Budget 2012

After last week's musical chairs the only deputy this week was in the Speaker's chair - as per tradition at the announcement of the Budget.

This year's announcement seemed to give everyone what they wanted. The Liberal Democrats got their mansion tax and a rise in the personal tax allowance. The Tories gave those concessions to Lib Dems to get the tax breaks for the wealthy and for business. And Labour got a budget that would give them free rein to snarl - a chance to put aside the divisions within the party and focus on challenging a budget that marked "the end of we're all in it together".

But is it really that simple?

For the Lib Dems & Tories this budget can be seen as the latest stage in rebuilding for the next election - balancing give and take to get what they want, while trying to avoid being 'infected' by the policies of the other (Behr, 2012).

As for Labour, they are struggling to shrug off the 'temporary measure' argument and gain momentum.

Having introduced the 50p tax rate as a temporary measure (Pollock, 2012), Labour face the difficulty of opposing 'tax breaks for millionaires' while addressing the possible accusation of breaking their word. Further, the Tories have complicated the matter for Labour by limiting the tax reduction to 45%, while simultaneously introducing more avoidance measures and conceding to the Lib Dems the mansion tax and personal tax allowance policies. This appears to have made the sum of the budget relatively neutral.

And as with the economics, so too with the politics. As the budget seems to buy one portion of the electorate's allegiance with the contributions of another, the political leanings also seem to cancel each other out.

All of which makes it very difficult for the Labour party to pin down the political fight ahead and its direction of attack. Some have even suggested that this may well have been part and parcel of a politically motivated budget (Behr, 2012), allowing important economic matters to be used as leverage in a political confrontation.

Once there has been time for a full analysis to be made available, the main point of concern will be where the cost of reductions and cuts will fall (Robinson, 2012). The way money is being moved around in the budget is reminiscent of a game of musical chairs. The worry for many is who will be left without a chair when the music stops.

==========
References:
==========
+ Nick Robinson's 'Budget - for millions or for millionaires?'; on BBC; 21 March 2012.

+ Rafael Behr's 'The real reason Clegg saved the NHS bill'; in New Statesman; 22 March 2012.

+ Ian Pollock's 'Taxing the rich: Is it worth it?'; 16 March 2012.

+ Rafael Behr's 'Osborne took a risk on the 50p tax to escape the quad-wrangle'; in New Statesman; 22 March 2012.

Throwing Stones in Glass Houses

Last Wednesday's PMQs saw a clash of the deputies. In fact, so many deputies were on duty that the poor MP for Blackpool South couldn't keep track of who was or wasn't a deputy. In spite of this less than senior turnout, important issues were still raised.

Deputising for Labour leader Mr Ed Miliband, Ms Harriet Harman challenged the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg:

'For all the Right Hon. Gentleman’s bluster, the truth is that having five Liberal Democrats seated around the Cabinet table has made no difference whatsoever... and the Lib Dems are making no difference on unemployment, just as they are making no difference on the NHS.'

Those are sore issues for Liberal Democrat members. Up and down the country Lib Dem campaigners, councillors and candidates are trying to draw up responses to the difficult question that rises from that accusation - how can the party separate its achievements from the coalition to show its successes?

But what if we turn that question upon its head.

As per constitutional tradition, after the last election the Labour party was perfectly entitled to continue governing - either in minority or coalition government. But they chose to go to the opposition benches.

So it might also be asked of the Labour Party what it has accomplished in choosing the opposition benches.

That question holds many headaches for Labour - as many as Labour's questions cause the Lib Dems - because it's hard to come up with success stories. Senior figures in the party have been divided on the NHS, divided over the party's economic credibility (Whitehead, 2011), and the relations between the party and its Trade Union affiliates are souring by the day.

Since settling into opposition the party's aim has been on breaking the smaller of the coalition parties - however most of their attacks have been opportunistic and may very well backfire down the line.

Labour attempted to attack government housing policy as 'social cleansing', just to have it pointed out to them that it was Labour manifesto policy. The party successfully damaged Mr Clegg's reputation over tuition fees, yet in the long run will have to address the fact that the Labour party is intensely divided on that issue as well - with its main offered alternative being just another version of charging fees to students (Grice, 2010).

The Labour party is facing a number of serious problems, not least its lack of coherent agreed-upon policy. However they have been saved by the apparent unpopularity of the Conservative administration, its cuts program and the seeming public dissatisfaction with public officials handing over the reins of public services to the private sector.

