Liberal Democrat integrity: a chance for redemption.

Britain's Export Credit Guarantees Department (ECGD) has long been notorious for underwriting loans to some of the dodgiest regimes in the world to enable them to buy our arms and thus keep our highly subsidised arms industry in business.  Even when the regimes which bought the arms are overthrown their long suffering public are still lumbered with paying off the loans clocked up by their governments in order to to repress them.

The Jubilee Debt Campaign, of which I am an enthusiastic member, points out that Liberal Democrat policy in 2010 was "to conduct our own audit of all existing  government and commercial debts, ruling invalid  any past lending that was recklessly given to dictators."

The responsible minister for the ECGD (now renamed UK Export Finance) is none other than our own Vince Cable, who now says "The government has no plans  to conduct an audit  of debts owed to UK Export Finance."

This boroken promise will not resonate with the British electorate as strongly as that on student fees.  But in terms of human suffering it will have far more serious consequences.

Please join in Jubilee Debt's Campaign (details here) to hold Liberal Democrats in government to our promise and do something to redeem our reputation.

No point in a centre party.

Nick Clegg seems fond of anchoring the Liberal Democrats firmly in "the centre."  It's true that some  voters, and possibly focus groups, speculate vaguely about a non-extremist party that somehow contains the best of the others without the worst bits.  But on serious examination such centre ground, if it does exist, is not an ideal place for a party to position itself, and certainly not one to enthuse its activists.  

In effect anchoring ourselves to "the centre"  allows our opponents to define us, and there is a sense in which this has happened.  As neocon "market forces rule OK" economics has become fashionable, adopted by the Tories and imitated by New labour, we have allowed ourselves to be over-influenced by our "Orange Book" tendency and followed suit. How much better, and today more relevant, had we stuck to our Keynesian and Beveridgean credentials.

In a recent, but unpublished, letter to the Guardian my friend Michael Meadowcroft, wrote:

"The mythical 'centre-ground' simply does not exist. It is a mirage that parties regular chase after in vain. If it is intended to denote some gap between two major parties purporting to be on the Left and Right then it has the deeply unattractive attribute of depending entirely on how those parties shift around day by day. No self-respecting party should ever abdicate defining its political position for itself.

"There is, however, a much more formidable reason for rejecting any concept of a 'centre' position. The whole idea of 'Left' and 'Right' comes to us from the seating arrangements of the French revolutionary assembly and has only ever defined attitudes to economic control. Liberals historically have always rejected this as being a highly partial and inhuman definition of the kind of society we want.

In a letter which was published (19 September) Michael spelt out  succinctly what we're all about (and why Labour is not a suitable vehicle for our beliefes.)

"Labour has always been economically determinist, centralist and hegemonic. Political liberalism is precisely the opposite, supporting human values, devolution and pluralism." (my emphsis)

How I wish our leaders would take notice.

Loss, not profit, from the Lloyds Bank sell-off

By flogging off Lloyds Bank shares at 75p when,  in the 2008 rescue, it bought them at 73.6p the government claims to have made a profit for the tax payer of nearly £60m (actually, by long multiplication, since my calculator batter has run out, £58.8m)

However, since 2008 there has been inflation, not as much as in some five year periods but certainly some, and certainly more than wages have risen.  A useful site http://www.whatsthecost.com/cpi.aspx tells me that, after accounting for inflation, the present value of the 73.6p today is 83.4p.  In other words those shares, at 75p,  have been sold off at a loss of 8.4p per share.  Since 4.2 billion shares were sold, that's a real loss to the government /taxpayer of £352.8m.

This calculation is not rocket science so why aren't the media screaming that Osborne is lying and we, the public, are being robbed.

What's more, though perhaps not quite as costly to the public purse, the Chief Executive of Lloyds, Mr Antonio Horta-Osoria,  stands to collect a bonus of more that £2.2m if the shares stay above the 73.6p value paid in 2008, rather than the present value of 83.4p.  Those who make these contracts certainly know how to write them in favour of the "haves."

Wave Power, but not ruled by Britannia

In an earlier post I've argued that it would be far more sensible to develop methods of harnessing our island's abundant wave power rather than  dump future generations with the problem of disposing of dangerous nuclear waste.  Happily, wave power is not being entirely ignored.  A company called MeyGen is to launch a project involving six underwater turbines in the Pentland Firth, where, apparently, the tides are particularly vigorous.

