I've been watching through some of the coverage of Party Conference on the bbc iplayer* and have just happened upon an argument between Ming Campbell and Evan Harris on Tuesday's Daily Politics. (It' about 30 minutes in, after Nick Parsons).
Ming is talking complete rubbish.
It is clearly true that sometimes Leaders have to react to events.
But is equally clear that Nick Clegg's comments about whether or not the abolition Tuition Fees will be in the manifesto is not something that has just cropped up - it was fully discussed just a few weeks ago in Federal Policy Committee and the Fresh Start paper reflects the settled view of that committee.
Ming's attitude in this interview highlights why he lost support so rapidly when he was our leader and demonstrates an unfortunate tendency of some of our leaders - that they expect loyalty from the party without realising that loyalty runs both ways.
I hope that Nick Clegg will come to realise that what can, I'm sure, sometimes feel like a frustrating democratic process within our party, is, in fact, a great strength.
I also hope he won't be listening too much to former leaders like Ming.
*(although not my speech in the Fresh Start debate as that seems to have been lost)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
That's more like it
Yesterday, in the Fresh Start for Britain debate, I argued that we need to avoid being too doom and gloom and that we need to spell out clear, simple and principled reasons to vote Lib Dem.
Continuing my conference media blitz I gave a brief comment to the World at One this afternoon (about 15 mins in) and also agree with the comments Steve Webb and Malcolm Bruce made too.
Nick's speech this afternoon has done exactly that.
The message that should have been coming out all week: Rebuilding a sustainable economy, making Britain fairer and fixing our broken politics, came across loudly and clearly.
I hope he keeps this tone up.
Continuing my conference media blitz I gave a brief comment to the World at One this afternoon (about 15 mins in) and also agree with the comments Steve Webb and Malcolm Bruce made too.
Nick's speech this afternoon has done exactly that.
The message that should have been coming out all week: Rebuilding a sustainable economy, making Britain fairer and fixing our broken politics, came across loudly and clearly.
I hope he keeps this tone up.
Media tarting
My speech during the Fresh Start debate yesterday attracted a bit of coverage. (And it is probably on Iplayer somewhere)
There was clip on PM yesterday evening and I'm told I was quoted in the Guardian, although I can't find it.
I've also been interviewed for the World at One which should be on around now.
Sincere thanks to everyone who has made a point of saying that they enjoyed the speech.
There was clip on PM yesterday evening and I'm told I was quoted in the Guardian, although I can't find it.
I've also been interviewed for the World at One which should be on around now.
Sincere thanks to everyone who has made a point of saying that they enjoyed the speech.
Monday, September 21, 2009
My Sunday Conference round-up
A slightly more relaxed day on Sunday after a busy Saturday. Much time spent wandering about and catching up with folk, including people I haven't seen for a while from my days campaigning in Leicester and my time in youth and student politics.
It has been a lovely few days weather wise and it has been nice to sit and chat.
Much of the talk is about the big tax and spend decisins the party is facing and particularly about tuition fees.
I did get along to the ALDC members' reception where we heard from both Vince and Nick. I also attended a very useful briefing for party trainers with Hilary Stephenson and Shaun Roberts. It is good to see that a lot of thought is going in to how we widen the reach of party training.
Finally it was off to the Blog Awards, hosted by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.
It was very nice to put names to faces, including award winner Mark Thompson.
An attempted early night didn't go quite to plan as I bumped into party Chief Exec Chris Fox and Yorkshire & Humber Campaigns Officer Dave McCobb. Dave has been doing a lot of work with the Lib Dem team in my home town of Redcar and I had a very positive chat about their recent progress.
I'm still finding it a bit odd having all this time to chat to people but it's very enjoyable.
It has been a lovely few days weather wise and it has been nice to sit and chat.
Much of the talk is about the big tax and spend decisins the party is facing and particularly about tuition fees.
I did get along to the ALDC members' reception where we heard from both Vince and Nick. I also attended a very useful briefing for party trainers with Hilary Stephenson and Shaun Roberts. It is good to see that a lot of thought is going in to how we widen the reach of party training.
Finally it was off to the Blog Awards, hosted by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.
It was very nice to put names to faces, including award winner Mark Thompson.
An attempted early night didn't go quite to plan as I bumped into party Chief Exec Chris Fox and Yorkshire & Humber Campaigns Officer Dave McCobb. Dave has been doing a lot of work with the Lib Dem team in my home town of Redcar and I had a very positive chat about their recent progress.
I'm still finding it a bit odd having all this time to chat to people but it's very enjoyable.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Campaigning after Rennard
My co-panellist at last night's fringe, James Graham, has a report of the meeting over at Comment is Free.
Nick's bonfire of the bureaucrats
Nick has this morning set out a clear plan to slash the cost of Government and is 100% right to do so.
Westminster, Whitehall and the numerous unproductive layers of regional red tape, quangos and agencies are bloated and major savings can and shuld be found.
Nick's plan will save £1.82 billion - a substantial amount and well worth having as a contribution to the savings we need to achieve.
Equally importantly the plan will reduce the army of civil servants and bureaucrats whose main role is to stifle innovation, interfere in local decision making and waste significant amounts of time of those trying to deliver public services around the UK.
These proposals also give the lie to Mr Cameron's rather half-hearted proposals which seemed to amount to making MPs pay a little more for their beer and sandwiches.
Westminster, Whitehall and the numerous unproductive layers of regional red tape, quangos and agencies are bloated and major savings can and shuld be found.
Nick's plan will save £1.82 billion - a substantial amount and well worth having as a contribution to the savings we need to achieve.
Equally importantly the plan will reduce the army of civil servants and bureaucrats whose main role is to stifle innovation, interfere in local decision making and waste significant amounts of time of those trying to deliver public services around the UK.
These proposals also give the lie to Mr Cameron's rather half-hearted proposals which seemed to amount to making MPs pay a little more for their beer and sandwiches.
Vince right and wrong
The big issue facing the party is how we deal with the crisis in the public sector finances and balance the undoubted need to cut the structural deficit with our commitment to a fairer and greener society.
Vince Cable MP last week published a pamphlet setting out his thinking on the issue.
