10 Most Recent Stories From RSS: News Articles

Tue 18th Nov 2008:

Clegg: Conservatives have no solutions to today’s problems.

Nick Clegg responding to David Cameron's speech on Conservative spending plans said "The Conservatives clearly can’t be trusted to create a fair society." Nick also said "After months of wandering aimlessly on economic policy David Cameron has finally performed a full U-turn." "Today's announcement is economic madness. No-one can predict the length and depth of this recession so making promises for two years time is foolish. "What is clear is that they have no solutions for today's problems - that's why they can only make pie in the sky promises for the future." Outlining how Liberal Democrat policy would help ordinary people on low and middle incomes, Nick said; "If we want to help our economy now, we must immediately cut taxes for those on low and middle incomes and pay for it by closing tax loopholes exploited by the very wealthy. "If we are also to borrow to help kick-start the economy this must only be for one off capital projects that will benefit our country, not only today, but also in the future. We must not simply borrow to plough money into unsustainable spending or tax cuts."  

Mon 17th Nov 2008:

Brake: Less talk and more action needed to tackle knife crime.

The Liberal Democrats have published plans to tackle the growing problem of knife crime in London. The document, entitled Less talk, more action, highlights several key proposals for reducing knife crime, including: Putting 10,000 extra police on the streets, around 2,000 of which would be in London, paid for by scrapping ID cards Ensuring each Safer Neighbourhood Team includes a trained, dedicated community support officer to identify and work with the young people who are most at risk through schools, youth groups and outreach work Creating a Greater London Youth Volunteer Force to make it easier for young disadvantaged people to volunteer. Activities would be relevant to young people but also teach them important skills Commenting, Liberal Democrat London Spokesperson and Member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Tom Brake MP said: "Thanks to a decade of Labour, Britain now has the highest rate of youth incarceration and the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. "The number of stab wounds for under 16s has gone up 62% in the past five years while admissions to hospital for stab wounds for 16-18 year olds have also jumped. "Between 1995 and 2005 there was an 86% rise in the number of 15 to 17 year-olds in custody. "Labour has completely failed to rehabilitate offenders, leading to sky-high levels of repeat offending."

Fri 14th Nov 2008:

Big rise in number of people who declared themselves bankrupt .

The number of people who declared themselves bankrupt in the last three months was more than 13,500, up 7% since 2007. A total of 13,653 people in England and Wales petitioned for bankruptcy in the three months to the end of September, the second-highest number recorded by the Ministry of Justice since 1995. Commenting on the news, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said: "It's now clear that more and more people are being stretched to breaking point. "We are heading ever deeper into recession and with news that the Eurozone is now going the same way, this is clearly part of a major world slump. "With the cost of credit remaining sky high, millions of hard-pressed families are struggling to keep their heads above water. "It is critical that we offer help now to the millions struggling to make ends meet, by cutting taxes and working with the banks to reduce the cost of borrowing and doing all they can to keep people in their homes."  

Thu 13th Nov 2008:

Willott welcomes government Post Office Card Account u-turn.

