What is ring-fencing in LibDem land?
James Forsyth 12:41pmOn Sunday, on the Politics Show Vince Cable said that David Laws had been wrong to say on Newsnight that the health and international developments budgets were ringfenced. But the Lib Dem manifesto says the Libs Dems will, ‘Increase the UK’s aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7 percent of GNI by 2013.’ This seemed contradictory to me so I called the Lib Dem press office who told me that you can ‘not ringfence a Budget but still increase it' which left me even more confused about what the Lib Dem position on the DFID budget actually is: will it go up or down?
Previous
Simon Birtwistle
April 14th, 2010 1:01pm Report this commentThe explanation is simple - if the Lib Dems get in GDP will decline at such a rate they will be able to decrease spending at DFID and still hit the target.
You heard it here first...
pete-s
April 14th, 2010 1:56pm Report this commentWith a £1.4T debt, there is only one charity country I would be interested in; the UK.
Richard of York
April 14th, 2010 2:06pm Report this commentDoes anyone care about the DFID?
Is this the best you cn do to attack the Liberals manifesto?....no wonder they are going to soak up all the free votes the tories need.
Get that stab vest ready Dave you are going to need it.
Ghengis
April 14th, 2010 2:10pm Report this commentThey are already planning to circumvent the wishes of the electorate in order that Parliament will continue to suit their requirements more than those of the citizens
Natasha
April 14th, 2010 2:11pm Report this commentI have to say I agree with the Lib Dem spokesman on this one. The manifesto sets out the party's commitments and priorities before it has taken office and had an opportunity to examine the books. It is therefore not a set of absolute commitments. But if you ring fence a budget, you make an absolute pledge that, irrespective of the fiscal position you inherit, you will increase or maintain spending at a given level.
It seems to me that the distinction is a valid one. The Tories are no different in practice.
Simon Stephenson
April 14th, 2010 2:15pm Report this commentWell James, what the LibDems ought to say is that the manifesto commitment is no firmer than an intention, and is certainly not a guarantee. Were the DFID budget correctly to be described as "ringfenced" there'd have to be a sense that it was immune from being tampered with irrespective of what happens between now and then.
I expect the LibDems, like Labour and the Conservatives, have made quite a number of manifesto spending commitments, the fulfilment of which relies both on an improbably rapid and vigorous return to economic growth, and on the international bond dealers falling asleep for 3 years. The reality is that it is likely that few, if any, of these commitments will be met, and it will go down worse in future if a party reneges on "ringfencing" than merely on a manifesto commitment.
Cuffleyburgers
April 14th, 2010 3:41pm Report this commentWell now richard of york that's a fairly inflammatory remark, I can appreciate you are intellectualy limited as you seem to be a socialist, but my advice to you would be to be very careful how you go around threatening the next PM with potentially lethal force...
Kind of lowers the tone of the debate; or in your case, mass-debate.
Nicholas
April 14th, 2010 5:23pm Report this commentInteresting that Richard the Dork supports the LibDems and New Labour when they are diametrically opposed on the subject of civil liberties. What can this mean? Surely not that it is just all about hating Tories? Surely not? Perhaps the Dork would care to comment on ID cards and where he stands on the issue - with the national socialists or with the LibDems?
Back to top