Shameless David Laws

Where the word "hypocrisy" pokes its ugly rear.

Today's Guardian treats its readers with the squalid spectacle of a Coalition supporter, David Laws, championing the mass cuts that have just been unleashed on the country.

And while there's nothing new in hearing a government cheerleader reciting the usual script, what makes it particularly grating is the fact only last May millionaire David Laws was caught red-handed claiming £40,000 to pay rent to his boyfriend.

Sure, Mr Laws was not the first MP who fiddled the system and defrauded the taxpayer. But he was certainly one of the most outspoken "hard-liners" when it came to pontificating on "the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers", which is where the word "hypocrisy" pokes its ugly rear into the equation.

So for him to smugly lecture ordinary people on why their nosediving standards of living (squeezed incomes, higher bills, higher VAT, mass redundancies and huge cuts to public services - from care workers to the police and from the NHS to food inspectors) are actually a good thing, that's just taking the piss.

This ruthless (as well as electorally suicidal) lack of empathy highlights the importance of not having a political elite stuffed, literally, with millionaires who are clueless when it comes to the price of bus fares or gas bills and the way they impact on ordinary people.

PS. Since we're at it. Laws writes that:

"in April the first Lib Dem-inspired increase in the personal income tax allowance will boost the incomes of basic rate taxpayers, and take hundreds of thousands of low earners out of income tax altogether".

This is a piece of LibFibbery that we're hearing time and again. What they rarely tell you however is that:

a) It won't be until 2015 that the increase will actually begin to cover the full £10K threshold. That's if it goes ahead (there are already reports of grumbles amongst Tory ranks);

b) The forthcoming £1K increase will be cancelled out by the VAT hike and galloping prices.

Top Tories and LibDems against VAT rise

Leading figures from within the government explain why increasing VAT is wrong.

David Cameron:
"You could try, as you say, to put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you." (April 2010)

Conservative Home:
"Higher VAT is an unacceptable tax on the poor. [It] costs the poorest twice as much" (December 2009)

Nick Clegg:
"Liberal Democrats have costed, in full, our proposals for tax cuts. We can tell you, penny for penny, pound for pound, who pays for them. We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises. The Conservatives will. Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT. The Tory plans do. Their tax promises on marriage and jobs may sound appealing. But they come with a secret VAT bombshell close behind." (April 2010)

Vince Cable:
"A big, sudden jump in VAT would stall any early recovery and hit shops hard. Also, some companies have learnt how to dodge VAT". (September 2009)

LibDems take advice from US Republicans!

Bush's senior policy adviser now cited as the LibDem's new oracle. Seriously.

It really says something when the Liberal Democrats' official organ is proudly sporting the words of a US Republican "urging Barack Obama to be more like Nick Clegg".

For the record, the remains of the LibDems are boastfully quoting Michael Gerson, former senior policy advisor to President George W Bush between 2000 and 2006 - that is, someone sitting right at the core of the lethal (literally) neo-con Chain of Command during both the Iraq mess and the build-up to the biggest financial crash since 1929.

Of course, if pressed, Nick Clegg and his dwindling rank of faithfuls would probably tell you that, no, it's Barack Obama that's turned conservative and that, yes, the Bushite Republicans have magically become "progressive" (one of Clegg's favourite words). Just like the previously-evil Tories have blossomed overnight into Clegg's "progressive" wet dream.

And then the LibDems would probably add that, even though George W Bush's tax cuts for upper-income, capital-owning households were the trigger for America's worst record on income inequality since the 1920s, the Republicans were still good at stimulating social mobility.

And yeah, mobility, George W Bush certainly managed.

In the sense that it was thanks to his atrocious inititatives such as the Ownership Society that millions of low-wage Americans moved to homes that they couldn't afford and from which they were soon kicked out. They moved alright.

Not quite social, but still mobility.

"We didn't win the election outright"...

Clegg's party are heading for electoral annihilation. So next time they may as well promise heaven on earth: there'll be no danger of a u-turn.

"We didn't win the election outright and there are compromises in a coalition", is the message the LibDems are spamming radio and television with in defence of their tuition fees volteface.

The remains of the LibDems may think voters are stupid but, come the next election, they can expect another thing coming. People don't like to be treated like idiots, less so by smug jumped-up politicians.

Quite simply, Mr Clegg didn't sign those infamous "we-will-scrap-tuition-fees" pledges a few months ago under the caveat that it could only happen if his party won an outright majority.

And that's because - had he done so - people would have laughed at him. Even my neighbour's dog knew that his party was never going to win the May 6 vote, let alone an outright majority.

However, not to worry, Clegg.

Next time go the whole hog. Feel free to promise £10K gifts to all voters, twice as many holidays for all, free Tesco Finest meals, and Leo Messi to play for the local team whichever constituency you happen to be making a speech that moment.

Sign pledges that your government will pay rent or mortgage in every single home in the country and, since you're at it, free nightclub vouchers for all students forever.

Then, the day after the election, you won't have to justify a thing.

No danger of coalition compromises: your party will have been absolutely wiped out of parliament. And it'll be a joy to behold.

Research says tuition fees scheme unfeasible

If the Coalition were so convinced their new tuition fees package was so fair, why are they rushing to introduce last minute sweeteners?