Jenny Willott The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s decision to continue the Post Office Card Account (POCA). In a House of Commons statement yesterday, the Government confirmed it would end the tendering process and allow Post Office Ltd to keep the contract to distribute benefits to 4.3 million claimants until 2015. Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, criticised the "huge stress" caused to POCA customers by the tendering process and the "waste of money involved". She questioned the Government's newfound commitment to the Post Office network, given the decision "to cancel the contracting exercise rather than award the contract to the Post Office." She asked: "Does it mean that the terms of the tender would not have allowed the Department [for Work and Pensions] to award the contract to the Post Office?" Jenny Willott's full response to the government statement was as follows: "I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement. I wish to make it clear from the outset that the Liberal Democrats are delighted at today's decision. It is good to see that the Department for Work and Pensions has listened to the vociferous opposition to the possible loss of the Post Office card account that has come from all parts of the House and from outside it. I understand that 2 million people signed a petition requesting that the POCA remained with the Post Office. Today's decision could also be seen as a response to the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate on Monday. "Today's statement is a strange way of going about the decision. Cancelling the procurement exercise raises huge questions, some of which have been asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). I should be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified why the Department decided to cancel the contracting exercise rather than award the contract to the Post Office. Does it mean that the terms of the tender would not have allowed the Department to award the contract to the Post Office? To enable us to make our own decision on that, will he release the specifications, the invitation to tender or negotiate, and the descriptive documents, which the Government have refused to release up to this point - indeed, on Monday, he again said that he would not be able to release them. I would be grateful if he made them public now. "The Secretary of State said that he has decided to award a contract for the continuation of the POCA within the terms of the relevant EC regulations. If he can do that now, why could he not have done it before or why did he choose not to do so? I would be grateful if he clarified that point. The reasons that he gave for the decision relate to the current economic climate. What is it about that climate that means that the Government can now reconsider? This situation leads to the suspicion that as 1,500 jobs are being lost every day in the UK, he knew that the Government could not afford to close a further 3,000 post offices - at least - with all the accompanying job losses. Will he tell us exactly what has changed? "The Secretary of State also said that he believes that it is not the time to do anything to put the network at risk, particularly as post offices are often the only provider in rural and deprived urban areas - that is what the Liberal Democrats have been saying for the past two years, as have a number of Labour Members. As that was the case when the Government decided to put this out to tender - it remains the case - what has brought him around to our way of thinking and to deciding that now the Post Office does need to be saved? Why did he think last week that it was okay to risk the only providers in those deprived areas, but that now it is not okay to do so? "As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the DWP has behaved appallingly so far on this matter; there has been delay after delay. This has been going on for nearly three years and the decision was 11 months overdue. That has caused huge stress for POCA customers, sub-postmasters and all who are concerned for their community facilities. Why has there been such a delay? It also raises issues about the cost of the process and the waste of money involved. Legal questions have already been posed about changing the competition rules halfway through the process, but this has been a waste of money not only for the bidders that did not receive the contract, but for the post offices and the Government. The Secretary of State has said that he will be providing compensation, but will he finally give us an estimate as to how much money has been wasted? Why is the amount of compensation considered to be commercially confidential? Nevertheless, I welcome today's announcement and the saving of post offices."

Wed 12th Nov 2008:

PMQs: Clegg calls for “big, permanent and fair” tax cuts.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg reiterated calls for immediate tax cuts at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday. He criticised government tax increases that are disproportionately penalising Britain’s poorest and urged the Prime Minister to clamp down on tax breaks for the rich. Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): Week after week, I have called on the Prime Minister to cut taxes to give help to people on low and middle incomes, and he is now raising expectations that he will do just that, but why should anyone believe him? This is the Prime Minister who will not take responsibility for people losing their jobs, but did take credit for a bank rescue plan that he copied. This is the man who doubled the tax rate for 5 million of the poorest people in the country, and called it a tax cut. When it comes to taxes, he may pretend that he is Robin Hood, but he is no more than a petty pick-pocket. People do not need more cynical tinkering. What people need are tax cuts that are big, permanent and fair. The Prime Minister: If we had listened to the Liberal party's advice, we would be cutting public expenditure by £20 billion this year. That is not the policy that I believe it is right to follow. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will support not only the recapitalisation of the banks, but the fiscal and monetary stimulus that ought to be co-ordinated worldwide, and ought not to be happening just in one single country. It is the ability of countries to work together and to co-ordinate that work worldwide that I think will be important to recovery in every country. Mr. Clegg: The Prime Minister can misrepresent me all he likes, but he needs to get on and represent the millions of British families who are suffering under his unfair tax system. Right now, millionaires pay less than half the tax that they should on their capital gains. Top earners get an £8 billion tax bonus on their pensions. Up to £40 billion is lost in tax avoidance every year. When will he put an end to these tax breaks, and give ordinary people big tax cuts that are simple, immediate, permanent and fair? The Prime Minister: First, we have raised capital gains tax from 10 per cent to 18 per cent. Secondly, we have closed tax loopholes and continue to do so in every Budget. Where they are found, we take action when it is necessary. Thirdly, I come back to the point: what sort of stimulus to the economy would it be to cut £20 billion of public spending at the moment? NB. As has been pointed out by the independent FactCheck website operated by Channel 4, Gordon Brown misrepresented Liberal Democrat policy in his answer. The Lib Dems are not proposing a cut of £20 billion in government spending. The party are proposing to redirect £20 billion a year of government spending that is currently being wasted or used for projects we don't think are necessary (like ID cards), and put it into our priorities. These priorities include guaranteed care for the elderly and extra investment in the poorest children's education (pupil premium). And if there's money to spare, we will channel it into extending our tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.   Click here to read Prime Minister's Question in full  

Liberal Democrats call for fairer representation in Regional Committees.

