Social Liberal Forum

The day after tomorrow, European leaders are due to sit down together at a hastily arranged informal summit, called by the EU president Herman Van Rompuy to discuss the question of the times: How do we create growth?

One of only three items on the agenda is the Financial Transactions Tax. Better known now as the Robin Hood Tax this is the proposal for a small tax on a wide range of financial transactions – mostly taking place between financial institutions. Estimated to be worth billions in extra revenue, the tax has the support of more than 1,000 economists, Bill Gates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. A good idea? Well, a call for a global tax was in our last manifesto.

The social arguments for the tax are strong: extra revenue from the banks which caused the crisis could be used to ease the pain of those who did the least to cause it – in the UK, people on low incomes – as well as ensuring we can continue financing development and the fight against climate change internationally. But the argument against (coming often from the financial sector, the Conservative party, but more disappointingly now repeated by former supporters among Lib Dem ministers) has been that it will hurt growth, forcing financial institutions overseas just when we need them to help us out of the recession.

One reason for disappointment about lack of UK Government support for the Robin Hood Tax is that it would be so popular with voters in the UK whose opinion of banks has scarcely improved since the financial crash. An April 2012 IpsosMORI poll shows that more than three quarters of the UK public do not think the Government has done enough to ensure we are “all in this together” with a large majority saying that banks and the richest have not been asked to make a fair contribution.

Another is that the UK already has a unilateral tax on share transactions that raises £3 billion every year. So the argument that “it has to be global to work” seems a little odd coming from the UK.

It is true that popular policies are unlikely to retain the public’s support if they damage the economy.

But the truth is that an FTT is not only the popular, morally right thing to do. It makes economic sense too. Figures from the European Commission’s latest impact assessment picked up merkel-financial-transaction-tax ” target=”blank”>by Larry Elliot in the Guardian show two things.

Firstly that simply implementing the tax will have an almost negligible effect on growth – perhaps reducing it by just 0.2% by 2050, that’s just 0.004% per year. And secondly, that growth could actually be enhanced by up to 0.4% were some of the revenues from the tax invested in high growth sectors of the economy.

Furthermore, as Larry Elliot also points out “the likely reduction in high-frequency trading would lead to greater financial stability and thus a more favourable climate for sustained growth.”

We should not get too excited about these numbers – they are small on both sides. An FTT is clearly not the sole answer for growth – but crucially it is not harmful to growth either. And whilst we wait for EU leaders, including the UK, to figure out what the answer is – an FTT could ensure that the poorest home and abroad are not paying the price for the failure of the banks.

Despite a strong showing in some held councils, Liberal Democrats are today reflecting on another bitterly disappointing set of local election results with the number of Lib Dem councillors likely to fall below 3000 for the first time ever.

It is a travesty that so many excellent councillors and campaigners will no longer be able to serve the communities that they have represented with such distinction.

The results emphasise that the party is struggling to set out a distinctive vision for how Liberal Democrats in government are working to bring about an economic recovery and enhance social justice.

Since the formation of the Coalition the Social Liberal Forum has called for the party leadership to make it known how we differ from the Conservatives, by publicly calling for policies that will increase social justice and promote jobs.

We need to make it clear that we do not agree with many Conservative policies, and are arguing against them in government, by offering fairer alternatives. Liberal Democrats need to explain much more clearly why the government is better for having us in it.

The strategy of demonstrating that we are loyal has not proved effective. It is time to switch to the approach the SLF has always advocated: demonstrating that we are radical, progressive and independent.

With our traditionally strong local government base being further eroded, the party has to recognise that to defend our record in power in the run up to the 2015 general election we must address voters’ concerns over the party’s direction of travel and play our role in coalition with greater clarity and distinctiveness.

Initial reports that the Government wants to change how private communications data can be stored and accessed have rightly caused great concern, not least amongst Liberal Democrat activists and Parliamentarians who all seek to safeguard civil liberties from erosion by state surveillance. Although details of the proposals are scant, they were rumoured to include, amongst other illiberal measures, the ‘real-time’ (i.e. without a warrant) monitoring of with whom and how often people communicated online. As such these plans would have clearly violated both Lib Dem party policy passed just weeks ago, and both the letter and spirit of the Coalition Agreement that states “We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.”

Lib Dem MPs, led by Julian Huppert, have called for any such plans to be subject to proper Parliamentary scrutiny; it now appears that this will be the case, with Deputy Prime Minister acknowledging ‘draft clauses’ will be published at the time of the Queen’s Speech, to be followed by Parliamentary hearings.

This is welcome, but there remain serious concerns about extending the State’s power to monitor online communications. Reassurances that the ‘content’ of such messages could still only be accessed with a warrant are unlikely to prove adequate if other data regarding such messages is stored and accessed without appropriate safeguards and in real-time.

In addition to the technical aspects of any reform, an important matter of liberal principle arises. Any furthering of the already-extensive powers to interrogate peoples’ communication, especially in the absence of proper oversight, would constitute an ineffective and illiberal intrusion of our civil liberties and as such are unacceptable to Liberal Democrats and the wider public. The party in united on this; we cannot support measures that violate this principle, and must seek to implement the Coalition Agreement’s strengthening of the safeguards to our civil liberties rather than seek to dilute them.