In an interview published yesterday by the Independent on Sunday, Deputy PM Nick Clegg reiterated the fable that the government's plan to hike tuition fees up to £9000 are "brave and bold and [a] socially progressive thing to do".

But if it was so socially progressive - which the LibDems claimed from the off - why is the Coalition feeling the urge to announce a last minute £150m scholarship fund to cover first year's tuition fees for less well-off students?

Either way Clegg didn't explain how poorer students will manage to make it to their A-levels, let alone university, given that the Coalition is proudly scrapping the EMA (Education Maintenace Allowance) for all students aged 16 to 19.

It's also interesting how the Tories' latest recruit keeps drawing specific examples of how much better off certain students will be with the new higher education scheme, while also steering well clear of explaining that in 60-65% of the cases students will be worse off - as recently highlighted by a number of studies.

The strongest indictment of the Coalition's ineptitude, however, comes from the fiscal side of things.

After both the Higher Education Policy Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies raised objections to the feasibility of the Coalition's proposals, a new study by consultancy firm London Economics adds that on top of impacting "adversely on social mobility and participation", the government's plans "will have to be covered by huge increases in borrowing to fund much larger student loans".

The report reiterates the point we made last Saturday: the Coalition's plans will not save the taxpayer a single penny. Quite the opposite. The Government will have "to borrow £10.7 billion to fund student loans in 2015/16 compared to the £4.1 billion it borrowed in 2010/11. If the Government’s plans are voted through, they will add a whopping £13 billion to public sector net debt by 2015/16".

"The plans are really a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul", was the comment of Pam Tatlow, Chief Executive of university think tank Million+.

The risks of a system replicating a miniature-style financial crash within a few years' time are obvious. Researchers explain how huge chunks of future graduates will never repay the full whack, many entering the 30-year write-off period with tens of thousands of pounds still outstanding.

In the summer of 2009, it had already been noted that "out of 1.4million graduates who started university in 1998 or later, 49 per cent were earning too little to pay back their student loans".

As regards tuition fees, 43 per cent of the most recent crop of graduates had not reached the current repayment threshold of £15,000, leading to the "doubling in five years" of outstanding student debt.

With the Coalition's new regime of trebled tuition fees and a higher threshold, the implosion of the whole further education system doesn't look unlikely.

Three questions for LibDem MPs

As MPs prepare to vote on raising tuition fees up to £9000 a year, three straightforward facts appear to have eluded Coalition ministers.

In a style so eerily reminiscent of the worst of Blairite disciples, their pitch has consisted of either repeating a mantra (that the new fees are "fair") or playing with semantics, which is generally the resort of the desperate.

But if only they could just clarify three questions:

1) The Coalition claims tuition fees have to be raised now and by this much because it would reduce public spending. They are repeatedly arguing that prior to the general election they "didn't know quite what the state of public finances were" and that the deficit needs sorting out and quick .

For the sake of the argument, let's just say we believe them. Let's assume that the LibDems were so inept that they truly thought state coffers were 9000 times worse off than expected.

The fact is we won't be seeing any of the new hiked-up graduates until at least 2016. Even assuming that they all miraculously land a £40k job each straightaway, it will be years before the benefits of their repayment scheme is felt.

And guess where the money is going to come in from in the meantime? The state, of course. So how would the new tuition fees regime help towards the public deficit?

2) The Coalition are making a big deal out of the fact that the new repayment threshold will be set at £21000 which, they argue, is fairer than the current £15,000.

But they forget a simple fact. At the very best, people will start repaying in 2016. Realistically, much later on and, in any case, for much longer. So if you consider the expected growth of wages, the threshold may actually not be much of an improvement on the current £15,000.

3) Clegg claimed that the tuition fees protests are going to "damage" the situation and have the effect of "deterring the poor" from applying to university.

Now Clegg. This is not Jonestown where you expect believers to follow you blindly at every turn without even a bellyache.

You can't for years make "scrap tuition fees" one of your flagship policies, ask for hundreds of thousands of votes on that basis and then - the moment you change your mind overnight - seriously expect that everybody will just go "oh alright then", drink the kool aid and follow you blindly.

Fair enough you just wanted to grab as many votes as possible with no shame, but at least show some dignity now. Appreciate that people are harbouring all sorts of feelings towards you and your sect-- ranging from slightly puzzled to outright pissed off.

And either way. How are those protests going to "deter" the poor? You didn't have a problem when your party kicked up a fuss until the other day, did you? Wasn't your opposition to Tony Blair's hike also likely to "damage" the situation?

"It is simply wrong to penalise people who want to make the best of themselves by saddling them with enormous mortgage-style debts from the day they graduate, especially when we know the root of the current economic crisis was too much debt. And it's clear that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are far more likely to be put off going to university if it costs them tens of thousands of pounds".

Your words, Clegg, January 2010. Just do the decent thing and resign.

Is this normal?

Before the election, the LibDems promised cheaper train fares. That must be why you're ticket's going up.

Look at the picture above. A single off-peak ticket connecting two towns in the same area of England. If you thought £32-20 was already taking the piss, then you've got another thing coming.