Simon Hughes Thumbnail The Liberal Democrats yesterday accused the Government of abusing the opportunity to provide decent regional accountability by imposing its parliamentary majority on new regional Select Committees, even in areas where they have the fewest MPs. Shadow Leader of the House, Simon Hughes MP, challenged the proposed make up of the new committees in a House of Commons debate, as MPs voted in their favour yesterday. The need for the Committees to reflect voting patterns was, he said, a "central obligation" of devolution and something the Government had "failed to grasp". Simon illustrated the problems with the proposal by highlighting the situation in the south-west region: "At the last election, Labour won 13 seats, we won 16 and Conservatives won 22, so Labour has the least number of seats, but it is now being proposed that, instead of the regional assembly, Labour colleagues will dominate a Committee representing an area of that size. By definition, that means that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members cannot be chosen to represent Somerset, Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire and the other areas - it cannot happen. The people of those regions and the organisations of those counties will look to a Select Committee to look after their interests, but that cannot be done because, as anyone in the House knows, the interests of Cornwall might be different from those of Gloucestershire." An amendment proposed by Simon which stated that the make-up of the committees should be proportionate to the number of MPs from each party in the region was defeated by just two votes. A further Lib Dem amendment that would have restricted membership of the committees to MPs from the region was also defeated. Another Lib Dem speaker in the debate, Andrew George MP, described as absurd the idea that Labour MPs from outside the south-west would be ‘dragooned' into sitting on the committee for that region. On another aspect of the proposals, Simon criticised the idea that Chairmen of regional committees should receive the same amount of pay as those of UK-wide committees, instead arguing: "Eight new Committees are proposed, so we suggested that the Chairmen should be paid an eighth of what the other Chairmen are paid...If that is not accepted...at least to start with, those posts should not be remunerated. Otherwise, we will just be accused of creating more jobs at public expense." The latter suggestion was subsequently approved by the House in an amendment to the motion. A vote on the overall proposal to adopt the new set of committees was passed, despite Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition. Simon Hughes' full speech here Read Andrew George's full speech here

Tue 11th Nov 2008:

Lib Dem MPs challenge Government’s support for Heathrow expansion.

Norman Baker Liberal Democrat MPs challenged the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow in a House of Commons debate yesterday. The party's Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker MP, said that the Climate Change Bill currently passing through Parliament would be undermined by a decision to expand Heathrow. Thanks to pressure from the Liberal Democrats and other campaigners, the Climate Change Bill sets a target for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions. Air travel is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions in the UK at present. "We need an 80 per cent target, because the climate change challenge that we face is enormous. But how can it possibly square with the construction of an extra runway at Heathrow?" asked Norman Baker. Norman suggested the possibility of high-speed railway development should be properly explored, given that any expansion of Heathrow would take the Government well beyond its own NO2 target. He referred to earlier remarks from the Secretary of State, regarding the climate change targets, which confirmed: "...that the existing pollution from traffic in London, including around Heathrow, will already put the Government beyond the NO2 limit." He questioned why railways had not been considered as a long-term solution, in contrast to the 30-year strategy for aviation: "...why does the rail strategy run out in 2014? Why are there no plans beyond 2014 to improve our railways? We have some longer platforms and trains now, but there are no plans beyond 2014-no lines opening, no commitment yet to high-speed rail, no electrification. A lot of things have been talked about, but nothing has been delivered on beyond 2014." Norman pointed out that current short haul flights to Paris and Manchester could be replaced by high-speed rail services. He also advocated linking high-speed railway services directly with Heathrow. Norman cited similar successes with similar projects in Europe. He raised the issue of the cost of travel and its effect on demands: "The average cost of a one-way flight in the United Kingdom has declined from £205 in 1997 to £103 today...Meanwhile, the cost of travelling by rail, which is much more carbon-friendly, has increased by more than the rate of inflation, and the Government refuse to rule out further above-inflation increases...That is not a sensible climate change policy, by any stretch of the imagination." Susan Kramer, MP for Richmond Park, which is under the Heathrow flight path, complained that consultation for expansion had neglected local residents, who had previously been assured that the Terminal 5 expansion was to be the last: "When they hear the word "Heathrow", BAA and the Government think about the airport and the passengers and forget the surrounding communities." She also bemoaned the lack of detail following government consultation with the business community regarding expansion: "I thought I would see a proper analysis of business in London and what it needed in the way of transport and aviation services. It was not there. We have a generalised analysis that says, "If fares go down, leisure traffic goes up, and we assume that fares will go down, therefore leisure traffic will go up." Susan said her own consultations with businesses had concluded: "Businesses want a service that works for them, which is all that they need. They need a reasonable number of services to the main destinations around the globe. They already have that, and growth is not required." Read Norman Baker's full speech here Read Susan Kramer's full speech here  

Baroness Thomas challenges shortening of backdating period for benefits.

