing, and make them pay more for it.
That’s it. That’s the Tory big idea.
 
The Tories have been colluding in keeping housing off the political agenda because they have nothing to say.

What frustrates me so much is that the Government can do something about the appalling cases I see in my advice surgeries every week.
This isn’t an insoluble problem.
It isn’t free, and it can’t be fixed overnight.
But it can be done.

There are things we would do. Things we would do now.

While millions of families wait for housing, 650,000 properties sit empty in England alone.
Empty, ignored and slowly falling to pieces.
Everyone in the country can tell you about a house near them that no one lives in.
It is a scandal that the Government just lets these precious homes rot.

Empty properties are a scar on our communities.
They invite squatting, antisocial behaviour, and bring down the whole street.
Just think how a family living with overcrowding feels when they see a property all boarded up.

It’s time we made use of the homes we have.

The Liberal Democrats will invest £1.4billion in bringing a quarter of a million of these homes back into use.

Think what that money could achieve.
50,000 builders, joiners, plumbers, electricians, carpenters back in work.
A shot in the arm for the construction industry.
Streets across the country smartened up.
Squatters replaced by families desperate for a home.

That would be the difference under the Liberal Democrats.

The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

When demand outstrips supply, prices go up.
That’s basic economics – even George Osborne could grasp that.

If we can’t keep up with housing demand as we come out of recession, prices go up, people borrow more than they can afford, and bang, we are right back where we started.

If we lose all our construction workers in the recession because there is no work for them, we’ll never keep pace with demand.

It’s as if the government haven’t learned a thing from the past two years.
Investing in more housing will protect the economy and save a generation.

By making this billion pound promise the Liberal Democrats throw down the gauntlet to Labour and the Tories to do the same.

Liberal Democrats, we are the only party heading into this election promising to invest new money in housing.

We need to win so that we can deliver the housing people so desperately need.

The 1.8 million families languishing on the housing waiting list haven’t won under Labour.

The young couple still forced to live with their parents haven’t won under Labour.

The family living six to a room in conditions akin to Victorian England have not won under Labour.

Perhaps it was inevitable that the Labour party would forget the forgotten people.
The collectivist roots of the Labour party lends easily to sweeping individual rights under the carpet in the name of the supposed greater good.
The trouble is that the only greater good the Labour party still believe in is winning their fourth term.
They have forgotten that winning isn’t just about winning.

We won’t forget the people who elected us because that is the nature of our politics. People, individuals, their stories, their concerns is at the heart of what Liberal Democracy is about.

We will win for the people who need us most.
And we will win where no one expects us to.
We will win because we can give people hope again.

Hope that things can change.
Hope for a fairer country.
Hope for real justice for those stuck at the bottom.

We can re-ignite hope in the millions of people who have given up on the power of politics to change their lives.

We have the policies, the principles and the passion to turn a disillusioned voter into a positive vote for change.

And that’s why, when we are out day after day, knocking, stuffing, delivering, phoning.
When we are using energy even we didn’t know we could muster, that’s what keeps us going.

Conference, Labour have failed and the Tories haven’t really changed.
This is our time.

We must deliver.

Our job is to go out there and persuade people that voting changes things.

So let’s go out and do it.

Liberal Democrat party members have approved introducing a ‘mansion tax’ on homes worth over £2 million in a motion today at their spring conference.

Other measures in the proposals for tax include raising the threshold for income tax to £10,000, which will be paid for by closing tax loopholes.

Vince Cable claimed that his plans are the most radical for a generation.

“Gordon Brown created a tax system that has some of the lowest earners paying hundreds of pounds in taxes that they can ill afford while the very wealthiest treat tax as if it’s optional,” he said.

“For their part, the Tories flail around in confusion over their marriage tax plans and can only commit to a tax cut for millionaires.

“It is right to ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear a little more of the burden so that millions of people on normal earnings get the break they need.

“We all know that the country is in for some tough times ahead.

“But we believe that it is simply not possible to address the problem of an unsustainable budget deficit without parallel action to rebalance the tax system and eliminate the unfairness at its core.”

Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander today gave a speech to Spring Conference setting out the main themes of the Liberal Democrat General Election campaign.

The full text of the speech is below:

Conference – I have been working on this manifesto for nearly a year now. Since then, my wife has become pregnant with our second child.

I wouldn’t draw this comparison with her, but I can tell you that working on a manifesto has some similarities: my hopes, my ambitions for how things will change once it comes out. The sleepless nights.

But with the due date for our baby at the end of May, I hope to get the manifesto out before then!

This election is a huge opportunity for the Liberal Democrats.

Your hard work, your dedication to our Party and your ceaseless activity to get the Lib Dem word out, means we are poised to make gains across the land. I hope our hard work on the manifesto will help you to close the deal.

Two ideas will dominate this election campaign: change and fairness. Only one party is arguing at this election for both fairness and change: the Liberal Democrats.

Change: because business as usual is not the answer to the economic, political, and environmental crises that we face.

Fairness: because too many people in our society are still held back because of the circumstances of their birth, their sex or their parent’s bank balance.

The dreadful crises we have faced give us the chance to reshape our country.

We believe that change must be built around that one simple, powerful, and very British value: fairness.

Unlike Gordon Brown – and despite my red hair – I am not known for my bad language. But fairness is not the only ‘F word’ I am going to use today.

It sometimes helps to be able to sum up the other parties in a single word, so let me do it for you.

What is the “F” word for Labour: I say it is F for failed.

And what is the “F” word for the Conservatives: I say it is F for fake.

Failed ……. Fake ……. Nothing could contrast more with what we want for the future.

The core of the Liberal Democrat manifesto will be short, direct and to the point.

We have stripped away everything that is not essential because the country cannot afford it.

And we have set out in detail – more directly than any other party – how we will tackle the crisis in our nation’s finances.

We won’t make a single promise to the British people without saying exactly how we will pay for it.

We have taken some difficult decisions. I know it is not easy to put on hold some long-standing party commitments that we won’t be able to deliver in the next Parliament.

But it is the right thing to do – because we will not make promises we can’t keep.

But what we can promise is four big steps to a fairer Britain.

Only four.

But four big changes – more significant than anything Labour or the Tories will offer - to reshape the country we live in.

Fair taxes.

A new, fair start for all children at school.

A rebalanced, green economy.

And clean, open politics.

These four pledges are the main subjects of our debates this weekend so let me say something about each.

Fair taxes first. Thanks to Labour and the Tories, the poorest people lose more of their income in tax than the richest. That’s not fairness.

A banker pays only a fifth of his capital gains in tax, while the person who cleans his office gives a third of their meagre wage to the taxman. That’s not fairness.

Our plan is simple: we will make the first £10,000 you earn tax free.

I believe this is the single most radical, distinctive, and fair policy on offer from any party at this election.

That will put £700 into the pockets of almost every working person. £1400 for the average family with two earners.

Real money back in the pockets of people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Over 3 million more of the lowest paid people will pay no income tax at all. That’s fairness.

Every week in the Highlands, I meet families who are facing real financial difficulties. Income falling, bills to pay, children to feed and clothe.

They see all the money going to the banks, hear all the talk of cuts, and ask ‘who is standing up for me?’

The answer is the Liberal Democrats.

We’ll pay for it by closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy.

Yes, Lord Ashcroft, that does mean you as well. It’s time to stop thinking you can pass laws, buy seats, but not pay our taxes.

I’m not saying that Lord Ashcroft uses his money to buy influence – but he has had Christmas Number 1 in Belize for the last 15 years in a row.

We will tax capital gains the same as income. End higher rate relief on pension contributions. A new mansion tax paid on the value of homes over £2 million, and fair taxes on polluting air travel.

It is only the Liberal Democrats who are brave enough to tell some of the wealthiest people in the land that – at a time when millions of families are struggling to get by - they will have to pay more.

The first £10,000 you earn, tax free. That’s fairness.

Second, a fair chance for all children.

Under Labour and the Tories in the UK, a child’s chances in life are more closely linked to their parent’s income than anywhere else in Europe. That’s not fairness.

Our plan will give every child the individual attention they need to reach their full potential.

We will cut class sizes to help every child do better.

We are the only party that will spend more on schools - targeted at the children who need the most help.

Head-teachers will be freed to spend that money on what they think will make the most difference. Whether it is smaller classes, more one-to-one tuition, or after school classes.

Even in the depths of the recession, we will find new money for education – by scaling back tax credits to better off families – because it is so important to the future of our country.

Third, a new, rebalanced economy.

Labour and the Tories have been so in thrall to the City, they ignored the rest of the economy and caused the longest recession on record. That’s not fairness.

The Liberal Democrats, with Vince Cable as chancellor, will break up the banks so that they can never again wreck the economy. And until the break up is complete, our new banking levy is the only credible proposal in British politics to make them pay for the guarantee we give them.

We will build a balanced, sustainable economy – growth that lasts. In our first year in government, we will invest to create new jobs and boost the recovery.

And crucially, that investment will be green.

Labour and Conservatives ignored the environment and pushed nuclear energy, dirty coal, airport expansion. That’s not fairness for future generations.

By investing in new, low carbon industries we can keep people in work while we protect our planet too.

And, of course, we will repair the nation’s finances. This year, government is spending £178 billion more than it raises in tax. Even when the recovery gets fully underway, that gap is predicted to be £78 billion.

If we don’t close that gap over the next few years, our economy will be ruined. We will set out – in detail – our plans to guarantee that won’t happen.

Our measures include: the banking levy, scrapping the child trust fund, no like-for-like replacement of Trident, capping public sector pay rises, scrapping ID cards and biometric passports.

I could go on – but I am sure Vince has much more to say on this later.But I will add that it says something when the Financial Times thinks you’re the most credible party on reducing the deficit.

The Liberal Democrats have the best plan for fixing the economy. We are the best guarantee this country has of future financial stability.

Fourth, clean and decent politics.

Under Labour and the Tories, the broken political system has given government’s total power with a small minority of votes. That’s not fairness.

They have conspired to create a corrupt system of expenses, and then allow those who break the rules to hang on in office. That’s not fairness.

They have hovered up power from communities and councils to the centre. That’s not fairness.

Our plan will put power back where it belongs: with the people.

A fair voting system to end safe seats and ensure representative government;

Giving people the power to sack their MPs if they break the rules;

Power taken from Westminster and given to communities;

An end to big money in politics.

Reforming politics is essential to make the country fairer.

On top of these steps, our manifesto will also set out how a Liberal Democrat government will:

Protect the NHS frontline, using the health savings we find to safeguard services.
Immediately restore the link between pensions and earnings, so pensioners don’t fall further behind when growth returns.
Use the amount of money we would save by scrapping ID cards to put 3000 more police on the beat.
Cut desk jobs at the MOD so we can pay our brave service men and women a decent living wage.

Conference, I have known Nick Clegg for 15 years and have worked with him closely since he became our leader – as his chief of staff and on this manifesto.

I can tell you that of the three party leaders, he is the best qualified of them all to be Prime Minister. He is plain-speaking, tells it as he sees it, and most importantly his politics is motivated by his deeply held belief that this country needs to be fairer. His leadership is what our country needs.

He has been clear from the start that these difficult times mean we must be clear about our priorities:

Fair taxes.

A fair start for all children.

A rebalanced, green economy.

And clean, open politics.

I want to be clear about one thing: those four steps are a unified package. They must be implemented together if we are to get the fairness we want in Britain. All for one, and one for all.

The more Liberal Democrat votes, the more Liberal Democrat MPs, the more power we will have to deliver our package for a fairer Britain.

The next election isn’t between Brown and Cameron, much though they would both like to pretend that it is.

It’s between the old way of doing politics and the real change represented by Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

I know we are ready to lead this country. In fact, I believe we are the only party with a clear plan that can lead the country out of the mess we are in.

If you want change, vote for the only Party that will bring about change. Change that works for you – vote for the Liberal Democrats.

Just after Nick Clegg’s live Q & A at the Spring Conference in Birmingham he took questions sent in from people who were unable to attend the conference, via Facebook and Twitter.

You can view a short video of the question and answer session at http://tinyurl.com/yfltw2f

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference today backed radical plans to change the education system to give children a fair start in life.

The proposals include:

• An extra £2.5bn investment in schools to reduce class sizes, improve discipline and provide more one-to-one tuition to help struggling pupils, paid as a pupil premium to schools for each of the poorest 1m children they teach
• The scrapping of tuition fees for first undergraduate degrees, whether studied full or part-time, over six years

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Children, Schools and Families Secretary, David Laws said:

“It is a disgrace that where children are born and how much their parents earn can still dictate how well they do at school.

“Schools should be a level playing field, opening up opportunities and making sure that all children have a fair chance to achieve their potential.

“Our plans to invest an extra £2.5bn in schools will enable headteachers to cut class sizes and provide children who are struggling with the support they need.  We will set schools free from constant Government interference so they can focus on getting the best from all children.

“I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have made such a clear and bold commitment to give every child a fair start in life.”

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference today pledged its commitment to ending child detention in immigration centres.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

“It is a moral stain on this country’s proud reputation in accepting refugees that we are routinely locking up children for months at a time even though they have committed no crime.

“Locking children up in this way can do them serious physical and psychological harm. This is the behaviour of the Victorian workhouses, not 21st century Britain.

“The Government must find its long lost moral compass and put an end to child detention immediately.”

On Saturday 13 March, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable will address delegates at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference – the last conference before the General Election.

In his speech, Vince Cable will say that the Liberal Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility and fairer taxes.
 
Extracts from the speech are below:
 
I have a very simple message.
We, the Liberal Democrats, were right about the financial crisis.
We warned of the dangers and we led the debate when the crisis came.
And now we have a clear vision for the future of the British economy.
 
What the public wants to know is who can guide the country out of the present morass: the broken, discredited, banking system; the deepest and longest post war recession, whose effects are far from over; and levels of government borrowing which are not sustainable. We can.
 
The banking collapse and recession have dug a deep hole in the Government’s finances. The next government will have to deal every single day with the consequences. The growing worry about sovereign debt means that there is no hiding place. Nor should there be. It grates to have the economy held to ransom by currency speculators and the clowns in the rating agencies who missed the Icelandic crash and so badly misjudged the safety of banks. But any Government, of any hue, will have to depend on the markets to finance its deficit.
 
We must and will be fiscally responsible. 
 
Unlike the Tories and their cronies who want to create a financial panic and run on sterling to frighten people into voting for them on May 6th.  Playing fast and loose with the financial stability of this country for political gain – destabilising the markets – is dangerous, irresponsible and wrong. 
 
Fairness is crucial.
The public will accept austerity for a time if the burdens are fairly shared. They will not accept it from a Government that imposes hardship on the majority while rewarding rich cronies, grovelling to tax exiles and non-doms and ignoring the widening inequalities in income and wealth.  So we will change our unfair tax system. 
 
3.6 million people who earn less than £10,000 will no longer pay any income tax at all. Pensioners will be £100 better off and the average person’s income tax bill cut by £700. We will pay for the tax cut by blocking tax loopholes that favour the wealthy and taxing their wealth in their mansions worth over £2 million: in other words the people who profited from the boom on our Fantasy Island will pay their fair share.
 
People are desperate to see the back of this Labour government. But they don’t want the same old Tories.
 
There is an alternative.
 
In just over 50 days there will be a general election. We know that people want to vote for a party that will radically change our economy in a financially responsible way. And that will change our society and our politics for the better. Our job is to show them we are that party. Our job is to make sure that on May 6th they vote Liberal Democrat. I know we can.  With your help and work – and your passion and belief – we will.

Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg will tonight deliver a rally speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference. 

Extracts from the speech are below:
 
This election is still wide open.
The people out there still haven’t made up their minds.
All bets are off.
 
This Government knows it’s come to the end of the road.
The Tories know people have started to see through them.
And voters know the Liberal Democrats offer something different.
They’ve seen us calling it right, taking a stand, putting principles back into politics…
And they believe us when we say:
Don’t waste this election.
Even if you feel hopeless after everything the other parties have put you through.
Don’t give up on change.
And don’t accept anything less than change that works for you.
 
But don’t think it’s going to be easy.
It’s going to be tough.
Tougher than anything we’ve ever done, because the closer we get the harder our opponents will fight to keep us down.
 
They’ll get nasty; they’ll get personal…
But when it’s really tough, thank your lucky stars you’re not a Labour activist… Desperately trying to keep a brave face on even though defeat is just round the corner.
 
Thank your lucky stars you’re not a Tory activist…
Certain for so long that victory would fall into your lap, only to discover now that the country’s not convinced.
 
But on Monday morning I want you to get out there and go for broke in what will be the biggest fight of our political lives.

The Liberal Democrats today launched their slogan for the General Election campaign: ‘Change That Works For You. Building A Fairer Britain’. 

The slogan is being used at the party’s Spring Conference in Birmingham this weekend.

Commenting, Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander said: “This election will be about fairness and change and the Liberal Democrats are the only party that will deliver both.
 
“The Labour Party has let people down, they failed to make Britain fair, failed on the economy, failed to protect our environment and they failed to clean up politics.
 
“Everybody knows that the Conservatives will only make things better for those at the top.
 
“The Liberal Democrats are different because we are the only party that will deliver a fairer Britain and bring change that works for you.” 

For the first time, Birmingham will be playing host to the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference 2010. Regenerated, accessible and cosmopolitan, Birmingham will be an impressive backdrop to this important pre-election conference. Policy issues under discussion at this conference will include a full debate on a youth policy paper, as well as consultation sessions on Localism and International Development. 

Just after Nick Clegg’s live Q & A at the Liberal Democrats 2010 Spring Conference; he’s going to take questions sent in from people who are unable to attend the conference online. 

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats will be doing a live Q & A at the Liberal Democrats 2010 Spring Conference in Birmingham (12-14 March).

Straight after he comes off stage, he’s keen to answer questions sent in from people who are unable to attend the conference.

When: 13 March at 15.25

Where: Online, answers will be posted on his website, Facebook and Tweeted shortly after.

How to take part: Post your questions on Facebook: Here, Twitter: Here or email: Here

In a speech to Chatham House today, Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg set out what is at stake in foreign policy at the coming General Election. 

Nick Clegg said: “Gordon Brown and David Cameron want to pretend that foreign policy is not an issue at the General Election. Gordon Brown doesn’t want to remind voters of the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq. David Cameron doesn’t want to remind voters that he is friendless in Europe.

“The real truth is that the future of British foreign policy is as much in the balance as the future of our economy, or the future of our political system.

“This election is an opportunity to turn the page on the Labour-Conservative consensus on foreign policy which has been in place since the Suez crisis: one of following what the White House wants rather than leadership in Europe and the world.

“Of course our relationship with the US is of immense importance, but that should not mean that Britain unquestionably does what America wants when it is not in our interests to do so. On Iraq, on Russia, on the Middle East, on the interrogation of torture suspects and many other issues our strategic interests have differed.

“Baroness Manningham-Buller’s admission that the US kept our security forces in the dark about unacceptable interrogation techniques only confirms the impression of an unbalanced and unequal relationship.

“That is why, in the same way we must rebalance an economy that is over-reliant on bankers, we must rebalance foreign policy that is over-reliant on the White House. It is time to repatriate British foreign policy by standing tall in our European backyard and pursuing a policy of partnership – not followership – with our friends in the US.

“At this General Election only the Liberal Democrats realise what is at stake and are prepared to spell out what a different foreign policy would look like.”

“It’s very difficult to see how the man who claimed to have abolished boom and bust can campaign on his stewardship of the economy after the greatest bust for decades. 

Responding to the Prime Minister’s economic speech this morning and the announcement of the Budget date, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said: “Gordon Brown’s speech shows he is leading with a weak hand.

“It’s very difficult to see how the man who claimed to have abolished boom and bust can campaign on his stewardship of the economy after the greatest bust for decades.

“The only reason he is, of course, is because the Conservatives are even worse. The only consistent thing about their economic policy is that they have been consistently wrong.

“The Budget must clearly spell out where Labour intend to make spending cuts in order to tackle the budget deficit. All we have seen from the Prime Minister today is more waffle.

“Gordon Brown admits that there are bumps in the road ahead. The public know that and expect all parties to follow the Liberal Democrat lead and tell them where the bumps are and how we will be navigating our way over and around them.”

“The idea that the UK upheld international law by invading Iraq is pure Labour doublespeak,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Commenting on David Miliband’s appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry, Edward Davey said:

“David Miliband and Gordon Brown are on a PR offensive to rewrite the history of the Iraq War.
 
“The idea that the UK upheld international law by invading Iraq is pure Labour doublespeak.
 
“Iraq diminished our standing in the Middle East and the wider world and divided us from our natural allies.
 
“Nobody will listen to Labour when it comes to restoring Britain’s reputation abroad.”

“Labour’s cuts are already biting across the NHS and their failure to cut back on waste means that it is the most vulnerable who are losing out,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary.

Commenting on the report by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers which reveals that only 23% of the money allocated to help carers was used in this way, Norman Lamb said:
 
“The Government has completely neglected the vital work that carers do and this report is further evidence of the scale of the problem.
 
“Labour’s cuts are already biting across the NHS and their failure to cut back on waste means that it is the most vulnerable who are losing out.
 
“This report highlights the need for a guarantee to respite care which only the Liberal Democrats are committed to.”

“David Cameron and George Osborne are stoking up fears in the markets, actively trying to destabilise the pound and reduce the Government’s ability to borrow”, says the Leader of the Liberal Democrats

Speaking to party workers, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg accused the Conservatives of ‘a crude form of blackmail’ by encouraging fears of a fall in the stock market.

Nick Clegg said:
“The Conservatives are so desperate that they have resorted to a crude form of blackmail.
“David Cameron and George Osborne are stoking up fears in the markets, actively trying to destabilise the pound and reduce the Government’s ability to borrow.

“It’s like a protection racket: vote for us or our friends in the City will lay waste to your economy, your savings and your job.

“There is nothing positive in the Conservatives’ election strategy. It’s built entirely on the hatred of Gordon Brown, stoking up fears of a broken society and now threatening economic meltdown.

“It’s a strategy that is completely negative and without hope, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that people aren’t going to fall for it.”

It’s not like Nick Griffin to shy away from publicity. His reaction to any possibility of a flicker of spotlight is to run towards it, maximising the impact of his message of hate. But it seems that the BNP leader is now revealing a reticent side to his personality.

Today’s London edition of the BBC’s Politics Show will be covering the constituency of Barking, the one which Griffin hopes towin and become the BNP’s first MP. The programme will feature a discussion between the main parties’ candidates for the seat – and in the case of Barking, the BNP are sadly one of the contenders. But Griffin won’t be appearing, despite an invitation from the BBC. Why?

It appears that Griffin is running scared not just of the BBC, but also of LibDem candidate Dominic Carman. Griffin derides the proposed discussion as ‘another Question Time lynch mob set-up’ and Carman as ‘a failed journalist and plastic candidate in Barking whose sole intention it is to lie about me instead’.

So why this hatred of the LibDem candidate in particular? Because, as announcedlast week Dominic Carman is not only the son of the late George Carman QC, but also Griffin’s very unofficial biographer. The Times stated that Carman, ‘intends to use information from his research into the biography to attack his opponent. It was never released because publishers were unwilling to associate their brand with the BNP leader’.

“I will put it to good use in exposing Griffin beyond what’s already been in the public domain,” he said. “It’s very important to fight a strong campaign and it will be critical to challenge Nick Griffin every step of the way. I want to make people think long and hard about voting for him in Barking. It’s very, very important.”

So what is Griffin’s excuse for chickening out? He accuses independent producers Juniper of conspiring with the Labour Party, the BBC and the Conservatives and LibDems to ‘shut out’ Griffin’s party and ‘gang up against the BNP in a four-to-one attack’.

Griffin’s second argument is even more bizarre. He takes issue with the BBC for ‘setting up a debate between parliamentary candidates … where the agenda has been preset to only discuss local issues’. Apparently the Labour councillors who currently run the council in Barking and Dagenham have fed inside information to the other participants in today’s programme, in order to leave the BNP looking stupid. I didn’t realise they needed any help.