Labour are winning the individual battles by using the bandwagon of the moment. Yet to win in the long haul they need to do more and reassure voters that they won't simply move into office and pick up where the coalition left off. This means taking the risk of having policy that can be scrutinised. But if Labour are to pick up seats against two governing parties - who will have, like them or not, policies successfully turned in action - it will be a necessity.

==========
References:
==========
+ Prime Minister's Question Time, 14 March 2011.

+ Decca Whitehead's 'Alistair Darling: "You can't just tell half the story and still be credible"'; in The Guardian; 8 September 2011.

+ Andrew Grice's 'Labour endorses graduate tax'; in The Independent; 12 November 2010.

Vince Cable: Inside Man?

The Liberal Democrats gathered this weekend for their Spring Conference at Gateshead. Central to the agenda has been the NHS bill and Baroness Shirley Williams' initial opposition to and then attempts to reform the bill (Boffey, 2012).

The strange position the Lib Dems have found themselves in, having one foot in government and one in opposition has raised once more a familiar debate: are the Liberal Democrats better off in or out of government?

Dr Vince Cable's in-house letter that caused a stir in the past month (for being openly critical of the government of which he is part) walks this line more finely than most.

Those familiar with Dr Cable will know that this is not the first time - his first major act of defiance, in opposing Murdoch before it was cool - lost him a part of his ministerial responsibilities but succeeded in breaking down the walls of silence around News International.

But how effective is his method?

Compare Dr Cable's movements, as Lib Dem slogan goes: 'in government on your side', with those of Baroness Williams. The Lib Dem peer has long led opposition to the NHS Bill from the House of Lords and in doing so has succeeded in reforming much of the bill through a number of concessions.

Still further compare to the efforts of the Party Leader & Deputy Prime Minister Mr Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg has risked serious damage to both his own and to his party's chances of future re-elections by collaborating in government with the Tories.

All three have achieved successes from their stances. But always at a price. Clegg came under fire for planning ahead, deciding in advance which policies to drop in order to get into a coalition (Watt, 2010). Baroness Williams is now under fire for being willing to accept the concessions she has fought for on the NHS Bill (Wintour, 2012). It seems Dr Cable is the only one who has persistently escaped major ramifications - with even the Sky News takeover he sought to block failing in spite of his responsibility over those matters being withdrawn.

Does this mean Dr Cable's method - the insider rebel - is the most effective?

The answer to that question is directly related to the answer of another. Do we use the ends to justify our means, or is the value of the end result directly created by methods we use?

It is the question that lies behind every decision made by the Liberal Democrats since the beginning of their general election campaign.

It is the question that divides opinions within the party and amongst its supporters.

Do the Liberal Democrats give up ground, cooperate and collaborate to make small gains in government or do they withdraw from government and enjoy greater freedom to stand firm and back big decisions only when it is expedient to do so?

==========
References:
==========
+ Daniel Boffey's 'Shirley Williams attacks critics over health bill at Lib Dem conference'; in The Guardian; 10 March 2012.

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge' in The Guardian; 12 November 2010.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'How Nick Clegg and Shirley Williams lost the great NHS debate'; in The Guardian; 11 March 2012.

The Misanthropic Us

While Americans were witnessing the rise of 'Yes We Can', Europe has been coping with a growing misanthropy. Is this something to worry about?

"When I gave the interview for Hard Talk yesterday the guy, Sackur, who is a bright guy, not just another sucker, he told me: But you are basically misanthropic. I told him: Yes! And they praise the British nation. You know very well that there is a certain type of misanthropy which is much better as a social attitude than this cheap, charitable optimism, and so on."
Slavoj Zizek, RSA - First as Tragedy then as Farce

Rather than misanthropy being an anti-social force, Zizek presents it as playing a positive role in a society - acting akin to scepticism in keeping our assessments of human potential well grounded.

So maybe we have a need to redefine this disaffection - not so much misanthropy, or hatred, but rather an aversion?

"Whenever I tell people I'm a misanthrope they react as though that's a bad thing, the idiots. I live in London, for God's sake. Have you walked down Oxford Street recently? Misanthropy's the only thing that gets you through it. It's not a personality flaw, it's a skill."
Charlie Brooker, Screen Burn

However, misanthropy as an aversion ignores the role it plays within social groups. In fact it appears to, as David O'Doherty suggests, 'lower your expectations'. In doing so it serves to help you fit in better with, rather than drive you away from, people.

If that's the case, then maybe the cultural misanthropy that Europe is going through is just one scene in an ongoing drama. A drama in which the people of Europe are trying to adjust to an uncertain place in the modern world - and this misanthropy serves to realign our expectations of people in difficult times.