As one would expect Dr Cable takes the issue seriously and argues that we should too. He believes that we may need to reduce Government spend by as much as 8% of GDP over five years and that we need to set out very specific plans about how we will do this.
This would inevitably mean massive cuts in Government spending which would have a major impact on the country.
He rightly argues that Labour's plans undersetimate the scale of the problem, that they rely too much on reducing capital spending rather than current spending, and that they are over optimistic about likely growth levels.
So far, so good.
He then moves on to argue
This doesn't make sense to me. Reducing the deficit can be done by reducing spending, increasing taxes, or a combination of the two.
In no way does a decision that some taxes might have to be raised 'undermine' equally clear decisions to cut areas of spending.
Dr Cable then goes on to argue that 'salami-slicing' public spending will not work, and that we have to go back to square one and examine all publci spending.
In this I also agree with him. The only way we will find the savings we need to balance the budget is by going through the entirity of Government spend and check that it is well-directed expenditure. Effectively we need to be absolutely clear about what our priorities are and be willing to stop spending money on things that are low priority or ineffective.
Most of his suggestions in this regard (and they are only suggestions) make sense.
A lot of money can be saved by doing Government differently and by decentralising power. Money spent locally tends to provide better value, encourage innovation and garner higher public support. There is massive Government expenditure on advertising, agencies, quangos, unaccountable regional government etc. etc. We should take a slash and burn approach to the lot.
Similarly we know that much of the increased expenditure on several big services such as the NHS and education has not produced the improvements it should have. This surely means there will be savings to be found.
I am a little less happy at the lack of detail about some of the suggestions. I don't think it is helpful to suggest that there are major savings to be had from freezing the overall pay bill or in public sector pensions without a clear idea of how we acheive it without hitting the lower paid staff who our tax policies are, with the other hand, meant to help.
But at this stage I go back to the question of tax.
We have to look at savings, and prioritise what we think Government should do, but at some point some of the potential cuts may be worse than increasing some taxes. What we should do is balance the two. We should identify areas where some taxes could rise and compare the pros and cons with some of the cuts we might have to make.
Doing this does not in any way reduce the seriousness of our approach to pruning spending.
Areas we should look at include strengtheing green taxes, taxing very high incomes (a popular policy during the last two elections when the financial position was much sounder) taxing the bonuses that bankers continue to pay themselves despite everything etc.
We should also look at whether there are any specific taxes that might be used to fund some key spending commitments that might otherwise be dropped. (Graduate Tax anyone?).
In terms of how this plays with the public, well I think we will be given credit if we have a clear plan that adds up. I think the public knows that the Labour Government have got us into a VERY DEEP HOLE and will expect to see parties responding in a serious way that adds up.
However I do not think that there is any future for the Lib Dems if we present ourselves as being determined to slash public spending without even considering raising taxes to protect some services as part of the package.
Nick Clegg's rhetoric is rightly starting to mirror Obama in arguing that, despite the hole we are in, we can still be optimistic and still build a fairer, greener and freer society. This is key to our message. We have to have figures that stack up, but we have to do it for a purpose and we have to provide our potential supporters with hope for the future.
Vince Cable MP last week published a pamphlet setting out his thinking on the issue.
As one would expect Dr Cable takes the issue seriously and argues that we should too. He believes that we may need to reduce Government spend by as much as 8% of GDP over five years and that we need to set out very specific plans about how we will do this.
This would inevitably mean massive cuts in Government spending which would have a major impact on the country.
He rightly argues that Labour's plans undersetimate the scale of the problem, that they rely too much on reducing capital spending rather than current spending, and that they are over optimistic about likely growth levels.
So far, so good.
He then moves on to argue
The emphasis for fiscal consolidation must fall on controlling public spending, not higher taxes: to commit to additional tax revenue raising from the outset undermines any commitment to setting priorities in spending.
This doesn't make sense to me. Reducing the deficit can be done by reducing spending, increasing taxes, or a combination of the two.
In no way does a decision that some taxes might have to be raised 'undermine' equally clear decisions to cut areas of spending.
Dr Cable then goes on to argue that 'salami-slicing' public spending will not work, and that we have to go back to square one and examine all publci spending.
In this I also agree with him. The only way we will find the savings we need to balance the budget is by going through the entirity of Government spend and check that it is well-directed expenditure. Effectively we need to be absolutely clear about what our priorities are and be willing to stop spending money on things that are low priority or ineffective.
Most of his suggestions in this regard (and they are only suggestions) make sense.
A lot of money can be saved by doing Government differently and by decentralising power. Money spent locally tends to provide better value, encourage innovation and garner higher public support. There is massive Government expenditure on advertising, agencies, quangos, unaccountable regional government etc. etc. We should take a slash and burn approach to the lot.
Similarly we know that much of the increased expenditure on several big services such as the NHS and education has not produced the improvements it should have. This surely means there will be savings to be found.
I am a little less happy at the lack of detail about some of the suggestions. I don't think it is helpful to suggest that there are major savings to be had from freezing the overall pay bill or in public sector pensions without a clear idea of how we acheive it without hitting the lower paid staff who our tax policies are, with the other hand, meant to help.
But at this stage I go back to the question of tax.
We have to look at savings, and prioritise what we think Government should do, but at some point some of the potential cuts may be worse than increasing some taxes. What we should do is balance the two. We should identify areas where some taxes could rise and compare the pros and cons with some of the cuts we might have to make.
Doing this does not in any way reduce the seriousness of our approach to pruning spending.
Areas we should look at include strengtheing green taxes, taxing very high incomes (a popular policy during the last two elections when the financial position was much sounder) taxing the bonuses that bankers continue to pay themselves despite everything etc.
We should also look at whether there are any specific taxes that might be used to fund some key spending commitments that might otherwise be dropped. (Graduate Tax anyone?).
In terms of how this plays with the public, well I think we will be given credit if we have a clear plan that adds up. I think the public knows that the Labour Government have got us into a VERY DEEP HOLE and will expect to see parties responding in a serious way that adds up.
However I do not think that there is any future for the Lib Dems if we present ourselves as being determined to slash public spending without even considering raising taxes to protect some services as part of the package.