Baroness Thomas presented a strongly worded motion to the House of Lords yesterday, challenging social security changes that cut the backdating period for a range of benefits from 12 months to 3. "This House deplores the way that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008, laid before the House on 15 September, cut the backdating period for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit in most cases from 12 months to three months, and were: (a) presented with inadequate evidence to support the policy; and (b) laid during the Summer Recess to come into force on the day Parliament returned, thus not allowing Parliament to consider them before they came into effect; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations because they are likely to increase the number of evictions, and cause particular hardship to older pensioners and those with mental health impairments (SI 2008/2424)." Pension credits, housing benefits and council tax benefits were all affected by the changes to Social Security regulations. Baroness Thomas explained the reasons for the initial longer backdating period: "The rationale...was that it was a new benefit that was only brought in five years ago and was not widely known about. The Government believe that this is no longer the case. However, there are still many pensioners, possibly as many as four out of 10, living in poverty who are not claiming pension credit, in spite of government efforts to reach people who may have an entitlement. That is something the Government themselves have admitted. They also admit that the change in backdating rules could affect older claimants more and those with mental health problems or physical disabilities." She stressed that, even during the short consultation period permitted, the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) had been highly critical of the measure, as had a number of well-respected organisations: "Citizens Advice says that it is often called in when pensioners are literally running out of savings for everyday living, and it says that the 12-month backdating can be a lifeline for such people. There are two other groups of pensioners whose circumstances mean they do not immediately engage with the benefits system when they could be eligible; those whose partner dies, with all the upheavals that brings, and those who suddenly find themselves looking after grandchildren, perhaps following a family break-up. In the last instance, unless the new backdating rules are abandoned, this will almost certainly lead to more child poverty." Lord Kirkwood pointed out that the reduction of the backdating period conflicted with wider government policy: "We are now on the brink of a Pre-Budget Statement when the Government are expected to reach deep into their pockets to help exactly the kind of people that these regulations affect by taking £155 million and £105 million respectively from the two groups involved. That is perverse. The left hand of government does not seem to know what the right hand is doing." The manner in which the regulations were implemented was also criticised. The amendment was laid down during the summer recess of Parliament and came into force on the first day Parliament came back. Commented Baroness Thomas: "...one cannot help feeling that they were trying to sneak it in under the radar. Tabling a controversial statutory instrument during a parliamentary recess to come into force on the day that Parliament returns makes a mockery of one of the main purposes of Parliament, and certainly of opposition parties, which is rigorous scrutiny of the Executive." Baroness Thomas cited the SSAC's dismissal of government claims that the changes simplified benefits procedure: "We have concluded that the department has offered neither adequate evidence to support its case for change nor a convincing proposal for mitigation of the potential negative impacts of the change". The motion to revoke the regulations was defeated by 54 votes to 84. Read Baroness Thomas' speech in full here Read Lord Kirkwood's speech in full here

Mon 10th Nov 2008:

Bid to save Post Office Card Account defeated.