The secret of Nick Griffin’s successes over the past few years has been to present himself and the BNP as political outsiders, just as much the victims of the establishment as the white working classes he seeks to represent. But shouldn’t someone who represents himself as the leader of a legitimate political party be willing and able to make a case for himself and his party’s politics whenever the opportunity presents itself? Has Nick Griffin realised that his party and politics have no justification in today’s Britain and that their game is up? And have the media learned their lesson – that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Play ‘no-platform’ with the BNP and they become martyrs. Give them the same opportunities as the other parties and they run away in fright.

As The Guardian’s Dave Hillstates on his blog, ‘Carman’s candidacy only become known a week ago. Is it already having the desired effect?’

The annual event, celebrated on 8 March acknowledges the achievements of women across the world while also focusing on the continued disadvantages millions of women still face.

“I am pleased to add my support to International Women’s Day. It is crucial that people are able to come together to celebrate the achievements of women around the world. However this is not a time to just be reflective but also a time to look forwards and work together to stamp out all signs of inequality that threatens to undermine our society.”

“As the first woman from the Turkish community to be elected as councillor, I am a strong supporter of International Women’s Day, and campaigner for more women in public life. We must join forces and speak out against the continuing evil of so-called ‘honour killings’, most recently the terrible death of a young Turkish woman, Tulay Goren. Woman across the world continue to suffer. We have a duty to be the voice and the change that will make a difference to their lives.”

“I’m delighted to support International Women’s Day because I think it’s important we remember the struggle of women both past and present to win the right to vote and to stand for election. As a new Mum running for Parliament I still get asked - Why isn’t your partner standing instead? How can you do it with a baby? You’re not going to breastfeed here are you?  We need to keep on working for equality so that little girls born today enjoy even greater opportunities and are supported in their dreams.”

“The fight for women’s equality is not finished. And as lucky as I am to work for a party where equality and fairness runs through our very bones, some women do not have the same luxury. As a second generation Ghanaian, I am aware of the shocking poverty women and girls in Africa face on a daily basis. Though I shake my head in despair and give a sum of money each month to a charity, the visceral pain some women still face shakes me to my very core. We must not forget and we must not get complacent. We still have a fight, so lets win it together.”

“Taking this day to pause and remember the struggles of women throughout history to seek equal opportunity remains as vital as it always has been. Clara Zetkin’s original ideals of pressing for female equality resound as true now as they did nearly one hundred years ago. International Women’s Day marks the triumphs of women and girls around the globe and on this day we stand together, looking forward, to improving education, increasing representation and eradicating inequality.”

“I support International Women’s Day because I feel that women are still the unsung hero’s of modern British society. While things have progressed since my mother’s generation - for example there are many more women in work - the pressure on women has also grown exponentially. Women can now be a mum, partner and career woman all at the same time but are often less paid. We should celebrate our achievements but realise there is still a long way to go before true equality. Just take Parliament as an example: 51% of the population represented by 20% of MPs! Shocking. Come on ladies, let’s make this election count!”

“I’m delighted to be one of millions of women celebrating International Women’s Day today. Across the world, women boast extraordinary achievements. Despite poverty, we raise families. Despite discrimination, we excel and prosper. Despite pressures to fulfil roles that are defined for us, we can be strong, confident and secure in ourselves. To all young girls, I say one thing - become the woman you want to be.”

“I’m supporting International Women’s Day because women are the answer to many of the world’s problems and investing in women’s education, empowerment, and entrepreneurship will change the world.”

“How wonderful to have a global day celebrating women, the roles we play in the home and our achievements in society.  May I wish all women the courage of their convictions, and the ability to greet each challenge with a smile!”

“I support International Women’s Day to recognise the role of women in society throughout the world and it is essential that their determination be celebrated across the world.”

“The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that the point at which we cut spending will be based on economics and not political dogma,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

Responding to the CBI’s submission to the Chancellor urging him to use  his last Budget before the election to set out more details of spending plans for government departments in order to boost confidence in the UK’s public finances and provide economic stability, Vince Cable said:

“This submission highlights how dangerous the Government’s position is.

“The country can’t afford to have political parties playing politics with the public finances.

“The British people and the markets have the right to know how and when each political party will tackle the deficit.

“The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that the point at which we cut spending will be based on economics and not political dogma.

“While Labour buries its head in the sand and the Tories mire themselves in confusion, only the Liberal Democrats have produced a credible and coherent plan for dealing with the deficit.”

“Scotland deserves real change, and the Liberal Democrats are the only ones to deliver it,” said the Liberal Democrat Leader.

Ahead of today’s speech at the Scottish Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Nick Clegg said:

“Labour has failed to deliver for Scotland. Labour’s banking crisis and recession has caused serious damage to the Scottish economy and businesses.

“Under the Labour Government the gap between rich and poor has grown wider and social mobility has foundered.

“In Scotland, life expectancy remains lower than anywhere else in the UK and it is losing jobs at the fastest rate in Western Europe.

“All this has to change and neither the Conservatives nor the SNP are capable of doing it.

“The Lib Dems in Scotland have set the political pace on our campaign for a fairer society.

“Scotland deserves real change, and the Liberal Democrats are the only ones to deliver it.

“Under a Liberal Democrat Government, you will not have to pay any income tax on the first £10,000 you earn.

“This will free half a million Scots on low incomes from having to pay any income tax at all and put £700 back in the pockets of people on low and middle incomes, providing an incentive to work and save.”

“It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect asking a police officer whether their work is really necessary,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Commenting on reports from the Electoral Commission that Tory officials had refused requests to be interviewed by investigators, Chris Huhne said:

“It’s extraordinary that officials of a major political party should refuse a meeting to answer questions from the regulator designed to ensure funding is open and honest.

“It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect asking a police officer whether their work is really necessary. 

“The Conservatives must now answer the question about who told their officials to withhold cooperation from the Electoral Commission. On whose authority was this request refused?”

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne answers your questions in today’s Independent. 

Chris Huhne answers questions such as ”Don’t you rely on ‘non-doms’ too?” and “Are you a Liberal or a Social Democrat?”

You can read the complete list of questions and answers  from the Indepedent at http://tinyurl.com/yjq56vb

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will today accuse David Cameron of using “a crude form of blackmail” to raise fears of “economic meltdown” if the Conservatives are not the clear winners at the next general election.

Mr Clegg will compare the threat to a “protection racket” and accuse David Cameron of trying to win the election through fear.

As the value of the pound fell last week, the Conservatives claimed that market concerns over the possibility of a hung Parliament and uncertainty about the direction of Britain’s economy were to blame.

Shadow business secretary Kenneth Clarke also warned voters not to “elect themselves into a financial crisis”.

Mr Clarke warned that a fourth term for Labour would leave Britain “at the mercy of the bond markets and international finance”, which would cause interest rates to soar and the pound to be “sent on a downward spiral”.

Speaking to Liberal Democrat workers today, Mr Clegg will say:

“The Conservatives are so desperate that they have resorted to a crude form of blackmail.

“David Cameron and George Osborne are stoking up fears in the markets, actively trying to destabilise the pound and reduce the Government’s ability to borrow.

“It’s like a protection racket: vote for us or our friends in the City will lay waste to your economy, your savings and your job.”

Nick Clegg will also say that scaremongering about the economy is one part of a wider tactic of negative campaigning by the Conservatives.

Mr Clegg will say:

“There is nothing positive in the Conservatives’ election strategy,”

“It’s built entirely on the hatred of Gordon Brown, stoking up fears of a broken society and now threatening economic meltdown.

“It’s a strategy that is completely negative and without hope, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that people aren’t going to fall for it.”

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said the Liberal Democrats would be willing to work with either of the other parties in the event of a hung parliament, although he refused to expand on how they would approach such a scenario.

Vince Cable was clear in his opinion that a hung parliament was not something to be feared, he said,

“I think we could work with other parties, why not? The public expects us to be business like.”

“The public mood is very much for politicians to work with each other rather than doing tribal politics,” he added.

However, he refused to “spell out” exactly how the Liberal Democrats would approach the other parties in the event of a hung parliament.

“I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary to spell out precisely what that means… I think it’s important for the public to know what broad approach we would take.”

“Any deal breakers are things that we discuss publicly – we want to see financial responsibility, fair taxation, and the British economy rebalanced in terms of finance,” he added.

Vince Cable dispelled the myth that coalition governments mean weak leadership, he was keen to point out that in many respects they have a good record in dealing with economic crises and rejected the assertion that fear of a hung parliament had caused the pound to sink last week.

THE PUBLIC MOOD IS VERY MUCH FOR POLITICIANS TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER RATHER THAN DOING TRIBAL POLITICS SAYS VINCE CABLE 

“All the evidence from countries in the western world is minority governments have a better record in managing economic crises,” he said.

On the supposed link between speculation of a hung parliament and the pound’s fall, Vince Cable said: “I don’t think the two things are connected we have a very small downward movement in the pound earlier this week…It was given a political spin.” He said the fall in sterling was most likely a consequence of Prudential’s activities.

Vince Cable reiterated that the Liberal Democrats would look to ensure financial responsibility and fair taxation in government.

“Our view is that of course as a party we have got to be on the side of financial responsibility, we don’t want to see any damage to the national economy,” he said.

“The specific tax increase we have advocated is in relation to the banking system…the banks are currently underwritten by the taxpayer…we think they should pay for that insurance,” Vince Cable added

Speaking on Sky News earlier today, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg accused the Conservatives of a “glorified form of blackmail” with their claims that a hung parliament would damage to the economy.

Mr Clegg said the Conservatives were inplying:

“Vote for us otherwise the markets will tear the economic stability of this country to bits.”

“Every time they come under any pressure they start lashing out,” he added

“What the markets rightly demand is clarity, and the Conservatives aren’t giving it, about how you bring the structural deficit down.”

The Liberal Democrat leader also supported Gordon Brown’s decision to visit our troops in Afghanistan, and said he was amazed by the Conservative criticisms, saying:

“It is right that the prime minister should go and visit our troops in Afghanistan,”

“(It is) almost a constitutional duty for the leader of this country to show our collective sense of gratitude to our brave soldier on the front line.”

Mr Clegg added that he would be curious to see whether David Cameron takes a TV crew with him next time he visits Afghanistan.

The electorate is weary of two-party wrangling and tactical voting. It is ready for a third option, which breaks new ground

British politics could be at a major turning point. Take a look at some basic facts: in the 1951 general election, only 2% of voters supported parties other than the Conservatives and Labour. At the local elections last year, that figure had shot up to 40%. During the last two general elections, for the first time in post-war Britain, more people didn’t vote at all than voted for the winning party. Gordon Brown is Prime Minister even though only 22% of eligible voters supported the Labour Party at the last election; at the same election, almost one in four of those people who voted – close to six million voters – supported the Liberal Democrats, yet only 10% of MPs are Lib Dems.

You can read the rest of theis article from today’s Independent at http://tinyurl.com/ycjdpq3

 The way Britain’s run means the Government doesn’t have to listen to you. One party can get control over Parliament even if only a quarter of people vote for them. So individual people and families don’t seem to have a voice to influence what happens. The old parties are comfortable because they know they’ll get into government every few years - so they never change things and they never will. But people are fed up of being ignored. It’s time to make a real change. We need to have an open political system that’s designed to listen to people and deliver what they need. Everyone should have an equal voice - not just people who can pay for big donations.

The Liberal Democrats will throw open the doors of government, reinvigorate Britain’s democracy and give power back to people. We will modernise government so that it serves the interests of all people, not just the vested interests of politicians, corporations or rich donors. Liberal Democrats plan to reform government so there will be no more privileged patronage, no more dodgy dossiers, no more excessive secrecy. Government should uphold the law, as well as our liberties, not seek ways to undermine them. We will create a British democracy for the 21st century that people can be proud of.

Read the full policy briefing for Constitutional Affairs.

WE NEED A SYSTEM OF “FAIR, DECENT, TRANSPARENT POLITICS” SAYS In a key speech to the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference in Perth, the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg pledged to clean up politics in the wake of the MP expenses scandal and concern over party donations.

Nick Clegg told the conference the Westminster parliament was looked on with “disgust”, rather than “pride”.

Mr Clegg also set out his vision for a “fairer” society, through tax reform and a better start for children.

On expenses, Nick Clegg told delegates that he wanted the public to be able to sack their MPs, and backed a directly-elected House of Lords.

And he dismissed Tory donor Lord Ashcroft as a “tax dodger”.

The peer’s “non dom” status has caused a political row, because it had been thought he had agreed to pay full UK tax in order to become a peer.

Nick Clegg called for argued that there needed to be “fair, decent, transparent politics”, arguing the Westminster expenses scandal was the “symptom of a deeper malaise” that had seen MPs “abusing the system on an industrial scale”.

“We will deliver the new politics - fair votes, a directly elected House of Lords, clean up the murky business of party funding,” he pledged.

The Liberal Democrat Leader outlined four steps to a “fairer Britain” - fair taxes for all, a fair start for all children at school, a fair and sustainable economy and fair, transparent & local politics.

These included making first £10,000 of earnings tax-free, which would be paid for by closing tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy, spending more on schools and “breaking up the banks” to prevent another financial crisis.

Nick Clegg said a key priority was delivering an extra £2.5bn a year to schools, raising the money given to children on free school meals from the most deprived backgrounds to the amount that children tend to receive in fee-paying schools.

And he vowed: “In the first year of a Liberal Democrat government we will use £3.5bn from savings and cuts in the government expenditure we have identified to invest in a new economy - not the old economy, not the old economy of excess and greed, but the new sustainable green economy.”

Mr Clegg hit out at the “greed of the bankers” but also attacked the “failure of Gordon Brown to keep that greed in check”.

He said he wanted to “change the fundamental assumptions by which both Conservative and Labour governments at Westminster have sought to run the British economy”.

“Of course we need a vibrant, competitive financial sector, but never again should the greed of the bankers in the City of London hold a gun to the head of the rest of the British economy,” said Mr Clegg.

“So I say an end to the banking of excess and greed - split up the banks. Split up Lloyds. Bring the Bank of Scotland back home.”

In a speech to the Association of School and College Leaders today, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg will propose a deal with schools.

Nick Clegg will argue that in return for the investment of an additional £2.5billion in schools, teachers will be put under pressure to ‘raise their game’ to reinvent the curriculum, increase the number of children achieving good results and close the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their wealthier classmates.

He will also attack the Conservatives for pledging to help poorer pupils without allocating any funding to pay for it and accuse the Government of ‘not funding, but buying’ schools

To give every child a fair start in life, the Liberal Democrats will spend an extra £2.5billion on schools, guaranteeing them the money they need to support children who are struggling.
 

Nick Clegg will say:

“Today, I ask our schools and colleges to sign up to a deal with the Liberal Democrats: We will give you everything we can. We will find you extra funding, even while elsewhere there are cuts. We will give a level of freedom you haven’t known for decades. But, in return, we will place the greatest expectations on you any government ever has. 

“One - we will expect you to transform the curriculum, so that it is rich, relevant, and stretches the brightest pupils while elevating those who struggle. Two - we will be much more ambitious about the number of young men and women leaving school with good results. Three – we will expect you to close the gap between poorer children and their wealthier classmates. A gap which entrenches inequality in Britain today.

“That deal is a new settlement for schools and government. Once it is in place we will get on with governing, you will get on with teaching, and children will benefit most of all. Let’s take our side of the bargain first. We are proposing an extra investment of £2.5billion for our schools. Around an extra £2,500 will be allocated for each pupil in receipt of free school meals. Raising the amount allocated for the poorest children to levels spent per pupil in fee-paying schools.

“The budgets of schools with similar catchments, but in different parts of the country, can vary wildly. Our Pupil Premium ensures every school taking a child from a disadvantaged background, no matter where it is, gets extra money to provide extra support.

“Money you can spend as you see fit – perhaps to cut class sizes, provide extra one-to-one tuition, evening or weekend classes. It would be up to you.

“Unlike the Conservatives, who have promised money to help poorer pupils without actually allocating a single penny to pay for it, we want to give schools certainty about the resources they can expect.

“So, to be absolutely clear: our Pupil Premium is new money. As the IFS pointed out earlier this week, unless a Pupil Premium is funded with extra cash, many schools – particularly secondaries – will suffer significant budget cuts.

“Labour didn’t fund schools, they bought schools. The price of unprecedented investment was untrammelled control.

“So, more freedom, more funding, that is our side of the bargain. What about yours? We will give you money, we will cut the reins, but our expectations on you will be high. We will expect you to reinvent the curriculum so it is broad and relevant. We will expect you to increase the number of children achieving good results. We will expect you to close the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their wealthier peers.

“I am tired of the buck passing that dominates the debate over education in this country. When pupils do badly, government blames schools, schools blame government, and parents are left watching endless finger-pointing that does nothing to help their children.

“We want to make Britain a place where it is no longer possible, on a pupil’s first day of school, to predict how well they’ll do simply by asking them how much their parents earn. 
“So, a deal between government and schools: Money and freedom in return for high expectations and more ambition.”

“How can we trust a man who still believes that this illegal war and all the horror it has caused was right?” said the Liberal Democrat Leader.

Commenting on Gordon Brown’s appearance at the Iraq inquiry, Nick Clegg said:

“This was the day Gordon Brown finally had to come clean and admit that he believes the Iraq war was right.

“We now know we were betrayed by Gordon Brown and we were betrayed by the Labour Party.

“How can we trust a man who still believes that this illegal war and all the horror it has caused was right?

“When the Liberal Democrats were the only party to oppose this immoral invasion we didn’t just speak for us, we spoke for the nation.”

The annual event, celebrated on 8 March acknowledges the achievements of women across the world while also focusing on the continued disadvantages millions of women still face.

”

I am pleased to add my support to International Women’s Day. It is crucial that people are able to come together to celebrate the achievements of women around the world. However this is not a time to just be reflective but also a time to look forwards and work together to stamp out all signs of inequality that threatens to undermine our society.”

“As the first woman from the Turkish community to be elected as councillor, I am a strong supporter of International Women’s Day, and campaigner for more women in public life. We must join forces and speak out against the continuing evil of so-called ‘honour killings’, most recently the terrible death of a young Turkish woman, Tulay Goren. Woman across the world continue to suffer. We have a duty to be the voice and the change that will make a difference to their lives.”

“I’m delighted to support International Women’s Day because I think it’s important we remember the struggle of women both past and present to win the right to vote and to stand for election. As a new Mum running for Parliament I still get asked - Why isn’t your partner standing instead? How can you do it with a baby? You’re not going to breastfeed here are you?  We need to keep on working for equality so that little girls born today enjoy even greater opportunities and are supported in their dreams.”

“The fight for women’s equality is not finished. And as lucky as I am to work for a party where equality and fairness runs through our very bones, some women do not have the same luxury. As a second generation Ghanaian, I am aware of the shocking poverty women and girls in Africa face on a daily basis. Though I shake my head in despair and give a sum of money each month to a charity, the visceral pain some women still face shakes me to my very core. We must not forget and we must not get complacent. We still have a fight, so lets win it together.”

“Taking this day to pause and remember the struggles of women throughout history to seek equal opportunity remains as vital as it always has been. Clara Zetkin’s original ideals of pressing for female equality resound as true now as they did nearly one hundred years ago. International Women’s Day marks the triumphs of women and girls around the globe and on this day we stand together, looking forward, to improving education, increasing representation and eradicating inequality.”

“I support International Women’s Day because I feel that women are still the unsung hero’s of modern British society. While things have progressed since my mother’s generation - for example there are many more women in work - the pressure on women has also grown exponentially. Women can now be a mum, partner and career woman all at the same time but are often less paid. We should celebrate our achievements but realise there is still a long way to go before true equality. Just take Parliament as an example: 51% of the population represented by 20% of MPs! Shocking. Come on ladies, let’s make this election count!”

“I’m delighted to be one of millions of women celebrating International Women’s Day today. Across the world, women boast extraordinary achievements. Despite poverty, we raise families. Despite discrimination, we excel and prosper. Despite pressures to fulfil roles that are defined for us, we can be strong, confident and secure in ourselves. To all young girls, I say one thing - become the woman you want to be.”

“I’m supporting International Women’s Day because women are the answer to many of the world’s problems and investing in women’s education, empowerment, and entrepreneurship will change the world.”

“How wonderful to have a global day celebrating women, the roles we play in the home and our achievements in society.  May I wish all women the courage of their convictions, and the ability to greet each challenge with a smile!”

“I support International Women’s Day to recognise the role of women in society throughout the world and it is essential that their determination be celebrated across the world.”

Lord Ashcroft faced fresh allegations today following reports that he has avoided paying VAT on opinion polls that he had carried out for the Conservative party.

The non-dom Conservative Party deputy chairman finally revealed his tax status on Monday, finally bringing an end to much speculation and ten years of secrecy.

David Cameron and William Hague have both been asked questions about their honesty and competence after it has been discovered that Mr Hague knew Lord Ashcroft’s tax status months before his party leader, but failed to tell him.

The Guardian claims today that the Lord Ashcroft ordered a huge opinion poll in marginal constituencies in 2005 and paid through one of his companies in Belize, which meant that he avoided paying VAT on the transaction.

The opinion polls, which were carried out by YouGov and Populus, are estimated to have cost £250,000.

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable told the newspaper:

“This is quite serious.  We are now not talking just about Ashcroft’s non-dom status, but about systematic tax avoidance in funding Conservative party activities such as polling.

“How far were the Conservatives aware that Ashcroft did not pay VAT, as would have been incurred by any normal polling activity?”

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg delivered an attack on Gordon Brown following his appearance at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war earlier today.

Speaking at the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference this afternoon, Mr Clegg said Brown had finally come clean over what he thought about the Iraq war.

Nick Clegg said:

“He has said today, finally he has come clean, that he believes the Iraq war was right. That tells you all you need to know about the moral compass of Gordon Brown,”

“He thinks it’s right that 179 brave British soldiers lost their lives in Iraq…that it was right that 150,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives, that it was right that our reputation in international affairs is in tatters, that it was right that we went to war and yet find the world no safer after the war occurred. How can we trust a man like that?”

Nick said the Liberal Democrats had “spoken for the nation” in opposing the war.

“If you want to live in a world guided by values and principles, human rights, international rule of law, the dignity of citizens and nations around the globe, we know now that you were betrayed by Gordon Brown, you were betrayed by the Labour party, and I remain proud that it was this party, our party, your party, the Liberal Democrats, that were the only party that stood up to the rush to this illegal and immoral invasion.”

“Scotland deserves real change, and the Liberal Democrats are the only ones to deliver it,” said the Liberal Democrat Leader.

Ahead of today’s speech at the Scottish Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Nick Clegg said:

“Labour has failed to deliver for Scotland. Labour’s banking crisis and recession has caused serious damage to the Scottish economy and businesses.

“Under the Labour Government the gap between rich and poor has grown wider and social mobility has foundered.

“In Scotland, life expectancy remains lower than anywhere else in the UK and it is losing jobs at the fastest rate in Western Europe.

“All this has to change and neither the Conservatives nor the SNP are capable of doing it.

“The Lib Dems in Scotland have set the political pace on our campaign for a fairer society.

“Scotland deserves real change, and the Liberal Democrats are the only ones to deliver it.

“Under a Liberal Democrat Government, you will not have to pay any income tax on the first £10,000 you earn.

“This will free half a million Scots on low incomes from having to pay any income tax at all and put £700 back in the pockets of people on low and middle incomes, providing an incentive to work and save.”

In this issue of LD2010 Nick calls for a fair start for children, Vince answers your questions on the economy and we launch ‘Why Vote Lib Dem.

Political Slot: A fair start for children

This week Nick spoke about Liberal Democrat plans to help improve the lives of children in Channel 4’s Political Slot. He also spoke to the Salvation Army about the importance of early years education in tackling inequality. Read our full policy on improving education here. Watch the video >

Danny Alexander launches ‘Why vote Lib Dem?’

