Danny tells conference we should aim for £12.5K income tax allowance
Sarah tells conference the Pupil Premium is to double
Vince tells conference that excessive high pay should be tackled
Danny (again) tells conference that the richest will be made to pay their tax
And Tim even tells conference that we're not married to the Tories
All in all it's a bit like the old days, lots of agreement about the things the Lib Dems would like to see happen to make our country a better, fairer place.
The difference is that now the Lib Dems making these announcements are Ministers and our policies are already being enacted.
Cutting taxes for ordinary workers
Danny Alexander's keynote speech, and his later interview with Andrew Neil, which was entertaining to watch, set out what I think will be the single most important policy for the party at the next election.
Though not agreed as party policy yet (as Danny himself was quick to point out), a proposal that the income tax allowance should rise to the income level of someone working full time on the Minimum Wage has been floated as a Lib Dem aspiration for the next Parliament.
This policy if both right in principle and smart politics for the party.
It is right because it targets the most help to those on the lowest earnings, increases the incentive to work and simplifies and reduced the cost of running the tax system.
It is smart politics because by the time of the next election the rise in the allowance to £10K will almost certainly be our most visible success and will demonstrate our belief in fairness, that we have delivered on our manifesto and that we were able to win on major policies in the coalition. Pledging to go further will therefore have credibility and will provide a very strong positive reason for people to back us again.
Personally I'd like us to go much further on tax: combining income tax and NI at all levels; simplifying the rates; shifting the overall burden further from those on median and lower incomes to higher incomes; and further removing complications to the system.
More cash for poorest pupils
Similarly Sarah Teather's announcement that the funding for the Pupil Premium - the extra cash given to schools to support children from poor households - is to double, is a big win for the Lib Dems in coalition, and a policy that will steadily sink in as the Parliament progresses.
In my view the amount of money being spent so far has been enough to make a start, but against the backdrop of a tight overall funding settlement hasn't really taken off yet. This announcement takes us further in the right direction and, again, will be something we can build on next time.
We're not married to the Tories, it's more of a flat-share, or something
Without wanting to extend the metaphor (that way madness lies) it was good to hear my mate Tim Farron's strong, passionate and very funny speech.
Although pretty much every Lib Dem conference rep understands the nature of a coalition government for one term of office, it is worth our President setting it out so clearly for a wider audience.
Tim is hugely popular in the party and hearing him set out the clear differences between us and the Tories was refreshing and motivating. It is the speech everyone was talking about in the bars last night.
Accreditation concerns
As has been widely reported conference reps backed a motion critical of the accreditation process adopted for this conference. There were concerns about who would have access to data, who had final say on attendance and some important issues around how transgender reps were treated by the process.
I think there is acceptance that security needs to be tighter now that we are in government, but reps thought the way it was done this year was excessive.
My own take on this is that a large part of the problem has been presentational. As Mark Pack pointed out recently the party could have communicated much more effectively with reps about the process. I for one don't like being told that I have been accredited by the Police, rather than by the party, and I hope the lessons have been learned for next year.
It is, however, interesting that we have been criticised for discussing these issues in open at our conference by critics for other parties, and Labour in particular. This is because, as Lib Dems, we actually care about civil liberties, that security measures are proportionate and that our conferences are open and inclusive. I appreciate that Labour forgot about any similar concerns decades ago.
The drugs debate
Conference also passed a very intelligent drugs policy, with a lot less furore than I remember around a similar debate back in 1994 when the then LDYS proposed something similar. One of the highlights of that conference for me was my redesign of the party logo for the LDYS conference flyers by adding a nice fat spliff hanging out of libby bird's mouth ;-)
And finally ...
The most enjoyable part of conference for me is meeting up with people I have made friends with during the years I have been involved with the party. I won't list all of them but yesterday I think I bumped into people I've worked with at just about every stage of my career in the party, including Arnie Gibbons, who I helped get elected to Leicester City Council back in 1989, a group including Tim Prater, Simon Foster, Colin Penning and Richard Gadsden during an impromptu LDYS reunion, many of my former Campaigns Dept colleagues including the now very important Shaun Roberts, and I also managed to meet a couple of recent twitter/blogger people that I've exchanged messages with but never met face to face.
Lib Dems are generally a lovely, friendly and diverse bunch and it's invigorating to be spending a few days with them.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
#ldconf Saturday: In which both sides lose an argument
A somewhat shaky start to Lib Dem Conference saw conference reps deliver defeat to both sides in an argument about whether we should debate the current NHS Bill at this conference.
A bad result for the Federal Conference Committee (FCC) (in this instance a proxy for the leadership) as a clear majority of those voting made it clear that they want a proper debate on the Bill.
But also a bad result for those calling for the debate, as they demonstrated that they don't have quite the strength they need to force the issue.
The debate was also marred by some of the protaganists on both sides who on one side accused the FCC of 'Toryfying' our conference, and on the other accused the 'rebels' of acting like 'Militant'.
As someone who has tried to deliver conference speeches with a crowd of Militants shouting at me on more than one occasion I can tell you that the Social Liberal Forum are as far from 'Militant' as Slayer are from having a Christmas No. 1.
For me this argument raises a wider question: Have we adjusted the way we do things in response to being in Government?
