Toby Blume's reaction to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto

Third up in the election manifesto conveyor belt is the Liberal Democrats offering, which might be called ‘Four Steps to a Fairer Britain' or may have the utilitarian title ‘Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010'. 

The centrepiece of their manifesto is tax reform, with the aim of creating a fairer system. The Liberal Democrats will raise the income tax threshold, benefitting lower and middle income households but doing nothing for the poorest, who are below the income tax threshold or on benefits. This would be paid for by taxes which target the better off; a new Mansion Tax (on £2m+ properties) and capital gains (which they would raise to the same level as income tax). The Capital Gains change is interesting as this is the route that many private equity companies and other financial services companies use to minimise tax liabilities on major deals.

Mutuals and cooperatives are given significant support, (as in the Labour and Conservative manifestos) and communities or employees will be able to run renewable energy schemes, health services and schools. And to demonstrate that they are more mutual than either Labour or the Tories, the Lib Dems propose a Mutuals Minister and new legislation on Mutuals, Co-operatives and Social Enterprise . . . which with all these new cooperatives floating around may just be sensible.

As you would expect from the Lib Dems, there's plenty on electoral and political reform, with commitments to electoral reform, fixed term Parliaments, an elected House of Lords (all fairly similar to Labour) and a written constitution. And there now seems to be cross-party support for powers to recall recalcitrant MPs and trigger a by-election.

The Lib Dems' antidote to declining electoral turnout is to offer us even more voting opportunities, with elections for new Local Health Boards and directly elected police authorities. However the idea that more voting is the answer to less interest in voting seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Local Health Boards, which would replace Primary Care Trusts, would be given the freedom to commission services from different providers, including (you guessed it) cooperatives. And our newly elected police authorities would be able to have the power to sack Chief Constables and set local priorities and budgets. Neighbourhood Justice Panels would be used to give local people a say over what happens to ‘petty criminals and those who engage in anti-social behaviour'. I'm resisting the image this creates in my mind of mob-rule and public hangings, as I think it's probably a good idea in principle.

Like the other parties, a range of public bodies would be made more accountable and open, with National Parks and Network Rail singled out for attention.

Like Labour and the Tories they will restore the link between state pension and average earnings, maintain the current commitments to eradicate child poverty and offer support for more flexible working and family friendly employment. However, they go further in proposing ‘name-blind job application forms' and fair pay audits for companies with more than 100 employees. Labour and the Tories do both have references to closing the gender pay gap, though not of universal implementation for larger firms.

Another key measure to address inequality comes in the form of a £2.5bn commitment to a new ‘Pupil Premium' to help the most disadvantaged children. And there's also an interesting idea to look at universities taking the best performing students from the worst performing schools. A new ‘social tariff' will guarantee the best deals on gas and electricity for the poorest households.

The planning system would be more locally determined, with a third-party right of appeal where planning decisions go against local plans. And, like the Tories, the Infrastructure Planning Commission would be scrapped. Communities would be given new powers to protect important green space, with something similar to the ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest'. And a new local competition test will be introduced for all retail development planning applications, with a local competition office being established within the Office of Fair Trading.

An ‘independent regulator of Britain's food market' and a legal supermarket code, sounds broadly similar to Conservative and Labour plans for a Supermarket Ombudsman. Like the Tories, the Lib Dems also pledge their support for the Sustainable Communities Act.

The Lib Dems are the only major party to mention empty homes in their manifesto, pledging to bring 250,000 empty homes back into use, offering grants and loans for refurbishment and removing the current VAT inequality between new build and refurbishment. They should be applauded for recognising the damage empty homes have on communities and seeking to take action on this blight. Praise is also due for the support and protection offered to sports facilities and playing fields, with funding and planning reform.

The Lib Dems rightly highlight the importance of bank reform in rebuilding our economy, and they are the only party (of big three) advocating splitting up retail and investment banking to reduce risks to traditional banking services. A Banking Levy so banks ‘pay for the financial support they have received' will be introduced, at least until they have been broken up. This, and their encouragement for regional and local banks, is welcome, but I would like to know how they plan to encourage them. Their plans for a new Infrastructure Bank, to attract private investment to support energy and transport projects, sounds similar to the Green Investment Bank that Labour proposed in the Budget, and that is also in Tory manifesto.

They would reinstate the' Operating and Financial Review', which was apparently dropped in November 2005 (I must confess I'd never heard of it), requiring company directors to report on social and environmental performance. This certainly goes some way towards Better Banking's aim for greater disclosure of how companies (like banks) are meeting broader societal needs. There will be an ‘end to unfair bank charges' so people cannot be charged more than the cost incurred and there are steps to impose a cap on how much credit cards and store cards can charge. This is to be welcomed but, like the Tories, begs the question of why this would not be applied to other forms of lenders who target poor communities?

Diversity of financial service providers would be a new objective for the regulators, but I don't know how different this would be to the current talk about ‘competition' - aren't they more or less the same thing? If you don't have a range of providers, how can you have competition?

The Lib Dems' say they will ‘seek to turn Northern Rock into a building society', which is a slightly stronger form of words than Labour's commitment to explore it as an option. Then again, that could be simply a semantic difference as they both express the desire to do it if they can, with wriggle-room to back out. The Lib Dems are also signed up to delivering financial services through the Post Office, though they would separate Royal Mail from the Post Office network. They would keep the Post Offices in public ownership but raise money by selling of 49% of Royal Mail and sharing the remaining 51% between government and an employee trust. Whilst support for a mutualised Royal Mail has many benefits, this would presumably mean that the government of the day would no longer retain a controlling stake in the company (which I assumed was why they'd proposed selling only 49%). So if someone bought the 49%, they could, in fact, become the largest shareholder and make decisions that could only be overturned if the government and the employee trust were in agreement. I can't help thinking this one hasn't been thought through fully.

The voluntary sector gets a full paragraph and three policy commitments in the manifesto, including reform of Gift Aid and the way the National Lottery is taxed - a somewhat technical measure which they say will increase money for good causes and for the Treasury, which leaves me wondering who then loses out? Gift Aid will no longer offer a tax-break to higher-rate givers, which the Lib Dems say is a ‘loophole'. However, my understanding was that this was a deliberate incentive to encourage wealthier people to donate money to charity, and I hope it doesn't have a negative impact on philanthropy.

And finally . . . apparently the Lib Dems would allow us to register with any GP we like, regardless of where we live and give us a right to access our GPs via email. I suspect this latter point will mean there will be a very large ICT training bill down the line.