Sadly, British entrepreneurship is curiously absent from the project: MeyGem is jointly owned by the US investment bank Morgan Stanley, the French energy company GDF Suez S A and the Australian Atlantis Resources Corporation.

So where are all those British entrepreneural go-getters, freed by Osborne from so much red tape, loaded with low interest and easy to come by credit, and anxious to fill the space no longer crowded by the unenterprising  the state? 

Has the Liberal Democrat leadership got a death wish?

We Liberal Democrats have been praised in the media for being the only one of the three main parties which permits real debate at our conference.Well yes, but I suspect some of the the votes on these debates are based as much on sheeplike support for the leadership, with many a glance over the shoulder at a press eager to proclaim the leader's humiliation, as on the strengthen of the arguments.

I wasn't at this morning's debate on the economy so can't assess the strengths of the arguments, but I strongly suspect many of the votes in favour of the motion were in support of the leader rather than the policy.  Indeed it is, I understand, unprecedented, for the leader to lay his reputation on the line by personally summing up the debate.  Oh that he had followed Vince Cable's clear advice that there was no reason why the (very mild) Social Liberal Forum amendment could not be accepted.  Instead Nick Clegg chose confrontation and poor Vince, along with the a majority of the conference, was bullied into voting to support Osbornomics.

I apologise for being repetitive, because the truth of the economic situation, supported by a galaxy of distinguished economists,  has been hammered away at  in this blog since its inception, but, here it is again:

1.  The economic crisis was caused by the irresponsible activities of the financial sector, made possible by the deregulation introduced by the Tories.  Labour happened to be in charge when the crash came but to say they caused it is a triumph of "perception management."  True Labour did too little to rein in the financial sector, but the Tories were actually calling for  more deregulation and, apart from a few shots from Cable about debt (I think he was referring to the private rather than public sector debt), nothing much was being said by Liberal Democrats.   No one that I'm aware of had the courage to speak up for killing the goose which appeared to be laying endless golden eggs

2. The UK's public debt was not and is not at unprecedented and dangerous levels.  For the first several years the Labour government ran a current surplus and paid off much of the national debt still left behind after  18 years of Tory rule.  When the crash came the debt:GDP ratio was modest, and even when Labour left office was nowhere near dangerous levels.  We never were in a position comparable with that of Greece.  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories seized on the misplaced  perception that we were  in order to implement their ideology of rolling back the state.  It is distressing that our people in government went along with this, and after this morning's vote it can be claimed that the party does to.

3.  The economy was in recovery when Labour left office.  Osborne's policies (particularly the raising of VAT) reversed this progress and have caused three unnecessary years of stagnation.  We must hope for the sake of the 20% of our people who have suffered most that the trend continues, but it does seem to have foundations based on sand: the seeds of another  housing bubble, yet more personal debt, and very unevenly distributed (ie mostly in London and the South East.)

Nuclear Power Staions: Liberal Democrat core vote receives another blow.ow.

Apparently our conference has decided to turn turtle and come out in favour of building more nuclear power stations.  The approval is hedged around with conditions.  A close eye is to be kept on costs and they are not to receive public subsidy. Ha!  Arthur Scargill, the "wicked" Miners' Leader, pointed out thirty years ago that if the coal industry received the same level of subsidy as the nuclear industry miners  could deliver coal to the power stations for free.

I do not claim to be well informed on this issue, and I didn't hear the debate so there may be points I'm missing,  but it does seem to me that, until an effective method of disposing harmlessly of the nuclear waste generated by these power stations, then projects should be limited to small scale experiments.

Right wingers are for ever obsessing about not bequeathing mountains of national  debt to future generations (that is to misunderstand the nature of national debt, but that's another matter):  they don't seem worried at all about bequeathing mountains of nuclear waste to their children and grandchildren, with, as yet, no known effective ways of neutralising it.

This Liberal Democrat decision further reduces the choice available to the electorate, and is particularly damaging to those activists and core voters who have supported us as the Greenest of the major parties.

One final puzzle: why, as a small island surrounded by seas, in which the tides come in and out relentlessly twice a day (and four times in the Solent, if my recollections of Percy F Westerman's sea cadet stories are correct)   are we not world experts on harnessing tidal power? That would be something worth subsidising and bequeathing to the next generation.

An Epitaph for Osbornomics

George Osborne claimed that his policies would rebalance our economy, away from services and towards manufacturing.

Herewith the evidence for the past twelve months:

• Estate agent jobs:   + 77 000

• Manufacturing jobs: -14 000

You couldn't make it up.