The arguments over social care rumble on without resolution - a clear sign that the cosy consensus between Labour and the Conservatives continues with no suggestion that either party is ready to take the decisions necessary for the future of the country.
Labour has a white paper which won't be delivered. The Tories want the market to resolve an intractable problem. Meanwhile people in need of support for their care needs wait for someone to actually do something.
The Lib Dem Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb said “After 13 years in power spent ducking social care reform we probably shouldn’t be surprised that Labour has once again hit it into the long grass. A white paper without any commitment to substantial change in the next Parliament is barely worth the paper it is written on. We’re now being offered a series of piecemeal reforms that have not been properly thought through or costed.
“Seeking consensus is the right approach but that will only work if the cross-party commission is free to consider all ways of funding social care, not just Labour’s preferred policy. The commission should report within a year so changes can be implemented straight away.”
The Lib Dems have been criticised for not having a clear policy on this issue but this is wrong. We believe that there needs to be a partnership between individuals and the state so that any social care system is affordable. We also want to talk about it and to come to a resolution which everyone can agree on, rather than seeing millions of people lose out while politicians haggle over details for years. As the quote from Norman Lamb makes clear, Lib Dems are calling for this kind of collaborative approach AND for a decision on how to proceed within a year.
Now I'm not generally a betting man but I'd put a lot of money on the strong probability that if one party or another wins an outright majority on May 6th a decision on social care will not be achieved within this reasonable time frame.
And the Lib Dems are called indecisive!
Showing posts with label FOREIGN POLICY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOREIGN POLICY. Show all posts
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
NICK CALLS FOR A COUNCIL OF FINANCIAL STABILITY TO SORT OUT THE DEFICIT
The Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, has called for a cross-party Council of Financial Stability to agree the timetable and scale of deficit reduction. He made the call at the London Stock Exchange on Tuesday 23rd March. Nick said that the sheer size of the UK budget deficit will require politicians to take a different approach to public spending to avoid social unrest.
Nick criticised 'government-as-usual', which he said could not command the legitimacy to make many of the big decisions necessary in coming years. The scale of the changes required is so great that it will require a different way of taking decisions. He said that the standard model of Governments elected with a minority of popular support imposing cuts from Westminster would be a recipe for Greek-style social and industrial strife so he called for new ways to ensure that the long term national interest would be put above short-term interests.
The Liberal Democrats would establish a cross party Council for Financial Stability, with the economic spokespeople of all the major parties invited to join, along with the Governor of the Bank of England and the Head of the Financial Services Authority. The purpose would be to agree the basic timetable and scale of deficit reduction in the years ahead.
The cross-party Council could agree the 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, which 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.
This plan would not prevent political parties from arguing about which changes should be made to taxes and public spending, or which areas of taxation and spending should be immune from any change but it would force politicians to be honest about the scale of the changes required, with a structural deficit estimated at £80bn.
Including the monetary and banking authorities would 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 growth.
The full elimination of the structural deficit will almost certainly take more than one parliament so 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.
Regrettably, the Conservatives and Labour continue to hide from the true scale of the problem and both parties instead continue to pretend that 'efficiencies' are the answer to everything.
If you want real change, vote for it.
Nick criticised 'government-as-usual', which he said could not command the legitimacy to make many of the big decisions necessary in coming years. The scale of the changes required is so great that it will require a different way of taking decisions. He said that the standard model of Governments elected with a minority of popular support imposing cuts from Westminster would be a recipe for Greek-style social and industrial strife so he called for new ways to ensure that the long term national interest would be put above short-term interests.
The Liberal Democrats would establish a cross party Council for Financial Stability, with the economic spokespeople of all the major parties invited to join, along with the Governor of the Bank of England and the Head of the Financial Services Authority. The purpose would be to agree the basic timetable and scale of deficit reduction in the years ahead.
The cross-party Council could agree the 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, which 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.
This plan would not prevent political parties from arguing about which changes should be made to taxes and public spending, or which areas of taxation and spending should be immune from any change but it would force politicians to be honest about the scale of the changes required, with a structural deficit estimated at £80bn.
Including the monetary and banking authorities would 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 growth.
The full elimination of the structural deficit will almost certainly take more than one parliament so 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.
Regrettably, the Conservatives and Labour continue to hide from the true scale of the problem and both parties instead continue to pretend that 'efficiencies' are the answer to everything.
If you want real change, vote for it.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
CAUTION NEEDED OVER THE FALKLANDS
Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has called for an increase in the Royal Navy's presence in the South Atlantic in response to changes in requirements for ships leaving Argentina to go to the Falkland Islands. The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the military presence on the islands is entirely adequate and indeed there is a sizeable force in the region, significantly larger than in 1982.
I wonder if the best response to increasing sabre rattling from a country we were at war with less than three decades ago is to increase our military profile and thus the levels of aggression or whether it would be better to try to calm tensions through dialogue. The British military has experienced a lot of action in recent years and we are committed to a significant deployment in Afghanistan for years to come. If the approach of William Hague to this issue is any guide, it seems that the foreign policy of a possible future Conservative government would be based on increasing military tensions around the globe, rather than seeking dialogue and engagement, above all to reduce the risks to British service personnel.
Mr Hague might reflect that the last Falklands War led directly to the overthrow of a dictator in Argentina and the introduction of democracy in that country. This relatively new democracy may be threatened if another conflict were to arise over the Falklands - either 'hot' or 'cold'. My preference would therefore be for the British government to be extremely wary about any unnecessary posturing and instead to seek dialogue with Argentina, while reassuring the citizens of the Falkland Islands that their interests will always be robustly defended in the event of any change to the current situation.
On this evidence, it is difficult to accept that the Conservative Party which voted for the illegal, ill-planned and devastating invasion of Iraq in 2003 has changed very much at all.
I wonder if the best response to increasing sabre rattling from a country we were at war with less than three decades ago is to increase our military profile and thus the levels of aggression or whether it would be better to try to calm tensions through dialogue. The British military has experienced a lot of action in recent years and we are committed to a significant deployment in Afghanistan for years to come. If the approach of William Hague to this issue is any guide, it seems that the foreign policy of a possible future Conservative government would be based on increasing military tensions around the globe, rather than seeking dialogue and engagement, above all to reduce the risks to British service personnel.
Mr Hague might reflect that the last Falklands War led directly to the overthrow of a dictator in Argentina and the introduction of democracy in that country. This relatively new democracy may be threatened if another conflict were to arise over the Falklands - either 'hot' or 'cold'. My preference would therefore be for the British government to be extremely wary about any unnecessary posturing and instead to seek dialogue with Argentina, while reassuring the citizens of the Falkland Islands that their interests will always be robustly defended in the event of any change to the current situation.
On this evidence, it is difficult to accept that the Conservative Party which voted for the illegal, ill-planned and devastating invasion of Iraq in 2003 has changed very much at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)