The answer appears to be a resounding 'NO'.
The main arguments put against debating the NHS Bill were all about how we have a tradition of not debating policy on the same issue when it has been debated at a recent conference.
Well that was fine when we were in opposition, and when most of our policy debates were about deciding policy for the next General Election manifesto, but we're not in that position any more.
We are now part of a government, and playing a part in framing legislation. It is vital, particularly where government policy goes well beyond both the coalition agreement and party policy, that our conference is given a say on issues of the day.
It is also the case that many of our members and activists are somewhere between unconvinced and downright hostile to quite a few things the government is doing. And in our party it is hugely important that we have the opportunity to vent our concerns in an open and honest way.
It is also important that we take the opportunity to demonstrate to the wider public that we are fighting our corner within the coalition and that our position is not the same as the Tories'.
Any sense that debate within the party is being stifled, particularly on a key issue like the NHS, and we will simply start to lose people.
I don't know whether or not the FCC have had a proper discussion about these issues, or what conclusions they have come to if they have, but there is little evidence of it from the debate earlier today.
The mood is positive but more serious than a year ago. The we were coming to terms with being in government but celebrating the fact that we were. Now, and after a tough set of elections and the referendum, we are coming to terms with the downside.
Nice to see so many familiar faces though.
A bad result for the Federal Conference Committee (FCC) (in this instance a proxy for the leadership) as a clear majority of those voting made it clear that they want a proper debate on the Bill.
But also a bad result for those calling for the debate, as they demonstrated that they don't have quite the strength they need to force the issue.
The debate was also marred by some of the protaganists on both sides who on one side accused the FCC of 'Toryfying' our conference, and on the other accused the 'rebels' of acting like 'Militant'.
As someone who has tried to deliver conference speeches with a crowd of Militants shouting at me on more than one occasion I can tell you that the Social Liberal Forum are as far from 'Militant' as Slayer are from having a Christmas No. 1.
For me this argument raises a wider question: Have we adjusted the way we do things in response to being in Government?
The answer appears to be a resounding 'NO'.
The main arguments put against debating the NHS Bill were all about how we have a tradition of not debating policy on the same issue when it has been debated at a recent conference.
Well that was fine when we were in opposition, and when most of our policy debates were about deciding policy for the next General Election manifesto, but we're not in that position any more.
We are now part of a government, and playing a part in framing legislation. It is vital, particularly where government policy goes well beyond both the coalition agreement and party policy, that our conference is given a say on issues of the day.
It is also the case that many of our members and activists are somewhere between unconvinced and downright hostile to quite a few things the government is doing. And in our party it is hugely important that we have the opportunity to vent our concerns in an open and honest way.
It is also important that we take the opportunity to demonstrate to the wider public that we are fighting our corner within the coalition and that our position is not the same as the Tories'.
Any sense that debate within the party is being stifled, particularly on a key issue like the NHS, and we will simply start to lose people.
I don't know whether or not the FCC have had a proper discussion about these issues, or what conclusions they have come to if they have, but there is little evidence of it from the debate earlier today.
In Other News:
The mood is positive but more serious than a year ago. The we were coming to terms with being in government but celebrating the fact that we were. Now, and after a tough set of elections and the referendum, we are coming to terms with the downside.
Nice to see so many familiar faces though.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Boundary Changes: Take Corporal Jones' advice
So, the initial draft Boundary Commission proposals for England have been published and we've had 24 hours of comment before even the first proper analysis has been produced.
Thanks to the Guardian (who, to be fair, pointed out clearly that their methodology was simplistic) we've seen figures flying around showing that, amongst other things, the Lib Dems have been 'shafted'.
Well, hold on a minute.
Firstly, the Guardian's methodology is seriously flawed. They have simply shared out the constituency votes from each constituency last time in proportion to how many electors have moved. Any good Lib Dem knows that the level of support varies enormously between wards in a constituency, let alone between them.
So any comments based on those figures should simply be ignored.
Secondly, any good Lib Dem knows that by campaigning in our held and target seats we significantly increase our share of the vote and squeeze the third and other party vote. So any ward from a neighbouring Con/Lab seat, or a Lab/Lib Dem or Con/Lib Dem seat that we don't fight hard, will inevitably bring the numbers down. That means that any Lib Dem seat other than one that starts with a huge majority that is taking on new wards will look like a loss.
Thirdly, even when you look at the Gaurdian figures you can see that many of the seats we wouldn't have won on their figures are, in fact, highly marginal. Look at the proposals across Cornwall, Somerset or SW London. We win some and lose some on the Gaurdian's figures, but several of the others would be very good targets.
Another big reason to not get too exercised at this point is that these are very much first draft proposals. And some of them are, frankly, barking mad. There is a proposed 'Mersey Banks' seat that includes wards either side of the Mersey where there is not bridge. Chances of that surviving the consultation? Pretty low IMHO.
But the even bigger reason why we shouldn't get too het up about these proposals is that they will, at most, have a small impact on our success or failure next time. Our national performance as a party and the strength and tactics of our local campaigns in the new winnable seats will have far, far more impact on the results than the boundary changes themselves.
Whatever the eventual boundaries tun out to be, the biggest risk is that we focus far too much of our time and energy on the boundaries process, and not enough on preparing for campaigning on the new boundaries.