And that's because train fares are set to rise by an average 6.2 per cent, well above the rate of inflation. And that's the "regulated" ones, because otherwise train companies can charge as much as they like.

If you're priced out of big cities and you've got to commute each day to go to work, season tickets are going to be even more unaffordable.

From January on, for instance, a season ticket from Brighton to London will cost you an extra £276 with the price further escalating in the coming four years.

Of course train operators will tell you that those rises are necessary.

Investment, innovations, resources, efficiency, improvements. They're always improving. You heard the mantra throughout the New Labour years (when fares kept going up almost as fast as Tony Blair's ego) and you're hearing it now. Except that the trains are still overcrowded, inefficient and extortionate.

What you may not know, however, is that "48p in every £1 goes to Network Rail", and that Network Rail has also just announced that its profits more than doubled over the past year - even though a regulatory review said that that the same Network Rail is "30 to 50% less efficient" than its European rivals.

In any case, if this is all feeling too much on top of your current pay freeze, VAT rise, cuts in child benefits and other 'measures', just be positive and look at it as "investment in policies that promote social mobility". Not my words, but those of guru of progressive politics Nick Clegg.

By the way one of his party's pre-election promises was to "cut commuter fares". Seriously!

[Picture courtesy of Christina Marsh]

Also on the subject:
- Campaign for Better Transport, "Join the fight";
- Welsh Ramblings, "Renationalise the rail".

Student protests: are you surprised?

The history of Tory governments is packed with social unrest. They just can't help it: antagonising entire categories of people is part of their philosophy.

Fifty thousand people took to the streets yesterday to protest against the Coalition's plans to treble university tuition fees to £9,000, by far the most expensive Higher Education system in Europe.

The rally was the biggest student demo in over a decade, double the size of even the most optimistic predictions, no wonder the police was caught unprepared.

Now, a lot can be said about how a violent minority stole the limelight as some demonstrators stormed into the Conservative Party's HQs. But that would be a convenient distraction, a textbook case of political red herrings conveniently thrown in. We'd be wasting time handing centre stage to a bunch of impulsive ejits with anger management issues (a tiny fraction of the protesters) while dodging a discussion over what really is at stake here.

Because the facts are clear. In line with history, whenever you get a government whose favourite pastime is to constantly antagonise entire categories of people (public sector workers, benefit recipients, the unemployed, students...and that's just the first five months of the ConDems in power), tension is bound to skyrocket.

We feared this was going to happen. The history of Conservative governments is packed with social unrest. From race riots to lenghty and bitter strikes, from the poll tax through sexual discrimination and prison protests: if a government is driven by rampant ideology and a sense of self-righteousness no matter the consequences, some people will inevitably lose their patience.

Which is why, like Sunny Hundal wrote on Liberal Conspiracy, many suspect yesterday's "student protests were only the beginning of a tidal wave". There's only as far as the Tories and their Libservative lapdogs can stretch it before tempers begin to flare.

In the case of the tuition fees protest, frustration is going through the roof as one of the Coalition partners actively campaigned to abolish tuition fees. Not to keep them the same. Not to raise them as little as possible. Certainly not to treble them and certainly not within a few months from the election. This is the crux of the matter.

The Tories may be to blame but at least they never promised to do otherwise. Unless you're a total wally, you should know where the Tories stand on social ruthlessness.

What grates the most is how Nick Clegg and what remains of his party managed to mangle every single bit of trust the electorate had placed upon them. The LibDems had signed public pledges. Their MPs were happily being photographed holding idiotic smiles and a scrap-tuition-fees placard while standing side by side with ordinary voters.

Already betrayed by Blair's New Labour, the LibDems were the only hope students had left. Yet they discarded their pledge quicker than a tissue at the height of hayfever season.

You could have asked anybody throughtout the last decade "Can you name at least two things the LibDems stand for?" and 99% would have pointed to scrapping tuition fees as one of their flagship policies.

You can only take people for a ride to a certain extent without triggering a pissed off response.

When people like Vince Cable go on TV mouthing off that "[with the new fees] 30 per cent of graduates would pay less from their lifetime earnings than they do now", how thick does he think people are? Surely he can do the basic maths and work out that -even if he was telling the truth- if 30 per cent pay less, 70 per cent would pay more, right?

When Ministers say that a new repayment threshold set at £21,000 is more progressive than the current one at £15,000, can they not see that that is scant consolation? The chunk that people will have to pay off now will be three times as much and millions of people will have their income automatically reduced for 30 years. And that's on top of paying tax. For the next generation, in many cases university will be more expensive than their parents' mortgages.

How's that for "capping aspiration", one of the right-wingers favourite set phrases?

Related posts: The cost of university: a comparative look.

When pictures speak louder than words

Click here and here to read Nick Clegg's December 2009 "pledges" to phase out and then scrap tuition fees.

Click here to read Vince Cable yesterday proposing tuition fees to go up to £7000 a year.

Steve Richards: "A U-turn that will wreck public trust".

Two months after the vote: the next five years

Part five of our post-election series. Today, Left Outside analyses the Left's future prospects.