Nick Clegg's rhetoric is rightly starting to mirror Obama in arguing that, despite the hole we are in, we can still be optimistic and still build a fairer, greener and freer society. This is key to our message. We have to have figures that stack up, but we have to do it for a purpose and we have to provide our potential supporters with hope for the future.
A busy first day at Conference
I'm finding this conference an odd experience. It's my 23rd Autumn Conference (Well the first was technically an Assembly, but you know what I mean) and the first since 1993 that I haven't been working for the party.
For the last few years my conference diary consisted of numerous training sessions, meetings with seats and the occasional fringe on behalf of the Campaigns Department. There was at least one where I never actually made it into the Conference Centre at all.
This one's different.
My conference diary has lots of gaps in it and I've got time to be sitting here in the hotel bar (Like Ms Rigg we have free wi-fi in my hotel but the signal is only strong enough in the bar and lobby - so I am writing this while litsening to dreadful piped music that even the older guests (of whom there are many) must find a tad slow).
Yesterday was the busy day diary wise. It started with a training session which I was co-training with the formidable Jeanette Sunderland from Bradford. We were training a small but high quality group of activists about 'Capacity and team building' which I enjoyed, particularly as Jeanette did most of the work.
I was left with an abiding feeling that I really wouldn't want to be the Labour MP on the end of the campaign Jeanette is planning for Bradford East.
I then attended a meeting between my former colleagues in the Campaigns Department and Regional Party Officers which was led by our excellent leader of campaigns Hilary Stephenson and then the other leader turned up and talked to us about the big policy issues facing the party. He seemed relaxed and on good form and answered questions clearly.
I then headed for the conference centre and into the hall. As a member of the Federal Policy Committee I thought I ought to be there to hear our report to conference, which was so exciting that it attracted not a single question.
Then the debate on the Real Women policy paper (which has been exciting the 'bloggosphere' a lot) was underway.
I sat, slightly nervously,, as I had earlier put in a card to speak against the amendment proposed by Bernard Salmon.
I thought the debate was very good, with most of the speeches being of a very high quality and covering a wide range of issues. Jo Swinson introduced the paper with a very strong contribution and I particularly enjoyed Laura Willoughby's speech about women's sport and suspect she is right about the reasons why the boys were keen for her to stop playing rugby ;-)
Just as the debate was heading for the end (and I had assumed I wasn't going to be called after all) the Chair, Sarah Boad, asked me to stand by.
Whenever I am about to speak I get butterflies in my tummy although I have learnt from experience how to handle them. This is partly because I've not actually spoken to the full conference hall very often, although I have done lots of training, speaking at fringe meetings etc.. This was only my fourth speech in a debate.
I never write full speeches as I tend to end up concentrating too much on the paper rather than the audience if I do. I prefer to write down bullet points and then make it up as I go along from them. I find this makes it easier to react to the audience (who, on this occasion, were very kind). I'm not a great speechwriter in a technical sense although I did chuck in the 'list of three' at the end whch worked well and led to a level of applause that took me a little by surprise.
More importantly I did have what I felt was a strong case to make and I was delighted when the vote was so strongly in favour of the motion but against Amendment 2.
After a bite of lunch I then met with Katy Riddle who is about to leave Winchester to become our Campaigns Officer in South Central Region. This means she will be supporting me in my role working for Oxford West & Abingdon and Wantage constituencies in the run up to the General Election.
It was then off to the Premier Inn (Everything's Premier but the price, and , on this occasion, the wheelchair lift) for the fringe meeting 'Campaigning After Rennard' organised by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.
I was on the panel along with Lynne Featherstone and James Graham with Mark Pack in the Chair.
We each gave our thoughts, with a fair amount of common ground, and then there were a large batch of pertinent questions.
Then it was time for dinner and we headed a few doors down to the Indian for a lovely curry with Alex, Helen, Andrew and Costigan.
After that I headed back to the hotel (via dropping in on a few former Campaigns colleagues for a brief chat).
A busy day, but a fun one.
For the last few years my conference diary consisted of numerous training sessions, meetings with seats and the occasional fringe on behalf of the Campaigns Department. There was at least one where I never actually made it into the Conference Centre at all.
This one's different.
My conference diary has lots of gaps in it and I've got time to be sitting here in the hotel bar (Like Ms Rigg we have free wi-fi in my hotel but the signal is only strong enough in the bar and lobby - so I am writing this while litsening to dreadful piped music that even the older guests (of whom there are many) must find a tad slow).
Yesterday was the busy day diary wise. It started with a training session which I was co-training with the formidable Jeanette Sunderland from Bradford. We were training a small but high quality group of activists about 'Capacity and team building' which I enjoyed, particularly as Jeanette did most of the work.
I was left with an abiding feeling that I really wouldn't want to be the Labour MP on the end of the campaign Jeanette is planning for Bradford East.
I then attended a meeting between my former colleagues in the Campaigns Department and Regional Party Officers which was led by our excellent leader of campaigns Hilary Stephenson and then the other leader turned up and talked to us about the big policy issues facing the party. He seemed relaxed and on good form and answered questions clearly.
I then headed for the conference centre and into the hall. As a member of the Federal Policy Committee I thought I ought to be there to hear our report to conference, which was so exciting that it attracted not a single question.
Then the debate on the Real Women policy paper (which has been exciting the 'bloggosphere' a lot) was underway.
I sat, slightly nervously,, as I had earlier put in a card to speak against the amendment proposed by Bernard Salmon.
I thought the debate was very good, with most of the speeches being of a very high quality and covering a wide range of issues. Jo Swinson introduced the paper with a very strong contribution and I particularly enjoyed Laura Willoughby's speech about women's sport and suspect she is right about the reasons why the boys were keen for her to stop playing rugby ;-)
Just as the debate was heading for the end (and I had assumed I wasn't going to be called after all) the Chair, Sarah Boad, asked me to stand by.
Whenever I am about to speak I get butterflies in my tummy although I have learnt from experience how to handle them. This is partly because I've not actually spoken to the full conference hall very often, although I have done lots of training, speaking at fringe meetings etc.. This was only my fourth speech in a debate.
