- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. by Tabman
- Latest Comment: animal sex tube on Is the BBC hurting British politics?
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
What would you like in your manifesto?
Liberal Democrats are starting drafting a manifesto. Time to think about what to put in, and what to leave out?
A crack Lib dem manifesto team has been assembled to write the programme that will capture the imagination of the nation and lead us to the victory - well, probably.
According to Politics.co.uk.
The Liberal Democrats have started preparing their manifesto in anticipation of a snap election this time next year.
Health spokesman Steve Webb will lead a team including leader Menzies Campbell, campaign chief Ed Davey, work and pensions spokesman David Laws and Treasury spokesman Vince Cable.
The party has already proposed an increase in green taxes and a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax, and has stressed the need for more devolution in public services.
Sir Menzies said the manifesto process would be "started immediately, be fully costed and will consult with all sections of the party". Mr Webb said the Lib Dems would show other parties how to create a "free, fair and green society in the 21st century".
Today's announcement suggests the Lib Dems expect Tony Blair's successor, likely to be Gordon Brown, to call an election within months of taking over. The prime minister has said he will quit by next September.
It will be a tough job. The economics chapter of Britain after Blair is competent and should give us more credibility than we have had in the past.
As for the rest of it, we have a lot of work to do.
Green Taxation is our most interesting policy area, and the focus of our attention at present. But there is certainly a danger that our Green Taxation proposals will be out of date before we get to an election. Labour's road pricing proposals could steal some thunder on this. We must keep the principle, but the details will need to be reconsidered, and the approach is probably gong to be less distinctive.
Where do we stand on the other big issues? Steve Webb's line on the NHS has been that "reforms are okay but should be slower". This may well be correct but is hardly a great rallying cry. I imagine that we will come up with a "scrap PFI line" on health. On balance I think this is a good thing.
Om Education we seem to have swallowed Tomlinson whole. Our line on post-19 education is good. On Schools we don't have such a striking message. We float a lot of ideas on using resources better (but who believes politicians can achieve this?). And of course there is our fine stance on the fourth R.
My personal manfesto would probably be for more parental choice in cities, a focus on Maths and English, a revival in school sports, fewer targets, fewer tests, but tough exams and no assessed coursework unless absolutely necessay. Not very trendy.
We should promote more housebuilding, a better mix of housing, and better energy efficiency (heating and transport) from the outset. Regional policy should be part of the policy mix, and I'd like to see a role for a land tax in this.
There is a big challenge on the constitution: STV, an English chamber as a temporary measure, and devolution to counties for many of the services devolved to Wales and Scotland might be the way forward. I'm not much bothered on the Lords personally.
A Speaker's Conference on a British Bill of rights to entrench our rights to drive a 4x4 to Tesco's without an ID card might be worthwhile, but the ECHR should be non-negotiable.
On Foreign Affairs we are best placed (perhaps not surprisingly). On Iraq we are saying the right things. On Europe, we need a realistic line on the Euro (we will continue to monitor whether it is in the UK interest to join and hold a referendum if it is). On Europe we need to strike the sort of note provided by Michael Moore (and Nick Clegg) rather than Andrew Duff.
Speaking of Clegg, he has been doing a good job on Home Affairs, and the Repeal Act should certainly feature on the Billboards rather than the small print. A big idea on crime wouldn't come amiss.
What should we get rid of?
We have dumped the "votes for murderers" policy. We should do the same with our "16 is old enough for everything" approach.
That will do for now. I only switched on the computer to check the weather forecast...
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Yes, I think much can be made of the way that PFI usually only happens because if you want the investment at all, you have to fiddle the figures to make PFI look best value. A policy of "not doing that" may mean rather less PFI rather than none, which would be fine - we are motivated by best value rather than dogma.
Similarly a level playing field on providing operations, and allowing a little more long term planning, on both sides (eg payment for capacity or guaranteed numbers on both sides, cancelling the contract later if the actual numbers fall short). If the private sector then don't want to know, that's their problem.
On housebuilding, there is a growing awareness that we have to either build a lot more, up into the sky, out into the green belt, or condemn lots of 45 year olds to live with their parents. Each option has an effective lobby against it, but of the 3 I think the 'historic skyline' lobby has the weakest argument. Every city should be zoning some area for high density quality apartments. These would get built, especially if the social housing obligation is minimal. The unaffordability is due to a low total number of units more than numbers of "social" units.
The English chamber is a crock, we should avoid it like the plague. The status quo is not so badly broken that we should want to break it even more.
On second point, we agree.
On third point, my instinct are the same as yours. Still I wonder if we need some halfway house before showing a lot of these issues down to local authorities. Of course we could just live with the status quo (it is an option we rejecto too often!). I´m thinking aloud here...
First point I find interesting (in an involved sort of way) and difficult too. I agree on PFI generally. My impression is that we have an inconsistent set of reforms in the NHS:
PFI leading to excessive investment in fixed assets; an incoherent set of markets and guarantees (sometimes working against each other and creating further rigidities); a heavy inspection regime...
My instinct would be to strip out a lot of this - but to seek to provide an effective purchaser/provider split.
Peter
Local income tax,votes for prisoners,joining the Euro & adopting the European constitution.