Author Archives: David Hall-Matthews

Speech to Special Conference debate

On Friday 7 May, without pausing for sleep, the Social Liberal Forum started lobbying for a Progressive Alliance – or, failing that, for a Grand Alliance of all parties. It was soon clear that that was what the vast majority of Liberal Democrat members and supporters would have liked. And what the majority of Lib Dem MPs would have preferred.

So, naturally, many of us were disconcerted and disappointed by the outcome. How could we end up sleeping with the enemy? Should we blame Nick Clegg? Should we blame our negotiating team? I say, Balls! Ed Balls, that is, the new Old Labour dinosaur who, in particular, refused to offer a single meaningful thing during our talks with Labour. Not even AV, which was in their manifesto. Do they understand what negotiation is? Heaven help the country if he is their next leader.

Perhaps if we had called for an all party coalition, Labour’s cowardice would have been more public. Not just unfit to govern, but unwilling to try to govern when the going got tough. We need to work overtime to make it clear to voters and the media that they gave us no choice.

While Labour ran away, the real progressive party in British politics was willing to go into the lions’ den and fight for justice where it matters: in government. Where Liberal Democrat ministers can argue for fairness and social justice directly against those who seek to curtail them. Where Liberal Democrat ministers can deliver progressive outcomes. Not everything that we’d like to. But real, significant change.

The Social Liberal Forum called in particular for Lib Dems in coalition to insist on four things:

  • Policies to narrow, not widen, the gap between rich and poor – especially in relation to tax policy.
  • No cuts to frontline public services or social spending this year.
  • Better treatment of asylum seekers.
  • And no dilution of the Human Rights Act.

So far the agreement with the Tories doesn’t breach these. But we’ll be watching.

There seem to me to be three kinds of anxiety about this coalition. First that we’ll be swallowed up by the Tories. I just don’t buy it. Our government members are Liberals – they won’t become Tories overnight. I’m willing to trust them to fight from the inside on the key issues. To achieve Liberal goals and prove that coalition works, making the case for proportional representation even more unanswerable.

Second, annoyance that we have made some compromises and sacrificed some particular policies. But do we really want to be a party of purists who actively shun the chance to influence things? Sorry – I believe in PR, which means I believe in consensus politics, which means I believe in compromise, even if it means holding your nose. If you’re only willing to go one way, you won’t be taken seriously in negotiations.

Then there’s concern about outcomes. That’s legitimate. Liberal Democrats will be judged on what we do in government – and so we should be. If we don’t deliver progressive change for Britain, we’ll be punished at the polls. But before that, the Social Liberal Forum will be banging on the door, holding our people to account – as they hold the Tories to account. So come and join us and let’s all work together to make Britain better.

No tax rises ever? Say it ain’t so, Nick!

David Hall-Matthews’ speech on Motion “Growth that lasts: A fair, green and sustainable economy.”

Conference, I am speaking in favour of lines 22-23: “a fair and sustainable economy means delivering growth that lasts, through… honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit and put the public finances back in order without damaging vital public services.”

I couldn’t agree more. This is at the heart of how will distinguish ourselves from Labour and the Conservatives during the election.

What I would ask for though, is a little more clarity and demonstration of honesty about what those tough choices will be.

First, how quickly will we try to reduce the deficit? Nobody is saying that we don’t have to take serious steps to address it. Of course we do. But we don’t need to prioritise it over our long term sustainability, services and welfare provision.

I’m an economic historian. If you take a long view, this crisis is not unprecedented, as some politicians will tell you. Britain has had acute public sector deficits before. So have most countries. So we can take a look at what strategies have been tried before and what has worked. The most effective governments have been those that have eased deficits down gradually while still investing in the economy. It does not work to cut and slash at the deficit and public services into the bargain.

Those of you who were at the Q&A with Nick Clegg yesterday will know that I asked him whether the Lib Dem strategy is to try and reduce the deficit within one parliament or, more responsibly, over two or even three. I didn’t get an answer then, so I’m asking again.

Second, we need to be clear that a sensible way to attack the deficit must be a full package of measures, not just cuts. We mustn’t rule out the option of tax rises.

There are a lot of journalists here today. I don’t think they’ve come to listen to me. They want to know what Nick will say in his speech. These journalists have been busy this week, haven’t they? One of them wrote that Nick had told them that he ruled out tax rises – that spending cuts were our only policy in relation to the deficit.

I gather that the official line on this is that he “misspoke” – which means he said it but he didn’t mean it. I appeal to you Nick: say it isn’t so!

It’s not too late. I’m sure the speech is already written. I’m not a journalist and certainly not one of Nick’s speechwriters, so I haven’t seen it. But those same journalists will be sitting in here in an hour or so, probably in the back row, with copies of the script on their laps. When Nick speaks, they’ll cross out every word in it that he doesn’t say, and add in anything he does say that isn’t there.

So please, Nick, give them something to write in: “Lib Dems don’t rule out future tax increases, because we will never do anything to harm vital public services.”

David Hall-Matthews is the Chair of the Social Liberal Forum.