I never write full speeches as I tend to end up concentrating too much on the paper rather than the audience if I do. I prefer to write down bullet points and then make it up as I go along from them. I find this makes it easier to react to the audience (who, on this occasion, were very kind). I'm not a great speechwriter in a technical sense although I did chuck in the 'list of three' at the end whch worked well and led to a level of applause that took me a little by surprise.
More importantly I did have what I felt was a strong case to make and I was delighted when the vote was so strongly in favour of the motion but against Amendment 2.
After a bite of lunch I then met with Katy Riddle who is about to leave Winchester to become our Campaigns Officer in South Central Region. This means she will be supporting me in my role working for Oxford West & Abingdon and Wantage constituencies in the run up to the General Election.
It was then off to the Premier Inn (Everything's Premier but the price, and , on this occasion, the wheelchair lift) for the fringe meeting 'Campaigning After Rennard' organised by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.
I was on the panel along with Lynne Featherstone and James Graham with Mark Pack in the Chair.
We each gave our thoughts, with a fair amount of common ground, and then there were a large batch of pertinent questions.
Then it was time for dinner and we headed a few doors down to the Indian for a lovely curry with Alex, Helen, Andrew and Costigan.
After that I headed back to the hotel (via dropping in on a few former Campaigns colleagues for a brief chat).
A busy day, but a fun one.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Goat + Tricycle = Happiness
True happiness is finding out that the distance from Liberal Drinks at Conference to my Hotel is 'staggerable' :-)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Is this Nick's Moment?
I've just had a quick skim through A Liberal Moment - Nick Clegg's pamphlet for Demos which sets out a pretty robust argument for a liberal approach to the current economic, political, social and environmental crises.
The pamphlet sets out a convincing case for the Lib Dems being the holders of the progressive flame.
The first part is a reflection on what happened to british politics at the start of the last century and looks at what lesson might be drawn.
Much of the material is familiar - at least to anyone who ever takes any notice of what Nick says - but it is good to see Nick's developing themes set out together in and easy to read package.
All in all a well timed contribution setting out a strong case for the party.
The pamphlet sets out a convincing case for the Lib Dems being the holders of the progressive flame.
The first part is a reflection on what happened to british politics at the start of the last century and looks at what lesson might be drawn.
Much of the material is familiar - at least to anyone who ever takes any notice of what Nick says - but it is good to see Nick's developing themes set out together in and easy to read package.
All in all a well timed contribution setting out a strong case for the party.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Bloggers talk balls about by-elections
Rarely is so much rubbish written by Lib Dem bloggers than after an entirely normal by-election result.
'Rennardism is dead', 'leafets don't work', 'we should do it by email', 'the Lib Dem by-election machine doesn't work any more', 'we should deliver a pamphlet setting out our principles and detailed policies to each voter and trust them to come to the right decision' (OK, I made that last one up, but you get my drift).
I do accept that there some other points of view that have a case. It IS reasonable to question whether the impact of parliamentary by-elections is enough to warrent the resources we spend on them, for example (see end).
But when the debate is about how to win by-elections, then a lot of the commentary is sadly lacking in any basis in fact.
It would be helpful if people first look at the actual history of the party's performance in parliamentary by-elections. The extremly inteligent and insightful Mr Quist helpfully set this out here.
There was no 'golden age'
The reality is that there never was a 'golden age' for the party in by-elections. We have only ever won a minority of by-elections, and generally the victories have been in seats where we started with a reasonable base of credibility and had long enough to build up some momentum.
For every one we have won there have been five or six we have lost, and I'm sure that after every one of those losses there was a group of people claiming that our by-election strategy was a 'busted flush'.
You don't understand 'Rennardism'
Many bloggers have talked about 'Rennardism'. Or at least, what they apparently believe 'Rennardism. to be - simply delivering more leaflets.
Well if that was all Chris Rennard's approach to parliamentary by-elections consisted of we would probably never have won a single by-election.
And again, before commenting on 'Rennardism' why not actually read some of the campaign manuals Chris has written about campaigning rather than criticising from a base of ignorance.
The simple fact is that no party wins a by-election without delivering a lot of leaflets. In order to stand a chance of winning you have to establish that you are in the fight, get your message through to people, turn your vote out and persuade supporters of other parties to switch to you.
And you simply can't do that without a lot of literature.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DELIVER LOTS OF LEAFLETS!
The real difference comes with other factors. Do the Local Party select a good candidate? Are there any big issues affecting the constituency or the country that give us a hook to base our campaign on? Do the circumstances give us a good line of attack? How much effort is each of the other parties putting in?
A large part of winning a by-election (and this IS what 'Rennardism' is, if it is anything) is developing a convincing messge that deals with the primary issues of concern to the voters.
Email and other new media
Several people have commented that we should not be doing leaflets, we should be using email and other new media to win the campaign.
Well yes, we should make as much use of email and other new media that we can, and in fact that is exactly what recent by-elections have done.
But there is a fatal flaw in the idea that email and the like could replace leaflets.
We KNOW where every letterbox in a constituency is.
We DO NOT KNOW very many people's email addresses.
Two factors that make a real big difference
In my experience of by-elections there are two very big factors that have a huge impact on our chances of winning:
1 Length of campaign. The longer we have to establish our candidate and messages, to identify key local issues and campaign on them, and to deliver leaflets and knock on doors, the more chance we have of winning. (Brent East is the best recent example of this - I still remember lots of people arguing that we couldn't possibly win it and challenging the resources that were being given to it. We won because we had time to dig in and build credibility and momentum.)
2 Local credibility. The more credibility we have locally at the start of the campaign, the better we will eventually do. (This was certainly the big differnce between Leicester South on the one hand and Hartlepool or Hodge Hill on the other - in Leicester we had a strong local base and record of campaigning in most wards in the constituency)
We shouldn't run a 'full' campaign every time
We don't!
Only people who really don't know what they are talking about would believe that we do.
Fighting by-elections hard doesn't stop us doing other things right
There are also those who argue that we shouldn't busy ourselves fighting by-elections, we should be concentrating on getting the message (or 'narrative' even)right, or doing longer term development.
