Search

Answered by Jo Swinson

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by William Hague

The main reason for saying ‘No’ to Lisbon is that it damages democratic accountability across a range of key issues.

The Lisbon Treaty, like its earlier guise as the EU Constitution, would significantly increase the EU’s power over foreign, asylum and immigration policy and criminal justice. It would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, whose ultimate effect would be that we would see more judge-made law from the European Court of Justice.

All this would end up meaning that more and more decisions that affect your and your family’s safety and freedom – the issues that you succinctly identify as among the basics for any voter’s rational political choices – would be made not by elected politicians here in Britain but at the EU level, partly by institutions that are not elected, like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

So whether voters here thought they were wise or foolish decisions they would be increasingly unable to do anything about it. And those of us who would like to be in a position to do what’s best for the British people, and be held to account for it, would find that our hands were bound by putting the EU in charge in areas where, I believe, action is best left to national governments.

The Treaty would also have an effect which would, over time, make all of us less wealthy: one of the EU’s great successes has been in enforcing free and fair competition across the EU.

That has made all of Europe’s economies more competitive and more productive and thus generate more wealth.

However, Lisbon downgrades the importance of free competition under EU law to allow for more national protectionism. Protectionism never works in the long term and this is a foolish move when globalisation means that we have not only to compete against our neighbours but earn our keep in a worldwide economy.

Answered by James Purnell

We know that juggling work with bringing up children can be hard and we also know that for many people going back to work is a daunting prospect and not something that is taken lightly.

That's why we want to give parents some extra help to get into work once their youngest child reaches seven. We also want to offer more support and advice, so parents can build up their skills and confidence to prepare for and find a job.

This means once their children reach five, our advisers will offer lone parents a "skills health check", to identify where they may need specific training and education to ease their eventual path in work.

But it’s more than just this. Clearly we also need to change the culture around work in our country, in both private and public sectors. We can do quite a lot through legislation, but that can't solve the whole problem. It's also going to be down to companies and employees and what they can do.

So, probably the biggest thing we've done in this area is to introduce the right to request flexible working. There was a lot of scepticism about this at first. Some said employers would just say no - but it turned out that 90% of employers agree all the requests that are made.

This right only applied to younger children initially. But it's worked so well that we've extended it to people caring for relatives and we're now going to also include parents with children up to 16.

Ultimately, however we need to make sure people have jobs to go to, as you rightly point out. That’s why we’ve embarked on something called Local Employment Partnerships, where over 2,000 employers have agreed with us to look to give jobs to people from disadvantaged groups, and in return we offer help such as pre-employment training or work placements, so people can prove themselves and try out the job in question.

Answered by Lynne Featherstone

I think it's a bit of a myth that taking "politics" out a difficult situation will lead to a better solution.  As a Liberal Democrat I do believe more in consensus and political systems that force compromise.  But, and this is a big but, you can have as many pragmatic quango councils as you like, but they will amount to nothing until someone has the courage of conviction to follow it through.  The New Deal and the setting up of the State Pension are good example where politicians have succeed in making difficult long term decisions in very political situations.  The government ignores the plight of pensioners struggling with bumper rise in energy and food at its own peril.  I have little doubt people will not be backwards in coming forwards when it comes to the ballot box and punishing anyone who fails to respond to their needs.

Answered by John Redwood

The public consensus is that there are too many rules and regulations coming from Brussels, and the European Union has too much control over our lives. There is no public support for the Lisbon Treaty. A "yes" vote is a false hypothesis. The Conservative Party will respect the result of any referendum, and thinks the Labour Party is denying us one because it knows it would lose badly

Answered by James Purnell

Let's be clear, drugs ruin people’s lives and we should do all we can to get people who are hooked on drugs to kick their habit. Our plan is to make identification of problem drug use a part of the new claim process for benefits. For those claiming the main unemployment benefit, JSA, we will strengthen guidance for advisers to help them to identify claimants who may be dependent on heroin or crack cocaine. Those identified will then be required to see a drug treatment provider. We also propose to share information between Jobcentre Plus and the police, probation services and prisons.

Answered by Lynne Featherstone

Thanks for your question evenhand. My decision to campaign on getting decent foot care for the elderly initially came from casework, but as I have spent a lot of time locally visiting old people's homes this summer, I see that this is an issue that affect so many people, and is quite easy to rectify. But despite this, basic foot care is not widely available. It's outrageous and it matters to people, so it matters to me. And Lib Dems I think are particularly good at acting on and caring about these local issues. I think the best way to show you what I mean is to have a look at some fellow Lib Dem MPs websites, and in particular the news section:  http://www.vincentcable.org.uk/   http://www.susankramer.org.uk  http://www.tauntonlibdems.org.uk/newslist.php
http://www.juliagoldsworthy.org .

Answered by Lynne Featherstone

The Lib Dems have a number of recent proposals to deal with the current financial crisis, which would more or less directly impact on students.  One that is especially relevant is the push for the differential minimum wage to be abolished (where the pay rate of 16 and 17 year olds is lower than for the 18+), and this will help young people who want a bit more money in their pocket.

From a more general point of view the Lib Dems are pushing for a number of proposals that will help all segments of society, including students. One suggestion is to increased regulation of the banks- ranging from curbing the bonus culture to increasing regulations of certain institutions, like hedge funds, that are not currently under a particularly high levels of scrutiny.

Another Lib Dem proposal is that house prices should be included when setting interest rates to manage inflation. We are also pushing for an energy windfall tax, whereby energy companies would be taxed on their £9 bn profit made from the emissions trading scheme through reduced energy bills. To deal with fuel poverty, we would push for a wider roll-out of social tariffs to over two million vulnerable customers. With regards to unemployment, the Lib Dems would institute personalised help that would suit job seekers’ individual needs.

We are also calling for investment in renewable energy, home insulation and the railway- green measures that will created thousands of jobs. Lastly, finding a resolution to the EU stalemate on agricultural subsidies would ease international trade and as a result a general decrease in food prices. Many of these measures would have a direct positive effect on students’ finances, and create a more stable financial system that would benefit people in the short as well as long term.

If you want to have a look at the policy document, check out this link:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/assets/0000/8906/economic_recovery_plan.pdf

Answered by James Purnell

Our proposals are specifically designed to enshrine a something for something culture – where you have to put in if you want to get something out. Our plan to get rid of IB and IS means that while there will be greater support there will also be greater responsibility. People wont be able to simply sign on and collect benefits – there will be conditions they have to meet including attending training and skills programmes as well as job search for those on unemployment benefit.

Answered by Lynne Featherstone

I think this demonstrates glaring problems and gaps in the accountability of all the institutions that invested in Icelandic Banks. That is why we need all councils etc to have an independent investigation into what each particular authority did - as some clearly had better checks than Haringey as they removed their investments in Iceland as soon as the ratings were downgraded - whereas Haringey invested as late as 29th September. Therefore - it is clear that there is not enough, not just accountability or oversight,   but accountability and oversight and basic rules about investments - the first one being don't stuff money into foreigh banks who have been down-rated and are clearly not safe - particularly as the interest rate offered was so much higher than eslewhere.