Lib Dem News
Government must honour cheap tickets pledge for Olympics says Foster
Commenting on the Government's announcement that more tickets will be available for British fans for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Don Foster said:
“The announcement of a new system allowing people to register their interest in tickets for specific Olympic events is a welcome step.
“It is vital however that the Government honours its original commitments on cheap ticket prices.
“There's no point encouraging people to register for tickets now if they can't afford to buy them when the time comes.”
Nick Clegg calls for cross-party Council of Financial Stability
The sheer size of the deficit will require politicians to take a different approach to the challenges in public spending to avoid Greek-style social unrest, Nick Clegg said in his speech at the London Stock Exchange which was co-hosted by the WWF and CentreForum.
Nick Clegg said:
“Government-as-usual will not, cannot, command the legitimacy to make the big decisions before us. The scale of the changes required is so great it will require a different way of taking decisions too.
“The standard model, of Governments elected with a minority of popular support, cooking up fiscal plans behind closed doors in Whitehall, imposing cuts from on high is a recipe for Greek-style social and industrial strife.
“So we need to find new ways to arrive at decisions so that politicians put the long term national interest above their own short term interests and actively involve the public in the decisions taken.
“The Liberal Democrats would establish a cross party Council for Financial Stability.
“We would invite the economic spokespeople of all the major parties, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Head of the Financial Services Authority to join the Council.
“The purpose would be to force the politicians to put the long term national interest ahead of their own narrow political interest, and agree the basic timetable and scale of deficit reduction in the years ahead.
“Agreeing that timetable according to sound economic tests, like those Vince Cable has already set out as a means of judging when to begin the process of fiscal contraction:
“The rate of growth; the level of unemployment; credit conditions; the extent of spare capacity in the economy; and the cost of Government borrowing.
“This would not prevent political parties from arguing about what changes should be made to taxes and in public spending, or which areas of taxation and spending should be immune from any change, but it would force the whole political class to come clean and tell the people of Britain what the scale of the changes actually will be.
“With a structural deficit now estimated at £80bn, and market confidence shaken by the unwillingness of the politicians to spell out what they’re committed to achieving, it is essential that politicians of all parties demonstrate that they will no longer play games with the stability of Britain’s long term financial reputation.
“Including the monetary and banking authorities will also allow for a more coherent debate about the interaction between monetary and fiscal policy. As well as the role of the financial services sector in underpinning, not undermining, growth.
“Crucially, given that the full elimination of the structural deficit will almost certainly take more than one parliament, an agreed approach on the overall scale and timetable of fiscal consolidation will provide both the British public and the markets with the assurance that a consistent and responsible approach will not be hijacked by politics in the future.”
Pensioners must be exempt from broadband tax says Foster
Commenting on the Governments announcement to increase access of superfast broadband, Don Foster said:
“It is absolutely vital that we invest in our digital infrastructure.
“Britain is already lagging behind other countries with faster internet speeds so intervention is needed.
“Investment in rural areas must start early to avoid an expanding digital divide.
“The Government must provide exemptions from the tax for pensioners and the least well off and ensure everyone is equipped with the skills to use superfast broadband.”
Cable: Britain must introduce banking levy even if other countries don't
Responding to Labour and Tory comments on taxing banks, Vince Cable said:
"The other parties seem to be moving onto ground the Liberal Democrats have occupied for some time. Banks must pay for the protection they enjoy from the taxpayer.
"The absolute key is that Britain must do this whether or not other countries act, because Britain is uniquely exposed to the risk of a bank collapse. The ratio between bank assets and GDP is far higher in Britain than in other Western countries.
"The Liberal Democrats have been very specific about how this crucial issue should be tackled, after extensive discussion with the City and others, and it is seriously worrying that both the Conservatives and the Government still do not seem to have worked out a specific proposal - long after the bank collapse and only a few weeks from an election."
Nick Clegg celebrates local business & visits schools in Sheffield
Nick Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam spent the day in his constituency meeting school children and visiting a local business.
The visits started with a tour of the 'Our Cow Molly' farm shop. The family-run business uses local produce to make its home made ice cream. After trying unsuccessfully to persuade the farm's owner Eddie to part with the food's secret ingredients, Nick said:
"'Our Cow Molly' is a great example of a thriving, well-run family business. Sheffielders should be proud to buy locally made produce - we've certainly got some of the best ice cream I've ever tasted. Sheffield is now not only the city of steel but the city of ice cream!"