This book, which went on sale yesterday, covers topics as varied as fair taxes, gay rights, looking after our armed forces, political reform and the fight against climate change.
Read more >
Ashcroft estimated to have saved £127m in tax

“Non-doms have to tell the taxman that their first allegiance is to another country. No-one should be a British lawmaker whose first allegiance is not to Britain,” said Chris Huhne.
Read more >

Labour has condemned people to overcrowded housing

“People should not be condemned to homes more suitable for battery hens. Labour has left us right back where we were under the last Conservative Government,” said Sarah Teather.
Read more >
Vince responds to your questions

Two week’s ago we asked you to submit questions to Vince Cable on the economy. Yesterday he recorded answers to the questions as voted for by you. He covers subjects including economic recovery, investing in green jobs and nuclear power. Watch the video >

5th - 7th February:
This weekend Scottish Lib Dems will be hosting their spring conference in Perth. Nick Clegg and Tavish Scott will talk about how we will make Scotland fairer.
Find out more >

12th - 14th March:
Birmingham will be hosting federal spring conference. Policy discussions will include a full debate on the youth policy paper, as well as consultation sessions on localism and international development. Find out more >

Housing charity Shelter claimed today that the Government has gone back on its commitment to revise the 1935 overcrowding standard.

The Government has responded to a Shelter petition, saying that it will not update the overcrowding standard, as promised in 2004, until “the right processes are in place to support overcrowded households”.

The response from the Government’s has arrved as latest statistics reveal the number of households in overcrowding has risen to more than 650,000, which is the highest level for more than 14 years.

Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said:

“Overcrowding is a huge blight on children’s lives, with devastating consequences for their health, education and future chances.

“It is simply unacceptable for this antiquated standard to remain in place, allowing kitchens and living rooms to be considered as acceptable places for children to sleep.

“After six years in which the Government has failed to keep its promise, we urgently need a uniform statutory standard for England which delivers a modern understanding of space and privacy, together with significant resources to end this hidden part of our housing crisis.”

“Investment in health and education is a false economy if children are being brought up in cramped conditions, more vulnerable to health problems and unable to find space to do their homework.”

The Government says that it has provided £15 million over three years to support local authorities to tackle overcrowding, but this is the equivalent of only £32 a year for each overcrowded family in the social rented sector.

The response from the Government also mentioned its commitment to ensure that a third of new affordable homes that will be built over the next year have three or more bedrooms, but Shelter points out that with house building at its lowest level since 1946 and less than a quarter of affordable homes built last year being family-sized, this target could take much longer to achieve.

Mr Robb added:

“Shelter is calling on all political parties to make tackling overcrowding a priority in the next parliament. This means urgently updating the standard, delivering significantly more family-sized homes, and increasing funding to stop the terrible impact overcrowding has on children’s lives.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Teather said: “Labour’s betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in cramped conditions is frankly unforgivable.
 
“Overcrowding means children unable to do their homework, and families falling apart due to the stress of living on top of each other. 
 
“Labour has left us right back where we were under the last Conservative Government.  We urgently need to bringing many more homes back into use and update the outdated rules on overcrowding.
 
“People should not be condemned to homes more suitable for battery hens.” 

“It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect asking a police officer whether their work is really necessary,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Commenting on reports from the Electoral Commission that Tory officials had refused requests to be interviewed by investigators, Chris Huhne said:

“It’s extraordinary that officials of a major political party should refuse a meeting to answer questions from the regulator designed to ensure funding is open and honest.

“It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect asking a police officer whether their work is really necessary. 

“The Conservatives must now answer the question about who told their officials to withhold cooperation from the Electoral Commission. On whose authority was this request refused?”

A former chief executive of the Conservative party has accused William Hague and David Cameron of showing poor judgment by failing to ask Lord Ashcroft some “pretty obvious questions” about his tax affairs.

Senior Conservative frontbenchers have been showing their disappointment that their leaders had failed to resolve Ashcroft’s tax status, with one even warning of a “fuck-up”, former Chief Executive of the Conservatives.

Barry Legg, said the millionaire peer had caused damage to the party through giving the impression that he is not committed to Britain.

Mr Legg, said:

“It has been a bit of an embarrassment for quite some time that a major donor was in all likelihood not domiciled … it is damaging that you have somebody contribute so much money to the Conservative party who basically doesn’t want to pay taxes in this country. It questions the commitment of that donor to the country.”

“There are some pretty obvious questions to ask,”

“It looks as if those people in a position to ask those questions have decided for whatever reason not to press the matter.

“It probably reflects poor judgment on the part of people that are in charge of the party. People haven’t pressed the questions. Well, they’re pretty obvious questions. People who are pretty bright should be able to work out what those questions are and require an answer.”

The Green Party’s candidate for Weston super Mare has withdrawn from the General Election contest before it has even begun because he wants Liberal Democrat Mike Bell to win the seat.

Dr Richard Lawson had been nominated by his party to fight the Weston seat currently held by the Conservatives, but Dr Lawson has today announced his decision to withdraw his candidacy “to increase the chance of the Liberal Democrats taking the seat”.

Dr Lawson said:

“This is the result of a great deal of soul-searching over the past weeks. The thing that swung it for me is the recent news that the Conservative opinion poll lead is declining. This raises a faint possibility that the LibDems could win in Weston.

“My candidature was founded on the idea that Weston was a safe Conservative win. That platform becomes shaky if Weston becomes vulnerable to a LibDem gain.

“I could not live with myself if the Greens in Weston got, say, 1,000 votes, and the Tory won by a margin of 100 votes over the LibDem, and David Cameron formed a Government with an overall majority of one.

“I urge all who would have voted Green to vote instead for Mike Bell.”

Liberal Democrat candidate Mike Bell said:

“I welcome Dr Lawson’s decision. Weston is a marginal seat and Dr Lawson confirms that the choice here is between myself and our sitting Conservative MP.

“Many people view the prospect of a Conservative majority at Westminster with concern, especially when we have seen what real Conservative leadership looks like in our own Town Hall. I am determined to give local people a chance to vote for real change at the General Election and, for the first time in our history, send a Westonian to Westminster.”

“Overcrowding means children unable to do their homework, and families falling apart due to the stress of living on top of each other,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister.

Commenting on today’s petition by Shelter to update the 1935 overcrowding standard, Sarah Teather said:

“Labour’s betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of families stuck in cramped conditions is frankly unforgivable.
 
“Overcrowding means children unable to do their homework, and families falling apart due to the stress of living on top of each other. 
 
“Labour has left us right back where we were under the last Conservative Government.  We urgently need to bringing many more homes back into use and update the outdated rules on overcrowding.
 
“People should not be condemned to homes more suitable for battery hens.”

“We need to make sure every child gets an excellent education, not just a lucky few,” the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary will say.

At a speech to CentreForum’s Conference on ‘School Reform; from policy to practice’ today, David Laws will say:

“The Conservatives’ plans for education are fundamentally flawed.

“Their apparent commitment to a Pupil Premium is totally meaningless unless extra money is put in.  Without extra money, many schools will see their budgets cut.  

“This will be even more devastating at a time when public spending will be squeezed, especially as the Tories are already targeting the Education budget for cuts.

“It makes no sense to give freedoms to some schools, but deny them to others.  The Conservative plans to simply rely on the market, without any accountability or local oversight will not work and will have little impact in the vast majority of schools. 

“We need to make sure every child gets an excellent education, not just a lucky few.”

Actor Colin Firth, former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald QC and musician Brian Eno have all contributed to a book entitled ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat’.

The book, which goes on sale on Thursday, covers topics as varied as fair taxes, gay rights, looking after our armed forces, political reform and the fight against climate change.

Other contributors include Gurkha veteran Madan Kumar Gurung, political reform campaigner Pam Giddy and Duwayne Brooks, Stephen Lawrence’s best friend who was with him on the night he died.

Commenting Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“There are hundreds of reasons to vote Liberal Democrat, but there is also just one reason: the will to create a better, fairer Britain by doing things differently. This is what unites all the contributors to this book.

“I am delighted such a great group of people from so many different backgrounds have come together to share their reasons for backing the Liberal Democrats.”

“Liberal Democrats will give schools the money to cut class sizes and provide children who are struggling with more individual support by committing an extra £2.5bn,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary.Commenting on today’s IFS report ‘The Pupil Premium: assessing the options’, which shows how many schools would have their budgets cut under Conservative plans to bring in a Pupil Premium without extra funding, David Laws said:

“This independent report confirms the Tories’ proposals would be disastrous for thousands of schools, wrecking opportunities for millions of children.  

“The Conservatives’ plans will mean many schools have their budgets slashed.
 
“David Cameron may talk about raising standards but his plans commit no pounds and no pence of extra money to our schools.  He now needs to be honest about the devastating impact this will have on England’s schools. 
 
“Liberal Democrats will give schools the money to cut class sizes and provide children who are struggling with more individual support by committing an extra £2.5bn. This extra cash and our plans to set schools free to raise standards will give every child a fair start in life.”

The row over Lord Ashcroft will not go away for the Tories

Douglas Alexander MP, Labour’s General Election Co-ordinator responded to the latest revelations about Lord Ashcroft and William Hague in the Guardian and The Times said:

“Tonight’s revelations shift the focus of the Ashcroft saga firmly to William Hague’s door.

“These letters show that he promised the then Prime Minister, and the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee that Lord Ashcroft would become resident in the UK for tax purposes and pay in William Hague’s own words to the Prime Minister “tens of millions a year in tax”.

The papers also suggested that he was not suitable for a peerage.

Last night the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable called on the HMRC to review Ashcroft’s tax status in the UK.

He said:

“There does seem to be a strong case for HMRC to investigate the potential abuse of non-dom status,”

It also emerged last night that Vince Cable’s colleague Chris Huhne had written to the HMRC and he said an inquiry was necessary to establish whether Ashcroft had wrongly avoided paying more than £127million in taxes. Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Oakeshott in the meantime has written to Gordon Brown and the cabinet secretary, Gus O’Donnell, to demand the immediate release of all documents to substantiate Ashcroft’s claims – specifically that the government agreed to downgrade the undertaking he made when he was ennobled to become a UK resident to allow him to retain his non-dom status.

The Cabinet Office, which holds all the documents relating to Ashcroft’s ennoblement, confirmed that it agreed with him that an undertaking to become a “permanent resident”, under which he would pay full tax, could be replaced with a commitment that he would “live indefinitely and would therefore be a long-term resident”, to ensure he lived in the UK and attended the Lords. That change was made in June 2000, a few weeks after his conditional nomination was announced, but the Cabinet Office would not clarify whether this affected his tax status, or how Ashcroft subsequently used a loophole in the law introduced eight years later which allowed “long-term residents” to remain non-doms.Chris Huhne’s letter, to Lesley Strathie, the chief executive of HM Revenue and Customs, states that there are still important questions to answer.

The letter says:

“I am writing to ask that you investigate the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft to ensure that he pays full UK taxes on his worldwide income from the tax year 2000-2001 and that his status as a non-domiciled taxpayer is rendered void,”

Chris Huhne refers to Ashcroft’s original promise to become a permanent resident and calculates that the tax saved by being a non-dom would amount to £127million over 10 years.

Lord Oakeshott’s letter urges the release of all documents to clarify the nature of the “subsequent dialogue” Ashcroft said he had with the government which “reversed” his original undertaking to Hague to become a permanent resident.

The Tories must now stop dithering over Lord Ashcroft; they must come clean and tell the truth.

The election Commission has found that more than half of young people eligible to vote have not registered

Officials have been asked to make another effort to persuade more people to register for the general election.

The Electoral Commission said more than 3.5 million people may not be registered.  It’s research suggested 56% of 17-25 year olds were not on the electoral register, and
criticised “token” efforts by some election officials to encourage more people to register to vote.

The Electoral Commission said some election registration officers were not doing enough to raise awareness of the need for people to register.

The electoral Commission carried out research in eight local authorities to check how complete their electoral registers were.

People must be on the local electoral roll if they want to vote in the next general election, which is widely expected to be held on 6 May as well as the local elections which will take place on the same day.

The Commission said its findings suggested that only 44% of 17 to 24-year-olds were registered to vote, and only 69% of voters from ethnic minorities. Of people who had moved house in the last year, only 21% were registered.

People are elgible to register to vote from the age of 16, although they will not be able to actually vote until they are 18, but the commission said that 3.5 million eligible voters were missing in 2001 and due to a decrease in registered voters in the early 2000s, there might be even more now.

In its annual assessment of the performance of returning officers, the Commission says generally they have improved across all areas, but it said performance in raising public awareness of the need to register to vote was “particularly weak”.

The report said:

“In many instances promotional work appears to be a token approach to demonstrate that the statutory duty is being met, rather than reflecting a well-thought-out approach to improving registration rates in localities where they are lower,”

Commission chairman Jenny Watson said the general election could be called at any time and there may only be a few days to register once that happened.

She said the failure of some election officials to promote registration “isn’t good enough” and added:

“We have asked every registration officer to make one final push before the general election.”

“We need to ask fundamental questions about the timing of our annual canvass in the autumn when elections are typically in the spring,” she added.

John Turner, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, told the BBC that voter participation was “an area that clearly needs improvement - I don’t think anyone would disagree with that”.

He said:

“This is clearly an area of concern and something that needs improving, and I would go along with the conclusion the Electoral Commission have drawn - that we need to go back to basics and question the whole way of doing registration.”

He added that he had long believed that the annual canvass should be carried out closer to the election.

David Cameron the Conservatives had hoped that the controversy over Lord Ashcroft would just go away, but the fact remains that the issue is not a “dead horse”, but we need to know how Lord Ashcroft is funding the Tory Party.  

It is now time for the Electoral Commission to conclude their investigation into donations made by Bearwood Corporate Services Limited to the Conservative Party. This evening the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said he has written to the HMRC urging them to investigate the tax status and tax affairs of Tory donor Lord Ashcroft and ask him to pay owed money back.

Chris Huhne said:

“For him to be a legislator in the House of Lords when he was not paying taxes is shameful.”

Chris Huhne said Ashcroft owed £127million from non-paid taxes over the last 10 years, and rejecting claims by David Cameron that the issue was a “dead horse”, he said that “This is not over yet.”

Earlier today the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg

“I think if you are seeking to influence the outcome of the next general election… then it is wholly wrong that you basically seek to pay taxes only partially in this country.”

“We urgently need a nationwide scheme to make every home a warm home,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Commenting on the Government’s announcement of a green loans scheme for households who want to make energy efficient improvements to their homes, Simon Hughes said:

“It is staggering that it has taken this Government nearly 13 years to come up with plans to green our homes and cut people’s fuels bills.

“Refurbishing our homes should be a win-win situation, but Labour has bungled this kind of thing before.

“Today’s announcement will leave millions of families without the warm homes they need for up to 20 years.

“We urgently need a nationwide scheme to make every home a warm home.”

Lord Ashcroft is estimated to have saved more than £127m in British tax since he became a member of the House of Lords, according to Liberal Democrat research.

Lord Ashcroft’s annual tax saving is conservatively estimated to be £12.76m and he has been a member of the House of Lords for a decade.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

“Anyone who wants to pass laws in this country should pay this country’s full taxes and not hide behind the special offshore status of non-doms.
 
“Non-doms have to tell the taxman that their first allegiance is to another country. No-one should be a British lawmaker whose first allegiance is not to Britain.
 
“On even the most conservative estimates, Lord Ashcroft has avoided vast amounts of British tax by deploying the non-dom tax dodge. If he challenges our estimate of how much tax he has dodged, then there is a simple solution: publish the figure.”

“Liberal Democrats will give schools the money to cut class sizes and provide children who are struggling with more individual support by committing an extra £2.5bn,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary.

Commenting on today’s IFS report ‘The Pupil Premium: assessing the options’, which shows how many schools would have their budgets cut under Conservative plans to bring in a Pupil Premium without extra funding, David Laws said:

“This independent report confirms the Tories’ proposals would be disastrous for thousands of schools, wrecking opportunities for millions of children.  

“The Conservatives’ plans will mean many schools have their budgets slashed.
 
“David Cameron may talk about raising standards but his plans commit no pounds and no pence of extra money to our schools.  He now needs to be honest about the devastating impact this will have on England’s schools. 
 
“Liberal Democrats will give schools the money to cut class sizes and provide children who are struggling with more individual support by committing an extra £2.5bn. This extra cash and our plans to set schools free to raise standards will give every child a fair start in life.”

Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable in a speech to the Green Alliance has today re-affirmed the Liberal Democrat commitment to environmentalism.

In his speech, Vince Cable:

• Argues that the recession provides a unique opportunity to re-shape our economy and that environmental goals can go hand in hand with job creation
• Suggests that a creating a ‘green spine’ for the economy will allow many diverse activities to branch from it, from the creative industries and pharmaceutical and biological science through to specialist IT services
• Reiterates the party’s commitment to setting up an Infrastructure Bank
• Reaffirms the party’s objection to Heathrow expansion and new nuclear power

Thank you for the kind invitation to speak to you.

The fact that you have invited me I take as a challenge to demonstrate that the Liberal Democrats see the environment in holistic terms: not as a separate set of concerns but connected to mainstream economic policy. I am also aware that I am following in the footsteps of Mr George Osborne. I see that, since that meeting, the Tories have deleted the environment from their list of 10 Reasons to Vote Conservative. I don’t know what you did to him but I can assure you that I won’t react in the same way. The environment – defined as part of a sustainable economy - will be a major plank of our election message.

When you mark your card after the beauty parade of political parties may I suggest that depth of commitment is not measured only, or even mainly, by the number of boxes which the parties tick in terms of policy statements. To explain the Liberal Democrat position on the environment, I go back a generation to the late 1970s. At that time, I wasn’t involved in Liberal politics; I worked for a Labour Minister, John Smith. I was however intrigued by an earnest group of people who came round my local streets in Twickenham collecting bundles of paper for recycling. In truth, I think I regarded them as rather loopy. But they weren’t a joke. A few years later they wiped out the local Labour Party, defeated the Conservatives and, having taken over the council, launched a pioneering drive in municipal recycling which we now regard as a basic function of local government. And twenty years ago when climate change was still a subject confined to the scientific journals Paddy Ashdown asked me – I had just become the candidate for Twickenham – to set up a group looking at the issue, out of which came the ideas for green taxes on which we have continued to build. The Green Fiscal Commission we regard as the best source of new thinking on the subject.

Perhaps I could indulge in a few more personal recollections: not to personalise the arguments but so that you are clear where I am coming from. My starting point is that of a fairly hard-nosed economist whose formative years were spent working in or with developing country governments in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. I had a pretty negative view of conservationists who seemed obsessed by preserving animals and views for rich, white, people to look at while keeping the local population in a romanticised traditional lifestyle. I saw my job as identifying ways of helping an expanding population of poor people to improve their living standards. And I regarded as economically illiterate the Club of Rome, anti growth, theorists whose obsession with raw materials running out took no account of prices. I confess that I continue to trail various environmental heresies with mixed results. Some years ago I was ranting about the fallacy of the concept of ‘food miles’ at a public meeting and seriously annoyed a farmer in the audience, a lady with strong, green, views. The argument continued after the meeting but it was resolved; we are now very happily married.

But my first encounter with serious environmental thinking was as part of the small team which worked with Mrs Brundtland to produce Our Common Future in the mid-1980s and which first launched the concept of ‘sustainable development’. ‘Sustainable development’ has become a mantra we all now use. But it emerged from fierce debate between those, mainly from developed countries, who wanted economic growth slowed down to take account of environmental damage and limits, and those with a developing countries standpoint, including me, who wanted economic growth speeded up to reduce poverty. ‘Sustainable development’ was an ideological compromise – a plea for growth which respects the environment. The underlying tension remains and is reflected in the way different views of the EU on the one hand and China and India on the other at Copenhagen. ‘Converge and contract’ – the compromise formula for climate change – is designed to resolve that tension but agreement is a long way off. And both sides are right. The continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions threatens serious consequences for the next generation. But the rapid growth achieved in China , especially, and India in the last three decades has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and there is an enormous, understandable, appetite to continue.

I moved from Brundtland to work on the first of the major intergovernmental reports on climate change to Commonwealth Prime Ministers and worked with the East Anglia scientists and others who were trying to raise awareness of the issue over two decades ago. I was persuaded of the need to take climate change seriously – as was Mrs Thatcher, one of the Heads of Government to whom the report was presented – by the rigour of the climate scientists: stating that there was a problem but always acknowledging uncertainty and the range of error; never overstating the case.

No one could now complain about lack of awareness of the climate change issue. But I worry about the damage done by failure at Copenhagen and the process of rapid political retreat now taking place, particularly in the USA. The underlying problem is that climate change is an elite project with a narrow and thin political base. It depends critically on public trust in science and scientists. That trust has now been dented. I know that the sceptics are employing every dirty trick in the book and are wildly overstating the significance of a few pieces of slipshod work and exaggerated claims. But much damage has been done to trust in climate science. I don’t agree with a lot of George Monbiot’s work but he was absolutely spot on in his tough response to the slippage of scientific standards. Scientists complaining about emails being stolen and the burden of FOI requests are behaving like the more obtuse MPs during the expenses crisis.

What is now required to restore trust is to reassert the importance and values of science: making it clear that man made global warming is not a fact but a scientific hypothesis with strong evidential support; that there is a lot of uncertainty about magnitudes and impacts; but that the costs of preventive action are likely to be much less than the cost of climate change if it materialises. Climate science must be open to challenge, like all good science. It is not a religion. And critics, however tiresome, have to be treated with courtesy not abused (I can’t be the only person who takes deep offence at the term ‘climate change deniers’, equating sceptics with neo-Nazi holocaust deniers). Those of us who are still convinced that climate change is a major challenge have to reflect that humility if the arguments are not to be lost, irretrievably. What I can assure you is that the Liberal Democrats will continue to give prominence to climate change as a crucial issue we must address.
   
But let me turn to our approach to policy. Where economics and environment come together is in recognising that the costs of environmental pollution should be captured in the price. A proper marriage of economics and environment would sweep away the array of subsidies, protectionist trade policies and tax breaks which disguise the costs of farming, water extraction, fishing, timber production, waste disposal, energy production, mining and manufacturing. Pollution costs would be taxed as the rather dry pre-Keynesian economist Pigou argued almost a century ago. There has been some progress at least in the developed world to tackle that agenda. The Liberal Democrats bring together environmentalism and liberal market economics and are comfortable promoting sustainable economics; while our sister parties, in Canada and Germany for example, have a track record of delivering on the ground.

That is also the rationale for carbon taxes which are clearly the best way of setting a carbon price for consumers and producers. Liberal Democrats support the concept. But in practice we are starting from somewhere else: a complicated system of national taxes bearing quite heavily on motor vehicles but hardly at all on domestic heating or aviation, with a modest industrial – climate change – levy and an EU carbon trading regime (which has so far had minimal impact on the carbon price because permits have been issued too liberally and grandfathered rather than auctioned).

We suggest that one useful step forward is to introduce realistic pricing for aviation in ways that circumvent the treaty restrictions on taxing aviation fuel. Aviation is a rapidly growing source of emissions and the last redoubt of the old idea that polluters don’t and won’t pay. Aviation has unfair, distorting tax advantages over competing modes of transport, notably long distance rail, because there is no tax on fuel, no charge for landing rights which, in a sensible world, would be auctioned (and in contrast to the track charges imposed on rail operators) and with subsidised landing charges (cross-subsidised by shopping in the bizarre, Alice in Wonderland world of aviation regulation). As a result aviation does not pay for carbon, or localised – nitrogen dioxide – pollution or the disamenity of noise, especially at night. We suggest as one – modest – first step: changing the tax base, and increasing tax, by applying it to flight take-offs in a way which captures the emissions generated by the engines and flight distance and scrapping the current ticket tax which penalises the efficient use of aircraft and doesn’t tax air freight. We would aim to raise £2.6bn from this green tax which would contribute towards cuts in direct taxation on the low paid. We are also opposed to the current ‘predict and provide’ approach to airport expansion in the South East. We hope that the Conservatives will be as good as their word in working with us to stop Heathrow expansion in particular.