What we do need to do now, at national, regional and local level, is look at how we can support the campaigns in the seats that change, but are still winnable. That may mean making a decision to start doing some initial campaign development work in wards that might join winnable seats now, or it might mean preparing the campaign plan so that it is ready to roll as soon as we know the new boundaries. Either way it is just as important that we work on the campaigning now as it is that we work on the Boundary Commission proposals.
Thanks to the Guardian (who, to be fair, pointed out clearly that their methodology was simplistic) we've seen figures flying around showing that, amongst other things, the Lib Dems have been 'shafted'.
Well, hold on a minute.
Firstly, the Guardian's methodology is seriously flawed. They have simply shared out the constituency votes from each constituency last time in proportion to how many electors have moved. Any good Lib Dem knows that the level of support varies enormously between wards in a constituency, let alone between them.
So any comments based on those figures should simply be ignored.
Secondly, any good Lib Dem knows that by campaigning in our held and target seats we significantly increase our share of the vote and squeeze the third and other party vote. So any ward from a neighbouring Con/Lab seat, or a Lab/Lib Dem or Con/Lib Dem seat that we don't fight hard, will inevitably bring the numbers down. That means that any Lib Dem seat other than one that starts with a huge majority that is taking on new wards will look like a loss.
Thirdly, even when you look at the Gaurdian figures you can see that many of the seats we wouldn't have won on their figures are, in fact, highly marginal. Look at the proposals across Cornwall, Somerset or SW London. We win some and lose some on the Gaurdian's figures, but several of the others would be very good targets.
Another big reason to not get too exercised at this point is that these are very much first draft proposals. And some of them are, frankly, barking mad. There is a proposed 'Mersey Banks' seat that includes wards either side of the Mersey where there is not bridge. Chances of that surviving the consultation? Pretty low IMHO.
But the even bigger reason why we shouldn't get too het up about these proposals is that they will, at most, have a small impact on our success or failure next time. Our national performance as a party and the strength and tactics of our local campaigns in the new winnable seats will have far, far more impact on the results than the boundary changes themselves.
Whatever the eventual boundaries tun out to be, the biggest risk is that we focus far too much of our time and energy on the boundaries process, and not enough on preparing for campaigning on the new boundaries.
What we do need to do now, at national, regional and local level, is look at how we can support the campaigns in the seats that change, but are still winnable. That may mean making a decision to start doing some initial campaign development work in wards that might join winnable seats now, or it might mean preparing the campaign plan so that it is ready to roll as soon as we know the new boundaries. Either way it is just as important that we work on the campaigning now as it is that we work on the Boundary Commission proposals.
Monday, August 08, 2011
A few thoughts on the looting/rioting
It's quite depressing seeing the spread of trouble around London and other places.
My heart goes out to those directly affected. One of our friends works at Wood Green shopping centre (where we often used to shop when we lived in Tottenham) and he and many thousands of other people are very scared this evening.
Hundreds of people will have lost their homes, jobs, their businesses. My guess is that many of the communities affected will lose quite a few local shops for ever.
There is quite a debate going on about whether this is political, or just criminality. It is probably some of both, but it is definitely a lot of the latter.
Spontaneous political uprisings of the poverty stricken are not orgnaised via BlackBerry Messenger.
People angry at the Police don't decide to go off and loot a retail park two miles from the riot. That is pure, pre-meditated criminality.
In the long run, though, it may well be that the fact that so many young people feel able to act in such a selfish and thuggish way is, in itself, a much more serious problem than if it were simply a response to either their unhappiness with policing or with the Government's austerity package.
The other issue that a lot of people seem worked up about is whether David Cameron should have dropped his holiday and rushed straight back to ... well I'm not sure exactly what he should do ... but apparently he should be here doing it.
Personally I think all members of the Government should be entitled to some holiday, particularly those with young children, and that other senior members of the Government should be perfectly capable of running the country in their abscence. The current situation is more directly the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who is here. We shouldn't need the PM to be here every time something kicks off.
My heart goes out to those directly affected. One of our friends works at Wood Green shopping centre (where we often used to shop when we lived in Tottenham) and he and many thousands of other people are very scared this evening.
Hundreds of people will have lost their homes, jobs, their businesses. My guess is that many of the communities affected will lose quite a few local shops for ever.
There is quite a debate going on about whether this is political, or just criminality. It is probably some of both, but it is definitely a lot of the latter.
Spontaneous political uprisings of the poverty stricken are not orgnaised via BlackBerry Messenger.
People angry at the Police don't decide to go off and loot a retail park two miles from the riot. That is pure, pre-meditated criminality.
In the long run, though, it may well be that the fact that so many young people feel able to act in such a selfish and thuggish way is, in itself, a much more serious problem than if it were simply a response to either their unhappiness with policing or with the Government's austerity package.
The other issue that a lot of people seem worked up about is whether David Cameron should have dropped his holiday and rushed straight back to ... well I'm not sure exactly what he should do ... but apparently he should be here doing it.