He then visited a local primary school St. Wilfrid's, where Year 6 pupils had been busy creating posters to raise awareness of the dangers of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Nick, impressed by their efforts said:
"I really enjoyed visiting the school children today and seeing them so enthusiastic and knowledgeable about such a serious and important issue. The school's headteacher Bev and her staff are clearly doing a wonderful job". The final stop of the day was to Lodge Moor nursery where Nick was just in time to view the children there taking part in a dance-a-thon in aid of Sport Relief.
Afterwards Nick said that:
"This is the best Sport Relief event I've been to. To see all the children joining in, getting some exercise and having fun all in the name of a good cause is what Sport Relief is all about. Lodge Moor Nursery can rightly be proud of boasting some of Sheffield's most promising dancing stars of the future"
LD2010 Issue Five: We’ll be the change that works for you
Liberal Democrat Spring Conference 2010
If you didn’t make it to Birmingham last weekend, you can still watch all of the keynote speeches, including those from Chris Huhne and Vince Cable, as well as Nick Clegg’s inspiring closing speech. You can also access the full conference agenda with updated motions and policy. Find out more >
Election an opportunity to win back privacy
Nick Clegg yesterday said in a speech to Privacy International that the election this year is “an opportunity
for the British people to vote to take their privacy back.”
Read more
>
We’ll be the change that works for you
This week we made our conference soundtrack - ‘We’ll be the change that works for you’ - available for download on iTunes. It draws on our new slogan for the General Election, with all proceeds going towards our campaign. Download now >
Tory immigration policy worst of both worlds
The Liberal Democrats this week called for tougher immigration control in densely populated areas like London and the South East while allowing more migrants elsewhere.
Read more >
Debate nights – be part of it
A major part of the campaign in 2010 will be the live televised debates broadcast on ITV, BBC and Sky.
Why not hold a party at your local pub, town hall or even at home to get your friends together. We’ve created a host of materials and ways to get involved both on and offline.
Find out more >
Labour’s hypocrisy on ministerial cars and energy revealed
Meanwhile, Scottish Labour’s energy spokesperson Lewis MacDonald is completely at odds with Labour’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband over coal power:
- On Monday 15 March, Lewis MacDonald said: “If Scotland is going to make a significant contribution to cutting carbon emissions, it makes no sense to start by building a coal-fired power station […] If this goes ahead it will set back Scotland’s prospects of meeting our commitment on climate change”
- This is entirely at odds with Ed Miliband’s claim that “In order to ensure that we maintain a diverse energy mix, we need new coal-fired power stations”
“This shows the gulf between what Labour promise and what they actually do.
“It is hard to see how Labour can call for greener ministerial limos while Jim Murphy has doubled the number of cars he uses at the Scotland Office.
“Labour are also hopelessly split on energy, criticising coal power in Scotland while in Westminster they back new, dirty power stations.
“13 years of failure have shown that whatever Labour say during the election, they cannot be trusted to back it up with real action in Government.”
Election an opportunity to win back privacy says Clegg
In his speech to Privacy International to mark their 20th Anniversary, Nick Clegg will say:
“Labour has spent 13 years trampling over people’s privacy. From allowing children’s fingerprints to be taken at school without their parents’ consent; to making us a world leader in CCTV; to wasting vast sums of taxpayers’ money on giant databases that hoard our personal details. And now we hear that ministers want pensioners to swap their bus passes for ID cards.
“The Government’s staggering record on losing private data – leaving it in pub car parks and on commuter trains – just makes matters worse.
“And there’s an even bigger issue at stake: Labour’s flagrant disregard for our privacy flies in the face of hard won British liberty. It betrays a deep distrust of the British people, as well as an obsession with controlling every aspect of everyday life from Whitehall.
“Those same reflexes underpin this Government’s obsession with law-making. Since 1997 they have flooded the statute books with nearly 4,300 new ways of making us criminals. Some of them are completely bizarre, like ‘disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer’, and ‘causing a nuclear explosion’, as if we needed a new law for that.
“And where do all these new laws get us? Only one in a hundred crimes ends in a conviction in court.
“The Conservatives talk a good game on privacy, but scratch beneath the surface and it’s clear they can’t be trusted to roll back Labour’s surveillance state. Just look at their plans to make it even easier for the police to watch and record people getting on with their daily lives, all in the name of cutting red tape.
“Only the Liberal Democrats will bring an end to the endless snooping on innocent people.”
University cuts paving way for tuition fees hike says Williams
Commenting on the Government’s announcements of cuts to university budgets, Stephen Williams said:
“Universities and young people are bearing the brunt of Labour’s economic failure.
“There is a real fear that these cuts are preparing the ground for tuition fees to be raised. It would be totally unfair for young people, the innocent victims of the financial crisis, to be punished in this way.”