Road transport is already taxed relatively heavily in the UK by international comparison – a fact which encourages road hauliers to dodge British tax by filling up with diesel on the continent. But despite unpopular tax indexation, the cost of motoring has risen less rapidly than the cost of bus or train travel. Moreover, petrol duty and VED make no distinction between travel on congested roads where there are alternatives and remote rural areas where there is no congestion and no alternative. We should be moving towards a proper road user pricing system for which the technology is now available. Tax is however only one way of changing behaviour. A more direct route is a tightening of energy efficiency standards – miles per gallon – for new vehicles along the lines advocated by my former boss at Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart.

Tougher standards – for insulation in new building are likely to work better for domestic heating than the price mechanism – higher taxes – which would cause fuel poverty with only a very blunt incentive to invest in energy efficiency. And in parallel there has to be a concerted drive to improve the existing housing stock, street by street, rather than the current fragmented, shambolic, set of programmes.

There are big strategic choices to be made in power generation. At present, progress on new renewables in the UK is pitifully slow and the opportunities for changing the basic model of energy delivery to local, distributed, power systems is being missed, though feed in tariffs will help in future. The government has effectively shelved the 2003 White Paper which set out a strategic framework based on energy conservation, new renewables and – transitional – gas. Intensive lobbying has led to agreement for a new generation of coal-fired power stations as at Kingsnorth and more importantly support for a new generation of nuclear power stations. I appreciate that nuclear power has attractions to many in the green movement because it is an – almost – zero carbon fuel. Its proponents have also cunningly exploited public anxieties about energy security with wildly exaggerated stories about disruption to gas supplies which, in the case of the UK, are very diverse and safe. The hidden costs of nuclear waste storage and decommissioning are vast. When I spoke in Parliament against the bailout of British energy in 2003, some of the best analysis I encountered came from Greenpeace.  The Liberal Democrats oppose new nuclear power not from some theological opposition to the principle – it would be ludicrous to declare war on physics – but because of the potential hidden cost – the blank cheque needed from the taxpayer - and the potential which nuclear power has to ‘crowd out’ new renewables. A traditional, grid based, system gets in the way of more innovative, distributed, localised systems.

But the whole environmental agenda is in danger of being derailed by the current economic crisis. Economic necessity concentrates the mind. The environment has plummeted down the list of the electorate’s priorities.

Much of the established green approach, resting as it does on environmental taxes and a more general approach to frugality, assumes that there is a large appetite for self flagellation. For those people who clamoured for a zero growth world – well, here it is and it isn’t very nice.

Fortunately there is a growing recognition that the current economic crisis presents opportunities as well as threats to environmental thinking. The key issue is jobs and where they come from. Britain has a major short term problem of cyclical unemployment or underemployment arising from the banking collapse and recession and a longer term structural problem of generating jobs and growth out of an economy which can no longer rely on consumption driven by household debt, inflated property prices and the high octane economy of the sharks and young bloods in the City.

The short term problem cries out for classic Keynesian public works based on ‘shovel ready’ projects. The construction sector has been the worst hit by the recession and arguably has the richest potential for job creation directly and through supplier industries from timber frames to ceramic fitting. There is massive pent up demand for social housing, and supply is seriously constrained by lack of funding. Improvement of empty and substandard property for rent is one – relatively cheap – way forward. The Liberal Democrats have also been arguing for a concerted programme of home insulation.  Since we acknowledge that there is a major fiscal contraction ahead and no scope for enlarging deficit financing we identify savings from government spending which can be redeployed in this way. Environmental goals can be neatly reconciled with job creation. I shy away from the term ‘green jobs’ since it implies that non-green jobs like being a car mechanic or a gas fitter are somehow less worthwhile which is not right or sensible. Indeed I note with some amusement that the centrepiece of President Obama’s ‘green’ public works programme is road building.

Liberal Democrats are anxious to ensure that the baby of environmentalism is not thrown out with the bath water of unsustainable public spending. We are, for example, seeking to use some of your ideas on carbon spending for saving money.

The term Green New Deal also captures the convergence of economic and environmental aims. The term suggests a short term, recession, programme but it has been better described to me by Colin Hines, one of the authors of the idea, as creating a ‘green spine’ for the economy from which many diverse activities will branch. It is already possible to see some of the activities around which future employment and growth will occur – creative industries; pharmaceutical and biological science; specialist IT based services; health and education services; and financial services disarmed of their destructive potential.

Environmental services and industries are another and could be a leading sector with encouragement. Much will happen spontaneously led by market demand. But this new economy will require infrastructure, preferably a green one. There is a potentially vast demand for digital infrastructure, new and improved public transport, renewable power production and transmission systems plus the education and training of a new generation of scientists, engineers and skilled workers to operate this new economy. The Government is not going to be able to finance much of the infrastructure because the public sector balance sheet is so weak. The funding will have to come from the private sector and I have been promoting the idea of an Infrastructure Bank tapping into the hundreds of billions in annuity funds of pension and insurance companies looking for a home in the UK or retail investment in what could be ‘green bonds’. Part of its remit would be environmental but it would clearly have a broader infrastructure role. It could also mobilise private, retail, investors looking for an attractive, long term productive use of their savings. Colin Hines has coined the term ‘savers and saviours’ – what is needed is the imagination and leadership to link employment growth, environmental imperatives and the self interest of entrepreneurs and investors.

The Liberal Democrats want to work with like-minded people to develop that vision. We must take these ideas forward on all fronts: national, international and local.  Birmingham City Council which we run in joint administration with the Conservatives has advanced plans for a municipal green new deal.  Given our traditions of localism, we have more confidence in bottom up than top down initiatives. A sustainable future will require both.

The General Election result risks being ‘tainted’ if the large sums donated by Lord Ashcroft to the Conservatives are found to be illegal, the Liberal Democrats have said.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne has written to the Electoral Commission to ask it to conclude its inquiry before the General Election.
 
In the letter, Chris Huhne said:

“Should the Conservative Party secure a majority following the General Election using donations made by Bearwood Corporate Services Limited, and your investigation were to conclude after the General Election that these donations were illegal, this would raise serious concerns about the legality and validity of the entire election result.”

It was claimed last night that Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft has deprived the public of more than £127 million in a 10-year-long tax dodge.

The amount was estimated after the Conservative party’s biggest donor yesterday admitted he is a “non-dom” and does not pay all of his taxes in the UK.

Lord Ashcroft, whose main business interests are in Belize, has promised to take up UK residence permanently in return for his peerage 10 years ago.

Lib Dem Chris Huhne, who calculated the figures, said:

“He’s avoided vast sums in a non-dom tax dodge.”

The Ashcroft scandal is another blow for Conservative leader David Cameron, whose party’s lead has been gradually decreasing in the opinion polls.

The news will also cause outrage because Ashcroft’s £127 million could have been spent on schools, hospitals and frontline police officers.

Lord Ashcroft’s fortune has been estimated to be £1,100million, which would earn him at least £55 million in income.

The Tory deputy chairman would have paid £12.76 million a year in tax on it if he was based in Britain.

That means over 10 years the public losing out on £127,600,000 in lost income.

Mr Huhne added:

“Anyone who wants to pass laws about tax in this country should pay the full taxes and not hide behind the special offshore status of non-doms.

“If he challenges our estimate, then there is a simple solution: publish the figure.”

A Tory official said: “The same question could equally well be asked of the non doms who
have given Labour £10million since 2001.”
How the taxpayer has missed out £127.6M

Lord Ashcroft’s fortune is estimated at £1,100 million by the Sunday Times Rich List.

A 5% annual return is £55m. If he kept 80% offshore taxpayers would miss income from £44m.
He can split his tax between capital gains and income tax.

At 18%, capital gains tax on £22m = £3.96m, plus 40% income tax on £22m = £8.8m. That’s £12.76m a year or £127.6m in 10 years

Liberal Democrat Peer,Lord Oakeshott has thatclaimed this morning’s admission from Conservative party deputy chairman and major donor Lord Ashcroft that he is not domiciled in the United Kingdom for tax purposes raised “serious questions” about David Cameron’s fitness for government.

He accused the Conservative party of “disgracefully covering up his subterfuge” and said the peer had been dishonest and unpatriotic in accepting a peerage whilst being a non-dom.

Lord Oakeshott said:

“It’s certainly unpatriotic to be a non-dom and to take a peerage from the Queen for life… how can you possibly accept a life peerage and do that?,”

Lord Oakeshott added that David Cameron had been “posing as Mr Clean-up” but had failed to deal with the questions surrounding the peer’s tax status.

Lord Oakeshott said:

“The significance of Lord Ashcroft is that he is not just a peer, he is bankrolling the Tory election campaign,”

“It raises very serious questions about the validity of the election result.”

“Labour has been just as guilty as the Tories of posturing on penalties and peddling fear,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne.

Commenting on Gordon Brown’s speech on crime and anti-social behaviour, Chris Huhne said:

“Labour has been just as guilty as the Tories of posturing on penalties and peddling fear.

“Labour and the Conservatives have indulged in a sentencing arms race in a desperate attempt to look tough, rather than back more police officers which is the best way to cut crime.”

Mr Huhne said that Lord Ashcroft had bought the Conservatives as though the party were a “banana republic”.

He protested that a “tax dodger from Belize should be able to buy the Tory Party as if it’s a banana republic.”

“We’re talking about the biggest donor to one of Britain’s leading political parties.”

He added that “it stinks”.

Mr Huhne said that this raised questions of judgment for the last three Conservative leaders.

“There’s an enormous question for David Cameron and indeed Michael Howard and William Hague: how could they have allowed this situation to continue?”

He said that it showed there was “a Tory policy of assuming that only the little people should pay tax because the big people can get away with it as they like.”

“It is frankly shocking, it suggests a really appalling indictment of British public life that it’s come to this and a real misjudgment of David Cameron.”

Speaking on Lord Ashcroft’s admission of his non-dom status, Mr Huhne said there was a “difference of scale” between Lord Aschroft’s donations to the Tories and Labour donors such as Lord Paul.

“The reality is that what Lord Ashcroft has done is spent a pretty small part of hix tax savings becoming the biggest donor to the Conservative party.”

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has today set out the importance of early years education in tacking inequality in a speech to the Salvation Army. Committing the Liberal Democrats to invest an extra £2.5bn in schools, Nick Clegg said that parents and schools must work together to make sure that children get the best possible start in life.

I’d like to thank the Salvation Army for inviting me to speak today.
 
Last winter, I went out with your Sheffield branch at the crack of dawn to try and help some rough sleepers.
It was a wet cold morning, and we found ourselves in a derelict warehouse, windows smashed, rubble and refuse everywhere, needles strewn across the floor, where people were sleeping in the most horrible conditions imaginable.
And – for the first time – I truly understood the reach the Salvation Army has.
Right into the most distressing, most hidden, parts of our society.  
Where you help people without judgement, without prejudice, without expectation.
An ethos which represents the best side of all of us.
 
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you particularly for your Seeds of Exclusion Programme.
That work has been enormously revealing in terms of the complex relationships between the different forces that lead to social exclusion.
 
There is a simple principle that the Salvation Army, the Liberal Democrats, and many of the organisations here today share:
It’s this: the fortunes of someone’s life should not be decided at their birth.
A person’s fate shouldn’t be settled by their sex, their colour, their postcode, or their parents’ bank balance.
In a fair society no one can tell you to lower your sights because - no matter how hard you try - the things you dream of somehow aren’t for you.
 

I want to talk about that society today.
About how we don’t live in it yet, but about how we can.
If we are willing to tackle the unfairness that sends some children along one path while others are left behind.
If we intervene to head off the destructive patterns of behaviour that take root when people are young.
If we invest in people before it becomes too late – investing in our schools to close the gap between children from deprived homes and those who are better off.
  
Let’s start with where we are.
Britain isn’t fair.
There is profound inequality everywhere you look: how much people earn, the homes they live in, the schools they send their children to.
In a fair society there will be differences between people’s lifestyles, of course.
But your place in society won’t be decided for you; it will be up to you to decide for yourself.

That is a socially mobile Britain.  
Some people say it is too much to hope for.
How can you move everyone upwards? There isn’t enough space at the top.
I say: that’s an excuse.
It is shrugging your shoulders at unfairness.
It is getting in the way of making Britain better.
 
Better than 23% of children living in poverty.
Better than millions of pensioners seeing out the winter in a single room because they can’t afford to heat their whole house.
Better than a baby born today in a poorer part of my city, Sheffield, dying on average 14 years before a baby born in a wealthier neighbourhood down the road.
 
We heard last month from the National Equality Panel that the richest 10% of people in Britain are now more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%.
In 1997, when New Labour was first elected, no one would have believed it would end like this.
But Labour’s bright, shiny promise of a fair society has faded away.
And all that remains is disappointment, hardship, and – worst of all – hopelessness.
 
I travel around the country every week.
The people I meet are angry, they want more for their families and their neighbourhoods, they’re desperate for change.
But too many are no longer sure that’s possible.
It’s a completely understandable reaction, after 18 harsh years under the Conservatives, followed by let down after let down from Labour.
But that sense of powerlessness is dangerous.
It’s stops people demanding the Britain they want to live in.
 
Our big task now is giving people back their hope.
It’s something the Salvation Army does every day – with people who have problems with drink or drugs, women escaping violent relationships, prisoners coming to terms with their pasts.
It’s how you help people turn their lives around.
We’re only going to turn this country around if we do the same: make people believe it is possible.

 
For politicians, that means spelling out the big changes that really mean something to people.  
The Liberal Democrats have laid out four steps to do that.
Four steps we can begin taking immediately to make a real difference to people’s lives:
Fair taxes, a rebalanced economy, decent, honest politics, and a good start for all of our children.
I’d like to take each in turn, but I’ll concentrate on the last one.
Because so long as opportunity is a privilege for some children but not others, any programme to tackle inequality is condemned to failure.
 
First, tax.
Our tax system is grossly unfair.
It’s a scandal that the poorest 20% of people in the country still lose a bigger chunk of their incomes to the tax man than the richest 20%.
That a millionaire still pays a lower rate of tax on his capital gains than his cleaner does on his or her wages.
The Liberal Democrats would close the loopholes exploited by big business and the very wealthy, giving everyone else a break.
Low and middle income earners wouldn’t pay a penny on the first £10,000 they earn. Giving most people £700 back every year, while 3.6 million pensioners and people on low incomes wouldn’t pay any tax at all.
 
Second, rebalancing our economy.
For decades successive governments made our whole economy subservient to a single square mile: the City of London.
So when our financial services collapsed, British taxpayers and businesses were left paying the price.
My party understands that there are nearly 100,000 square miles in Britain.
We want to usher in a new era where growth and jobs are spread across the nation.
By placing a new emphasis on infrastructure, on people, and on green technology…
I want to live in a country where we learn to build things again, not just place bets on computer screens in the City of London.
 
Third, politics must be opened up.
Made honest, decent, relevant.
That means getting rid of the influence of big money that is contaminating our political system.
Introducing fair votes so every vote counts.
And empowering every member of our society, bar none, starting with giving people the right to sack badly behaved MPs.

 
Finally, fairness for our children. 
 
Education is everything when it comes to opportunity.
How self assured we are, how equipped we are to deal with adult life, depends very much on the experiences we had when we were young.
And, when it’s done right, education can be society’s greatest liberator.
Because how well you do depends on how hard you work, and nothing else.
 
But Britain’s education system is failing too many children.
Despite the dedication of good schools and great teachers, one in three 11 year olds leave school unable to read and write properly.
And nearly half of 16 year olds leave school without 5 good GCSEs.
 
And it is the worst off children who are being let down most.
By the time children start their formal education the language skills of the poorest already trail nearly a year behind those of the children from middle income homes. 
By age 7 a bright but poor child will have been overtaken by his or her better off classmates.
By age 16 poorer teenagers are only half as likely to get 5 good GCSEs as everyone else.
That means less chance of further training, less chance of a good job, less chance of a stable life.
 
So what can we do?
 
Helping our schools make sure no child falls behind is half the answer.
And I will come on to how the Liberal Democrats would do that in a moment.
 
But schools can only do so much.
Because a good education doesn’t end at the school gate.
Every good parent knows that their children can only flourish if they are also taught the right values, given the right support, at home. 
If they are read to when their young, if someone checks their homework, if they are encouraged to ask question after question.  
 
For most parents providing that support is a natural reflex.
Life is hard for many working families.
But I meet plenty of mothers and fathers who work punishing hours and still find the time for their children’s education.
 
But, sadly, there are those who don’t.
A small minority of parents who do not see their children’s education as part of their duties as parents.
Who drop their children off in the morning, pick them up in the afternoon, and think that’s their job done.
 
Most probably their parents were the same with them.
But these are different times.
We now know, beyond any question, that, when it comes to a child’s development, what happens in the home is just as important – if not more – than what happens in the classroom.
That’s why, for example, children who are read to every day achieve better results.
 
When you deny a child that support, you hold them back.
Having a child is the greatest gift.
But it is a gift that carries duties.  
You hold their life’s fortunes in your hands.
When you let them down, you limit their chances.
And, you limit the chances of other children too.  
 
Because when your children fall behind…
When they lack self-confidence…
When they don’t place any value on education…
They’ll play up, and they’ll cause problems for everyone else.
 
We all remember from our own school days:
The pupils sat at the back of the class, disinterested, disengaged, disruptive.
Bored, having lost interest in a lesson they don’t understand; on the look out for other ways to entertain themselves.
Teachers try commendably to help those children, but the bad behaviour spirals.
Maybe they play truant, maybe they become bullies …
Maybe they never catch up, growing up into the lost young men and women organisations like the Salvation Army so often have to help. 
 
The knock on effect is that while teachers are busy trying to get those pupils to toe the line, there’s less time for everyone else, and all of the pupils suffer.
 
I’m a parent – I don’t imagine every classroom can be full of rows of perfectly behaved little angels.
But I don’t accept that a handful of parents who aren’t doing their job properly should be able to hold back the whole class.
 
So the Liberal Democrats in government would make a deal with parents:
You look after your children’s education at home…
And we will make sure they get the best start possible at school.
So on days like today, national offer day, you can rest assured that your children will move from a great primary school to a great secondary school.
 

I’m a liberal.
I don’t believe in the passive assumption that only government can – or should – fix the problems in our society.
Yes, there are huge flaws in our education system that will not be resolved without intervention by the state.
But governments can only make a difference if parents do their bit too.
 
For our part, the Liberal Democrats will make lifting the standard of education in this country an absolute priority.
We have pledged an extra £2.5bn to our schools.
Head teachers will be able to use that money on a whole range of measures to help pupils.
From recruiting the best teachers in the toughest schools, to providing lessons outside of the normal school day, to more catch up classes, more one to one tuition, and head teachers will be able to cut class sizes too.
 
The money will be targeted specifically to closing the gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their wealthier classmates.
That is how we can tackle the inequality that blights our education system…
Which, as a report on social mobility I commissioned from Barnardo’s Chief Executive Martin Narey confirmed, is how we tackle the inequality that blights our society.
 
The extra investment helps not only the poorest children, but all of their classmates too.  
An average primary school could see an extra £90,000 in its budget.
Enough to cut class sizes from 27 to 20.
In an average secondary school, they could go down to 16.
That’s good for every child in the class.
 
The Institute of Fiscal Studies is publishing their analysis of this type of investment tomorrow, which I look forward to reading.
That is important work in moving this debate forward among policy makers.
But many parents will feel they don’t need a report to tell them what they already know:
That any measure which gives teachers more time with their child, and more time bringing into line the children who would otherwise be playing up, can only be a good thing.
 
Ask teachers too - I was at a primary school in Brent just a few weeks ago…
The teachers I spoke to don’t just want to supervise a room full of children.  
They want to teach.
 
The Government did, to their credit, pass a law to cap classes for 5-7 year olds.
But more than 8000 children are still in classes that are technically illegal.
A problem that, with the number of 5-7 year olds rising every year, is only going to get worse.
 
The evidence is clear:
Whilst smaller class sizes are not a panacea on their own, and whilst the effect of teaching children in smaller groups is less as children get older…
They can nonetheless have a dramatic effect on the educational performance of the youngest children.
And we all know that what happens in the first few years of a child’s time at school is of disproportionate importance to their subsequent life chances.
 
So providing smaller class sizes, especially for young children, is one of the most important changes our Pupil Premium will allow head teachers to introduce in their schools. 
 
Ask yourself this:
 
Why does Switzerland, which consistently tops the literacy tables, have some of the smallest primary school classes in the world?
 
Why are more than 60% of the poorest pupils in Rutland not getting any GCSEs higher than a D – where the average secondary school class contains 24 pupils…
While in Westminster, where the average class is only 19, do less than 20% of the poorest children achieve the same result?
 
And why do the best off families pay vast sums every term to send their children to private schools where classes are around half the size of state schools?
 
Because they know that pupils will pay more attention to teachers, there will be less disruption…
And more opportunity to identify individual pupils’ problems, and talents, as they emerge.
 
Under our plans smaller classes won’t be a privilege reserved for the rich.
Our Pupil Premium raises the funding per pupil, for the poorer children, to the same levels as the money spent per pupil in private schools.
Head teachers can use that money to have smaller classes, like in fee paying schools. Taking our poorest children a huge leap towards an education they would otherwise never be able to afford.
 
So education is at the very core of what the Liberal Democrats will be proposing to voters at this election.
We are now the only true party of education.
 
Labour, despite all the money it has put into schools, has failed to transform the life chances of thousands of children who need the most help.
The Conservatives parrot the language of school reform – but refuse to allocate a single penny to make their promises a reality.
 
We are spelling out exactly what we would do, how much it would cost, and how we would pay for it.
And we are asking parents to enter into a deal with us:
Your child’s education will be our number one priority;
Help us by making it your number one priority too.
 
The difference smaller class sizes can make is so important that our Pupil Premium is one of only two substantial and immediate proposals for new investment the Liberal Democrats are making at this election.
The other being a major investment programme in green infrastructure to create jobs and boost the economy.
 
The public finances continue to bear the strain of the economic crisis.
But we can find the money if we are prepared to take tough decisions about what the country can and cannot now afford.  
My party has, for example, identified money that can be saved by taking above-average earners out of the means-tested tax credit system.
By scrapping unnecessary government databases, like the Contact Point children’s database.
And by cutting the vast sums currently spent on central government, including halving the size of the Children Schools and Families Whitehall department…
As well as scaling back BECTA, the quango that tells schools which computers to buy.
These and other savings can be used to reduce our national deficit while we simultaneously invest in our priorities…
Like tackling the impact of disadvantage on a person’s life chances.  
 
The Conservatives have also promised to target funding towards disadvantaged pupils.
But they have not given any detail on how they will pay for it.
In fact, they have committed precisely no pounds and no pence.
It is, in my view, the height of cynicism to pledge a pupil premium – by definition an amount of money per pupil – without attaching a figure to it.
 
It is playing games with people’s hopes to dangle the promise of extra money for children in front of parents with no evidence you can come good on it. 
If they are planning to increase investment for disadvantaged pupils, they owe it to people to come clean about what they will cut to pay for it.
If they are planning simply to shift around existing school budgets, they owe it to schools to come clean on which ones are going to face cuts.
 
What we do know about the Conservatives is that they are going to cut funding for school buildings.
We can only assume – given they have talked about ringfencing the NHS, but have stayed quiet on education budgets – that they are going to cut those budgets overall.
So in the absence of any evidence that they will actually help the poorest children…
One thing we can be sure of is that their promise of ‘brazen elitism’ in our schools is bound to come true.
 
For the Liberal Democrats, education is at the heart of our vision for fairness.
I want us to get to people before they get to the organisations in this room.
 
Uprooting the inequality that is embedded in our schools won’t solve every problem.
But it will start to give every child a chance in life, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth.
It will mean that underachievement, low self-esteem, a lack of self confidence in the classroom, won’t blight a child’s education as widely as they do now.
I don’t want to live in a society where it is all too easy to predict in a maternity ward which children will do well and which children won’t.
 
I want to live in a society where every child has a chance.
 
I want to live in a fairer Britain.