Well yes, we do need to be doing those things. But fighting by-elections as they come along doesn't stop us doing those things as well.
There clearly will be some opportunity cost as far as the money is concerned (although a lot of the figures bandied about are nonsense, and we do get donations in for by-elections) but we actually need to sort out our message, do long term development AND fight by-elections.
In conclusion
I am not arguing that everything we have evr done in every by-election is right. In fact I have had strong disagreements with some of the tactics and some of the messaging in several of the ones I've worked on.
But frankly a LOT of the comments about how we should or should not run by-elections appear to be based on complete and utter ignorance of how the party actually runs by-elections campaigns, and/or on a completely unrealistic expectation that we should some how be winning every time.
As to the sensible question of whether by-elections are worth the resources I would make two points:
1 If you look at our current parliamentary party about a fifth of the seats we hold were first won in by-elections, or were held in by-elections, or had had by-elections that built a base to win from later.
2 Even though we didn't win in Norwich this time, the group of relatively inexperienced party organisers who made up the bulk of the campaign team will be heading back to their constituencies this weekend far better prepared than they would be by months of theoretical trainign about what running a serious campaign involves.
'Rennardism is dead', 'leafets don't work', 'we should do it by email', 'the Lib Dem by-election machine doesn't work any more', 'we should deliver a pamphlet setting out our principles and detailed policies to each voter and trust them to come to the right decision' (OK, I made that last one up, but you get my drift).
I do accept that there some other points of view that have a case. It IS reasonable to question whether the impact of parliamentary by-elections is enough to warrent the resources we spend on them, for example (see end).
But when the debate is about how to win by-elections, then a lot of the commentary is sadly lacking in any basis in fact.
It would be helpful if people first look at the actual history of the party's performance in parliamentary by-elections. The extremly inteligent and insightful Mr Quist helpfully set this out here.
There was no 'golden age'
The reality is that there never was a 'golden age' for the party in by-elections. We have only ever won a minority of by-elections, and generally the victories have been in seats where we started with a reasonable base of credibility and had long enough to build up some momentum.
For every one we have won there have been five or six we have lost, and I'm sure that after every one of those losses there was a group of people claiming that our by-election strategy was a 'busted flush'.
You don't understand 'Rennardism'
Many bloggers have talked about 'Rennardism'. Or at least, what they apparently believe 'Rennardism. to be - simply delivering more leaflets.
Well if that was all Chris Rennard's approach to parliamentary by-elections consisted of we would probably never have won a single by-election.
And again, before commenting on 'Rennardism' why not actually read some of the campaign manuals Chris has written about campaigning rather than criticising from a base of ignorance.
The simple fact is that no party wins a by-election without delivering a lot of leaflets. In order to stand a chance of winning you have to establish that you are in the fight, get your message through to people, turn your vote out and persuade supporters of other parties to switch to you.
And you simply can't do that without a lot of literature.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DELIVER LOTS OF LEAFLETS!
The real difference comes with other factors. Do the Local Party select a good candidate? Are there any big issues affecting the constituency or the country that give us a hook to base our campaign on? Do the circumstances give us a good line of attack? How much effort is each of the other parties putting in?
A large part of winning a by-election (and this IS what 'Rennardism' is, if it is anything) is developing a convincing messge that deals with the primary issues of concern to the voters.
Email and other new media
Several people have commented that we should not be doing leaflets, we should be using email and other new media to win the campaign.
Well yes, we should make as much use of email and other new media that we can, and in fact that is exactly what recent by-elections have done.
But there is a fatal flaw in the idea that email and the like could replace leaflets.
We KNOW where every letterbox in a constituency is.
We DO NOT KNOW very many people's email addresses.
Two factors that make a real big difference
In my experience of by-elections there are two very big factors that have a huge impact on our chances of winning:
1 Length of campaign. The longer we have to establish our candidate and messages, to identify key local issues and campaign on them, and to deliver leaflets and knock on doors, the more chance we have of winning. (Brent East is the best recent example of this - I still remember lots of people arguing that we couldn't possibly win it and challenging the resources that were being given to it. We won because we had time to dig in and build credibility and momentum.)
2 Local credibility. The more credibility we have locally at the start of the campaign, the better we will eventually do. (This was certainly the big differnce between Leicester South on the one hand and Hartlepool or Hodge Hill on the other - in Leicester we had a strong local base and record of campaigning in most wards in the constituency)
We shouldn't run a 'full' campaign every time
We don't!
Only people who really don't know what they are talking about would believe that we do.
Fighting by-elections hard doesn't stop us doing other things right
There are also those who argue that we shouldn't busy ourselves fighting by-elections, we should be concentrating on getting the message (or 'narrative' even)right, or doing longer term development.
Well yes, we do need to be doing those things. But fighting by-elections as they come along doesn't stop us doing those things as well.
There clearly will be some opportunity cost as far as the money is concerned (although a lot of the figures bandied about are nonsense, and we do get donations in for by-elections) but we actually need to sort out our message, do long term development AND fight by-elections.
In conclusion
I am not arguing that everything we have evr done in every by-election is right. In fact I have had strong disagreements with some of the tactics and some of the messaging in several of the ones I've worked on.
But frankly a LOT of the comments about how we should or should not run by-elections appear to be based on complete and utter ignorance of how the party actually runs by-elections campaigns, and/or on a completely unrealistic expectation that we should some how be winning every time.
As to the sensible question of whether by-elections are worth the resources I would make two points:
1 If you look at our current parliamentary party about a fifth of the seats we hold were first won in by-elections, or were held in by-elections, or had had by-elections that built a base to win from later.
2 Even though we didn't win in Norwich this time, the group of relatively inexperienced party organisers who made up the bulk of the campaign team will be heading back to their constituencies this weekend far better prepared than they would be by months of theoretical trainign about what running a serious campaign involves.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Winning in Redcar again, and again, and again
I grew up in the north eastern and largely working class town of Redcar. (Known by racing enthusiasts for the Racecourse and by Geography students of the 70s and 80s for its steel industry).
I did my first campaigning there during the 1987 General Election - canvassing in Chris Abbott's ward and was signed up to the Liberal Party by his then ward colleague Stan Wilson.
