What do the Lib Dems get for all of this?

Reading much of the coverage of the Emergency Budget it's tempting to imagine that the Liberal Democrats alone run the UK government rather than as part of a coalition.

Of course the Conservatives have been mentioned too but the biggest political aspect of the story to date has fallen on the party that are, after all, the junior and smaller members of the partnership.

In particular the photograph of Nick Clegg (new Deputy Prime Minister) standing in front of a billboard warning of the danger of the Tories putting VAT up to 20% if elected seems to be everywhere.

This of course is no great surprise. The relative closeness of the recent election means that it’s easy enough to imagine most (if not all) Tory voters being broadly happy with the Emergency Budget. This same statement is surely not evident for the Liberal Democrats and their supporters.

For many years, especially in the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Lib Dems did begin to carve out a niche as a genuine alternative between the usual Labour-Conservative battles. And even if a coalition eventually did arise the Lib Dems seemed to be much more closely aligned with and attracted to Labour.

Thus former Labour voters could easily switch their vote to the ‘good guys’ of UK politics, safe in the knowledge and conscience that their decision would not bring Thatcherism back to Downing Street.

And so this theory broadly held. Until earlier this week that is, when the Liberals gave their backing to exactly the Budget they had warned voters to reject only a matter of weeks ago. And whilst coalition inevitably involves compromise this can sometimes be taken too far.

The big question then that remains is this: for potentially alienating a huge swathe of their new and traditional support, and for taking a media beating for supporting policies they had previously outright rejected, what have the Liberal Democrats really gained?

It is of course early days within this administration, particularly if it goes the full five years that it has available to it. And so perhaps the real reason that the Liberals are prepared to tolerate this early onslaught is that they know eventually they will more than win back any support currently drifting from them.

But as it stands any such policy would have to be a huge one, something that they have ached for throughout their political lives. The most obvious one – the Holy Grail as it were – is of course electoral reform, specifically introducing the Single Transferable Vote into UK elections.

Whilst this may yet be the case the early talk on this subject – and details within the coalition’s partnership agreement – suggests otherwise. The Tories seem prepared to concede at best a form of Alternative Vote, which is not drastically different from the system currently in place.

And beyond that nothing else seems obvious either. Trident remains up for renewal, although would be an enormous coup for the Liberals if they can still stop this costly policy. Adding to some extra support for the armed forces serving overseas and it’s even an argument they could perhaps win.

But again this is not yet on the table. And without it the Liberals seems to be relying on the fact that they are in government (and so experienced) and are taking tough decisions as the basis for their re-election. It is debatable at best that this will be enough to secure their re-election in many seats across the UK.

None of this is to say that the government doesn’t have to take some sort of action to reduce the deficit; it’s obvious that after a recession governments will have less money. However to back a Budget which seems to include nothing that you can mark out as a genuine a memorable Lib Dem achievement seems foolish.

There is a lazy political tradition of simply claiming that your opponents in government are more interested in ministerial titles and cars than representing the country as best they can. However in this case it is a conclusion it’s hard to at least consider.

If the Liberal Democrats wish to position themselves as a genuine government-in-waiting in future elections and not simply the poor cousin of the two main parties they need an identity to achieve that.

As it stands the only reputation they appear to gaining is one that they could well do without.

Sharing the pain

There was something staggering about the fact that last month a British lottery player won almost £85 million on the EuroMillions draw, the UK's biggest ever winner.

As large a prize as this was this wasn't what was genuinely surprising. Instead it was where this win placed this person on the UK rich list.

Even in modern Britain surely £84 million would still rocket you right up the rich list? Maybe not top 10 but certainly in the top 100? Not the top 250 either. Or even the top 500. Not even the top 750. In fact you have to go all the way to 789 (according to the Sunday Times Rich List 2010).

As Chancellor George Osborne prepares to present his emergency budget it's worth keeping these figures in mind. During the election campaign there was general agreement amongst the parties that whoever won the election there would be financial implications for Britain's public services.

And it's true that the public sector cannot escape the recession's effects. It's fairly simple: less people working means less taxes raised and more benefits being claimed; obviously this means less money available to spend.

However if we accept that everyone has to 'share the pain' of solving Britain's financial problems then it is to be hoped that this will actually be the case, and not simply the poorest and even those on lower-middle incomes that will be hit. A country with 788 people worth more than £84.4 million is not poor.

So if schools and hospitals and care homes are all going to ultimately play their part, the same must be true for those people for whom the effects of the recession will mean absolutely nothing.

For instance, in the Conservatives proposed in their election manifesto to raise the threshold before which people pay inheritance tax to £1 million. Whilst the housing market's average prices are higher in England (particularly south east) than Scotland, can this truly be justified in a time of apparent austerity?

The figures this will raise may not drastically change the financial outlook we face, but it’s surely about sending a signal. If we are to see less nurses and teachers (and this is surely a reality) then we cannot afford tax cuts for enormously wealthy people.

There is little doubt that government can save money, although if we want to see cuts in bureaucracy and money going to frontline services then this may mean cutting things that the media like e.g. various statistics and target assessment.

And if the new government achieves anything in this regard then all well and good. But the one standard it surely has to set is that is this: if we are all to share the pain, then we have to all share the pain. Not just those that can least afford it