“We need fair taxation, new green jobs, a fair start for our children and a fair political system,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne.

Commenting on David Cameron’s speech at Tory spring conference Chris Huhne said:

“Once again the speech was short on specifics and on the key assurance of fairness that is essential if we are to tackle our economic problems.

“We need fair taxation, new green jobs, a fair start for our children and a fair political system that gives voters real choice to sack miscreant MPs.”

Gordon Brown recently released Labours’ General Election slogan, “A future fair for all”, but the Labour Government’s record on fairness is not good – remember the bolition of the 10p income tax band, for example.

The Sunday Times has revealed that the Treasury dropped plans to increase the tax on private equity just days before two of the industry’s richest tycoons made donations to Labour worth a total of £1.25million.

According to the Times, in the run-up to last December’s budget statement, ministers told officials to draw up proposals to end the special low tax enjoyed by venture capitalists, but according to Treasury insiders, the plans were opposed by No 10 and the private equity sector escaped any tax rises.

Private equity bosses from the bonus were also excluded from the tax imposed on other highly paid City workers in the pre budget report.

Nine days later on 18th December, Nigel Doughty, the chairman of the private equity giant Doughty Hanson and owner of Nottingham Forest football club, who has an estimated fortune of £119 million, gave £1million to the Labour party.

On December 23 the venture capitalist Sir Ronald Cohen, whose fortune is estimated at £220million, donated £250,000 to Labour.

Unsurprisingly both men deny contacting the government with the intentionof influencing their deliberations over private equity taxation and point out they have been long-standing Labour donors.

Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker said:

“It is a curious sequence of events when a planned policy change is dropped days before two men, who would have been adversely affected by this policy, give substantial sums to Labour.

“This looks like policy by donation. We need to know how deeply Gordon Brown was involved in this decision.”

On Monday night, Gordon Brown faces a showdown over Labour’s plans to “squeeze” the benefits of nine million pensioners, which it is expected will save the government half a billion pounds.

The Government has proposed freezing part of the state pension from April, but they are telling hard-up retirees they are getting a good deal.

Although the basic state pension of £92.25 a week is set to rise by 2.5%, Chancellor Alistair Darling decided not to apply the increase to the other parts of the total, such as the new state second pension, that make up the total take-home package.

The move will hit millions of pensioners, and with inflation now at 3.5%, the Liberal Democrats claim that it amounts to a pay cut in real terms.

The Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg is hopeful that he can persuade Labour backbenchers to join a vote against the freeze in a Commons motion tomorrow night.

Nick Clegg told the Sunday Express last night:

“It amounts to a huge pension’s betrayal. 

“You’ve got nine million pensioners receiving letters telling them what’s going to happen to their pension from April and they think they’ve been promised a rise from Brown, but in fact when you look at the small print what they’ll see is actually a real terms cut.

“It’s about half a billion pounds less for those nine million pensioners than they should be entitled to.

“That’s short-changing nine million pensioners to the tune of about £60 each for this coming year.

“It’s outrageous that Brown and Darling are trying to describe a cut as a rise.”

In a reference to Labour’s election slogan, he added:

“This is not a future fairer for all, this is a deception.”

He said that £60 “was not a small amount”.

Nick Clegg also said:

“We got a letter from a pensioner couple in Sheffield who found it so difficult to heat their home on a cold day, they travel the bus around Sheffield just to stay warm.

“Tell that couple that £60 is not a lot, particularly with the cold weather and the bills that couple have to face.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said David Cameron’s description of himself as a “salesman” at today’s Conservative spring conference would make people feel uneasy.

Chris Huhne said:

“If you turn up on someone’s door and try and sell them double glazing people are often wary,” 

“Does he really promise anything other than changing the people in the government?” 

He said that people were looking for “real change in the political system” in this election.

Mr Huhne also said that “the real failing” of Mr Cameron’s speech was the lack of an assurance of fairness, the key aspect upon which the Liberal Democrats are fighting their election campaign.

Commenting on the latest poll results which increase the possibility of a hung Parliament, Mr Huhne said that if  that happened his party would not seek to take advantage of it.

“The key thing is not what we can gain from it, the key thing is what is best for the country,” he said.

“People don’t want to see politicians squabbling.”

“We are not the kingmakers, the people are the kingmakers,” 

The Pocket Guide to Policy summarises the party’s key policies at a page per portfolio, for use by the party’s campaigners and for anyone who is interested to know what we are proposing.

The document has no formal status, although the policies summarised within it have all been passed by local party representatives at party conference.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne, has written to the chair of the Electoral Commission to ask that the investigation into donations to the Conservatives by a company owned by Lord Ashcroft be brought to a conclusion ahead of the election.

The full text of the letter is as follows:

Jenny Watson
The Electoral Commission
Trevelyan House
Great Peter Street
London SW1P 2HW Friday 26th February 2010

Dear Ms Watson,

I am writing to you today to request formally that the investigation being carried out by the Electoral Commission into donations to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services Limited should now come to a conclusion - in good time before the forthcoming General Election, widely anticipated to be held on 6th May 2010.

Bearwood Corporate Services Limited, since 28th February 2003, has made donations to the Conservative Party totalling £5,056,798.15. It is the most significant single donor to the Conservative party. As you will be aware, for a company to be eligible to make donations to a political party it has to be registered in the UK and carry out business here. A failure on either count would amount to a breach of the law within the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. It is widely known that Bearwood Corporate Services Limited is a company owned by Lord Ashcroft, a Conservative Peer in the House of Lords and the Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, who himself has made donations to the Conservative Party since 26th March 2001 totalling £111,726.09. Lord Ashcroft no longer makes donations to the Conservative party in an individual capacity, because to do so donors have to be listed on the electoral roll. He has so far refused to reveal whether he is registered to vote in the UK, or indeed whether he is a full UK taxpayer.

Given the sums involved and the no doubt crucial role that these will play in the upcoming General Election campaign of the Conservative Party, I believe it is imperative for the maintenance of public trust in the system of funding of political parties that this investigation is concluded before a General Election is called. You will no doubt agree that it would be wrong and undemocratic for one political party to benefit from funds that may yet be judged inadmissible by your investigation. If this were the case, the Conservative party would be found to have relied heavily on offshore finance. Indeed, should the Conservative Party secure a majority following the General Election using donations made by Bearwood Corporate Services Limited, and your investigation were to conclude after the General Election that these donations were illegal, this would raise serious concerns about the legality and validity of the entire election result.

Furthermore, I believe that this investigation is already one of the longest ever conducted by the Electoral Commission. It was launched in October 2008, and yet, almost 18 months later, no conclusion has been reached. I of course accept the need for complete accuracy and thoroughness in any enquiry the Commission carries out, but I also urge you to take account of the implications of any unnecessary delay for public trust and confidence in our political system. I also note that the Electoral Commission is not a court of law, but a regulatory body. Clearly, you could not announce the outcome of this important inquiry only a week or two before polling day, so surely you should do so now. It cannot conceivably be in the public interest to allow this matter to drag on in the dark with the general election so imminent. I am afraid that this long delay, with no indication even of when you will decide, risks undermining the reputation of your Commission as an effective regulator. It is crucial for you now to rule on this matter so that the nation does not face a tainted election.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Tory Party activists are gathering for their spring conference in Brighton, which is their last nationl meeting before the beginning of the general election campaign.

The two-day spring conference comes at a time when support for the Tories has fallen dramatically; last year they looked unbeatable, but recent polls have suggested that their lead over Labour is narrowing. 

On the eve of the conference, it was revealed that the Tories’ election slogan will be “vote for change”, and this message is likely to be at the centre to David Cameron’s main speech on Sunday. 

Labour will use the Tory conference as an opportunity to launch a new poster attacking the shadow chancellor George Osborne. 

This weekend, the Labour party is releasing more pre-election campaign material with an image of shadow chancellor George Osborne is accompanied by the slogan “Chancer not Chancellor”. 

The Liberal Democrats say only they offer a change to the existing way of conducting politics. 

The Leader of Liberal Democrat’s Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander said: the election was not a choice between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron. “It’s between the old way of doing politics and the real change represented by the Liberal Democrats“For people who want real change, real fairness in Britain there is only one choice: the Liberal Democrats.

Labour has totally failed to make Britain fairer, and the Tories can’t be trusted to do.”

I just read an interesting Tweet from Carl Minns, Liberal Democrat leader of Hull City Council.  It compares the Council Tax rates for next year in the four Humberside areas.

• N E Lincs (Lib Dem)  Nil Council Tax increase
• Hull City Council (Lib Dem)  Nil CouncilTax increase
• East Yorkshire (Conservative)  Increase in Council Tax
• North Lincolnshire (Labour)  Increase in Council Tax

Do I see a pattern here?

I am pleased to report that work has now begun on a pedestrian crossing on Laceby Road following a long campaign, and should be completed over the next few weeks

Some readers of my blog may have seen an article in our local paper, the Grimsby Telegraph, last Wenesday about the long awaited start of work on a pedestrian crossing on Laceby Road, in which the Conservative PPC, Victoria Ayling claims that the “effort put in by myself and Kath Norton, lobbying continuously to get this result” has helped the progress of the campaign to its successful conclusion.

In response I have sent a letter to the Grimsby Telegraph in which I have questioned her statement and asked for her to clarify the extent of her work in this important local issue, which was, in truth largely completed before her arrival in Grimsby. 

I would also like to express my appreciation of the hard work that was done by Mr Blanch and his helpers, and congratulate them on a successful campaign!

A copy of my letter to the Grimsby Telegraph is reproduced below for your information:

Dear Editor

I was delighted to be asked to contribute to the article about the start of work on the new pedestrian crossing on Laceby Road which was featured in Wednesday’s Telegraph, but I must admit to being amazed at the comments by the Conservative candidate for Grimsby, Victoria Ayling about her efforts to help the campaign by residents in the area.

Mrs Ayling claims that the “effort put in by myself and Kath Norton, lobbying continuously to get this result” has helped the progress of the campaign to its successful conclusion.

The campaign was led by local resident, John Blanch, and lately supported by Yarborough Ward Councillors over a period of more than two years.  There was no sign of Messrs Goodwill, Norton and Ayling when Mr Blanch and I were out collecting signatures for the petition, no sign of any of them when Mr Blanch and I presented the petition to the scrutiny panel, no sign of them when we arranged for the consultation with local residents, and held site meetings.  I have also had sight of e mail messages from the NELC Officers stating that they have not had any contact with any of the Conservative representatives, and so I would like to ask Mrs Ayling a question:

WHAT DID YOU DO TO HELP?

 I think that the residents of the Ridgeway area are entitled to know the true extent of her “lobbying continuously“  so that Mrs Ayling and her Conservative colleagues  can be given the true credit that their hard work on behalf of these residents deserves!

I claim no particular credit for performing the job that I was elected to do, but feel that Mrs Ayling’s comments are grossly unfair to Mr Blanch and the other residents, who should be given the full credit that they deserve for a job well done.

Les Bonner

Yarborough Ward Councillor

Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, has highlighted official figures that show Court cases to recover overpayments of tax credits increased by 750% over the last year to more than 8,700.

Mr Clegg has accused Gordon Brown of making families pay for the defects in the tax credit system which have resulted in overpayments of more than £8.4 billion since 2003.

Figures released by the Treasury following a series of parliamentary questions revealed that there were 8,729 court actions for the recovery of tax credit overpayments in 2008/09, compared with 1,024 in the previous year.

The Liberal Democrats said most of the families claiming tax credits are on low incomes and it can cause severe hardship when they are forced to repay large overpayments.

Half a million families on incomes below £15,000 were overpaid an average £555 and more than 600,000 families were overpaid more than £1,000.

The Liberal Democrats have promised to fix tax credit awards for six months, in order to avoid the situation where entitlements change frequently because of changes in income, hours worked, relationship status and childcare arrangements.

Mr Clegg said:

 ”Families are paying the price for the failings of Gordon Brown’s tax credit system.

“This complex system was meant to help hard-pressed families, but instead the Government is actually taking increasing numbers to court to claw back money from the families who can afford it least.”

At the National Farmers’ Union annual conference today, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, Tim Farron set out plans to reform the farm payments system and use the savings to support farm apprenticeships.

Read the rest of this entry. Read the rest of this entry.

Nick Clegg addresses voter apathy by answering your questions

The Leader of the Liberal Democrats this week responded to questions posted to Facebook and Twitter in his latest online Q & A session with voters.
Watch his video response here >

The Leader of the Liberal Democrats today responded to questions posted to Facebook and Twitter in his latest online Q & A session with voters.

You can view a short video of Nick Clegg answering some of the questions at :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCofgfwUm5A

Questions covered: Support for carers, voter apathy, voting Lib Dem, military pay, the ‘Robin Hood Tax’, democratic accountability, Scottish independence; the hunger strikers and rights of children at Yarl’s Wood detention centre and whether he prefers tea or coffee.

Keep your questions flowing for Nick as he is keen to answer them as often as possible in sessions just like this.

Ask your questions on: Facebook and Twitter.

“Liberal Democrats will change the rules so that fuel bills reflect fuel costs and consumers are not ripped off again and again,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes.

Commenting on the huge increase in profits announced by British Gas, Simon Hughes said:

“These massive profits show that the energy companies are out of control and their regulator is out of action.
 
“The six big beasts of the energy jungle must be tamed immediately – to stop their predatory activities which are so dangerous to the public.
 
“Liberal Democrats will change the rules so that fuel bills reflect fuel costs and consumers are not ripped off again and again.”

The latest crime figures for North East Lincolnshire have just been released by Humberside Police.

The figures show that, in the three months to the end of January compared with the same period last year:

• the average number of crimes in this area has decreased from 80.7 to 57 (-29.3%)
• The average number of burglaries in this area has decreased from 11 to 9.7 (-12.1%)
• The average number of robberies in this area has increased from 0 to 0.3
• The average number of vehicle crimes in this area has decreased from 6.7 to 5.3 (-20%)
• The average number of violent crimes in this area is unchanged at 13.7 
• The average number of anti-social behaviour incidents in this area has decreased from 28 to 24 (-14.3%)

Figures for other parts of N E Lincs can be found at http://maps.police.uk/view/humberside/

“The idea of a bank which is still propped up by taxpayers paying out over a billion in bonuses is offensive,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary.

Commenting on reports that RBS is set to pay out over £1bn in bonuses despite expectations of poor performance to be announced tomorrow, Alistair Carmichael said:

“The idea of a bank which is still propped up by taxpayers paying out over a billion in bonuses is offensive. There should be no rewards for failure.

“With people across the country having to tighten their belts, bankers are living on another planet if they think they deserve millions in bonuses.

“RBS is effectively owned by the public. If Gordon Brown really believed in fairness he would intervene to stop these bonuses going ahead.”

“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

Commenting on George Osborne’s Mais Lecture, Vince Cable said:

“Osborne’s latest economic commentary shows just how out his depth he is when it comes to the important economic issues.
 
“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK that will make it harder to sustain our credit rating.
 
“He is at odds with his leader on when cuts should come and fails to appreciate that what the markets are looking for is a credible plan to reduce the deficit, not a willingness to slash regardless of economic conditions.
 
“In the current climate it is essential that decisions about the speed and timing of tackling the deficit are based on the state of the economy, not political dogma.”

“Decisions of when to cut Government spending must be based on economic principles not political games,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable.

Responding to the IMF study and its assertion that the weakness of growth in the British economy means that tax increases and spending cuts should be delayed until next year but that action to reduce the deficit is inevitable, Vince Cable said:

“This is a clear endorsement of the Liberal Democrat approach to the deficit and the re-privatisation of the state owned banks.
 
“Decisions of when to cut Government spending must be based on economic principles not political games.
 
“Both the public and the markets have a right to know how the parties plan to tackle the deficit, but gung-ho spending cuts while the economy is barely recovering is simply reckless.

“While Labour buries its head in the sand and the Tories change position according to the prevailing wind, only the Liberal Democrats have produced a credible and coherent plan for dealing with the deficit. 
 
“The Tories must also realise that the taxpayer will have to have a stake in the state owned banks for a considerable period of time if we are to get good value for money when they are re-privatised.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary, Alistair Carmichael has today tabled amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill aimed at bringing an end to MSPs and MPs holding both jobs at the same time.

The amendments come in the wake of legislation backed by both the Government and the Conservatives which seeks to end ‘double jobbing’ by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLAs) who are also MPs. They offer two options:

• a measure which would end the ability of MPs who are also MSPs to receive salaries from both jobs, along the same lines as the Government and Conservative-backed legislation on MLAs and intended to act as a disincentive
• an outright ban, which would require any MSP who became an MP – or vice-versa – to stand down from one of the positions within one week of being elected

The amendments have been tabled ahead of the 2010 election in which several MSPs are standing to become MPs, but have not said they will stand down from one of the jobs after being elected.

Commenting, Alistair Carmichael said:

“Scots deserve proper representation, not part-timers. MPs clearly cannot be in two places at once – especially if like Westminster and Holyrood, they are 400 miles apart.

“This demonstrates contempt for the electorate. MPs cannot get away with offering a second rate service to voters and taking them for granted.

“Both Labour and the Tories have admitted that MPs who are also members of devolved bodies cannot do both jobs properly. They have no excuse not to back these amendments which would end this outdated practice in Scotland.”

At the National Farmers’ Union annual conference today, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, Tim Farron set out plans to reform the farm payments system and use the savings to support farm apprenticeships.

It currently costs an average of £1,743 to process farm payments which can be as low as 1p. Setting minimum payments of £300 would save up to £20million which the Liberal Democrats would use to provide farm apprenticeships and ensure the rural economy has a vibrant future.

In his speech, Tim Farron will also:

• Set out Liberal Democrat proposals for a powerful food market regulator, decrying Labour and Tory plans to introduce an ombudsman as nothing more than a fig leaf
• Condemn Government plans for an ‘animal tax’ on livestock farmers as an insulting attempt to pass the buck for disease preparation

Extracts of the speech are below:

The Liberal Democrats will fight to continue direct payments. We absolutely have to have reform; but we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. And now we have a new Commissioner, Mr Ciolos, the British Government would be out of its mind to continue in its position on the extreme anti direct payments wing of the EU. Not only are they wrong, but they have completely cut themselves off from the mainstream of discussion. 
As one of my friends who farms a mile up the road from me, said, ‘British ministers have frozen themselves out – so my interests are being defended by the French now’…

We should use domestic schemes to ensure a future for those parts of the industry that struggle the most. Through restructuring of the RPA for example – by introducing a lower limit for farm payments of £300 – we would save up to £20million, remove the clutter in the system that leads to payment delays and reallocate funds to support farm apprenticeship schemes including a £7million hill farming apprenticeship scheme to ensure that our uplands has a strong, vibrant and youthful future.

Liberal Democrats believe that the biggest single problem facing farming today – whether it be in Cornwall or the Congo – is unfair trade. The power of the buyers, mostly the retailers, to offer a take-it-or-leave-it subsistence price to the relatively powerless producers… 

The danger then is that as a public relations exercise, the Labour or Conservative concept of an ombudsman might come into being and end up being counterproductive. The existence of a relatively impotent ombudsman would then give the supermarkets political cover to allow them to demonstrate that they were being regulated when in reality they were not and we could end up in an even worse situation than we are in now. 

Any system of regulation that the supermarket owners and their friends in the Conservative party would tolerate is bound – by definition – to be utterly inadequate. 

Liberal Democrats will go beyond a reactive, sedentary supermarket ombudsman and create a strong food market regulator whose job it would be to go out and look for trouble on behalf of the farmer and the consumer. We want a proactive food market regulator who would constantly monitor prices and enforce the code of practice – absolutely not to set prices, but absolutely to prevent farmgate prices being fixed at an artificially low level! 

Rather than using the ombudsman model, we need a hands on regulator, to stand up to powerful players in the market and ensure that fairness results. 

I was horrified when I saw the statement about cost sharing and the likely introduction of an animal disease levy. What an insult that a Government that was responsible for the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak is offering you guys the wonderful opportunity to pay extra to clean up their next expensive mistake, whatever that may be. 

Don’t get me wrong, an animal health body could be very welcome if it prevents disease and if it helps to protect livestock. But what a cheek for the Government to tell us that its time that farmers accepted cost sharing.  Cost sharing?  I’ll tell you what, those farmers who had to accept a pittance for their stock because of the 2007 foot and mouth movement restrictions paid a lot more than their fair share of the costs of that outbreak! And lets be honest.  The Government wants an animal disease body so that it can pass the buck for difficult decisions. 

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable today set out the Liberal Democrat plan for the banking sector.

In his speech, Vince Cable:

• Confirmed that the Liberal Democrats are not anti bank or anti banker.
• Stated that his day one, hour one objective as Chancellor would be to devise a fresh and consistent mandate for the nationalised and semi nationalised banks.
• Argued that RBS and Lloyds are key to supporting the British economy and are currently falling well short of their lending agreements.
• Challenged Alistair Darling to give a full public account of these agreements on their respective anniversaries.
• Reiterated the Liberal Democrat commitment to splitting up the banks, unilaterally if necessary.
• Argued that so long as Northern Rock was re-mutualised in such a way to guarantee that it would continue to repay the Government, there is no reason – at least in principle – why it could not do so as a Building Society.

The full text of the speech is below:

I want today to outline the Liberal Democrat plan for the banking sector, in the light of recent developments. These ideas build on those which I set out in our New Deal for the City, before the banking crisis broke, and subsequently elaborated in a speech to the Stock Exchange last July.

There has been a massive heart attack in the banking system. Some banks appear not to realise that they had a near-death experience and have been kept alive by government intervention. A cumulative total of 3 trillion pounds – twice UK GDP – has been provided in guarantees and support of various kinds.

I have said some harsh things about the banks in the past – going back a decade or more – warning that their lifestyle was dangerously unhealthy: arguing against misguided demutualisation; irresponsible mortgage and consumer lending; and Government and industry failure to grasp the central logic of the Cruickshank Report: that banks cannot expect to preserve unfettered profit maximisation and growth when they depend on a taxpayers’ guarantee of liquidity and solvency. But I haven’t come here today to rehash the past, claim to be a new Nostradamus, allocate blame or give a sermon. The Liberal Democrats are not anti-bank or anti-banker. We recognise that some banks and bankers emerge with credit from this crisis – HSBC, Standard Chartered, the Co-op Bank and some, but not all, mutuals led by Nationwide. We also recognise that banks have a key role as the heart of a capitalist economy transforming savings into loans and managing financial transactions with minimum friction and cost. I start from where we are and set out where I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, would go from here.

Let me start with a very basic question: why do banks exist and why did governments, including ours, feel it had to bail them out, as opposed to merely rescuing the deposits of savers? Modern economies depend on financial intermediaries to channel our savings to productive use. One of the key transmission mechanisms is bank lending to companies to finance their working capital and expansion. Some cash rich companies don’t need banks; big companies can utilise capital markets; and equity also has to be found, too. But a breakdown in lending – a credit crunch – threatens the business sector as a whole, especially small business.

A collapse has been averted. But there is still a lending crisis. Evidence from the Bank of England and anecdotal evidence from firms point toward restriction in bank lending to solvent, profitable, companies. In December lending to British business outside of real estate was 16.2% lower than a year earlier. Last week the Institute of Directors highlighted that 6 out of 10 companies were being starved of capital. There is also evidence of a sharp rise in the cost of lending seen most notably in rising bank charges, arrangement fees and security being required from small business clients. The Federation of Small Business and the UK Chamber of Commerce confirm this in detailed reports from the front line. There is some reduced demand from business but that is only part of the problem. Loans are being curtailed by banks in an attempt to shore up their balance sheets and to reduce their risk profile.

Banks have two responses. One is to deny the facts. They insist that they are falling over backwards to help their business customers despite all the mass of evidence to the contrary. The other is to attribute responsibility to government and the regulators for insisting on their holding more reserve capital and for demanding more responsible, less risky, lending practices. Most small and medium-sized businesses however never indulged in the overleveraged excesses seen in the domestic property market or by major commercial property developers. The problem with the banks’ argument is that there is a fallacy of composition. Moreover, restrictions on lending to sound companies by all banks is preventing a sustained economic recovery and thereby compounding the risk of growing bad debts about which banks are concerned. Behaviour which appears sensible to individual banks is disastrous when pursued collectively. And, several leading banks are nationalised and semi-nationalised and, for them, reserve capital is largely irrelevant; they cannot go bust.