In those days Redcar was not a hotbed of Liberalism although both the Liberals and the SDP had a few seats locally.
More recently however the Lib Dems have really been gaining ground. The part of town where I grew up was Tory held when I was there, but we have held it for years now. We have now established ourselves as the main opposition to Labour and came a creditable, if still some distance behind, second place last time.
More recently we have been winning local by-elections and last night completed our hattrick with Eric Howden's sensational victory in Dormanstown.
Eric took 52% of the vote with a 22.9% swing from Labour.
So what, you might think, particularly as you probably haven't the first clue where Redcar is, let alone Dormanstown.
Well Dormanstown is about as Labour as it gets.
Anywhere.
It is real vote for a donkey with a red rosette territory.
If Labour are losing places like Dormanstown they really are up a brown smelly creek without a handily shaped wooden implement.
So well done Eric, Ian, Chris and team.
Have a virtual pint on me, and keep up the good work.
I did my first campaigning there during the 1987 General Election - canvassing in Chris Abbott's ward and was signed up to the Liberal Party by his then ward colleague Stan Wilson.
In those days Redcar was not a hotbed of Liberalism although both the Liberals and the SDP had a few seats locally.
More recently however the Lib Dems have really been gaining ground. The part of town where I grew up was Tory held when I was there, but we have held it for years now. We have now established ourselves as the main opposition to Labour and came a creditable, if still some distance behind, second place last time.
More recently we have been winning local by-elections and last night completed our hattrick with Eric Howden's sensational victory in Dormanstown.
Eric took 52% of the vote with a 22.9% swing from Labour.
So what, you might think, particularly as you probably haven't the first clue where Redcar is, let alone Dormanstown.
Well Dormanstown is about as Labour as it gets.
Anywhere.
It is real vote for a donkey with a red rosette territory.
If Labour are losing places like Dormanstown they really are up a brown smelly creek without a handily shaped wooden implement.
So well done Eric, Ian, Chris and team.
Have a virtual pint on me, and keep up the good work.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A Fresh Start for Britain
The party has published a key paper which is to be debated at party Conference in September.
A Fresh Start for Britain sets out our priorities in the run up to the General Election and how we intend to go through the process of prioritising our spending ambitions in the light of the mess the economy is in.
The document set out on the website is, in effect, the introductory section setting out the main themes we want to concentrate on: Creating a sustainable economy, Building a fairer society and Cleaning up politics.
I an confident that it does a pretty good job of setting out a platform that the party can unite around, draws on previous policy development but is at the same tme honest about the reality of the financial situation.
The full document which will go to conference will also include a lot more detail summarising our key policies across the whole range.
Alex Wilcock has written a lot more about it than I will (in fact I think his blog piece may well be longer than the document!) but makes some very good points.
He is right that 'freedom' is not as prominent as it might have been, but readers will be reassured to know that that is not because there are any plans to drop or change our policies on the issue.
He is also right that the real debate will be about prioritisiation. In a tight financial situation, which spending commitments will be included in the actual manifesto? Let the debate begin ...
A Fresh Start for Britain sets out our priorities in the run up to the General Election and how we intend to go through the process of prioritising our spending ambitions in the light of the mess the economy is in.
The document set out on the website is, in effect, the introductory section setting out the main themes we want to concentrate on: Creating a sustainable economy, Building a fairer society and Cleaning up politics.
I an confident that it does a pretty good job of setting out a platform that the party can unite around, draws on previous policy development but is at the same tme honest about the reality of the financial situation.
The full document which will go to conference will also include a lot more detail summarising our key policies across the whole range.
Alex Wilcock has written a lot more about it than I will (in fact I think his blog piece may well be longer than the document!) but makes some very good points.
He is right that 'freedom' is not as prominent as it might have been, but readers will be reassured to know that that is not because there are any plans to drop or change our policies on the issue.
He is also right that the real debate will be about prioritisiation. In a tight financial situation, which spending commitments will be included in the actual manifesto? Let the debate begin ...
Will it be April this July?
The Norwich North by-election is the first in the south eastern part of England that I haven't been involved with for more than 15 years. Had I still been Deputy Director of Campaigns I would have spent much of the last few weeks in Norwich.
It feels a little odd to know that as I write this our excellent by-election team, ably supported by my successor Victoria Marsom, will now be into the feverish last 24 hours or so of campaigning.
I'm not in a position to know exactly how we are doing, but I do know that April Pond is a doughty candidate and that the Lib Dem team behind her campaign are highly experienced and skilled campaigners.
The literature I have seen certainly suggests that we have hit on some good issues and that April is on the right side of them.
I'm not surprised to hear that the Labour campaign has been weak. There is little in general to motivate Labour activists at present, and the particular circumstances that led to Dr Gibsons' resignation probably killed any residual local activity stone dead anyway.
I am surprised that the Greens do not appear to have done more. That's not to say they won't necessarily get a solid vote, there is still a strong 'anti-main parties' vote out there, but I can't understand why they didn't treat this as a serious opportunity to win thir first MP.
Some people have wrongly characterised the Lib Dem approach to by-elections as being just about delivering more leaflets than your opponents. Well we DO have to deliver a lot of leaflets but we also need a clear message that resonates and all the other elements of a well organised campaign too.
From what I have seen and heard our small team in Norwich have achieved a lot of this on a short timescale and with limited resources. Well done to them.
If you are in a position to get over and help this evening or tomorrow, please do so!
It feels a little odd to know that as I write this our excellent by-election team, ably supported by my successor Victoria Marsom, will now be into the feverish last 24 hours or so of campaigning.
I'm not in a position to know exactly how we are doing, but I do know that April Pond is a doughty candidate and that the Lib Dem team behind her campaign are highly experienced and skilled campaigners.
The literature I have seen certainly suggests that we have hit on some good issues and that April is on the right side of them.
I'm not surprised to hear that the Labour campaign has been weak. There is little in general to motivate Labour activists at present, and the particular circumstances that led to Dr Gibsons' resignation probably killed any residual local activity stone dead anyway.