Jenny Willott A Liberal Democrat bid to help ensure the future of the Post Office was defeated yesterday, after Labour MPs voted it down. The party's Shadow Secretary for Work and Pensions, Jenny Willott MP, introduced the proposal, which focused particularly on recent speculation that the Government is considering a tender for the Post Office Card Account (POCA) from a third party. The Liberal Democrat motion read: "That this House notes with concern the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has written to Post Office card account holders informing them that the Post Office card account contract ends in 2010; further notes that Post Office card account holders, many of whom have made a conscious decision to support the Post Office by retaining their card account, are being instructed to take out bank accounts in order to receive benefits beyond 2010; expresses its dismay at the fact that the letter does not mention the fact that a replacement for the current card account is currently out to tender, or make any mention of other Post Office products or services; believes that this is a deliberate attempt to encourage people to switch payment to direct debit and remove the role of the Post Office; further notes the additional damage inflicted on the Post Office by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is currently sending out licence renewal reminders as part of a communications campaign which makes no mention of the Post Office; calls on Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to encourage Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions to consider the impact on communities across the country if the Post Office card account is not renewed; and encourages all Government departments to make their services available through post offices in order to ensure that they have a viable future." Justifying the need for the motion, Jenny outlined the Government's gradual erosion of services available from the Post Office: "The reason why post offices and Royal Mail Group have suffered such hits on their profits is that the Government are removing a wide range of services from the Post Office... In 2006, they announced that people could no longer pay for their television licences at post offices. In the same year, they told people who received their benefits and pensions through the Post Office card account that it was being withdrawn, and that they would have to open bank accounts to continue to receive their benefits. In 2008, the DVLA sent out reminder notices asking people to pay by direct debit, making no mention of the possibility of paying via the Post Office. Step by step, the Government are taking business away from the Post Office." She also pointed to inconsistencies across Government, as access to pensions and benefits would be hampered by the loss of POCA. Whilst the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) claims to be reorganising "the network so that it is financially viable, the DWP is doing all it can to undermine a valuable piece of business that the Post Office has." Greg Mulholland MP warned, "The Government underestimate the public's anger and sheer exasperation at the way in which the Government has handled the post office network in recent years." He reiterated concerns for the future of rural Post Offices, expressed by other Liberal Democrat MPs, but also pointed out the knock-on effect on a national level: "The Government have not faced up to the reality that if they do not follow through and ensure that the post office network is the recipient of POCA, that will sound the last post for a genuinely national post office network, as 3,000 more post offices have been predicted to go, which would leave about 8,500. That is simply not a sustainable amount, so the post office network will not be able to continue." Andrew Stunell MP stressed some Post Office customers would be unable to use the retail banking sector as an alternative, due to a poor credit rating or mobility issues. He also highlighted the insensitivity of such a move, given the current economic climate. "Now that banks have never been more distrusted or reviled or more in disgrace, along come the Government, telling my constituents, "Leave the safe haven of a simple public sector system based on your local post office and put your trust in a nice big bright shiny bank where you can make a small contribution to a fat cat's big bonus". John Thurso MP gave the winding up speech in favour of the motion:  "At the heart of this debate are the needs and desires of some of the most vulnerable in our society, including pensioners, the unbanked... the disabled and all those on benefit. They trust their local post office to help them... It is that human contact that is missing, but that is so important to many people. Our constituents do not want to spend hours on a telephone, only to be given the wrong answer, or put on to another department when they finally get through. "Our constituents value and want to maintain their post offices. They do not trust banks, and they have proved to be absolutely right in that. However, they do trust the Post Office. The replacement card account contract is wanted bythe customers, our constituents. It is vital to the future of the network and supported by the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House. The Government have been overseeing the systematic removal of business from the post offices and it is time to stop." The Liberal Democrat motion was defeated by 240 votes to 278. The Liberal Democrats gained support from Conservative MPs with Labour MPs voting against. A government amendment was then passed by 279 votes to 232. Read Jenny Willott's speech in full Read Greg Mulholland's speech in full Read Andrew Stunell's speech in full Read John Thurso's speech in full

Lib Dem Income Tax Cut Proposal Rejected by Government.