Primary responsibility lies, therefore, with government. At present they are relying on a complex array of loan guarantee schemes, which the Tories also favour. But these schemes are proving largely ineffectual, bureaucratic and difficult for firms to access. The residual private sector risk remains a barrier to new lending. Other indirect approaches like quantitative easing improve the capacity to lend but are not generating new lending either. While quantitative easing was an important tool in heading off deflation it seems to have done more to inflate asset prices than stimulate productive activity.

A degree of compulsion is unavoidable. This has taken the form of lending agreements in the semi-nationalised sector. But RBS and Lloyds are falling well short of their legally binding agreements. Bank managers are reported to be playing all kinds of games to tick the boxes without engaging seriously with smaller commercial clients. There are far too many reports for comfort that rich private clients are having their arms twisted to borrow while genuine entrepreneurs are given a wide berth. On the anniversary of the RBS lending agreement this Friday 26th February, and for Lloyds on 7th March I challenge Alistair Darling to give a full, public account of what has happened under these legally binding agreements.

Now that UKFI has finally acknowledged that the semi-nationalised banks will be in public ownership for at least five years, it is time to drop the pretence that a rapid return to private ownership requires a pumping up of the share price on the back of conservative reserve requirements and business lending practices. What is needed is a fresh and consistent mandate for those banks and this would be my day one, hour one objective as Chancellor. I would insist that the banks support recovery by ensuring that viable businesses are not starved of capital. The lending agreements have to be more concrete, long term and better policed. These banks can be tools of government policy securing and maintaining capital to good, solvent small and medium sized businesses that are vital to our economic recovery. Put simply: RBS and Lloyds are key to supporting the British economy.

There is another issue to clarify in the mandate. UK banks are guaranteed by the British taxpayer or have been bailed out by the British government. Yet several, notably RBS, see themselves as global banks catering to global clients. This divergence of interests came to the fore in the Kraft takeover of Cadbury which RBS helped to finance. In principle there is nothing wrong with takeovers (though research tends to suggest that they typically destroy rather than create value), nor with foreign ownership. But as a UK nationalised bank RBS has a primary duty to us, the British taxpayer. We are the shareholders. It is difficult to see how UK PLC was being served by the financing of the Kraft takeover, let alone supporting dodgy Russian oligarchs. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was ploughed into RBS in particular to support British business, not attack it.

This Labour Government has failed to face up to the challenge posed by the Governor of the Bank of England: that if a bank (or other institution) is too big to fail it is too big. One approach is to make it easier for big institutions to fail through resolution powers such that large and complex financial institutions can be wound down in an orderly manner. However even this is inadequate.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to splitting up the banks. But we have an open mind on the mechanisms involved. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that separation is technically difficult if not impossible. The big banks argue the opposite case and point out that they have achieved a separation voluntarily. The regulator, the FSA, implies that the same aim can be achieved by stealth, through differential capital adequacy requirements. The essential point is that within a realistic time frame the British taxpayer has to be totally disengaged from the risks involved in global investment banking. For existing publicly owned institutions, RBS especially and Lloyds, they should be broken up before they are returned to private ownership.

Breaking up the existing big banks removes large scale systemic risk; banks become small enough to fail; and more competition is restored. One version of this argument is that investment banks should be split off from what is called ‘utility’ banking: a modern version of Glass-Steagall. President Obama is pressing ahead in the US. It is time to do the same here in the UK. Various counter arguments are advanced in retaliation. It is said that small banks (like Northern Rock) as well as big banks (like RBS) collapsed in the latest crisis: true. Also that risk is not necessarily correlated with structure: some investment banking is low risk; some small business and mortgage lending is high risk. Also true. But size matters: Barclays Capital openly aim to be the world’s largest investment bank. The British taxpayer will be left footing the bill for any future collapse. This is wholly unacceptable. It is privatising profits and nationalising losses all over again.

The key issue for the UK is whether to proceed unilaterally or wait for broader agreement. The priority must and should be to make the UK safe. And if necessary that means proceeding unilaterally. Until the process of breaking up the banks is complete, we believe that banks should pay an insurance premium – in the form of a 10% levy on supplementary profits for registered banks in the UK (excluding mutuals). This levy would be to cover counter party risk as opposed to depositor protection, covered under existing arrangements. There is a growing consensus that such an insurance levy is right.

I proceed to another issue which has dominated the headlines: bonuses. This week we will be hearing more on this as RBS and Lloyds post their profits and formally announce details of their remuneration packages. Just as politicians were very slow to grasp the public reaction to duck islands, moats and house ‘flipping’, the financial community has been extraordinarily obtuse in failing to appreciate why the public is so angry about bankers’ bonuses. Many seem to have forgotten that they were bailed out by the taxpayer and would be without a job were it not for the outlay of this public money. To pay themselves way beyond the rewards which would normally accrue to risk taking entrepreneurs outside the City let alone workers on average incomes is insensitive at best and crass at worst. They have to realise they have a role in society as well as a role in business. And we know both from experience that the bonus culture encouraged risk taking which precipitated the financial meltdown. So why are we here again? More depressing is the fact that bonus culture has now infected other sectors of the economy, most notably, the public sector.

There is a role for regulation as laid out a year ago by Lord Turner in his wide ranging report. The key principle is that any bonuses should be paid in shares, not cash, fully redeemable only after a minimum of three years, so as to discourage reckless, short-term, gambling behaviour which potentially damages financial institutions. Under this principle, signed up to at the G20, remuneration policy of regulated financial institutions must be approved by the FSA as a check to ensure that short term risks are not being incentivised that may affect long term stability. It is far from clear that any such discipline is currently being applied. The Turner principles remain theoretical. Even in the publicly owned banks bonuses can be cashed after a few weeks.

I suggest that the FSA should make publicly available the outcome of assessments made of banks’ remuneration policy and action taken to meet the Turner principles. Increasing capital requirements could be one tool to enforce this but a fine would send a more powerful message and would provide greater transparency. It should start with the big institutions which incubate systemic risk, not the small fry. It is not clear why there is foot dragging at present over this basic reform and why the banks are still being allowed to swim around in large bonus pools.

This government has adopted a temporary tax – to the end of next month – on bonus pools. Despite the many potentially straightforward ways of avoiding the tax, most banks appear to have decided to pay up rather than modify their behaviour and have no doubt calculated that a one-off windfall tax of this kind will head off more intrusive controls on bonuses. And so the bonus problem remains. That’s why the Liberal Democrat levy on profits is necessary and is a simpler and more secure system that the one currently in place.

It is impossible to see how large bonuses can be justified for senior executives in the public sector banks, when their banks are losing money, depend on the taxpayer and are failing to meet their legally binding lending agreements. We should follow the Swedish example and attempt to eliminate them altogether. Performance related pay would have left them on the breadline not queuing up for million pound bonuses. UKFI has direct responsibility and it should exercise it, obviously showing an understanding of the need for qualified staff as well as for restraint. But the understanding should be based on the clear assumption any bonuses for specialist staff are exceptional and temporary until the banks are broken up.

For banks in general, transparency is a minimum requirement. All highly paid staff in regulated institutions with a compensation package in excess of the Prime Minister’s £200,000 should publish details of their remuneration. They would also have to declare whether they are normally resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. A voluntary code along the lines recommended by Walker is pointless. Unless disclosure is mandatory it won’t happen.

But regulators can’t and shouldn’t try to manipulate pay like 1970s incomes policy. Progressive taxation has to address the issue of fairness in rewards. The current government’s flag waving approach to top tax rates is not a serious approach to this problem. As long as there are vast disparities between top tax rates in earned income and capital gains, currently 50% versus 18%, any half competent tax accountant will try to structure future compensation to exploit it. There is little genuine economic difference between income and capital gains, and no benefit in a tax system that so clearly encourages capital gains to be dressed up as income. Taxing income and capital gains at the same rate is the only way to deal with this insidious issue.

The semi-nationalised banks (and nationalised Northern Rock) sit an uneasy, semi-competitive, relationship with private banks and mutuals. One issue, as yet unresolved, is the future of the publicly owned banks. While the Liberal Democrats have no fundamental ideological opposition to selling the taxpayer stakes in the nationalised and semi nationalised banks – indeed we support re-privatisation – there is no hurry and every reason to show patience. UKFI now believes that it will be a state shareholder for at least five years. Experience in Korea, Sweden, Israel and in the US would lead us to believe that the optimal time frame for disposal of nationalised or semi-nationalised assets is probably close to 10 years. That is the time needed to sort out and restructure banks, manage bad assets and restore normal, safe lending. That is why Mr Osborne’s proposal for a quick sell off of bank shares to retail buyers is such a bad idea. It almost guarantees that the taxpayer will not get value for money.

Sweden still owns almost 20% of a bank that it bailed out in the early 1990s (Nordea). We should not rule out the taxpayer taking interests in Northern Rock, Lloyds and RBS for similarly long periods. I can also see a long term role for some state banking, operating on the operationally independent lines of National Savings & Investment to serve the millions marginalised by the main banks, perhaps located in the Post Office Network.

The government’s obsession with minimising the extent and length of public ownership was a driver behind the Asset Protection Scheme (like its American cousin TARP). We argued that it was a misconceived and dangerous initiative. It provides insurance for ‘bad’ loans but with a huge, open ended, risk with the taxpayer once the banks have absorbed the first £60bn of any loss (out of an estimated £300bn). I described the APS last February as a ‘massive fraud on the taxpayer’. I was accused of over-dramatising the problem. But we recently learnt that for the second time in a decade the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was worried enough to warn the Chancellor in writing about taking on public liability for toxic loans which may have involved fraud and corruption. Any potential privatisation has to cover not just the recapitalisation cost but any losses accruing from the APS. And if banks do come back to the government for more help it should be in the form of ordinary shares, not APS.

The current confused structure of the banks, with a large chunk in the public sector, provides a valuable opportunity to recast it in a way that serves the long term interests of the UK economy. Two themes should be competition and diversity.

A decade ago, Cruickshank was highly critical of the lack of competition in bank lending – for business lending particularly – and there is now even less. There is an opportunity to widen choice by issuing new banking licenses and two or three serious new operators are entering the market. Another opportunity is provided by the break up of the semi-nationalised RBS and Lloyds. The European Union has already mandated a carving up of the retail network.

There is a case for a more varied banking ecology. Those mutuals which resisted the – disastrous – lure of conversion continue to provide a different and, for many, more attractive business model without the pressures to produce shareholder returns. A strong case is being made for transferring nationalised Northern Rock back into a mutual. Our objection has been that mutualisation of the nationalised banks does not produce the return of cash to the taxpayer, but we must remember Northern Rock is in a very different situation to Lloyds and RBS. £23bn of Government money has been pumped into Northern Rock vastly in excess of its market worth even at the height of the credit boom. There is no way this money will ever be recouped purely from a re-flotation. As long as the Rock was re-mutualised in such a way to guarantee that it would continue to repay the Government, there is no reason – at least in principle – why it could not do this as a Building Society.

Diversity does not apply solely to ownership structures. The inability of broadly based banks to meet (or even understand) the needs of business, particularly new ventures, and the lack of any mechanism for long term infrastructure funding, particularly with the problems being encountered with PFI, suggest the need for specialist banking institutions. The break up and restructuring of the banks, particularly in the semi-nationalised sector, provides an opportunity to launch and capitalise a range of institutions: another reason for avoiding a quick sell off.

The City is almost by definition, a cross border industry. While Britain can try to regulate separately, many financial services activities require global – or EU – regulation. Capital adequacy rules are global with specific EU legislative underpinning. The Liberal Democrats favour a cooperative approach to regulation so as to make regulation fully effective and to reduce arbitrage.

There is a danger however that a reasonable concern about ‘level playing fields’ would prevent action necessary to safeguard banks at a national level. The UK has an exceptionally big banking sector in relation to the economy and therefore relatively large systemic risks. There are areas – like regulation of bonuses, the break-up of banks and an insurance levy – where global agreement is desirable but unlikely to happen within the foreseeable future. Unilateral action must therefore be better than no action at all.

A multilateral approach is, obviously, optimal. And we need to be alert to the weasel words of politicians and bankers who promote inaction in the name of multilateralism. I recall that in the dark days of the Cold War the Russians usually signalled a new twist in the arms race by announcing a commitment to ‘general and complete disarmament’ which they knew no-one else would accept. I hope I am not being too cynical in believing that much of the rhetoric about new global rules is so much camouflage for keeping the unstable, dangerous, status quo. Sensible and safe bank regulation has to begin, like charity, at home. And I say that as someone who has preached, and written about, the importance of multilateral trade rules for decades.

The financial services industry is an important feature of the UK economy. The City is at the heart of it. But the financial crisis must make us look critically at its contribution. There are considerable benefits, but, as we have now discovered, major systemic risks which can spill over into the rest of the economy. It is the job of policy makers, and specifically regulation, to cut the risks relative to the benefits. And the Liberal Democrats are committed to doing so.

Thank you.

“Reform of this is long overdue,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary.

Commenting on today’s [Tuesday] Electoral Commission report on the Glasgow North East by-election, which recommends that the UK Parliament reviews the procedures for calling by-elections to ensure voters can elect a new MP promptly, Alistair Carmichael said:

“By-elections should be called for the convenience of the public, and not for the political advantage of the party holding the seat.

“Reform of this is long overdue. Frankly, however, I doubt we will see any commitment from Labour to act on this. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.”

“We don’t need a fantasy Labour slogan to tell us what the future under Gordon Brown would look like,” said the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg.

Commenting on Saturday after Labour’s campaign launch, Nick Clegg said: “We don’t need a fantasy Labour slogan to tell us what the future under Gordon Brown would look like, we have the evidence of the past 13 years.

“Gordon Brown wants people to take a second look at Labour, but the million young people who can’t find work, the pensioners who can’t afford to heat their home and families who are struggling have seen enough.

“Gordon Brown has not delivered on fairness and he does not deserve a future.”

Earlier today I received the following e mail from Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Minister, Norman Lamb, which you might like to read:

 Dear Les,

Today Nick Clegg and I launched our Health Policy for the General Election. As the party that first proposed the NHS we are proud of what it achieves and recognise the wonderful work of NHS staff. However, we want to make it even better. 

You can read Nick’s speech about the NHS from earlier today here, and you can download the Liberal Democrat vision for health here. 

Our first priority will be protecting frontline care in tough financial times in areas such as cancer care, mental health treatment, maternity services and dementia treatment by cutting waste and bureaucracy. We will also give patients more control over their treatment, by radically cutting central spending at the Department of Health and electing Health Boards to make key decisions about local services. And under the Liberal Democrats if patients do not get treated on time by the NHS we will pay for them to be treated privately. 

We are also showing our commitment to carers in England. We believe that people who selflessly provide care to their loved ones deserve a break.  If you are in employment you are entitled to paid holidays but for a huge number of carers that simply isn’t an option. We believe that respite care is a lifeline - not just for carers but for whole families.  That’s why we will provide a week’s break from caring every year to the 1 million unpaid carers who provide more than 50hrs care each week.

Getting healthcare right is hugely important to all of us. Only our party has the values and principles that can deliver the NHS our country deserves.

Best wishes,

Norman Lamb MP
Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary

PS We are now a matter of weeks away from the General Election so please help our campaign for a fairer Britain by donating £10 or whatever you can afford.

“We urgently need to build new family-sized homes, and get a grip on the number of properties sitting empty and unused,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister, Sarah Teather.

Commenting on today’s report by Lloyds TSB Insurance which reveals the number of families living in overcrowded homes has hit a record high, Sarah Teather said:

“The news that a record number of families are trapped in overcrowded housing is yet more devastating evidence of Labour’s failure on social housing.
 
“We urgently need to build new family-sized homes, and get a grip on the number of properties sitting empty and unused.”

In a speech to the King’s Fund, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has today set out the party’s respite care guarantee, providing a week’s break from caring every year to the 1million unpaid carers who provide more than 50 hours care each week.

Nick Clegg’s speech in full:

The way a society treats its elderly and vulnerable people is a true mark of its identity. With an ageing population, rising numbers of people suffering from dementia and millions of people in need of care with basics like washing, dressing and feeding themselves - if ever there was an issue for cross-party talks, this was it.

Those talks fell apart when the Conservatives chose to launch a poster and in doing so killed off one of the best hopes in recent years of agreeing a long-term settlement.

But the Labour Party contributed to this breakdown with their cynical promise of free care at home. A promise everyone now knows will actually lead to cuts in care budgets for some of the most vulnerable elderly people. This policy is one of Gordon Browns so-called dividing lines, designed to paint opposition parties into a corner rather than to improve the country.
We need a solution that unites the generations, not divides them.

A solution we can all sign up to, not just for today but for the long term.

A solution that will not be torn apart on the rocks of short-term party-political advantage.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto will confirm that progress must be and will be made on a consensus basis, by an independent, cross-party commission.

I commit us to reaching an agreement that will help all people, no matter their needs in their retirement. An agreement that is fair, affordable and sustainable.

I challenge the other party leaders to stop grandstanding and put the long-term needs of the elderly ahead of the short term demands of politics.

I would be happy to meet with Gordon Brown and David Cameron at any time on the basis of the principles I have set out to start thrashing out the beginnings of a cross-party solution.  
But, even as we wait for progress on a long-term approach, that doesn’t mean we can’t do something now to help with the difficult challenges faced by the many families in which someone is in need of care.

It is time to recognise that there is a hidden army of people in Britain, without whom no social care policy would be even remotely affordable.

Between them, they save the country an estimated 87 billion a year.

They are some of the most dedicated, hard-working and under-valued people in Britain today.

They are carers: people who put in hour after hour, day after day, week after week of care for their relatives and loved ones.

The physical challenge of looking after someone who needs help.

But also the emotional challenge of seeing someone you love struggle or suffer.

There are a million carers who do this for more than 50 hours a week.

That’s more hours than anyone else is allowed to work in paid employment.

Without even the right to time off, breaks or holiday.

I am in awe of every carer, young or old.

I want to make an announcement today about a new policy we will put in our manifesto to help carers. Labour has allocated hundreds of millions of pounds to its mistaken pledge on care at home. That policy threatens other forms of social care, has not been properly costed and should be dropped.

We are proposing an alternative: guaranteed respite care for the million hardest working carers in Britain.

Paid for by redirecting the money the Department of Health has allocated to the Governments flawed care policy, together with its existing, poorly-focused funds for respite care.

It is a simple promise: if you care for more than 50 hours a week, you will have the right to a full week of respite.

Giving you the time you so desperately need to rest, recuperate, or simply have a holiday.
This commitment to carers would finally acknowledge the debt all of society owes to carers. And it would make a difference, a real difference, to a million families straight away.

The Policy in Brief

There are close to five million unpaid carers in England, with a million providing more than 50hrs care each week. Liberal Democrats believe that people who selflessly provide care to their loved ones deserve a break.  In most jobs you get paid holidays but for a huge number of carers that simply isn’t an option. We believe that respite care is a lifeline - not just for carers but for whole families.  That’s why we will provide a weeks break from caring every year to the million unpaid carers who provide more than 50 hours care each week.
 
Why is it Necessary?

Caring matters deeply to families and individuals but when you are taking care of somebody you also need to think about caring for yourself.  The millions of unpaid carers in this country deserve as much support as possible and that is why we will provide a week of guaranteed respite care each year for a million carers who work the longest hours. This also makes financial sense because carers who don’t get a break can often end up suffering health problems themselves. Sustaining the ability of carers to provide the care and support they give to others is of critical importance.
 
Policy Detail

We will provide a weeks respite care to the million carers in England who currently provide more than 50 hours of care every week. Each carer will be entitled to receive a personal budget each year equivalent to the cost of a care homes weekly charge to redeem with whichever local service they choose.
 
How you use your personal budget will depend on your own circumstances. The money can be used to take one break or a series of breaks, for example: to get someone to take over caring for several weekends while the carer takes a break; payment towards the cost of the person you care for going away leaving you to take a break at home; arranging for someone to look after the person you care for at home while you go away; payment towards the cost of a break for you both together.
 
Each Local Health Board (currently Primary Care Trusts) will receive a block grant dependent on an assessment of the needs of their local populace and the costs of care in their local area. Local Authorities are already equipped to carry out assessments of the needs of the people requiring care, and the needs of their carers. Once such an assessment has been made and the person is considered to eligible they will be able to apply to their Local Health Board for funding for respite care. By operating the system in this way we hope to encourage improved partnerships between the NHS, social care and third sectors, in looking after the needs of carers.
 
Costs/Savings

We will provide a week’s respite care to the million carers in England who currently provide more than 50 hours of care every week. The total cost of this scheme will start from 460m in 2010-11 rising to 500m in 2014-15. Some people will not want to take part in the scheme and some will already qualify for respite care through local authority funding. We have therefore assumed a 90% take-up rate for this scheme.
 
We will pay for this by using the 420m of health funding that the government intends to use for the Personal Care at Home Bill. And we supplement this money with the 100m that has already been allocated by the Department of Health for respite care through the Carers Strategy.

Police officers have missed nearly 80,000 days of work after being assaulted by members of the public in the last five years, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.

The key points are:

• 78,276 working days have been missed by police officers due to assaults between 2004/05 and 2008/09.
• 17,055 days were lost last year alone, an 11.2% increase on the previous year.
• This is the equivalent of reducing the number of police officers in England and Wales by 75.
• Police staff also lost 5,398 working days to assault in the last five years (including 1,118 days last year).  

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

“We want more bobbies on the beat, not bobbies being beaten.

“These startling figures show just how difficult a job being a police officer can be.

“Violence is clearly all too common on our streets when thousands of police working days are being lost as officers recover from assaults.

“Every effort must be made to try to get injured officers back to work as quickly as possible, even if that means lighter duties or paperwork.

“The Liberal Democrats are the only party committed to increasing police numbers. We will put 3,000 more bobbies on the beat.”

The Liberal Democrats will today become the first party to oppose Labour’s policy for free home care for the elderly.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, is expected to announce today that unpaid carers who look after relatives for more than 50 hours a week would instead get a week’s holiday cover out of money allocated by the Prime Minister for free care.

In a speech to the King’s Fund think-tank, Mr Clegg will become the most high-profile critic of Mr Brown’s pledge to give 400,000 people with “critical needs” free care at home.

Concerns have already been raised that the policy has not been costed properly and would detract from other services, as well as being little more than “back-of-the-envelope” electioneering by Mr Brown.

Mr Clegg will describe the plan “as a cynical promise which everyone now knows will actually lead to cuts in care budgets for some of the most vulnerable elderly people”.

Mr Clegg will say:

“It is time to recognise that there is a hidden army of people, without whom no social care policy would be even remotely affordable,”

The Liberal Democrat leader will acknowledge that his party initially supported the Personal Care at Home Bill, which passed through the House of Commons, but now accept that it is fundamentally flawed.

Today the legislation will be debated for the second time in the House of Lords, and a vote on amendments, is expected to take place next month.

Earlier this month more than 70 councillors, including Cllr Malcolm Morland, the N E Lincs portfolio holder for Adult Social Care, wrote to The Times expressing concern at the way the policy would be paid for, despite Labour Party officials attempting to persuade Labour signatories to remove their names.

The annual cost of care has been calculated as £670 million which would allow 400,000 people with the highest needs to stay in their own homes. £420 million is to come from existing Department of Health budgets, but local authorities have been told that they will be expected to provide the remaining £250 million from efficiency savings.

In his vision for the NHS and social care, Mr Clegg will offer a “respite guarantee” paid for out of money allocated for the Bill which would mean that one million carers in England who provide more than 50 hours of care every week would be entitled to receive a voucher equivalent to the cost of a week in a care home which they could use for a complete week or a series of shorter breaks.