I am surprised that the Greens do not appear to have done more. That's not to say they won't necessarily get a solid vote, there is still a strong 'anti-main parties' vote out there, but I can't understand why they didn't treat this as a serious opportunity to win thir first MP.
Some people have wrongly characterised the Lib Dem approach to by-elections as being just about delivering more leaflets than your opponents. Well we DO have to deliver a lot of leaflets but we also need a clear message that resonates and all the other elements of a well organised campaign too.
From what I have seen and heard our small team in Norwich have achieved a lot of this on a short timescale and with limited resources. Well done to them.
If you are in a position to get over and help this evening or tomorrow, please do so!
Bread and Jam
A day off today, and a chance to do some bread-making with Emma.
We make bread every so often, she enjoys it, and it is surprisingly easy (as Liz Williams regularly describes on her blog).
We use flour grown locally (the farms are listed on the back of the packet) and milled at the Wessex Mill in Wantage bought at Added Ingredients in Abingdon.
Today we used 'Six Seed Flour' which has produced lovely brown bread and rolls full of flavour and texture.
We're sitting here eating it with some lovely Raspberry and Kiwi jam from Local Roots, another newish Abingdon shop that sources all its stock from within a few miles of the town.
Not a bad way to spend an afternoon.
We make bread every so often, she enjoys it, and it is surprisingly easy (as Liz Williams regularly describes on her blog).
We use flour grown locally (the farms are listed on the back of the packet) and milled at the Wessex Mill in Wantage bought at Added Ingredients in Abingdon.
Today we used 'Six Seed Flour' which has produced lovely brown bread and rolls full of flavour and texture.
We're sitting here eating it with some lovely Raspberry and Kiwi jam from Local Roots, another newish Abingdon shop that sources all its stock from within a few miles of the town.
Not a bad way to spend an afternoon.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Tap into Wembley
After waiting for nearly 25 years I finally got to see one of my favourite rock bands last night - the mighty Spinal Tap (Simply 'Tap' to their fans).
Despite their early success (initially as The Thamesmen) they never hit the bigtime in the UK as much as they did in the US and Japan, and tours have been few and far between.
Tap now join Rush, ZZ Top and The Police on the list of bands I thought I might not get to see live but finally have.
Having made the brave (it's a fine line between clever and stupid) decision to do a 'One Night Only' World Tour at Wembley Stadium, just a few miles from their origins in Squatney in London's East End, there was a real sense of anticipation as the metal hordes gathered for the gig. (They did get to do a short warm up set at a smallscale Somerset festival at the weekend).
Tap have made two previous visits to Wembley, to play Live Earth and the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, and both in the bigger venue of Wembley Stadium. On these occasions they played to 80,000 people live with countless millions more watching at home. Their performances at both events were considered 'extraordinary'.
Support last night was from The Folksmen, the traditional US folk three-piece whose return to fame was documented in the recent documentary, or, if you will, folkumentray, A Mighty Wind.
They played a short but accomplished set featuring several classics from their past including their big hit 'Old Joe's Place', the very moving 'Blood on the Coals' (most US folk songs are about either mining disasters or train crashes, this song covers both eventualities) and an enjoyable cover of the Stones' 'Start Me Up'.
Unfortunately Marty Shrubb was just introducing their last song, an epic about the Spanish Civil War, when a roadie came onstage and told them they had run out of time.
They were warmly received despite the level of anticipation for Tap.
The stage was cleared ready for Tap's set and after a while the call went out over the PA for Tap to come to the stage. For some reason there was a bit of a delay and the backstage cameras made it clear why - the Tap were still busy playing video games and apparantly hadn't heard the call.
We were then entertained by the video of 'Majesty of Rock' and, after a further unexplained delay, the band appeared on stage to a raptuous welcome.
A wide ranging set followed including the well known tracks that featured in the 'This Is Spinal Tap' documentary, or, if you will, rockumentary: 'Rock N Rocll Creation', 'Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You' and 'Hell Hole'.
They also went back to their routes to perform the old Thamesmen tracks (a pre-Tap name of the band) 'Listen To the Flower People', 'Cups and Cakes' and 'Gimme Some Money' as well as David and Nigel's first ever song, 'All The Way Home'.
They played a 'funked up' version of 'Sex Farm' which, if you closed your eyes, could have the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.
A real treat was their first ever performance of 'Saucy Jack', the first (and so far only) track from their musical tribute to Jack The Ripper.
The response from the audience was ecstatic throughout, but went to a whole new level when the opening chords of 'Stonehenge' rang out. the bands performance was spot on, but they were once again let down by poor stage management. The sight of two dwarves and a roadie trying to help erect an inflatable 12 foot high Stonehenge was, frankly, laughable, and the only real bad point of the night. David St Hubbins was visibly irritated by this incident, but it didn't put him off his stride.
The Tap core of St Hubbins, Nigel Tufnel and Derek Smalls was as tight as ever, and their current keyboad play and drummer are top notch.
Tap have influenced many a musician in recent years and there was a huge cheer when the legendary Keith Emerson joined the band onstage for an excellent rendition of 'Short & Sweet'. He was clearly delighted to get to play with some of his heroes.
They then finished with their all time classic 'Big Bottom' with guests (all on bass) Justin Hawkins (The Darkness/Hot Leg), Andy Scott (The Sweet) and Freddie Washington (Steely Dan et al) which led to much singing along.
After such a fantastic and lively set it was no surprise that they were called back for encores.
The first saw Keith Emerson return to the stage for 'Heavy Duty' and for the second encore we were treated with the rarely played title track of their 1992 (and 15th!) album 'Break Like the Wind'.
All in all it was a great gig and the crowd loved it. Shame they don't tour more often.
Despite their early success (initially as The Thamesmen) they never hit the bigtime in the UK as much as they did in the US and Japan, and tours have been few and far between.
Tap now join Rush, ZZ Top and The Police on the list of bands I thought I might not get to see live but finally have.
Having made the brave (it's a fine line between clever and stupid) decision to do a 'One Night Only' World Tour at Wembley Stadium, just a few miles from their origins in Squatney in London's East End, there was a real sense of anticipation as the metal hordes gathered for the gig. (They did get to do a short warm up set at a smallscale Somerset festival at the weekend).