[This is a guest post]

Throughout the election I did my (small) bit for democracy by delivering leaflets for my local Lib Dems. I've always found leaflets a little annoying, but then, as I'm not a Lib Dem I didn't feel comfortable canvassing for them yet I wanted to help defeat the incumbent Tory.

I cast my ballot for David Rendel and waited up until 4 in the morning to hear that he'd been defeated. Here I suppose I could rant that a Tory was always going to win in the end anyway, but I don't want to.

I would still vote the same way as before and I would still get out there and try to support the Lib Dems. I'm under no illusions, they are not a party of the left, but I am as much a Liberal as I am a Socialist and even if the Liberals sacrifice their pretensions of leftism at least we can hope they will somewhat neuter the social reactionaries in the Tories.

Although this position puts me in the mind of this Beau Bo D'Or picture, with hindsight it seems the best I could hope to achieve on May 6th, and grim pragmatism has always been the way I have approached elections.

To begin however there is still a lot with which to be disappointed. The Tories are going to reduce the deficit too quickly and this is going to damage the economy; the Lib Dems are sadly acquiescing in this. The anti-deficit vanguard have taken control, despite the deficit of evidence to support their position.

Of course, this being the Tories there is also some hypocrisy to worry about. The Tories claim to be worried about debt, yet they have pledged to reduce immigration, something which will make the debt burden worse and trend GDP growth lower. Two of my main concerns, a chance for a decent living for me, and a chance to give a leg up to those unlucky enough to be born within different borders have been dealt a severe blow.

The positive side of this election is less clear. But I do think it offers a chance to regroup, although I appreciate this may be me taking refuge in a cliché.

There will likely be 5 years to get the left's electoral platform in order, and that means the Labour electoral position. The Labour Leadership contest is leaving me somewhat nonplussed - especially since the exit of John McDonnell, but it is not the distance of the election that leaves me uninterested. For me the next 5 years are not about getting elected, they're about fighting for services.This is for pragmatic and strategic reasons.

We will enter the next election in an odd position; normally a government has to lose an election, an opposition rarely "wins" it. Nobody won the last election and this puts the left in a strong position. Rather than wait for the Government to fail the left can spend 5 years presenting an alternative.

This is how I want to see the next 5 years spent; the Labour party spending some time becoming a party of the people rather than one claiming to be for the people despite evidence to the contrary; bloggers fact checking the government; unions defending their members; the public protesting for their services and the Tory's cuts delayed.

Click here to visit Left Outside's blog.

Two months after the vote: from LibDems to Greens

Part four of our post-election series. Let down by the ConDem deal, Jane Watkinson explains why she defected from the LibDems to the Green Party.

[This is a guest post]

When I decided to defect from the LibDems to The Greens, part of me was worried that I had made a mistake. All sorts of questions went through my head: have I gone too early? would it have been better to fight my case within?

I am pleased to say, after around a month of being in The Greens, I am 100% confident my decision was the right one. I have never been so comfortable in arguing my politics – my lefty views were constrained within a party, which has a central outlook/ideology that includes the desirability of a rapidly shrinking state. This is illustrated quite well when considering how much support the LibDems have thrown behind the ‘Big Society’.

If the election was repeated, I would obviously now vote for The Greens. Locally in Leeds, The Greens have formed a minority with the Labour to run the council, and in doing so, reached a very comprehensive agreement with a £30 million housing insulation programme included. Nationally, The Greens picked up their first MP, and arguably would have gained at least one more if the LibDems had not run such a misleading campaign.

Many aspects of the election outcome were hugely disappointing. One of the most central concerns I had/have with the ConDem deal is the LibDems apparent abandonment of their left progressive ideas/policies. Furthermore, they have become very submissive to Tory pressure when it comes to key lefty issues/policies such as capital gains tax and the now very regressive nature of the income threshold rise – as the progressive LibDem policies that were going to be used to pay for it have since been dropped and thus, it will be funded largely out of regressive public spending cuts.

These latter developments only confirmed my earlier concerns I had with the initial proposals that saw them drop key central policies and adopt what to me was all but for the smallest of details a Tory manifesto. Whilst the Tories still complain of how hard done by they are, they forget that the LibDems had to accept key policies watered down (e.g. income threshold and AV), key policies abandoned (e.g. immigration and Europe), key policies being sent to often pointless commissions (e.g. breaking up the banks, House of Lords reform) and also having to give up any chance of opposing controversial decisions (e.g. marriage tax and tuition fee raises).

It is hard to find positives from the ConDem deal. Regardless, they have scrapped ID cards and the building of a third runway at Heathrow, whilst proceeding with a more open government and genuinely reversing the assault of civil liberties from the previous Labour government. However, this would have happened without the LibDems, as they were all key Tory proposals. Furthermore, other policies, such as the marriage tax, are undermining progressive moves in extending civil rights, as we see the state becoming more influential in people’s personal life.

For the progressive left to make successful inroads in this centre-right neo-liberal government, we need to see an advancement of pluralism. The left really need to work together in this, tribalism should be reduced as much as possible so the fight for a fairer and sustainable economy and society is advanced and achieved.

Jane Watkinson blogs at My Political Ramblings.

Two months after the vote: the pro-Coalition view

The coalition should be celebrated and not criticised. If anything, it's the best government this country has had for a long time, Jackart explains.