Vince Cable A Liberal Democrat motion calling for an immediate substantial cut in income tax for lower and middle income families was rejected by Labour MPs yesterday. Liberal Democrat motion: "...this House is concerned at the increasing difficulties caused by the current economic crisis to many British citizens in maintaining their homes, paying their bills and providing for themselves and their families; believes that these problems originated not just in the global financial system but in unsustainable levels of personal borrowing and house prices which were overlooked by Government policy; is alarmed at the steep rise in mortgage arrears and repossession orders; regrets that, despite receiving £500 billion of taxpayers' money, the banking industry has failed to respond adequately to the needs of its customers or modify sufficiently its behaviour in respect of mortgage interest rates, new lending to struggling small businesses and its bonus culture; notes that the Bank of England has implemented the 2 per cent cut in interest rates which the Liberal Democrats called for and urges it to make further cuts if the economy deteriorates further; and calls on the Government to introduce an immediate substantial cut in income tax to benefit low income and standard rate taxpayers, paid for by wealthy individuals who profited disproportionately from the economic boom and who do not pay their fair share of tax." Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable introduced the motion, setting out why the Liberal Democrats are calling for tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes. He said the main argument was one of fairness, but there were other benefits too. "Clearly, people on low incomes have a higher propensity to spend than those on high incomes, who are very wealthy. Our proposal, which the new President elect of the United States echoed at least generally, seems highly relevant. We have advocated a programme whereby income tax should be cut for people on low incomes, either by raising thresholds or cutting the basic rate by the equivalent of 4p in the pound. We are therefore considering an amount of approximately £1,000 for a £30,000 income tax payer. The proposal would be funded in a variety of ways, which we have set out, one of which involves tackling potential tax avoidance and the existing concessionary rates that people pay on capital gains tax. We were impressed with the sensible way in which Lady Thatcher and Lord Lawson devised the capital gains tax rules, and we would like to revert to that, with potentially major Revenue implications. "We believe that people who contribute to large pension pots should be incentivised, but that larger incentives should not be given to people who make small savings - we believe in closing that loophole. We also believe in a much tougher approach to tax havens. Again, the President elect of the United States wanted to go down that road. Specific measures, such as dealing with leading corporations' evasion of stamp duty, which the Government should have tackled long ago, are blatantly obvious. A series of measures could, if implemented, enable us to make a substantial cut in income tax for people on low and middle incomes." He outlined three principles underpinning the tax cuts: firstly, that substantial cuts are required to make a real impact, secondly the cuts should be fair - this having being the consistent basis of the Liberal Democrat policy - and thirdly, they should be funded. Criticising the Government's reported plan to cut tax by borrowing Vince argued: "Government borrowing ultimately has to be paid for - it is deferred taxation or inflation, and that is not a satisfactory way forward either." Vince went on to highlight a lack of government direction following the bank bailout. Clarification was required, he said, on how to balance the conflicting needs for banks to recapitalise, whilst increasing lending and reducing interest cuts for savers. "The rational response of the banks is to build up their reserves to get the Government off their backs as quickly as possible so that they can pay dividends and bonuses. The Government's ambition appears largely to be limited to getting the taxpayers' money back as quickly as possible." The Government's decision to proceed with the Lloyds TSB-HBOS merger was also questioned by the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor: "I think that they are assuming that because it made sense six weeks ago in order to rescue HBOS from collapse, it still makes sense today. There are growing numbers of authoritative people in the banking system who say that it does not make sense...The deal may well be beneficial to Lloyds TSB, but why is it in the national interest?" Vince asked how a Liberal Democrat proposal, apparently adopted by the Government, to buy up empty property and land was progressing. "It appears that approval was given for £8 billion of investment in social housing, but that the money is not reaching the social landlords." Similarly on repossessions, the Government claimed to have revised procedures for the courts in such cases, but, said Vince, "no instructions have yet been given". Susan Kramer MP also contributed to the debate. Discussing causes of the current economic crisis, she emphasised the need for long-term regulatory reform of the banking industry. She suggested that banking bonuses are rewarded for short-term gains, rather than benefiting those who recognise long-term systemic risk. "We must turn the whole picture upside down if we are to have a healthy banking economy." The party's Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Jeremy Browne, highlighted the inconsistencies of Tory economic policy. He pointed out that his Conservative opposite number, Philip Hammond, had claimed in the same interview that, "Increasing borrowing is not a strategy for dealing with the recession", yet also that, "To increase borrowing to deal with an economic downturn - that's a perfectly sensible thing to do." And the Tory Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, had stated that he did not comment on whether banks should increase or decrease interest rates, and then been quoted as urging them to "slash interest rates". Concluding the debate, Jeremy said: "My message to Conservative Members who long instead for decisive and coherent leadership is this: "You do not have remain trapped in the high-tax, wasteful spending box into which your shadow Chancellor has locked you. You can support this Liberal Democrat motion and show your constituents that you too believe in the values put forward by my party-effective public spending that offers real value for money, low interest rates to help struggling families and small businesses, and real tax cuts now for low and middle-income households, who need our help." Those are the right policies for Britain; they are Liberal Democrat policies, and they need to happen now." The Liberal Democrat motion was defeated by 58 votes to 303. Labour MPs voted against it, and Conservative MPs abstained, refusing to support the Lib Dem call. A government amendment was then passed by 289 votes to 216. Read Vince Cable's speech in full Read Susan Kramer's speech in full Read Jeremy Browne's speech in full  

Earlier Stories

Complete archive on the official site.

RSS: News Articles.