Personally I think all members of the Government should be entitled to some holiday, particularly those with young children, and that other senior members of the Government should be perfectly capable of running the country in their abscence. The current situation is more directly the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who is here. We shouldn't need the PM to be here every time something kicks off.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Independent wrong on NHS IT debacle
The Independent has today rightly highlighted the waste of £6.4 billion on the attempt to create a national NHS IT system.
This waste, and the range of failures that caused it, have been highlighted in a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
The leader article in the Independent, however, includes a bizarre comment in its concluding paragraph.
The paragraph starts:
Fair enough. But then it continues:
Apart from questioning how something 'scandalous' can, at the same time, be 'tolerable', this is an utterly bizarre comment.
It is NEVER tolerable for the Government to waste billions of pounds. Never. Every pound the Government wastes is a pound that could have provided a much needed service, could have reduced taxation on the less well off, or could have reduced the deficit by a pound.
This waste, and the range of failures that caused it, have been highlighted in a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
The leader article in the Independent, however, includes a bizarre comment in its concluding paragraph.
The paragraph starts:
"Away from the blame game, however, the bottom line is that this waste has to end."
Fair enough. But then it continues:
"In an era when the economy was booming, IT faragos, though scandalous, were tolerable."
Apart from questioning how something 'scandalous' can, at the same time, be 'tolerable', this is an utterly bizarre comment.
It is NEVER tolerable for the Government to waste billions of pounds. Never. Every pound the Government wastes is a pound that could have provided a much needed service, could have reduced taxation on the less well off, or could have reduced the deficit by a pound.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Remembering Andrew Reeves
I'm still coming to terms with the sad death of my friend and colleague Andrew Reeves who died at the age of 43 a few weeks ago. Although the same age (he's actually a few months older than me) I always thought of him as younger for some reason.
Last year he named me as one of three people who had inspired him in his early years in the party (along with Dave Hodgson and Gerald Vernon-Jackson) and I regret that I never got round to thanking him for that comment which meant a lot to me at the time and means even more now.
I knew Andrew from early on in his involvement in the party when he was working hard to get activity going in Dartford and started attending training sessions run by the South East Lib Dems. I liked him from the start, he had a keen intelligence, a willingness to learn, a down to earth attitude and a great sense of humour. We came from similar 'ordinary' backgrounds and often chatted about how neither of us had expected, earlier in our lives, to end up in this sort of role.
Like many of the people who turn out to be the best campaigners he was initially unsure about his ability but he quickly started to get involved.
The first time I remember having a lot to do with him was during the organisation of a regional conference which, from my rather sketchy memory, was a great success socially and politically but a bit of a disaster financially. (A combination not unknown to Andrew and many other campaigners!)
After some involvement as a volunteer Andrew started to think about working for the party, I think he saw it as a more interesting job than the catering work he was then doing. He was still a little hesitant, but I and others encouraged him, and he soon started on a series of organiser roles.
From then on I was in regular touch with Andrew, by email, on the phone, at training events, meetings and conferences. He rapidly developed from being one of the 'new' organisers to being one of the experienced that others would turn too for advice and support.
As the various speakers said yesterday (and thanks to Alistair Carmichael, Hilary Stephenson, Craig Ling, Fred Carver and Simon Hughes for great speeches which together summed up Andrew brilliantly and made me laugh a lot and cry a little) Andrew had an infectious enthusiasm and was loved by everyone who knew him. As Craig and Fred made clear yesterday he was a supportive and encouraging mentor.
After his stints in different parts of London as an organiser (for Vince Cable, Simon Hughes and Lynne Featherstone - quite a combination!) he became one of two London Campaigns Officers alongside Chris Leaman, and a member of my team of COs covering London and the South East of England (I was always very lucky to have a strong team working for me). As his line-manager it was great to see Andrew grow in this role, and in particular see him become a mentor to so many newer organisers.
As part of that job he went on the be the campaign manager for Brian Paddick's Mayoral Campaign in 2008. That election was always going to be hard work, and it was made harder for Andrew by the fact that I managed to contract pneumonia over Christmas 2007 and was not able to give the support he deserved during the campaign. We did keep in touch by email and phone and Andrew did as good a job as anyone could have done in the circumstances.
(It was interesting to hear Simon Hughes say yesterday that he had never seen Andrew lose his temper. That is a credit to Andrew's professionalism as a campaigner. As many of our former colleagues know we campaigners do our best not to explode in front of our candidates/MPs/local party executives at their latest idiocy - we hold it in and then go and ring one of our colleagues to let of steam instead! I was often on the other end of the phone when Andrew did so.)
Andrew, feeling that he had done as much as he could in London and wanting a new challenge, then made the move to Scotland as their Director of Campaigns. It was clear from Alistair's comments yesterday the he established himself quickly and won activists over in what would turn out to be a challenging period for the Scottish Lib Dems. As a result of that move, and of my resignation, I saw less of him during the last three years although we kept in touch and met up at conferences and training events.
Despite his undoubted talents I don't think Andrew himself ever really understood how well liked he was or how much his abilities were valued. He probably always had his head down working to have time to. (And my did he work - when I was his manager I had to force him to take at least some time off!).
I'm an agnostic when it comes to believing in any kind of afterlife, but Andrew's partner Roger is still regular posting on Andrew's Facebook page, so I'd like to hope Andrew was looking down on us yesterday with a combination of surprise and wry amusement.