Tap have made two previous visits to Wembley, to play Live Earth and the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, and both in the bigger venue of Wembley Stadium. On these occasions they played to 80,000 people live with countless millions more watching at home. Their performances at both events were considered 'extraordinary'.
Support last night was from The Folksmen, the traditional US folk three-piece whose return to fame was documented in the recent documentary, or, if you will, folkumentray, A Mighty Wind.
They played a short but accomplished set featuring several classics from their past including their big hit 'Old Joe's Place', the very moving 'Blood on the Coals' (most US folk songs are about either mining disasters or train crashes, this song covers both eventualities) and an enjoyable cover of the Stones' 'Start Me Up'.
Unfortunately Marty Shrubb was just introducing their last song, an epic about the Spanish Civil War, when a roadie came onstage and told them they had run out of time.
They were warmly received despite the level of anticipation for Tap.
The stage was cleared ready for Tap's set and after a while the call went out over the PA for Tap to come to the stage. For some reason there was a bit of a delay and the backstage cameras made it clear why - the Tap were still busy playing video games and apparantly hadn't heard the call.
We were then entertained by the video of 'Majesty of Rock' and, after a further unexplained delay, the band appeared on stage to a raptuous welcome.
A wide ranging set followed including the well known tracks that featured in the 'This Is Spinal Tap' documentary, or, if you will, rockumentary: 'Rock N Rocll Creation', 'Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You' and 'Hell Hole'.
They also went back to their routes to perform the old Thamesmen tracks (a pre-Tap name of the band) 'Listen To the Flower People', 'Cups and Cakes' and 'Gimme Some Money' as well as David and Nigel's first ever song, 'All The Way Home'.
They played a 'funked up' version of 'Sex Farm' which, if you closed your eyes, could have the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.
A real treat was their first ever performance of 'Saucy Jack', the first (and so far only) track from their musical tribute to Jack The Ripper.
The response from the audience was ecstatic throughout, but went to a whole new level when the opening chords of 'Stonehenge' rang out. the bands performance was spot on, but they were once again let down by poor stage management. The sight of two dwarves and a roadie trying to help erect an inflatable 12 foot high Stonehenge was, frankly, laughable, and the only real bad point of the night. David St Hubbins was visibly irritated by this incident, but it didn't put him off his stride.
The Tap core of St Hubbins, Nigel Tufnel and Derek Smalls was as tight as ever, and their current keyboad play and drummer are top notch.
Tap have influenced many a musician in recent years and there was a huge cheer when the legendary Keith Emerson joined the band onstage for an excellent rendition of 'Short & Sweet'. He was clearly delighted to get to play with some of his heroes.
They then finished with their all time classic 'Big Bottom' with guests (all on bass) Justin Hawkins (The Darkness/Hot Leg), Andy Scott (The Sweet) and Freddie Washington (Steely Dan et al) which led to much singing along.
After such a fantastic and lively set it was no surprise that they were called back for encores.
The first saw Keith Emerson return to the stage for 'Heavy Duty' and for the second encore we were treated with the rarely played title track of their 1992 (and 15th!) album 'Break Like the Wind'.
All in all it was a great gig and the crowd loved it. Shame they don't tour more often.
Monday, June 08, 2009
I lost (boo), Catherine won (hurrah) and a very funny you tube clip
Well after the disappointment of my own result on Thursday (missed out again, this time by under 100 votes due to protest votes going Green) I am delighted to see that my long time friend and colleague Catherine Bearder has finally achieved her ambition of becoming an MEP.
To celebrate, here is the funniest thing I've seen on YouTube recently:
To celebrate, here is the funniest thing I've seen on YouTube recently:
Monday, April 20, 2009
Bang on the money
I've been rather busy of late so not much time to blog, but I am breaking my silence to say a massive WELL DONE to Vince Cable and Nick Clegg for their announcement on tax.
Raising the threshold to £10K - giving every low and middle earner 700 quid back into their pockets - is exactly the right way to rebalance our monumentally unfair tax system.
It gives spending power to those for whom it will make a real difference and reduces disincentives to work at lower income levels.
And it is paid for not by punitive tax increases at the top end but by common sense reforms that make the overall system fairer.
AND it gives us a simple, easy to sell message for our leaflets and on the doorstep.
Raising the threshold to £10K - giving every low and middle earner 700 quid back into their pockets - is exactly the right way to rebalance our monumentally unfair tax system.
It gives spending power to those for whom it will make a real difference and reduces disincentives to work at lower income levels.
And it is paid for not by punitive tax increases at the top end but by common sense reforms that make the overall system fairer.
AND it gives us a simple, easy to sell message for our leaflets and on the doorstep.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
MPs expenses
I'll start by saying that I think it is quite reasonable for MPs who represent constituencies away from London to be able to claim sufficient allowances to enable them to stay in reasonable accomodation in London during the week.
There are issues with how they do that, but some allowance for it is reasonable.
But the idea that an MP representing Brent, a few stops up the Jubilee Line from Westminster, can claim for a second home while also owning a family home in Stratford, beggars belief.
And as my old mate Hywel Morgan has found out, the comparison between different MPs who all represent constituencies near each other in my old stamping ground of North London makes very interesting reading.
One of the issues here is that if they are using the allowance to pay off a mortgage the taxpayer is effectively buying a second home for them which they will be able to either rent out or sell off.
Whether or not this is technically within the rules, it certainly isn't right.
[Declaring my interest: I work for an MP outside London for 25% of my working week]
There are issues with how they do that, but some allowance for it is reasonable.
But the idea that an MP representing Brent, a few stops up the Jubilee Line from Westminster, can claim for a second home while also owning a family home in Stratford, beggars belief.
And as my old mate Hywel Morgan has found out, the comparison between different MPs who all represent constituencies near each other in my old stamping ground of North London makes very interesting reading.
One of the issues here is that if they are using the allowance to pay off a mortgage the taxpayer is effectively buying a second home for them which they will be able to either rent out or sell off.
Whether or not this is technically within the rules, it certainly isn't right.
[Declaring my interest: I work for an MP outside London for 25% of my working week]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)