The Liberal Democrats expect the cost of the scheme to be £460 million in 2010-11, rising to £500 million in 2014-15. The cost would be met with £420 million of Department of Health funding for the Bill, as well as £100 million already allocated for respite care through the Government’s Carers Strategy.

“They have no understanding of the economy they are aspiring to run,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable.

Commenting on George Osborne’s announcement in the Sunday Times of a “people’s bonus” plan, Vince Cable said:

“Dangling this prospect, when UKFI has said it will take at least 5 years before the likes of RBS are back in private hands, is Tory electioneering at its most cynical.

“They have no understanding of the economy they are aspiring to run.

“The nationalised and semi nationalised banks should be re-privatised when the conditions are right to maximise tax payer return. Selling shares off at a discounted rate will not achieve this.

“These banks should be set the concrete objective of ensuring lending to sound small and medium sized businesses who are the drivers of our economic recovery.

“Actively encouraging people on very low incomes to invest in a volatile share market beggars belief and shows just how removed the Tories are from everyday reality.

“A young couple on low income is more concerned with putting food on the table than speculating on the stock market.

“If the Tories were actually committed to helping people on they would be trying to instil fairness into the tax system instead of coming up with this ill conceived attempt to buy their vote.”

Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable said Conservative proposals to sell cut-price shares in the part nationalised banks to small investors when they are sold off are “not a good idea, not well thought through and a gimmick”

He said:

“There is no prospect of selling the banks in the next few years unless the Conservatives plan to sell them cheaply, quickly and at a heavy discount - in which case the tax payer will lose a lot of money.”

Mr Cable added:

“I’m all in favour of wider redistribution of wealth… but buying shares in banks is a high-risk investment. Do we want to encourage that speculative behaviour?”

Mr Cable said Stephen Hester, the chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland,  should not take a bonus this year amidst reports he would receive £1.6 million when RBS’s annual results are announced this week.

He added:

“It would be quite wrong and generate a lot of resentment. RBS is not lending to British businesses on any scale, falling well short of government targets.”

Shortly after the Prime Minister’s keynote earlier today, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg today said that there had been a “total failure to make Britain fairer”. 

Nick Clegg told the BBC:

“Fairness is something real and what I think will make people feel very angry is to hear Gordon Brown talk about delivering fairness when he’s failed to do so. 

“What does he have to say to the million youngsters who are without a job, what does he have to say to the pensioners who can’t even heat their own homes… to say to the many families in this country who are struggling simply to pay to put a warm meal on their table every day? 

“He has failed to deliver fairness, he doesn’t deserve a future as the prime minister of this country.” 

Nick Clegg also told Sky New that Gordon Brown’s decision to focus on fairness in the Labour election campaign was “a gratuitous insult” because Labour has “so spectacularly failed to deliver on it.”

Nick Clegg added that he welcomes a debate on fairness in the election campaign and said of Mr Brown,

“I don’t know what parallel universe he lives in.”

“Having heard what Gordon brown has to say, having heard their new slogan my reaction is this: we don’t need a fantasy slogan to see what the future would look under Gordon brown because we have the past 12 years…the truth is Gordon Brown has failed,”

On the Liberal Democrats’ prospects, Nick Clegg said the party is “being recognised as the party that can deliver real change, real fairness, by people who got sick of the tweedle dum tweedle dee politics of Labour and the Conservatives.”

The following article was written by the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Vince Cable, and originally appeared in today’s Mail on Sunday:

We keep hearing a smooth soundbite –  that we live in something called a ‘broken society’. Polls suggest that a majority of people agree. I just don’t believe it.

To be sure, there are occasional well-publicised horrors: ghastly crimes involving children; some estates where drug dealers terrorise the local population; some elderly or ill people who are isolated and neglected; some chaotic families with no stable relationships or discipline.

But I simply do not accept that these problems are typical. My own experience as a constituency MP is that the vast majority of people are law-abiding, live in stable relationships, care for their families and participate in their local communities.

Last week I attended a party organised by a voluntary group that helps the elderly and disabled by giving them lifts to shopping centres or appointments. Numerous people spend their spare time raising money for many charities.

Come the summer there will be fetes and carnivals, local schools have flourishing parent-teacher associations, hospitals have fundraising Friends, the Scout movement is growing and I notice that many local churches are increasingly populated by young families.

At weekends, parks and open spaces are full of sports clubs. Art, theatre and music societies are well supported. Most neighbourhoods have resident associations that kick up a fuss over planning and parking matters. Hardly evidence of a ‘broken society’.

I will be criticised for quoting experiences from a ‘middle class’, prosperous, suburban area. But most British people consider themselves ‘middle class’. 

Many schools will be holding fetes and events this summer

And while my Twickenham constituency has above average incomes and well above average levels of education, the examples I have given of voluntary work and community activity apply elsewhere – in gritty industrial areas as well as prosperous suburbs or countryside.

I am also struck by the fact that it is among the modest semi-detached and terrace houses and the former council estates that there is the greatest commitment to the network of volunteer drivers, the Scouts’ gang show and the St George’s Day parade.

There is a vast reservoir of civic pride and community spirit and it is insulting to say that these people belong to a ‘broken society’.

   So what on earth is meant by a ‘broken society’? Part of it is fear and loathing of the so-called ‘underclass’: the world of ‘sink estates’ supposedly populated by feckless, teenage single mothers on benefits; children who are out of control; rampant crime; drug addicts and alcoholics. Some of these problems undoubtedly exist but exaggerated fear of an underclass is nothing new.

Respectable Victorians were outraged by gin palaces and prostitution among the ‘undeserving poor’. There is undoubtedly a modern equivalent of that underclass and there is a depressing tendency, despite all the Government money thrown at the problem, for the problems of one generation to be passed on to the next.

Mothers who smoke tend to produce children who smoke. Homes without books produce children with poor reading skills. Sex abuse often stems from childhood experience.

The lazy assumption is that the position is hopeless; nothing can be done; society, or at least part of it, is broken beyond repair. In fact there are many examples of people overcoming their hardships.

We could talk about a ‘broken society’ if there were serious evidence that order and respect for the law were breaking down and crime was getting out of control. There isn’t.

Crime statistics can be confusing, not least because there are two separate sources based on crimes reported to the police and  surveys of the public. They often contradict each other. In the coming General Election these figures will be bandied about with little respect for the truth.

What we do know is that many of the crimes that worry people most – robbery, burglary, assaults, murder – are declining. My local police superintendent scratches his head in bafflement when all the evidence locally points to falling crime yet people’s fear of crime is growing. It is fed mainly by reports in the media of gun and knife crime that they will never encounter.

The other ‘evidence’ for a ‘broken society’ is teenage pregnancy. This is not a new problem. In the Sixties my teenage friends ran the gauntlet of getting ‘in the family way’ and some were caught out.

This was widely attributed to a moral collapse into the ‘permissive society’, the equivalent of today’s ‘broken society’.

What I dislike most about the ‘broken society’ message is that it distorts the facts for political advantage. Far worse, it breeds cynicism and despair in our basically decent and healthy society.

Britain is not broken. We need leaders to lift us up, not run us down.
 

Lord Sugar who has recently been appointed Labour’s Enterprise Tsar has caused outrage with an attack on British business, criticising the failings and inadequacy’ of many entrepreneurs.

 He dismissed complaints that small businesses are being strangled by the refusal of banks to lend,  despite evidence of borrowing falling to a record low.

Lord Sugar claimed that:

“The disappointment expressed by some people who have been turned down by banks should, in many cases, be translated as an excuse for their own failings and inadequacy.”

Last year, Lord Sugar also hit the headlines after labelling struggling businesses ‘moaners’ who lived in ‘Disney World’. His latest comments led to fresh pressure for him to quit as business tsar, only eight months after being handpicked for the post by Gordon Brown, but  Lord Sugar, whose catchphrase in his BBC show The Apprentice is ‘You’re fired!’, was ill - suited to championing small businesses according to Vince Cable

“He is obviously out of touch. It is deeply worrying when the Government’s enterprise tsar does not appear to know about the problems being faced by hundreds of thousands of small businesses.

“You can’t help but admire Lord Sugar’s success in business, but a certain amount of arrogance and complacency has set in.”

Yesterday, the Bank of England revealed that bank lending to businesses fell by a record 8.1% last year. A survey by the Institute of Directors this week also showed six out of ten firms had been turned down for a loan last year.

Vince Cable added:

“He is simply wrong to say there is not a problem with bank lending.

“There is evidence all around that banks are not extending credit, and where they are, they are squeezing more out in fees. It is terribly short-term thinking and hugely damaging to the economy.”

It has been announced that Labour will campaign under the slogan “A Future Fair for All”

In a significant escalation of pre-poll skirmishing, the Prime Minister will today use a major rally to launch what the party dubbed “Operation Fightback”. 

The Liberal Democrats have been quick to attack the Labour government on their record of fairness.

The party said that there had been a “total failure to make Britain fairer

Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff Danny Alexander said:

“This slogan will only remind people of Labour’s total failure to make Britain fairer.

“In Gordon Brown’s Britain, social mobility is going backwards and a banker pays a lower rate of tax than their cleaner. 

“That’s not fairness. Gordon Brown is wrong if he thinks that slogans will make people forget Labour’s failure span>

The BBC website carries a story today that shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are with ordinary people.

The BBC have reported that senior Conservative MP, Sir Nicholas Winterton has angrily denounced plans to cut down on the amount of first-class travel by MP’s, saying that he needs “quiet” and privacy to work.

The veteran Conservative MP said there was a “totally different type of people” in standard-class train carriages.He also said it was a “grotesque injustice” that the expenses system had been “misrepresented” by the media.

A Conservative spokesman said Sir Nicholas’s remarks were “the out-of-touch views of a soon-to-retire backbench MP”.

Sir Nicholas and MP wife Ann Winterton, who is also standing down, faced criticism for claiming rent of £20,000 a year on a flat they transferred to a family trust after paying off the mortgage.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said the comments showed how out of the touch the Conservatives were.

He told Radio 5 live:

“Dig into the Conservative Party and they haven’t changed

 “They still think they are a class apart, they still think they are privileged, they resent the idea that they should be subject to the same controls as everybody else.”

Norman Baker said there were occasions when he travelled first class when the layout of seats meant it was not possible to work in standard class but he would always have to justify doing so.

“High-speed rail would hugely benefit Scotland through faster links with cities south of the border,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary.

Commenting on the Tories’ admission that they have refused to look at plans for high speed rail, and reports that they are unwilling to commit to a route which may upset key Tory constituencies, Alistair Carmichael said:

“This shows that Scotland is easily trumped by Middle England when it comes to Tory priorities.

“High-speed rail would hugely benefit Scotland through faster links with cities south of the border. Yet just the whiff of protest from Tory shires is enough for them to refuse even to consider the plans.

“David Cameron cannot claim to respect Scotland one day, then bury his head in the sand as soon as this means tough choices. Scotland’s needs are clearly as irrelevant to the Tories as their party is to Scotland.”

“I want to give you, the people whose lives and families our economic decisions affect, the opportunity to ask me any question about the economy and our plans for secure and sustainable growth and recovery.”

Ask Vince any question on the economy here >

Tories should join us in the real world

“The Tories seem to think that half our teenagers are pregnant, our cities are like The Wire and that people will get married for a few extra quid,” said Danny Alexander. Read more >

MPs must not profit from second homes

This week Nick pledged to support any legislation needed to make payback of sale profits from the taxpayer-funded second homes of MPs possible. Read more >

Tories abandon environment as a priority

“For those of us who really care about the environment and the future of our planet the Tories have demonstrated once again that there is no reason to vote for them,” said Simon Hughes. Read more >

 
Nick Clegg launches plans to revitalise Britain’s high streets

The Lib Dems set out plans this week to reinvigorate high streets, ensure the future of the Post Office, and help small businesses establish and grow in a fairer marketplace.

Find out more >

 
Coming up next week

Nick will visit Watford next week for the latest in his Nick Meets… public meetings.

Nick is keen to discuss his plans to rebuild the economy and fix our broken politics. This said, he would really like to hear your views and your questions.

When: 25th February 2010, 18.30

Find out more >

Join our mailing list to get the latest edition of LD2010 in your inbox each week.

“This stance taken by the Tories clearly suggests that they’re rowing back from their commitment on high-speed rail,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker.

Commenting on the news that the Tories have refused Government offers to view an advanced copy of the high-speed rail white paper, Norman Baker said:

“This stance taken by the Tories clearly suggests that they’re rowing back from their commitment on high-speed rail.

“Seeing the document doesn’t commit any party to a particular line, but it is a useful way of learning what’s on the table and informs the debate.

“This peculiar decision of the Tories coupled with Osborne’s spending cuts strongly suggest that the Tories are trying to kick high-speed rail into the long grass.

“The Tories can’t be trusted with our railways.”

“Gordon Brown’s announcement pales in comparison to Liberal Democrat plans that will invest £400m in our wind turbine manufacturing capacity,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes.

Commenting on the Government’s announcement of the latest £8m funding for offshore wind technology and the Prime Minister’s claim that the UK is a “global leader” in offshore wind, Simon Hughes said:

“Britain has fallen so far behind on clean energy that the Government’s boasts are rather hollow.
 
“Gordon Brown’s announcement pales in comparison to Liberal Democrat plans that will invest £400m in our wind turbine manufacturing capacity.
 
“What the North East and the country need is a real commitment to green manufacturing jobs and not shameless electioneering at the taxpayers’ expense.”

“Simply slashing spending now regardless of the economic circumstances is not only a fruitless labour but a damaging one,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

Commenting on the news that the UK’s public finances deteriorated further in January, Vince Cable said:

“This is worrying news for the state of the public finances.

“The weakness of the economy is having an inevitable impact on tax receipts.

“These figures underline the importance of having a credible plan to tackle the deficit and stimulate growth and jobs to strengthen future tax receipts.

“Simply slashing spending now regardless of the economic circumstances is not only a fruitless labour but a damaging one.

“If we cut too soon, the economy will be pushed back into recession, lowering tax revenues even further and negating the effect of the cuts.

“Only the Liberal Democrats have a clear and concise plan for dealing with the deficit and for promoting the long-term growth and security of our economy.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb has written to Andrew Lansley to ask him to attend Friday’s conference on social care.

The Conservative Health Spokesman is refusing to attend the cross party conference because the Government will not rule out a compulsory levy. This is despite earlier indications that he accepted that the question of voluntary schemes is one of the key points needing to be answered in the process of building a concensus.

Norman Lamb has also called for the talks to be held in the open, rather than in secret.

Norman Lamb said:

“Social care is one of the most pressing challenges any new Government will have to deal with.

“Over the last week care for the elderly has become a political football in a most unseemly way. We must set party loyalties aside and try to get to grips with this problem.  

“I’ve written to Andrew Lansley to urge him to come to this conference.

“The care system is in crisis and many elderly people are getting inadequate care. The Liberal Democrats want efforts to achieve a cross-party agreement on social care to sort this problem out once and for all. Critically those efforts must engage the public and all those organisations involved in care for the elderly.  The Tories will be betraying older voters if they fail to take part

“I want this conference to be the start of a process which engages the public in a national debate as we seek conclusions to this most crucial priority. It should be broadcast live on the internet and people should be encouraged to send in their ideas and views.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb has today written to Andrew Lansley to urge him to attend Friday’s conference on social care.

Andrew Lansley is refusing to attend the cross party conference on the basis that the Government will not rule out a compulsory levy. This is despite earlier indications that he accepted that the issue of voluntary versus compulsory schemes was one of the key points to be resolved in a consensus building process.

Norman Lamb has also called for the talks to be held in the open, rather than in secret.

Commenting, Norman Lamb said:

“Social care is one of the most pressing challenges any new Government will have to deal with.

“Over the last week care for the elderly has become a political football in a most unseemly way. We must set party loyalties aside and try to get to grips with this problem. 

“I’ve written to Andrew Lansley to urge him to come to this conference.

“The care system is in crisis and many elderly people are getting inadequate care. The Liberal Democrats want efforts to achieve a cross-party agreement on social care to sort this problem out once and for all. Critically those efforts must engage the public and all those organisations involved in care for the elderly.  The Tories will be betraying older voters if they fail to take part

“I want this conference to be the start of a process which engages the public in a national debate as we seek conclusions to this most crucial priority. It should be broadcast live on the internet and people should be encouraged to send in their ideas and views.”

In a speech today, Conservative Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Spokesperson, Nick Herbert will claim that:

“For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed.”

However, Liberal Democrat analysis of the voting record of Conservative MPs standing for re-election next year, including the Shadow Cabinet, has revealed the gulf between Nick Herbert’s words and his party’s actions when it comes to gay rights.

The voting records of current Conservative MPs who are standing again next year show that:

• One in six, voted in favour of Section 28 in 1988. A sixth voted against its repeal in 2003 including David Cameron and a third of the Shadow Cabinet

• One in ten voted against dropping the age of consent for gay men from 21 to 18 in 1994
• Almost one in five, voted against the Sexual Offences Amendment Bill in 1999 which aimed to reduce the age at which anal sex was legal from 18 to 16
• One in three voted to allow only heterosexual, married couples to adopt in 2002 including seven members of the Shadow Cabinet
• One in three voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in March 2007 which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.  This included thirty-three, or a third of frontbenchers and four of the Shadow Cabinet
• The Conservative Party opposed The Equality Bill 2008-09. Nineteen members of the Shadow Cabinet joined attempts to block the bill which will introduce a single ‘public duty’ requiring all publicly-funded bodies to proactively promote equality across the board and remove barriers to fair service provision

“These people will be the hardest to help back into work when the economy recovers and risk never coming off benefits,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,Steve Webb.

Commenting on today’s unemployment figures, Steve Webb said:

“Record numbers of people out of work for more than a year is the Government’s dreaded landmark.
 
“These people will be the hardest to help back into work when the economy recovers and risk never coming off benefits.
 
“Ministers need to help people far sooner rather than leaving them without specialist support for over a year.
 
“These figures show why cutting spending while the economy remains fragile would be a big mistake. We need to invest in a green jobs package which will support the economy now and build our infrastructure for the long-term.”

Julia Goldsworthy, the Liberal Democrat local government spokesman answered questions from readers in yesterdays Independent.  

 Julia answered questions such as such as “Is Britain broken?”,  ”Shouldn’t MPs know about life outside politics?”, “Wouldn’t it have been better if you’d had a proper, substantial career before going into politics?” and “Was Gordon Brown right to cry on television after saying “My children aren’t props, they’re people”? “

amongst others.

If you would like to read the full article, it is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc38luq

People everywhere have really felt the strain during Labour’s long and painful recession.

The Labour Government’s tax hikes on ordinary people on middle and low incomeshave been brutal.

Meanwhile Gordon Brown has sat idly by while millionaires dodge taxes and richbankers get huge bonuses.

People now face the prospect of paying more tax while getting less in return. No wonder so many people across Britain want a change, but that change won’t come from the Conservatives.

The Tories are funded by the same old millionaires and bankers. David Cameron’s top tax priority is lower taxes for millionaires.

Only Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats will deliver fairer taxes. A new tax system where the very rich pay more and ordinary people pay less.

No tax on first £10,000 earned

The Lib Dem fairer tax plan will mean that no one pays income tax on the first £10,000 they earn.

If you earn less than £10,000 a year you will pay no tax at all. This will help millions of low paid and part time workers and pensioners.

If you earn more than £10,000 then you will gain an extra £700 a year.
These tax cuts will be paid for by closing tax loopholes exploited by the very rich and the new ‘mansion tax’ on houses worth more than £2million.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“These changes will help millions of people. Only the Liberal Democrats will deliver real change and a fairer Britain.”

The slogan has been designed to reflect the key themes of our campaign – change and fairness. Throughout the campaign we will aim to demonstrate that we are the only party offering the real and substantive change needed to deliver a fairer Britain. The logo will be a visual indication of that commitment. Our campaign will be built around four steps to a fairer Britain:

• Fair taxes: We will ensure no-one pays income tax on the first £10,000 they earn. 3.6m low-income workers and pensioners will be freed from paying income tax and millions more will have a tax cut of £700 a year. We’ll pay for it by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the rich, a new tax on mansions worth over £2m, and ensuring polluters pay for the damage they cause

• A fair start for all our children: We will get every child the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes. We will spend an extra £2.5bn on schools, targeted at children who need the most help. The average primary school could cut class sizes to 20. An average secondary school could see classes of just 16.

• A fair future: a rebalanced, green economy: We will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs with a £3.5bn green stimulus and job creation plan in our first year in government, fully funded by cut backs elsewhere. We will break up the banks and rebalance the economy away from unsustainable financial speculation. And we will be honest about where savings must be made in government spending to balance the books and protect our children’s future.

• A fair deal from politicians: We will introduce a fair voting system to end safe seats and make all MPs listen to people. We will ensure corrupt MPs can be sacked by their constituents and stop non-doms from donating to parties or sitting in Parliament. We will take power from Westminster and give it to councils and communities, with local power over police and the NHS.

Our four steps to a fairer Britain will represent the most radical change to Britain in a generation and they are underpinned by the action we will take to protect frontline NHS services, put more police on patrol, restore the pensions earnings link and deliver fair pay for our armed forces. Pledges we can make because we are the only party with a plan to balance the country’s books after the recession. The campaign logo symbolises our determination to bring change that makes a difference to people in their daily lives. It should be used widely to highlight the promise of change and commitment to fairness, which are at the heart of our campaign.

* Jonny Oates is the Lib Dems’ Director of Election Communications.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today pledged to support any legislation needed to make payback of sale profits from the taxpayer-funded second homes of MPs possible.

Nick Clegg said:

“The Liberal Democrats will support any legislation necessary to ensure that MPs pay back the profit they make on the sale of their second homes, as recommended by Sir Ian Kennedy.

“The public will expect Gordon Brown and David Cameron to make a similar commitment.

“I personally remain committed to returning to the public purse all money made from my Sheffield home since it was purchased.”

“We need to invest in a green jobs package which will support the economy now and build our infrastructure for the long-term,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Steve Webb.

Commenting on today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics showing a sharp rise in underemployment during the recession, Steve Webb said:

“Ministers are guilty of playing down the impact of the recession on working people by ignoring underemployment.

“While labour market flexibility has prevented an explosion in unemployment during this recession, one in 10 people who want more hours can’t find enough work. This can have a devastating financial impact on them and their families.

“We need to invest in a green jobs package which will support the economy now and build our infrastructure for the long-term. Cutting spending while the economy remains fragile would be a big mistake.”

“There is a danger that inflation will stay high while growth remains low,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable.

Commenting on inflation rising to 3.5% in January, Vince Cable said:

“This figure is a stark reminder that despite the small growth in the economy at the end of last year we are still living in very uncertain times.

“The Bank of England’s explanation of this as a temporary blip is welcome but there is a danger that inflation will stay high while growth remains low.”

The Conservatives have been recently accused of being totally out of touch after claiming that more than half of girls in the most deprived areas of Britain become pregnant before they reach their 18th birthday, and worse still, it seems that despite the expensive education that many of them received they cannot even do simple maths!

The claims were made in a Conservative Party document, called “Labour’s Two Nations”, but the Conservatives were embarrassed when it was pointed out that the calculations that produced the figures were wrong.

Anyone with idea what is happening in the real world would be able to see at a glance that the figure was obviously incorrect, but it seems that the Conservative party are only too eager to believe the worst about our poorer communities - even when it is so obviously wrong!

The recently released document claims:

“In the most deprived areas, 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19% in the least deprived areas.”

These figures were based on statistics for the 10 most deprived areas of the UK - Birmingham, Easington, Hackney, Islington, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newham, and Tower Hamlets.

The false claim was made three times in the document, but official figures for those areas suggested that the number of under-18 girls who got pregnant was more like 54 per 1,000 (5.4%).

Shadow chancellor George Osborne later admitted to Sky News that a decimal point had been put in the wrong place.

If the Conservatives cannot do simple maths, and cannot spot such an obvious error it makes you wonder what chance they have of running the country!