So Andrew, assuming you are reading this, I miss you fella, I'm so glad I knew you, I hope you realise how much you meant to me and your large Lib Dem family.
And Roger - sorry I still didn't get to meet you - but I hope the service yesterday was some small comfort.
Monday, June 06, 2011
The Daily Mail - what a bunch of cnuts
The Daily Mail have got themselves into a right old tizz about a rude word that WAS NOT ACTUALLY BROADCAST on Radio 4 one evening.
And the article is written so badly that it is not at all clear whether this particular rude word was broadcast or not.
This is what was actually said by Sandi Toksvig during an episdoe of The News Quiz:
Anyone would think that the bunch of cnuts at the Daily Mail had it in for the Beeb and would use every available opportunity to have a go.
(Declaration of interest - Paul Mayhew-Archer is a friend.)
And the article is written so badly that it is not at all clear whether this particular rude word was broadcast or not.
This is what was actually said by Sandi Toksvig during an episdoe of The News Quiz:
‘It’s the Tories who have put the ‘n’ into cuts,’Yet the Mail reported this as:
"But the BBC is again at the centre of a decency row after it broadcast the word deemed the most offensive word in the English language in the early evening."Except that the BBC didn't actually broadcast the word at all.
Anyone would think that the bunch of cnuts at the Daily Mail had it in for the Beeb and would use every available opportunity to have a go.
(Declaration of interest - Paul Mayhew-Archer is a friend.)
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Guardian gets its priorities right again
Can anyone point me to the Guardian article about what the gentlemen were wearing?
You can find out about what the ladies were wearing here.
You can find out about what the ladies were wearing here.
Monday, January 17, 2011
UK Debt passes the trillion mark
UK Debt passes the trillion mark.
At least, according to this website which sets out a strong case, and quite a lot of useful information, from the 'debt is a bad thing' side of the argument.
At least, according to this website which sets out a strong case, and quite a lot of useful information, from the 'debt is a bad thing' side of the argument.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
By-election polls - take them with a pinch of salt
I see that ConservativeHome are reporting two polls from Oldham East & Saddleworth which show a modest Labour lead as evidence that Labour will win a 'thumping' victory.
I would take this interpretation with a pinch of salt.
I well remember during the Hartlepool by-election in 2004 that an NOP poll for Channel 4 put Labour a whacking 33% ahead. The actual result? Labour won by only 6%.
And it would have been less if the poll hadn't put Lib Dem helpers off from coming to help!
There was a similar poll, IIRC, in Birmingham Hodge Hill.
Parliamentary by-elections are all about momentum, and a lot of that is created by the sheer amount of effort that goes in during the last few days of the campaign.
We now have clear evidence to show local voters that the election is a 'two horse race', and this is likely to help us narrow the gap sharply.
Reports from the campaign are good. I would urge you to get along and help if you possibly can.
I would take this interpretation with a pinch of salt.
I well remember during the Hartlepool by-election in 2004 that an NOP poll for Channel 4 put Labour a whacking 33% ahead. The actual result? Labour won by only 6%.
And it would have been less if the poll hadn't put Lib Dem helpers off from coming to help!
There was a similar poll, IIRC, in Birmingham Hodge Hill.
Parliamentary by-elections are all about momentum, and a lot of that is created by the sheer amount of effort that goes in during the last few days of the campaign.
We now have clear evidence to show local voters that the election is a 'two horse race', and this is likely to help us narrow the gap sharply.
Reports from the campaign are good. I would urge you to get along and help if you possibly can.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Dear Electoral Commission (2) ...
A further letter asking for clarification following the Zac Goldsmith Case Review.
Dear Electoral Commission,
re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP
Further to my email yesterday there is another issue it would be useful to have guidance on.
Paragraph 3.16 of the review states:
"Mr Goldsmith‟s expenses return included an invoice for leaflets which cost £11,150.39. His return declared expenditure of £8,629.76, on the basis that not all of the leaflets had been used. The allegation suggested that in fact all material purchased should have been declared. However, the RPA2 defines election expenses as expenses incurred on materials used for the purposes of the candidate's election after the date when he becomes a candidate at the election. The guidance issued by the Commission states that candidates and agents must include the value of everything used in the regulated period, not what is purchased. We consider that Mr Goldsmith‟s reporting of the cost in relation to this item was consistent with the requirements of the RPA and the Commission‟s guidance in this area."
I was very surprised to raed this as the advice I have always been given is that you should declare the cost of everything you have bought for the purpose of the election, other than where you are sharing the cost with another campaign or going to use the material in the futre.
The problem with allowing campaigns to declare only part of a print run is that this allows them to benefit from economies of scale in printing costs and makes it very difficult to be certain what proportion of the run have actually been delivered.
For example if I want to produce a run of 10,000 leaflets it might cost me £500, whereas a run of 40,000 of the same leaflet might only cost £1000, due to the economies of scale involved in the printing process. If I get 40,000 printed and only use 10,000 (25% of the run) this ruling would allow me to declare only 25% of the bill, i.e. £250. In other words a campaign that has a lot of money to spend can artificially reduce the amount if has to declae on the election expenses.
Please can you therefore provide me with clear guidance on how this (new) rule works.