[This is a guest post].

Has my outlook changed since the Election? In a word, No. I’ve always described myself as a Libertarian Conservative. I happen to be a member of the Conservative party, but am two policies away from being a Liberal Democrat*.

I am impressed at the attitude of the Government, who have been cutting wasteful programmes, lancing fake charities, abolishing quangos and repealing law with some gusto. Even the response to the Cumbrian shootings was statesmanlike without the rush to DO something to appease a baying media. Government ministers do not pop up on the Today program announcing a new policy every single day. As far as I am aware, the rate at which things are being banned has dropped from one a day for the last 13 years, to …um… none since the election. Indeed we may yet get back the rights to tell a policeman to say “Cheese” or chase wildlife on horseback.

Then, of course there’s last week's budget. The plan, and this is considered ambitious, is to end the deficit within the parliament. That means, for the benefit of economically illiterates, that in 5 years, the British Government will no longer be adding to the national debt every day. Labourites who speak of “Paying down the deficit” are deliberately lying about the real effect of Labour’s profligacy. We will only start “paying down” anything when the deficit is cut to zero and beyond. Only a surplus will ‘pay down’ the debt, but we will not be “paying down” anything at all until 2016 even with the “Tory Cuts”.

Whilst I am not happy with everything; I think AV is a stupid idea and prefer an appointed House of Lords, for example, at least Labour are not in power, and that is almost priceless.

Would I vote the same way was the election to be repeated now? Yes. I would. I am persuaded that the actual outcome is better even than the Conservative Landslide I desired at the time as Liberal Democrat participation provides some protection from the left. It provides credibility, which may one day see Labour supplanted by the Liberals as the main party of the left. The Euro & Grammar school obsessed Tory right are sidelined. The death of the Labour movement is my most profound political wish, and the election result may see this come true.

What pissed me off the most about the outcome of May 6? The low turnout was the most disappointing feature (along with Ed Balls keeping his seat) of the election result. It flattered Labour, and showed the British people, 40% of them anyway, to be uninterested in how their country is governed. It is the Labour party’s skill at Get-Out-The-Vote and political trench warfare which kept them alive in this election. Their entire manifesto was based on a transparent economic lie (that cutting spending is “taking money out of the economy”) and they were led by the worst PM in history. Yet they did better than they deserved because of residual loyalty, a low turnout, an ineffective Tory campaign, and above all savage fear-mongering amongst Labour’s pets in the Public sector. Fear worked, and that too is disappointing.

As for the future, if there is any justice, Labour will be out of power for a Generation and probably for ever. The Labour leadership election is a matter of the profoundest indifference. None of the runners will ever be prime minister. The next non-Tory to be PM will be a liberal, the next Labour PM if there is to be one, isn’t even in parliament.

The most positive thing to come from the election is the Coalition, which is now even taking in grown-up Labour figures to help sort out the most severe financial crisis since the second world war which has once again been bequeathed to us by a despicable and incompetent Labour government. Good of the country is prevailing over good of the Party in power for the first time in 13 years. That is why the Coalition’s approval ratings are sky-high.

Long may it continue….

*PR and Europe, if you’re wondering.

Jackart is a libertarian blogger and a Conservative Party member. He blogs at A Very British Dude.

Two months after the vote: from Lib-Dems to Labour

Has public opinion shifted at all since May 6? As part of a new series, we explore how feelings have changed (or not) since the general election. Today, Daniel Hoffmann-Gill explains why he almost turned his back on UK politics.

[This is a guest post]

This year’s General Election seems long ago now, I’ve filed it far away in the recesses of my mind, politics, in the UK at least, has lost it’s luster for me and I’ve now gone back to obsessing about American exceptionalism, female genital mutilation and South African crime rates.

What killed it for me was voting Liberal Democrat, as I did in 2005, as they represent (or so I thought) my views the closest and then had to watch the bastards power-grab a horrible little deal with the dreaded Conservatives.

But before I turned my back on UK politics in an extraordinarily tedious fit of pique, I did something quite dramatic: I joined the Labour Party.

I was raised in a very Tory household and as soon as I could I wanted to vote Labour, because it seemed to me the team in blue represented something cruel, mean-spirited and negative; features all shared by my Tory father. So from 1994 onwards I was a devout Labour boy and only when they broke my heart by getting us into an illegal and terrible war, as well as a catalogue of human rights infringements and a slow and horrible metamorphosis into a cruel, mean-spirited and negative political party (are we really turning into America with no choice at all between the Devil and the very deep, very blue and terrifying sea?), I turned to my ideological bed-fellows: the Lib Dems.

It seemed a perfect policy fit and with the election this year the golden bastards actually stood a chance of winning. Thanks to the archaic joys of our electoral system and also not as many people voting for them as expected (always a problem in an election) they were left as kingmakers and decided, even though 15.4 million Brits had voted for left of centre parties rather then the 10.7 million that had turned blue, to back David Cameron and his entourage.

Ouch. That hurt.