Ashcroft and Hague’s cynical cover-up cost taxpayers says Huhne
Commenting on William Hague’s admission of a “mistake” concerning Lord Ashcroft’s tax status, Chris Huhne said: "William Hague promised the Prime Minister that before Lord Ashcroft received his peerage he would pay “tens of millions” in British tax, but then never even checked whether the promise was kept. He has treated the taxpayer with total contempt.
It is utterly unbelievable to say, as William Hague did this morning, that he was not aware of the tax implications of these negotiations that dragged on for four months when he was kept informed by his closest loyalist, the Chief Whip.
Mr Hague is guilty of a cynical cover-up for a shabby decision which has cost British taxpayers more than £100 million.
William Hague is not fit for any role in Government, let alone that of Foreign Secretary. Lord Ashcroft must now meet his £100 million tax bill.”
Government’s rural incompetence cost taxpayers £90m says Farron
Commenting on the UK’s £15.9m 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 £90m 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.”
More grassroots sport needed says Foster
Commenting on today’s Government announcement that 3000 new after school clubs offering Olympic and Paralympics sport will be provided for young people, Don Foster said:
“We have been calling for more after school sport provision for a long time. Giving children a greater choice of sports will increase sporting take up and decrease drop outs.
“Currently fewer than a third of children do the five hours of sport each week this Government promised. This one-off sum won’t be enough to produce the huge boost in sports participation needed.
“Grassroots sport has lost out because of lottery money being diverted to pay for the Olympics. By changing the way the national lottery is taxed, we could produce long term dividends for all good causes, including grassroots sport.”
Government meddling delayed action on methedrone says Huhne
Commenting on the legal drug methedrone following the deaths of two teenagers, Chris Huhne said:
“The failure to classify methedrone is a direct consequence of the Government’s interference in the independent advice of its scientific advisers.
“If the Home Secretary hadn’t meddled in the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs we would already have had their advice and the Government would be able to act.”
JobCentre closures proving costly mistake says Webb
The Government has been forced to make a U-turn on their JobCentre closure programme after a huge rise in unemployment placed unexpected pressure on the network. As part of its closure programme, over 500 JobCentres were closed, even as the recession took hold last year.
Unemployment skyrocketed by up to a third in the areas affected in just one year while the JobCentres were closed.
The Government spent £336,000 closing the JobCentre in South Northfield, Birmingham and another £758,000 closing one in Broadway, Bexleyheath, answers to Parliamentary Questions show.
Between January 2009 and January 2010, the claimant count shows that:
- Unemployment increased 33% in South Northfield, Birmingham, from 2,472 (7.3% of the working age population) to 3,292 (9.5%)
- Unemployment increased by 25% in Broadway, Bexleyheath, from 1,386 (3.4%) to 1,732 (4.2%)
Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Steve Webb said:
“It is good to hear that ministers have finally backed down and started reopening Jobcentres in areas where unemployment has wreaked havoc during the recession.
“Jobseekers need all the help they can get and shouldn’t have to travel miles to get it.
“The Government was arrogant and short-sighted to close more than 500 jobcentres at a great cost to taxpayers, it is a shame they didn’t realise their mistake sooner.”
£81,000 spent on four lawyers to clear Ashcroft says Huhne
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.”
Labour hasn’t delivered on 2005 maternity choice pledge says Lamb
Commenting on Gordon Brown’s announcement that expectant mothers will be given new rights about where they give birth, Norman Lamb said:
“Gordon Brown is living in a fantasy land. Labour promised mothers a choice over where to give birth at the last election but they simply haven’t delivered.
“Mothers aren’t being given a choice because there simply aren’t enough midwives to handle the growing birth rate. Nothing that Labour is proposing will address that problem.
“Rather than reeling off even more undeliverable pledges, Labour should concentrate on delivering on the promises they’ve already made. Recruiting extra midwives so that everyone can have a safe birth should clearly be the number one priority.”
Tory immigration policy worst of both worlds says Huhne
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.”
Nick Clegg’s speech on winning people over for 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.
Cuts without growth won’t help deficit says Cable
Commenting on the EU Commission report that recommends that more should be done to cut Britain’s fiscal deficit, Vince Cable said:
“The Government's position on the size of the structural deficit and the speed at which it must be cut is the minimum.
“We must not cut Government spending too soon and risk plunging a fragile recovery back into recession.
“Cuts without economic growth will not deal with the deficit.
“To be credible all parties must not only show when they will tackle the deficit, but also what they will cut.”
Spring Conference: Keynote speech videos