Is there any limit on how much a campaign can actually spend in order to reduce the aount it declares in the election expenses? (In either cash or percentage terms)
Is there any limit the number of different leaflets a campaign could claim to have not fully delivered?
How do you plan to be able to check what proportion of any given print run has been delivered?
Again, I would appreciate clear guidance on these points.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Fawcett.
Dear Electoral Commission,
re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP
Further to my email yesterday there is another issue it would be useful to have guidance on.
Paragraph 3.16 of the review states:
"Mr Goldsmith‟s expenses return included an invoice for leaflets which cost £11,150.39. His return declared expenditure of £8,629.76, on the basis that not all of the leaflets had been used. The allegation suggested that in fact all material purchased should have been declared. However, the RPA2 defines election expenses as expenses incurred on materials used for the purposes of the candidate's election after the date when he becomes a candidate at the election. The guidance issued by the Commission states that candidates and agents must include the value of everything used in the regulated period, not what is purchased. We consider that Mr Goldsmith‟s reporting of the cost in relation to this item was consistent with the requirements of the RPA and the Commission‟s guidance in this area."
I was very surprised to raed this as the advice I have always been given is that you should declare the cost of everything you have bought for the purpose of the election, other than where you are sharing the cost with another campaign or going to use the material in the futre.
The problem with allowing campaigns to declare only part of a print run is that this allows them to benefit from economies of scale in printing costs and makes it very difficult to be certain what proportion of the run have actually been delivered.
For example if I want to produce a run of 10,000 leaflets it might cost me £500, whereas a run of 40,000 of the same leaflet might only cost £1000, due to the economies of scale involved in the printing process. If I get 40,000 printed and only use 10,000 (25% of the run) this ruling would allow me to declare only 25% of the bill, i.e. £250. In other words a campaign that has a lot of money to spend can artificially reduce the amount if has to declae on the election expenses.
Please can you therefore provide me with clear guidance on how this (new) rule works.
Is there any limit on how much a campaign can actually spend in order to reduce the aount it declares in the election expenses? (In either cash or percentage terms)
Is there any limit the number of different leaflets a campaign could claim to have not fully delivered?
How do you plan to be able to check what proportion of any given print run has been delivered?
Again, I would appreciate clear guidance on these points.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Fawcett.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Dear Electoral Commission ...
I am sending this to the Electoral Commission after reading their Case Review regarding Zac Goldsmith's Election Expenses:
Dear Electoral Commission,
re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP
I have just read your Case Review regarding the expenses of Zac Goldsmith and am, frankly, very surprised by your decision not to refer the case for prosecution.
As someone who has been an election agent on numerous occasions, including at the General Election in 2010, it has always been clear to me that it was my duty to make sure I understood the rules, read the guidance, fill in the forms in line with the guidance and only spend within the limits.
I always understood that I faced prosecution if I failed to comply with your guidance and/or spent above the election expense limts, and that the law was applied strictly.
Your Case Review sets out very clearly that a) Mr Goldsmith's agent did not fill in the forms in line with your guidance, and b) that Mr Goldsmith's campaign almost certainly overspent the short campaign limit.
Yet you conclude that it is not in the public interest for there to be a prosecution.
In paragraph 4.3 you state: "In determining whether to refer the case to the police for criminal investigation, we considered not just whether an overspend may have occurred, but also the relative amount involved and whether the aggregate expenditure for both the whole campaign period exceeded the overall spending limit. We also considered whether there was any evidence of excessive spending which was so unreasonable as to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules."
I am likely to be a legal agent again in the future and would therefore like some clear guidance on the following points please:
1 What is the level of overspending above the election limits that you consider to be low enough to avoid prosecution. (Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)
2 What is the level of overspending that you consider substantial enough to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules.(Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)
3 Is it the case that it will strengthen my defence against prosecution if I claim to have not read and/or understood your guidance and therefore fill in my election expense return forms in a confusing manner?
I would appreciate clear answers to these questions please.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Fawcett.
Dear Electoral Commission,
re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP
I have just read your Case Review regarding the expenses of Zac Goldsmith and am, frankly, very surprised by your decision not to refer the case for prosecution.
As someone who has been an election agent on numerous occasions, including at the General Election in 2010, it has always been clear to me that it was my duty to make sure I understood the rules, read the guidance, fill in the forms in line with the guidance and only spend within the limits.
I always understood that I faced prosecution if I failed to comply with your guidance and/or spent above the election expense limts, and that the law was applied strictly.
Your Case Review sets out very clearly that a) Mr Goldsmith's agent did not fill in the forms in line with your guidance, and b) that Mr Goldsmith's campaign almost certainly overspent the short campaign limit.
Yet you conclude that it is not in the public interest for there to be a prosecution.
In paragraph 4.3 you state: "In determining whether to refer the case to the police for criminal investigation, we considered not just whether an overspend may have occurred, but also the relative amount involved and whether the aggregate expenditure for both the whole campaign period exceeded the overall spending limit. We also considered whether there was any evidence of excessive spending which was so unreasonable as to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules."
I am likely to be a legal agent again in the future and would therefore like some clear guidance on the following points please:
1 What is the level of overspending above the election limits that you consider to be low enough to avoid prosecution. (Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)
2 What is the level of overspending that you consider substantial enough to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules.(Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)
3 Is it the case that it will strengthen my defence against prosecution if I claim to have not read and/or understood your guidance and therefore fill in my election expense return forms in a confusing manner?