And I mean really hurt. And perhaps my hurt is irrational, flawed and riddled with an utter loathing of the Tories and everything they stand for and perhaps, in a stumbling through kind of way, the current Con-Dem alliance is doing alright (even though VAT increases kill us all, especially the poor and why some focused tax hikes on rich folk like me aren’t an option I’ll never know) but I voted for a party of the left, a liberal party because I was sick to death of Labour’s Tory transformation and my vote was betrayed. Where has the left gone?

And yes, I did just say betrayed, for this is a love affair and Nick Clegg has given me chlamydia.

So I decided to cheat on him with my old lover (this relationship and sexual transmitted disease metaphor is starting to run aground isn’t it?) and commit because I see no other options for those of us on the left to turn to, options that actually have power within their reach, rather than hopes and dreams. What use are they?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill is an actor and writer. He blogs at Blurred Clarity.

LibDems now like VAT hike - but don't call it a 'betrayal'

Is the Left 's job that of opposing measures that we deem unfair, or do we simply find ways of not disagreeing too much with the Coalition lest "we push the LibDems further towards the Tories"?

Much has been said over the coalition's Budget as announced by George Osborne two days ago.

Stuck between the obvious ideological clashes between those who think such "brave" and tough measures are the "inevitable" legacy of the Labour years, and those who instead call the Budget "reckless" and "dangerous for the recovery", there appears to be a third category of people.

Yes, you guessed it: LibDem MPs. We don't really know where the Lib Dems stand, do we?

Less than two months ago they were kicking and screaming that the planned Tory VAT rise was a "bombshell". They even started a poster campaign about it (see image) and incur the wrath of many a Tory hack, including The Spectator's Fraser Nelson who slammed it as a "dishonest" and "misleading" campaign (see here).

Remember this was in April 2010. Unless I've totally lost it, this was a mere two months ago.

Now, we've all heard of turncoats, politicians performing gravity-defying somersaults, u-turns and about faces. Labour, for instance, can hardly lecture anyone when they signed up to Tony Blair's 'Encyclopaedia of Amazing Betrayals' for a whole decade.

The novelty here though is that never - ever - before has a political party managed to shed so many of its ideas (or "principles", if you like) as quickly as the LibDems are. Even Tony Blair waited two or three years before making a mockery of the now infamous Labour manifesto promise over tuition fees to mention but one of his "pretty straight" deeds. And that's saying something.

The LibDems are now actively supporting the Tories' VAT hike to 20% which, they concede at the Treasury, will mean an average tax increase of over £500 per household.

The jaundiced party claim that they didn't realise how bad the state of public spending was until they entered the coalition. But that's the lamest of excuses available. Maybe they should just stop treating the public like a mass of imbeciles and simply keep up with their daily job of nodding in the Commons whenever Cameron and Osborne speak .

My problem isn't with the Tories. I respect the fact that they're doing what they have to do as a Tory party. They may have kept a couple of things quiet during the election, but they are a Conservative party, we all knew their history and their beliefs and what to expect from them.

When the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the impact of the Budget on the poorest section of the population will be five time worse than the impact on the richest by 2015, there is no surprise there. The Tories are implementing their ideas.

When huge cuts across government spending are implemented and the civil service goes through "a bit" of a diet and courts and police are axed, the Conservatives are simply practising what they've preached all along: the importance of a slimmer state. They believe in it. You can't say fairer than that.

But the LibDems. What do they actually believe in? If they can change their mind so quickly, easily and radically over the timing, scale and quality of cuts, VAT, tax, state benefits, or the best way to achieve recovery, what tells you that they won't change their mind over anything else if a dogbone is dangled before their eyes?

So, some people like Sunny from Liberal Conspiracy may reiterate the point that "screaming betrayal at the LibDems won't work" and that's this is not only a sign of "tribalism" but also "downright silliness". They add that "all [this] does is push Libdems further towards the Tories".

But by focusing on the red herring, they gloss over the devastating consequences of what the LibDems did: following the fine Blairite tradition of turning yet more election manifestos into disposable arse paper that can be dismissed within weeks on the basis of where the most rewarding political wind blows.

How else do you call something like the VAT u-turn? Why shouldn't it be attacked outright? Sites like Liberal Conspiracy often go out of their way to find any inch of Tory wording or semantic that would justify lashing out at anything vaguely Thatcherite (that's not tribalism, is it?), so why shouldn't Lib Dem politicians be harshly criticised or exposed when their political errors are so obviously blatant and their votes crucial for Tory policies to be implemented?

The harm that the LibDems caused to the hopes and beliefs millions of potentially leftist voters is immense. The PR work that Clegg & co have done on behalf of the Can't-Be-Bovvered/Apathetic Party is also incalculable.

When the LibDems and the Labour left where (rightly) slating New Labour over Iraq, PFI or tuition fees, did Sunny write "easy with calling Tony Blair 'traitor' or 'Bliar' or else we risk turing these policies into a Tory monopoly"?

So this is the big question: is the Left (and the Labour Party)'s job that of opposing measures that we deem unfair and harmful for the least well-off, or do we simply have to find ways of not disagreeing too much with the Coalition governments lest "we push the LibDems further towards the Tories", whatever that means?

At which point does the game of triangulations end and principles can be asserted to the point that we can call a crap policy or an obvious betrayal by their name - that is, a crap policy and an obvious betrayal?

