Autumn Statement gloom.....

I never look forward to George Osborne getting up on his feet in the House of Commons. It's not entirely his fault, and I do know that he's not getting to give the statement that he would like to because Liberal Democrats won't let him, but the economy is still incredibly fragile and there's every chance of a triple dip recession. 

We know that Osborne would love to taking Housing Benefit from under 25s, or restricting benefits to large families. He won't be doing these things because Nick Clegg has put his foot down. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to like everything Osborne is going to come out with. 

Stephen Williams MP emailed Lib Dem members last night and his message was one of compromise which smacked of us being prepared for things we don't like. Williams said:

I can’t yet reveal to you the contents of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.

But I do want to share with you the context in which the discussions around the statement have taken place.

Both parties in the Coalition agree that delivering a strong economy and growth is the top priority right now. 

We also agree that Britain needs to balance its books so we don’t saddle future generations with a debilitating national debt.

But it’s no secret that when it comes to balancing the books, the Liberal Democrats have different instincts to most Conservatives.

Let’s be clear, there will be some difficult decisions in tomorrow’s statement. That would be the case no matter which party was running the country right now.

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have been negotiating hard with David Cameron and George Osborne to get the best possible deal for ordinary families across Britain.

Tomorrow we will see the results of those negotiations and the compromises they reached in the Autumn Statement.

Our key objective was to ensure the burden of clearing up Labour’s mess is shared fairly. Everyone needs to make a fair contribution, and that must include the richest too.

Whether they have done enough remains to be seen. I really will be furious if benefits aren't raised in line with inflation, for example. I also want to see more measures put on the wealthiest, individuals and companies, to ensure that they pay their fair share.

While Williams' email unsettled me a bit, Tim Farron was a bit more reassuring when he spoke to BBC News this morning.

He talked about our "battle with the Tories" to make sure that those on the lowest incomes are protected. He said that the figures today weren't going to be  glorious but it was important not to over-react in either direction, demanding either deeper austerity or an end to austerity. He said that economically the things that matter moving, if slowly, in the right direction in that we have low interest rates and falling unemployment.

He said there was a need for demand led measures which matter to people - like building schools, and he hoped to see some today. That's been trailed in the media so I suspect that he's on a safe bet there. I doubt he'd allude to something that definitely wasn't going to happen. Tim does not like to disappoint.

We'll know in an hour or so exactly what we're looking at. I'm not expecting to hear anything that lifts my mood, though.

Labour put down amendment which would have given Tories tax cut for richest they wanted - and which Lib Dems stopped

I realise that Parliamentary shenanigans and point scoring isn't everybody's cup of tea, but it's worth pointing out that Labour today squandered a relatively good position going into the first PMQs of the new Parliamentary term. Ed Miliband had an open goal ahead of him given controversy over the pensioners' tax allowance,  "pasty tax" and charity tax relief yet he and his strategists still managed to misunderstand parliamentary procedure to a ludicrous extent. He's just lucky that more excitable members of the Tory benches didn't take their chance to have some fun. 

Miliband looked not to Labour big hitters of the past for inspiration, but to a tv political satire. He could have pulled words from Barbara Castle or Michael Foot or Tony Blair. Instead, he pulled them from foul mouthed spin doctor Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It, describing the Government's recent performance as an omnishambles. It's not been the best, for sure, but Labour have singularly failed to capitalise on the Coalition's woes.

Since the Budget, Labour have squealed long and loud about how wicked the Coalition is, particularly on cutting the 50p tax rate to 45p. They had the chance to vote against it in March, indeed Ed Balls promised they would, but, as Mark Pack's handy infographic shows, not one of them did. 

They had another go today, but they put in an amendment which, if it had passed, would have set the top rate of tax at 40p. This, bizarrely, would have been exactly what the Tories wanted all along, and which Liberal Democrat ministers stopped. In fact, Osborne only got to cut the rate to 45p because Liberal Democrats insisted  taxes were raised on the wealthy which would bring in 5 times the saving.

Let me explain. The Finance Bill clauses put forward by the Government were as follows:

Clause 1 – Income tax
Charge for 2012-13 and rates for 2012-13 and subsequent tax years
(1) Income tax is charged for the tax year 2012-13, and for that tax year.
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 50%.

 (2) For the tax year 2013-14.
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.

The Labour amendment was to delete 2(c) which, if passed, would have left us with no additional rate. What they should have done was to put in an amendment deleting Paragraph 2 in its entirely meaning the tax rates for 2013-14 would have had to be discussed at a later date.

The Government won the vote comfortably, by 67 votes, but what would have happened if a few of our more mercurial right wing Tory friends had decided to vote with Labour to abolish the 45p rate?  The Labour front bench would have been drowning in egg yolk.

That wasn't Labour's only mistake of the day. Their promised amendment on tax reliefs didn't even make it into the debate.

If they can't get the basic parliamentary procedure right in opposition, what chance have they in Government? They've been calling the Government incompetent, but this display hardly inspires confidence.

The Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Treasury Committee, Stephen Williams, had this to say about the day's events:

“It is worrying that the two Eds don’t understand the fundamental principles of our tax system, despite having worked in the Treasury for many years as Gordon Brown’s backroom boys. 

“It took them 13 years to introduce a 50p rate and then they only did so shortly before a general election. Now that the local elections are coming up, suddenly they care about it again and put down ill-thought through amendments that remove the top rate altogether.

 “Labour’s biggest tax change was to remove the 10p tax rate hitting people on low and middle incomes while Liberal Democrats are giving nearly 25m basic-rate tax payers an Income Tax cut and have lifted more than a million people out of paying Income Tax altogether. At the same time, we’re making the rich pay their fair share by cracking down on loopholes and excessive tax relief.

Jo Swinson and Stephen Williams show what Liberal Democrats are for

Remember the other day I was having a wee moment of despair that our MPs, while not putting a foot wrong and being eminently sensible, weren't really getting across our values in the aftermath of the riots.

Well, two of them did. Unfortunately Jo Swinson wasn't called to speak in the debate in Parliament, but she's published the speech she would have given over on Liberal Democrat Voice. I was really impressed by her passionate defence of young people, and her demonstration that social networking was actually a force for good during the riots and that we should be careful about restricting it. Here's just a snippet.

Of course many of these initiatives have been taken by young people, in a positive counter to the media image of teen rioters out of control.

Young and old. Black, white & Asian. Muslim, Christians, Sikhs… all races, religions and communities have united in a strong display not only of condemnation, but willingness to help and do their bit.

This generosity, determination, courage, hard work, and the spontaneous acts of kindness – this is more reflective of true British society.

This is the reason to be positive about UK society – this is the powerful alternative to hate and destruction.

The Independent had a characteristically thoughtful piece by Camila Batmanghelidjh of Kids’ Company, who has more experience of helping to turn around the lives of our most marginalised young people than almost anyone else.

Those who committed these crimes must be brought to justice and face the consequences of their actions, the force of the law.

And in the long term, the challenge for us all, is that we do not write these people off. While serving their sentence for what they have done, we also need to help them to rehabilitate, to learn to value and contribute positively to our communities, and see for themselves the pointlessness of destroying them.

I'd already mentioned Stephen Williams' question to the PM, but he has written about it in more detail on his blog. His basic point is that we should expect those at the top end of the social scale, the wealthy and famous, who have all the privileges that life can offer to be good role models too.

If people at the bottom of the social pile are to be exhorted to behave and conform then that message should ring loud and clear in the ears of the social elites too.  At this time everyone should take a good look at themselves and ask whether they are a contributor or a drain on society.  Do we set an example that would be good for others to follow?  Do we take responsibility or do we act with impunity?

I like the fact that Stephen brought to the debate that the lavish and selfish behaviour of the rich can be damaging and destructive. Definite food for thought and no room for complacency in any of us, I think.

An integral part of Liberal Democrat DNA is a positive belief in human nature and the capacity of human beings to change and develop positively in the right circumstances. It was good to see Jo give so many good examples of how people were coming together and not just to concentrate on the negative. Her emphasis on restorative justice was also exactly what was needed.

This is the sort of thing I want to see and hear more of from our MPs and ministers.

Share and share alike? My reservations about Stephen Williams' bank share giveaway plan

Ok, I'm going to write about something I know very little about. I will ignore the shouts of "what's new?" I can hear in the distance.

Today liberal think tank Centre Forum has published a plan by Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, which would involve shares in the banks bailed out by the taxpayer being distributed free of charge to British people for them to do what they liked with.

My gut instinct is to be opposed to it. Not because it isn't a good idea to give ordinary people a say in how businesses are run. Part of the argument for doing so is that ordinary people would have a say in how the banks were run. That'll be like they have a real say in how privatised utilities are run, then. I'm not aware of any of the privatised utility companies being particularly people centred in their approach, and in reality, they are mainly owned by corporate, rather than individual shareholders. The likelihood of you or I ever being able to influence the banks' future strategy is pretty minimal.

Industrial democracy has long been a key part of liberal thinking, and rightly so, but I'm not sure the time is right for this scheme. We own £65.8 billion of the banks. The country's deficit is £155 billion - with some of that being the money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Are we not better off as a country selling the shares in the banks and using the proceeds to pay back our loans or to provide better public services for those who need them? It seems to me to be almost rude to be talking about giving shares to people when they're seeing their Councils cutting services they rely on or central government cutting benefits they desperately need.

I think I understand the thinking - wanting to give people a stake in the banks they bailed out and giving a small investment or windfall. But surely the industry's problems are more effectively solved by regulating the banks that matter to ordinary people within an inch of their lives. The idea that we as shareholders would all turn up and vote against massive bonuses isn't credible to me.  It just seems that we have more important and pressing things to do with public money than give away to individuals what could be used to provide better services for us all.

What do you think?