I would appreciate clear answers to these questions please.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Fawcett.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Why Lib Dem MPs should vote against increased tuition fees
Later today MPs will vote on whether or not to significantly increase tuition fees.
For me the lead up to this vote, and the implications for the party I have campaigned for for 23 years, are profoundly depressing.
I do accept that in a coalition we will have to make compromises. We have 57 MPs in a House Commons where the two dominant political parties both believe that individual students should make a substantial contribution to the cost of their first degree. I understand and accept that.
But what I find depressing is the way in which our party leaders, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable in particular, appear to be more willing to argue that black is white rather than stand up for our party's clear policy and the principles behind it.
Nick and Vince have tried to frame the debate as being about whether monthly repayments are lower or higher than under the current system. Clearly they are lower, at least for a few years, and clearly anyone earning between £15K and £21K will be better off.
And clearly the improvements for part-time students are welcome.
But surely the debate is about more than monthly repayments. (Apart from the fact that paying slightly lower monthly repayments, but for two or three times as many years, leaves you a lot worse off overall.)
Surely what is important to us, as Liberal Democrats, is that Higher Education is (or at least should be) an experience which transforms individuals and boosts their contribution to society.
Surely we should be arguing that yes, there are benefits to many graduates' earning potential, but the wider beneficial effects are far more important.
Surely, even if we believe that individuals will benefit, we believe that society benefits too? And that it is reasonable for society to pay at least some of the cost of each individual's higher education.
I wanted to hear our leaders arguing this case. A case which has won the day repeatedly at party conferences, in policy committees, and in manifesto negotiations. A case which our leaders argued during the election campaign. A case which is based on a Liberal view of the broader value of education.
Sadly this hasn't happened.
Sadly our leaders appear to be so bought in to making the coalition work that they see arguing the detail, and redefining concepts such as 'fairness' and 'progressive' rather than arguing the party's principles.
Sadly it appears that they would rather divert our attention onto what some email someone in NUS might have sent, than debate the real issues.
Our party leadership appear to have completely underestimated the importance of this issue to activists, members and a lot of the people who voted for us.
They appear to have ignored the express view of party conference and all the discussions that took place during the formulation of the manifesto for the last election.
And they appear to have forgotten a whole pile of things they said about trust in politics.
So it isn't the fact we have to compromise that annoys me, it is the way we got to this position.
They could have made this more of an issue in the coalition negotiations.
They could have chosen different priorities in departmental spending.
They could have 'received' the Browne Report rather than 'welcomed' it.
They could have taken a bit more time to look at all the alternatives, not rush to proposals based on the Browne report.
And our leaders could have made it clear that this is a compromise, but one that is difficult for the Lib Dems.
If they had done these things we would not be in the mess we are now.
Instead we have a set of proposals that mean that future graduates will pay the full (and possibly more than the full) cost of their degree while those of us whose education was paid for by other people's taxes pay nothing extra.
We have a scheme that means those who end up on above average but still modest incomes will pay back a much greater share of their earnings than those on high incomes, so that it is NOT progressive.
We have a scheme which will mean that most graduates will pay far more over their lifetime than under the current scheme.
And all this from a Government that claims that it is dealing with the deficit quickly so that future generations don't have to pay for the mistakes of this one.
So this is why Lib Dem MPs should vote against the Government's proposals.
They are unfair, they are not progressive, and they do not, therefore, pass the tests set down in the coalition agreement.
Our leadership has failed to argue the party's strong case for free education paid for by progressive taxation (so that those who do benefit financially would contribute more) and therefore have no right to expect our MPs to support them.
P.S. Yes Labour have been rubbish on this too and NUS not much better, but this isn't about them.
For me the lead up to this vote, and the implications for the party I have campaigned for for 23 years, are profoundly depressing.
I do accept that in a coalition we will have to make compromises. We have 57 MPs in a House Commons where the two dominant political parties both believe that individual students should make a substantial contribution to the cost of their first degree. I understand and accept that.
But what I find depressing is the way in which our party leaders, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable in particular, appear to be more willing to argue that black is white rather than stand up for our party's clear policy and the principles behind it.
Nick and Vince have tried to frame the debate as being about whether monthly repayments are lower or higher than under the current system. Clearly they are lower, at least for a few years, and clearly anyone earning between £15K and £21K will be better off.
And clearly the improvements for part-time students are welcome.
But surely the debate is about more than monthly repayments. (Apart from the fact that paying slightly lower monthly repayments, but for two or three times as many years, leaves you a lot worse off overall.)
Surely what is important to us, as Liberal Democrats, is that Higher Education is (or at least should be) an experience which transforms individuals and boosts their contribution to society.
Surely we should be arguing that yes, there are benefits to many graduates' earning potential, but the wider beneficial effects are far more important.
Surely, even if we believe that individuals will benefit, we believe that society benefits too? And that it is reasonable for society to pay at least some of the cost of each individual's higher education.
I wanted to hear our leaders arguing this case. A case which has won the day repeatedly at party conferences, in policy committees, and in manifesto negotiations. A case which our leaders argued during the election campaign. A case which is based on a Liberal view of the broader value of education.