I didn't vote LibDem for this

Axing hospitals, jobs, help for the unemployed, manufacturing projects and front line services: this cull is coming straight from the most ideological right-wing hymnsheet.

Commenting on cuts and "difficult budget decisions", Deputy PM Nick Clegg said recently that his government would "not" do it "the way we did it in the 80s". "We're going to do this differently", he remarked.

The acute observer, however, may have learnt the bitter way that, whatever the Lib Dem leader says, the exact opposite is true. In fact, his public declarations read in reverse should be coveted as the best way of predicting government policy.

And so, yesterday's announcement that projects worth £2bn are getting axed (with another £8.5bn suspended) is a clear sign that, for all Clegg's posturing, the 80s are actually back with a vengeance.

To quote Chris Dillow, "[W]hen Clegg says he’s going to do things differently from Thatcher, he’s right - he’ll cut overall spending by much more than she did".

The significance of yesterday's cuts is immense. It offers a clear glimpse of the ideological direction taken by the Con/Dem administration.

The Coalition are not cutting back on things such as council-funded festivals, public-funded anti-obesity ads or - even better - the salaries handed on a tray to the Chief Executives of Network Rail or the Royal Mail.

No. The axe is falling on public projects which were crucial in both the public and private sector. Cuts are going to affect job creation (mostly in the private sector), 21st century manufacturing, the health service and measures to help the unemployed.

Those include scrapping a much needed new hospital in the North-East and cutbacks on the Future Jobs Fund, a scheme that was created during the recession to help the long-term unemployed with jobs or training.

But probably even more significant was the massive blow dealt to manufacturing firm Sheffield Forgemasters.

Their £80 million loan would have created skilled jobs and stimulated the supply chain in low carbon power generation. It was a good investment both in terms of future green technology and long-term support of a specialised UK company with only one direct competitor in the field of heavy steel forgins and steel castings - in Japan. Other foreign companies will soon be vying to fill the gap.

Quite clearly this government is not interested in diversifying the economy away from the financial sector. They are repeating the short-termist mistakes that led us to the crisis in the first place. They are not interested in a forward-thinking manufacturing base and they have no plan for growth other than praying that their Ideological Hymnsheet may deliver the goods.

And the 11th Chapter, first epistle to the Free Marketeers, Verses 2-16 states clearly that the government shouldn't invest in manufacturing and that mass unemployment is a price worth paying. Amen.

David Laws: "The years of plenty are over"

A new politics, eh? Minister in charge of reducing government spending apologises after being caught red handed with taxpayers' money.

Remember last year's mega MPs' expenses scandal, the outrage and all the promises of a brand new politics?

Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws MP must be a clairvoyant. Four days ago he publicly pontificated that "the years of plenty are over".

Sure, he was only referring to the public sector, as he illustrated the "shockwave" of £6.2bn worth of cuts across government spending.

But look at the irony. The famously loaded former investment banker has now been caught red-handed using taxpayers' money (£40,000 over a period of five years- £950 a month) to rent rooms in two properties owned by his secret partner. He said he'll pay back immediately. Indeed, "the years of plenty" appear to be over for him.

For the record, David Laws is one of the LibDems' most prominent "orange bookers", that is to say the free-market wing of the party which strongly advocates a much smaller role for the state.

Like the Telegraph remarked, Laws is the man "charged with rescuing the Government's finances". Keep the faith.

Welcome back, good old Tories

From "cuddly" government to Iain Duncan Smith: here's the Coalition in all its glory.

After the election binge and the disappointments that came with it, this blog had made a vow to stay away from politics for as long as possible.

We learnt that objecting to proposals and bills is the wrong thing to do. Apparently you have to keep quiet and wait until they've been tried and tested. Even if it's tens of millions of pounds axed from children services and transport. Even if that may cause mayhem - it's in the national interest, so that's alright.

We learnt that fighting for a manifesto on May 5 and then doing the exact opposite on May 7, a-la Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, is perfectly fine. It's your problem if it doesn't add up. It's in the national interest, so we should get on with it.

We learnt that, no matter what, Britain will enjoy fixed parliaments and that, in three years' time or maybe longer, we'll have a referendum on AV which the Tories will campaign against, so everything else is alright.

And in any case, with a coalition government so fluffy and cuddly that 90% of the media are currently offering their love, what could possibly be said against them. They're working in the "national interest", after all, so we decided to stop whining for a while.

Two weeks on and after the declarations of love and national interest, however, this caring government needs to be pulled up over something.

Today the limelight is on über Tory Iain Duncan Smith and his plans over at Work and Pensions, which come straight from the darkest days of Thatcherism.

In a speech that sounds like the a tabloid's wet dream, IDS laid out his no-bullshit action plan consisting, amongst other things, of: the unemployed being forced to do community work in exchange for benefits; immediate requirement to sign up for training schemes; benefits suspended to those who refuse job offers; a "significant number" of those on incapacity benefits moved into work asap.

Let's ignore the fact that -especially post recession- millions are on the dole through no fault of their own. Let's turn a blind eye on the fact that when you can't find a job it's absolutely disheartening and the last thing you need is national campaigns that make you feel even more worthless and in need of self-flagellation. Let's ignore all that.

The thing is, IDS forgets three enormous things.