The Tories today published a list of ‘Ten reasons to vote Conservative’ which did not include any reference to the environment or climate change.

This is despite David Cameron’s claim that he has ‘sought to push the environment up to the top of the political agenda’, and his own Shadow Climate Change Secretary Greg Clark’s assertion that Cameron ‘wanted the environment to be a very important part of the proposition we put to the public at the General Election.’

It follows the recent revelation that reducing Britain’s carbon footprint was at the bottom of Tory PPCs’ priorities.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes said:

“For those of us who really care about the environment and the future of our planet the Tories have demonstrated once again that there is no reason to vote for them.

“Cameron the PR man likes having his picture taken with huskies, but when it comes to governing this country the Tories have never made the climate one of their priorities.”

“The Tories seem to think that half our teenagers are pregnant, our cities are like The Wire and that people will get married for a few extra quid,” said Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander.

Commenting on the Tories’ mistaken claim that 54% of teenagers in deprived areas fall pregnant before their 18th birthday, Danny Alexander said:

“The Tories seem to think that half our teenagers are pregnant, our cities are like The Wire and that people will get married for a few extra quid.

“If they really believe Britain is like this, it’s remarkable that Conservative MPs can pluck up the courage to leave their houses.

“They should lower their drawbridges, spend less time tending their moats and duck houses, and join the rest of us in the real world.”

“Gove’s plan to cut the education budget means his ability to establish new schools will inevitably depend on raiding the budgets of existing schools,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary, David Laws.

Commenting on Michael Gove’s defence of Conservative plans to set up Swedish-style “free schools”, David Laws said:

“The Tories’ schools plans are deeply flawed both in terms of money and on the curriculum.

“Michael Gove’s plan to cut the education budget means his ability to establish new schools will inevitably depend on raiding the budgets of existing schools.

“On the curriculum, Conservative plans are in even more of an incoherent muddle.

“Michael Gove plans to impose an absurdly detailed curriculum on most state-funded schools, while allowing free schools to adopt a pick-and-mix curriculum – even if this means dropping core subjects such as British history and modern languages.

“It is impossible to justify in any logical way a system which imposes such centralized uniformity on 23,500 schools while allowing a small minority to teach whatever they like at the taxpayers’ expense.”

The Conservatives’ have a long-standing defence of their deputy chairman and ­multimillionaire donor Lord Ashcroft; but the nearer we move into the general election campaign the more difficult it is going to be explain away the issues surrounding his tax status.

Earlier today the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne clashed with Sky News presenter Tim Marshall on the tax status of Lord Ashcroft, and accused the network of not asking Labour politicians similar questions of Lord Paul.

The Shadow Chancellor was repeatedly asked whether he knew Lord Ashcroft’s tax status, and if so what it was - he said the matter was between the Conservative deputy chairman and the inland revenue and later accused the interviewer of asking a ‘convoluted question’.

He went on to say that questions need to be asked about the status of Lord Paul, a Labour party donor.

“You have Labour politicians on this show every Sunday… you never ask them that question,” he said.

Yesterday, the Financial Times ran an article about Lord Ashcroft’s crucial campaign which is targeting the seats that the Conservatives must win to form a government, described by the newspaper as ‘crucially marginal seats’.

Lord Ashcroft’s funding is well known but the Electoral Commission is already into the multi-million pound donations from Bearwood Corporate Services, a Berkshire-based company associated with Lord Ashcroft, which has been under way since January 2009.

The Liberal Democrats have criticised the commission’s refusal to commit to reporting ahead of the general election. “Bearwood Corporate Services is Lord Ashcroft’s pipeline under the Atlantic from his Caribbean tax haven to Conservative candidates in marginal seats” the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesperson, Lord Oakeshott told the Financial Times.  

Lord Oakeshott added:

“Even if most of his millions have been spent, the Electoral Commission must now rule if he’s bought the election under false pretences.” Lord Oakeshott as often questioned Lord Ashcroft’s tax status, and on 14th December the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesperson, Lord Oakeshott wrote to Ashcroft asking him to clarify his tax status, the letter can be viewed: HERE Commenting, Lord Oakeshott said:“Time and time again, senior Tories have failed to clarify Lord Ashcroft’s tax status.“If it’s wrong for non-doms to sit in the Lords after the election, it’s equally wrong for them to sit in it now.”

According to a Labour Party spokesman, David Cameron drove a “wrecking ball” through a deal on free care for the elderly in a cynical bid for votes.

Dame Joan Bakewell, independent champion for older people, also denounced the Tory leader for telling “grotesque lies” that Gordon Brown was planning a £20,000 death tax on estates to fund it.

Mr Cameron came under fire after Tory health chief Andrew Lansley admitted going behind his back for discussions with Health Secretary Andy Burnham, theHealth Secretary to find a way of stopping elderly people from having to sell their homes to pay for their personal care.

The talks ended when Mr Cameron found out and he later released a poster featuring a tombstone inscribed with  “RIP OFF - now Gordon wants £20,000 when you die”  Mr Lansley claims he ended the talks after failing to reach agreement,  and not because of his leader’s fury.

Liberal Democrat Health Spokesman, Norman Lamb, who was also involved, said that all three parties were on the verge of signing a statement of “clearly shared principles”.

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson said:

 ”While Mr Lansley was prepared to talk about options, David Cameron could think only of political advantage.

“He drove a wrecking ball through the consensus on care to indulge in playground politics. It’s cynical, short-sighted and contemptible.”

Dame Joan Bakewell slammed his “shameful” electioneering, saying:

“The £20,000 is merely one option put forward. To turn it into this grotesque poster is an insult to everybody and damages the case for older people’s care.”

“We’ve had a lot of pious talk about how we must salvage Parliament after the expenses scandal. But the scandal is still going on - people are telling lies.”

David Cameron and the Conservatives often say that Gordon Brown is a control freak, but it seems that Mr Cameron is just as bad.  It seems that he cannot even trust his own MPs and he has taken steps to make sure that they don’t put anything on their election leaflets unless it has his approval.

According to the Mail, Tory MPs have accused Mr Cameron a ‘Big Brother’ attempt to censor their Election leaflets and called the Conservative leader a ‘control freak’ after party managers issued a series of instructions to prevent any embarrassing mistakes.

MPs were amazed to receive orders from Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin last week to send their election leaflets for appproval, where in the past there have been no restrictions on what they have written.

They were told that in future they cannot put anything in writing to their voters without getting permission from the party leadership. Conservative MP’s and candidates have also been ordered to use pictures of Mr Cameron in all of their literature.

According to the Mail, in an email headed “Don’t help Gordon Brown”’, Tory bosses set out a strict new set of instructions to control what candidates are allowed to say to their electors.

“We know that our opponents are monitoring everything our candidates say, whether in print or online, with a view to taking remarks out of context and distorting what you say to undermine our national campaign.

“No one wants to be the candidate whose leaflet is waved across the Despatch Box by Gordon Brown.

“To help ensure this doesn’t happen to you, we are putting in place arrangements to check that our message is consistent and not open to deliberate misinterpretation.

“‘The Whips Office will liaise with MPs about arrangements for checking their material.”

The email includes a message from the David Cameron which “should not be amended in any way”’

Last night, Tory MPs accused Mr Cameron of being as much of a control freak as Mr Brown. One said:

“Sitting MPs standing for re-election have always had the right to say what they want without any prior checks, but now we have to get everything vetted first. These Big Brother tactics are going down badly.

“MPs should be trusted to write their own literature in their own way without diktats from party bosses.

“One minute Cameron is accusing Gordon Brown of being a control freak, the next minute he’s behaving exactly like him.”

Another candidate complained that the party’s official Election leaflet pack included a mandatory picture of Mr Cameron next to a big empty space for “Dave” to write his own contribution whether I as the candidate agree with what he says or not.

Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East, Sarah Teather has condemned Labour’s record on poverty after new analysis showed that a baby born in Harlesden is expected to die more than ten years before a child born in neighbouring Kensington, just a 13 minute drive away, and a similar situation exists in North East Lincolnshire, where the difference in life expectancy between different wards is seven years.

Life expectancy in Brent’s Harlesden ward is one of the lowest in London, at 74 years, but a baby born in the Courtfield ward of Kensington and Chelsea, which is just 13 minutes away by road, enjoys London’s highest life expectancy at 87.3 years.

With many of Brent’s communities stuck in chronic poverty, Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg has called for a massive drive to tackle the rising gap between rich and poor. The Liberal Democrats want to raise the poorest children’s school funding to the same level as private schools and to lift those earning less than £10,000 p.a.  out paying income tax.Sarah Teather said:

“After more than a decade in power, Labour’s failure to get a grip on poverty and inequality has had devastating consequences. It is horrendous that a baby born in Harlesden has more than ten years robbed from their life compared with a child born next door in Kensington.

“Quite simply, we have to do whatever it takes to turn around the life chances of Brent’s poorest children. With Labour out of ideas, it is the Liberal Democrats who want to bring funding for the poorest pupils up to private schools levels, and to lift the lowest earners out of income tax altogether.

“The Labour government should be ashamed of the way they have abandoned Brent’s most deprived communities while chasing the votes of their wealthy neighbours. I will continue to campaign for a fairer country that gives every child the same chances in life, whatever their background and wherever they live.”

Here is a copy of a letter to the Times from my Liberal Democrat colleague on North East Lincolnshire Council, Malcolm Morland, the Portfolio holder for Adult Social Care, and Prospective Parliamentery Candidate for Cleethorpes, and 78 other signatories from local authorities:

Sir, It is becoming increasingly apparent that the proposals contained in the Government’s Personal Care at Home Bill are unclear, unfunded and are likely to have a significant impact on existing local services, including possible cuts and rises in council tax (leading article, Times Online Feb 8th).

We fully support the principle of providing additional support to those with the most critical care needs. What we cannot support, however, is a piece of legislation that has major weaknesses and risks adding further strain to an existing system already under considerable financial pressure.

We believe that the Government has significantly underestimated the numbers eligible for this support and also the likely cost of each care package. Research carried out by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services across 61 local authorities shows that the average cost of care is about £200 per week; substantially greater than the £103 per week government estimates.

At this level the cost to local authorities would amount to about £580 million per annum as opposed to the £250 million assumed in the proposals. Local authorities are already required to deliver 4 per cent efficiency savings next year and the savings needed to fund this policy would be on top of this.

We also have major doubts over how the Government intends to fund this scheme. It has failed to elaborate on where its own contribution will come from while appearing to be reliant on savings that may either be non-existent or have already been allocated elsewhere from councils. This does not address subsequent years where even greater restrictions in public spending will apply.

It is also wrong to raise expectations among many of the most vulnerable in our society and their families that they may be in a position to benefit from these proposals when the reality may be significantly different. We are therefore calling for the Government to commission urgently an independent review of these proposals, including an analysis of the financial position, before progressing any farther.

“We all know that David Cameron will sup with the devil to get into 10 Downing St.” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Scotland Secretary.

Commenting on David Cameron’s speech to Scottish Tory Conference, in which he will claim he would “respect” devolved government in Scotland, Alistair Carmichael said:

“David Cameron’s claim that he respects devolution would be laughable were it not so depressing.

“Irresponsible meddling in Northern Ireland and proposals to disenfranchise Scottish MPs show that the truth is he will do and say whatever it takes to get himself into Number 10.

“He knows his party is finished in Scotland. His own Shadow Scotland Secretary has admitted a “lack of thinker’s among Scottish Tories.

“We all know that David Cameron will sup with the devil to get into 10 Downing St. Many of us suspect that he and Annabel Goldie would probably even pay to have lunch with Alex Salmond to do so.”

John Healey, the for Housing minister has suggested repossession is the “best thing” for struggling home owners on the  same day as day as figures showed evictions had reached a 14-year high, with statistics showing that an average of 126 people a day were evicted from their homes in 2009.

Mr Healey was asked while appearing on the BBC’s Radio 5 Live, why there were 46,000 repossessions last year in spite of the Government introducing schemes targeted at helping families to stay in their homes.

He replied:

“In some cases there is no way round that and in some cases it is the best thing for the people who are struggling with these mortgages.”

Given the opportunity to clarify, he repeated:

“Sometimes it is impossible for people to maintain the mortgage commitments they’ve got … it may be the best thing in those circumstances.” 

 Liberal Democrat housing minister Sarah Teather said:

“If this is John Healey’s best response to record repossession figures then he should just shut up.

“These comments are grossly insensitive to families booted out of their home.

“Labour has no idea what life is like for victims of the recession.  John Healey needs to get out more before he starts dismissing the misery of homelessness.”

The Council for Mortgage Lenders is forecasting an increase in the number of repossessions and the number of people falling behind with their monthly mortgage payments this year.  The CML forecasts that household finances will come under greater pressure amid economic uncertainty and possible interest rate rises.

The figure for 2009 is the highest level since 1995 and 15% more than in 2008.

Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said:

 “Behind each one of these numbers is a heartbreaking story of a family losing their home and having to rebuild their lives.”

The Government claims that several schemes intended to help those in financial difficulty with their mortgages have helped 330,000 families stay in their homes, but figures that only 276 families completed the Mortgage Rescue Scheme, where eligible families can either get a loan to reduce their mortgage, or sell their home and remain as tenants.

Economists warned that there are likely to be more repossessions, saying the small economic recovery is unlikely to prevent unemployment rising among those in full-time work.

Howard Archer, an economist at Global Insight warned:

“A significant number of home owners are still at risk.”

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has today set out plans to revitalise Britain’s high streets, ensure the future of the Post Office, and help small businesses establish and grow in a fairer marketplace.

Nick Clegg was joined by Ed Fordham, PPC for Hampstead and Kilburn, to launch the policy document Vibrant Local High Streets while visiting businesses in Kilburn on Friday morning.

The document includes proposals to:

• Encourage the development of a PostBank and free the Post Office from the Royal Mail to enable it to develop new business
• Introduce a local competition test for all planning applications for new retail developments to establish a fairer balance between local independent stores and large supermarkets
• Establish a system of Local Enterprise Funds and regional stock exchanges to ensure small businesses get access to cost effective equity that meets their needs

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“Thriving high streets are at the heart of local communities.

“But it has been our high streets that have borne the brunt of this recession, with boarded up shops scarring towns and villages across Britain.

“Ministers have overseen the rapid decline of the post office network leading to even fewer people visiting the local shops.

“The Government has tilted the planning system in favour of the haphazard expansion of ubiquitous supermarkets at the expense of hard-pressed independent stores.

“The financial crisis has exposed Labour and the Conservatives’ folly of being entirely dependent on the City of London. The Liberal Democrats understand that it will be small businesses that are key to building a healthy and balanced economy.”

“It is completely unacceptable that more than 100 families a day are being thrown out of their homes,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister, Sarah Teather.

Commenting on Council of Mortgage Lending figures showing repossessions at a 14-year high, Sarah Teather said:
 
“Labour stoked up the housing market by allowing reckless lending and is now failing to help those who are suffering most.
 
“It is completely unacceptable that more than 100 families a day are being thrown out of their homes.
 
“The courts need to be given more powers to intervene in repossession cases so that repossession is only ever a last resort.
 
“With mortgage rescue only helping a tiny fraction of those in need, the Government needs to get its act together fast.”

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today set out a manifesto pledge to create 57,000 jobs by investing £400million upgrading disused shipyards to enable the production of off-shore wind turbines.

Nick Clegg launched this latest plank of the Liberal Democrats’ economic stimulus and job creation package visiting a former shipyard in Newcastle. The proposals would enable firms to manufacture off-shore wind turbines in the UK, instead of seeing them built abroad due to out-of-date facilities.

Current plans to expand wind farms in the North and Irish seas could see every one of the 6,400 turbines needed brought in from abroad, as there are currently no turbine manufacturers in the UK.

British ports are ideally located to host turbine manufacturers due to their proximity to the off-shore wind farms; however, they are currently unable to invest due to the lack of appropriate docks with suitable space.

The proposals to invest in physical infrastructure to support a greener economy also include a pledge to invest £100million in training and testing facilities, including at universities with specialist engineering research facilities such as Loughborough, Durham and Newcastle.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“We need to make sure we come out of this recession with a rebalanced and green economy.

“Our plans would act as a huge boost for Britain’s budding wind industry and create nearly 60,000 jobs in many shipyard cities where unemployment is a huge problem.

“New off-shore turbines, with blades the size of the London Eye, need to be built and launched from modern docks, so we need to upgrade our shipyards to take advantage of this massive opportunity.

“Just imagine the docks and shipyards along the coastline of Britain coming to life and leading the world in this new technology.

“Expanding off-shore wind will create jobs but unless we act now, these jobs won’t be British jobs. It’s a scandal that 90% of the £1.75bn contract for a wind farm off the coast of Kent is going to foreign contractors, with the turbines being manufactured in Germany.

“Investing in infrastructure for a new green economy not only helps create jobs now but will allow Britain to take its place at the cutting edge of this growing industrial sector for the future.

“Britain clearly has the manufacturing and engineering expertise to lead the world in this green technology but government must play its part in supporting this.”

The Policy in brief

The Liberal Democrats will renovate and adapt facilities in seven North and Irish Sea ports so they can be used to build the giant turbines needed for off-shore wind energy. This will be a huge boost for Britain’s budding wind industry and create 57,000 jobs in many shipyard cities where unemployment is a huge problem.

This plan forms part of the Liberal Democrats’ economic stimulus and job creation package. In the first year of a Liberal Democrat government, over £3.6bn of spending will be redirected to create jobs and build up Britain’s infrastructure. In the following years this money will be redirected to other Liberal Democrar spending priorities and reducing the structural deficit.

Why is it necessary

Energy from wind must meet a much larger proportion of Britain’s energy needs if we are to cut carbon emissions and our reliance on fuel imported from abroad. But there’s a problem: there is hardly anywhere in Britain suitable to build the giant turbines needed. That holds back our industry and also the much-needed expansion of wind energy.

Liberal Democrats are committed to increasing the proportion of our electricity that comes from renewables to 40% by 2020. The majority of that electricity will have to come from off-shore wind – so we need to build at least 6,400 offshore wind turbines, 2.5 a day.

The technology we need is ready and the consortiums who have won the right to build offshore wind farms in the North and Irish Seas are now looking for manufacturers to build the turbines. If action is not taken now all the manufacturing jobs that these orders could create will go abroad where there are already the facilities to build huge wind turbines. Only if existing port facilities close to the off-shore wind farms of the North and Irish Seas are converted will the turbines be built here and the jobs created here too.

Renovating ports: The Liberal Democrats will invest £400million in refurbishing ports in the North of England and Scotland so they can manufacture offshore wind turbines. They will be upgraded so they are suitable for construction and testing facilities and are of a reasonable depth for the large boats used to transport the blades and towers.  All port authorities with direct access to the North and Irish seas, the crucial areas for offshore wind development, will be invited to bid to be part of the scheme.

For example, ports in the North of England around Liverpool, Newcastle, Hull, Middlesbrough and ports in Scotland around Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow will all be eligible for funding. Based on the cost of the recent renovation of Great Yarmouth, it is estimated that £400million will be enough for the renovation of seven ports.

The Liberal Democrats will also invest £100million through the Renewables and Energy Efficiency Delivery Authority (an agency we will establish, modelled on the Olympics Delivery Authority) who will invest in training and testing facilities, including at universities which specialise in this kind of engineering research such as Loughborough, Durham and Newcastle. In Government, the Liberal Democrat would work with the education sector and industry to ensure we have the skilled workforce to support new world class facilities.

Jobs: This investment will create 12,000 jobs in port development and facilitate a further 45,000 new jobs in the manufacturing, construction and supply chain of offshore wind energy within the UK.

“I am proud that it will be the Liberal Democrats who will hold the first political conference of this scale in Sheffield”, says Nick Clegg.

The Liberal Democrats are to hold their national Spring Conference, in March 2011, at Sheffield City Hall. It will be the first time that Sheffield has played host to such a high calibre national conference of this size and nature and the announcement is being greeted as excellent news for the city and the region.

Approximately 1,500 delegates, are expected to attend the event, which will run from 11th – 13th March, with Sheffield City Hall as the main conference venue. Whilst Mercure St Paul’s will be the HQ hotel, many more of the city’s hotels, as well as restaurants, bars and shops, will gain significant business from the conference; the total value to the local economy is predicted to be in excess of £1 million.

Liberal Democrat Leader and local Sheffield MP Nick Clegg said:

“I am proud that it will be the Liberal Democrats who will hold the first political conference of this scale in Sheffield.

Sheffield City Hall is a fantastic venue and I know my colleagues will also enjoy discovering the wonderful shops, bars and restaurants in the city.

I am really looking forward to welcoming my Liberal Democrat colleagues to South Yorkshire. They always hear me extolling the virtues of Sheffield, soon they won’t have to just take my word for it.”

Cllr Paul Scriven Liberal Democrat Leader of Sheffield City Council, added: “This is fantastic news for Sheffield regardless of which political party you support. The conference will provide an immediate boost to our local economy. However, holding an event of this size will undoubtedly boost Sheffield’s profile as a conference venue and attract more and more business to Sheffield.”

“This is a missed chance for a peoples choice on fully fair votes,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne.

Commenting on a vote in the House of Commons which would allow for a referendum on AV, but not Single Transferable Vote, Chris Huhne said:

“This is a missed chance for a peoples choice on fully fair votes, as the Alternative Vote is the minimum change that could be made in our system.”

The Conservative party has recently had ­problems with questions being asked about the authenticity of it’s campaign, following accusations airbrushing David Cameron’s campaign posters, and distorting crime statistics, and now more questions are being asked over the identities of the students who were photographed listening to Cameron’s speech at the ­University of East London on Monday.

The group of about eight young people who sat behind the Tory leader and listened quietly as he spoke of “rebuilding trust in politics” looked like students, but according to the ­president of the university’s union, they were not ­students, but young ­members of Cameron’s campaign team.

Joseph Bitrus, is reported in the Guardian to have said:

“They are not our students”

“Afterwards I spoke with one of them, and he said he had just joined the campaign a week ago and was learning how it worked.”

Bitrus said that staff and students from the University of East London had asked him who the people behind Cameron were.

“They asked because they didn’t recognise them, and they didn’t represent the multiculturalism of the university,”

Mr Bitrus said students were also disappointed that they did not get the chance to ask Cameron any questions.

Last night the Conservatives denied they had positioned young activists behind Cameron.

In 2005, Labour was accused of using a sympathetic crowd to shield Tony Blair from hostile voters, when it was noticed that the same family had been photographed in the background of two different policy launches.

“The Liberal Democrats are the only party committed to putting 3,000 more police on the street,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne.

Commenting on Government figures which show that spending on overtime for police officers went up by nearly 50% in just five years, Chris Huhne said:

“Spurious and unnecessary overtime must end but not at the expense of frontline policing.

“Three quarters of forces have made it clear that large overtime expenditure is due to a lack of police.

“That is why the Liberal Democrats are the only party committed to putting 3,000 more police on the street.”

“Every party wants to provide the best possible care for those who need it, but making promises to vulnerable people that you can’t deliver is grossly irresponsible,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb.

Responding to Andy Burnham’s comments on the social care system, Norman Lamb said:
 
“It is increasingly clear that the Government’s plans on care for the elderly are in disarray.

“Labour’s pledge on personal care at home is going to cost much more than they claim and will not provide the long-term solution people need.

“Every party wants to provide the best possible care for those who need it, but making promises to vulnerable people that you can’t deliver is grossly irresponsible.

“This issue is far too important to be used as a political football. The Liberal Democrats want to see a cross-party agreement on social care to sort this problem out once for all.”

The Labour party has been found by bthe Information Commissioner to have breached privacy rules by making unsolicited automated phone calls to almost half a million people without their consent.

The calls, which featured a recorded message from Coronation Street actress Liz Dawn, were made at about 495,000 people in areas with strong Labour support to encourage them to vote in the local and European elections last June.

Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith said calls of this type can cause “annoyance and disruption” to those receiving them.

He ordered Labour to ensure that no further automated direct marketing calls are made without consent, and warned that failure to comply would be a criminal offence which could lead to prosecution.