1) There's a massive recession out there. Unemployment is at its highest in twenty years. There are less jobs available around. The "aggressive cuts" (to quote David Laws) will mean even less jobs available in the very near future. So, very simply, how are millions of alleged lazy layabouts going to find a job?

2) IDS repeated that at present the rewards for choosing to work were "very minimal" or even "none at all". His party however, have consistently ferociously campaigned against the minimum wage.

I will swallow humble pie if I'm proven wrong, but they're extremely unlikely to rise the minimum wage in the foreseeable future. So how's that going to be rewarding?

3) Also, the famous "tax incentives" outlined in the Queen's Speech fall well short of the original promise to raise the tax threshold to £10,000. So how are dead-end McJobs that will still be paid a pittance supposed to suddenly turn from demoralising to "rewarding"?

Welcome back, good old Tories.

The LibDems as the 'Tory Dream'?

Are Nick Clegg and his party jumping on the "Big Society" band wagon? Contribution by Jane Watkinson.

Melanie Phillips usually writes utter rubbish, but her article yesterday is one of her worst. Apparently, the Tories have made more concessions than the LibDems. Hmm. I don’t think so.

Apparent ‘gains’ for the LibDems include the AV referendum, fixed term parliaments, and their ‘progressive’ income tax cuts!

When you consider that AV is arguably less proportional than FPTP, there is an undemocratic 55% proposal attached to the fixed term parliaments (fixed term parliaments themselves are a good idea, but only if perused in the right manner), and that their income tax cut is now described as a 'Tory dream', then one can hardly see them as gains.

I find the ‘Tory dream’ analysis particularly interesting. This LibDem tax policy had been attractive before the election, however, it was far from redistributive in the true sense of the word, with those on higher incomes benefiting more. However, it will now be funded primarily through public spending cuts as the policies LibDems intended to fund it with(e.g mansion tax) have been dropped.

I think Melanie will have more to smile about then the LibDems given a few months in power. She should remember that a Tory minority government would have found it harder to of got unpopular policies through, and the LibDems could have voted against, not merely abstained, when it came to policies such as the marriage tax.

With the news that the LibDems and Clegg are jumping on the ‘Big Society’ band wagon, it really reinforces how much the Tories have gained from this partnership. It is rather suprising given the attitudes of some LibDems to the idea before the election:

“The ‘Big Society Day’ is just patronising nonsense, particularly for the thousands of dedicated people who are working to make their communities better every day. David Cameron will say anything to get a headline. Instead of gimmicks, the Liberal Democrats will give people real power over things that matter like their local police and health services.” – Julia Goldsworthy

Like I have said countless times before, the ‘Big Society’ sounds great. It really does. Will it work? I doubt it. Well it depends what you mean by work (tax cuts, yes). But, to me – it looks as though the LibDems are trying to change their spots too quickly. Or were they ever that against the ‘Big Society’ in the first place? We have to remember that at the heart of the Tories’ ‘Big Society’ is cuts and a promotion of unreliable charity and voluntary organisations. I have written quite a lot about the ‘Big Society’ in the past, so I wont go into too much detail here (see here for example, a much better analysis can be found at Left Foot Forward – where I got that picture from).

It seems that Cameron has got Clegg wrapped around his little finger – treating him to a shared 115 room estate with William Hauge at Chevening for example, so much for new politics hey? I am all for more local power, but I am very doubtful the ‘Big Society’ will provide real power to the local community. They could have of least changed the name so that it looked more like a compromise instead of another central Tory policy getting the nod.

Honestly, is it fair to say that any of the LibDem’s four central policy commitments have really entered into this coalition deal unscathed?

Tax reform has been watered down to the point of being regressive, there is an AV – not PR – referendum, the other political reforms that were set out to be achieved are largely sidelined to nothing more than committees or aspirations, the pupil premium was already in the Tory manifesto, they will have to abstain if there is a proposal for tuition fees to be uncapped (even though some LibDem MPs are confused and think they can go against this – that will be interesting) and they are not helping the enviroment – they have just welcomed the creation of even more nuclear power. Happy days.

Jane Watkinson blogs at My Political Ramblings.

Yesterday in the Commons

Did anyone notice?

Coalition to appoint 172 Lords?

"Change", is what David Cameron pledged all along. Well, you certainly can't accuse him of leaving things as they are.

If the Times is to be believed, the House of Lords is set to become the fattest parliamentary chamber in the world.

There are currently 736 sitting Lords, or 707 if you take into account disqualified ones and other exceptions- see here for a full summary.

The coalition government, however, has agreed to appoint up to 172 new peers (77 extra Tories and 95 extra LibDems) in order to "rebalance the upper chamber", which is currently under a Labour majority. According to the Times, "[t]he first wave is expected soon".

This will potentially bring the total to a maximum of 908 peers, nine times the number of the US Senate and thirteen times that of the German Bundestrat.

Luckily the place is generally empty, so at least fitting them all in shouldn't be much of a problem. Costs however, will sore big time.

Officially, the coalition has agreed to reform the House of Lords and increase the number of elected members.

For the time being, however, the Lib/Cons' looming act of political patronage would even tower over anything attempted by Tony Blair. And that says something.