Sadly this hasn't happened.
Sadly our leaders appear to be so bought in to making the coalition work that they see arguing the detail, and redefining concepts such as 'fairness' and 'progressive' rather than arguing the party's principles.
Sadly it appears that they would rather divert our attention onto what some email someone in NUS might have sent, than debate the real issues.
Our party leadership appear to have completely underestimated the importance of this issue to activists, members and a lot of the people who voted for us.
They appear to have ignored the express view of party conference and all the discussions that took place during the formulation of the manifesto for the last election.
And they appear to have forgotten a whole pile of things they said about trust in politics.
So it isn't the fact we have to compromise that annoys me, it is the way we got to this position.
They could have made this more of an issue in the coalition negotiations.
They could have chosen different priorities in departmental spending.
They could have 'received' the Browne Report rather than 'welcomed' it.
They could have taken a bit more time to look at all the alternatives, not rush to proposals based on the Browne report.
And our leaders could have made it clear that this is a compromise, but one that is difficult for the Lib Dems.
If they had done these things we would not be in the mess we are now.
Instead we have a set of proposals that mean that future graduates will pay the full (and possibly more than the full) cost of their degree while those of us whose education was paid for by other people's taxes pay nothing extra.
We have a scheme that means those who end up on above average but still modest incomes will pay back a much greater share of their earnings than those on high incomes, so that it is NOT progressive.
We have a scheme which will mean that most graduates will pay far more over their lifetime than under the current scheme.
And all this from a Government that claims that it is dealing with the deficit quickly so that future generations don't have to pay for the mistakes of this one.
So this is why Lib Dem MPs should vote against the Government's proposals.
They are unfair, they are not progressive, and they do not, therefore, pass the tests set down in the coalition agreement.
Our leadership has failed to argue the party's strong case for free education paid for by progressive taxation (so that those who do benefit financially would contribute more) and therefore have no right to expect our MPs to support them.
P.S. Yes Labour have been rubbish on this too and NUS not much better, but this isn't about them.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Well done Tim
I am delighted to hear that Tim Farron has been elected President of the Liberal Democrats.
I've known Tim since our student days when we both used to argue the Liberal case at NUS conferences against the kind of left wing numpties who were doing so much damage to the student cause on Wednesday.
Tim is a fine liberal, comes from an ordinary background and is an activist through and through.
I've known Tim since our student days when we both used to argue the Liberal case at NUS conferences against the kind of left wing numpties who were doing so much damage to the student cause on Wednesday.
Tim is a fine liberal, comes from an ordinary background and is an activist through and through.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Back to Old & Sad
I am delighted to hear the news that the Election Court has ordered a re-run of the Oldham East & Saddleworth election.
The campaign run by Labour's Phil Woolas in May was the most despicable I have ever seen and one he and the Labour Party should be ashamed of.
The last time I was in Oldham it was to help run the Royton South by-election (which we won), which preceded the Littleborough & Saddleworth parliamentary by-election in July 1995.
We won in Royton South, which was next door to Little & Sad, and I well remember a very gloomy Peter Mandelson turning up on the Friday morning expecting to celebrate a Labour victory but having to excuse a bad loss.
I helped with the local by-election because I was getting married on the penultimate weekend of the main by-election campaign and was therefore unable to be part of the campaign team. I even had to undertake extensive negotiations with Chris Rennard in order to persuade him to release some of our guests for the wedding!
I am already going through my diary to work out when I will be able to head up to help and look forward to meeting Lib Dem activists from around the country there.
The campaign run by Labour's Phil Woolas in May was the most despicable I have ever seen and one he and the Labour Party should be ashamed of.
The last time I was in Oldham it was to help run the Royton South by-election (which we won), which preceded the Littleborough & Saddleworth parliamentary by-election in July 1995.
We won in Royton South, which was next door to Little & Sad, and I well remember a very gloomy Peter Mandelson turning up on the Friday morning expecting to celebrate a Labour victory but having to excuse a bad loss.
I helped with the local by-election because I was getting married on the penultimate weekend of the main by-election campaign and was therefore unable to be part of the campaign team. I even had to undertake extensive negotiations with Chris Rennard in order to persuade him to release some of our guests for the wedding!
I am already going through my diary to work out when I will be able to head up to help and look forward to meeting Lib Dem activists from around the country there.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Trades Unions elect new Labour Leader
In our party we choose our party leader by a ballot of party members in which each member has one vote of equal value.
The Labour Party have just elected their new Leader in a system which gives some members several votes, and which allows Trades Union members who are not Labour Party members to have a third of the votes, and which allows those Trades Unions to promote a particualr candidate in the ballot mailing.
So they now have a Leader who has the support of neither the members nor the MPs.
No wonder they don't support Fairer Votes!
The Labour Party have just elected their new Leader in a system which gives some members several votes, and which allows Trades Union members who are not Labour Party members to have a third of the votes, and which allows those Trades Unions to promote a particualr candidate in the ballot mailing.
So they now have a Leader who has the support of neither the members nor the MPs.
No wonder they don't support Fairer Votes!
Blood, Sweat and Tears: What really happens at Federal Policy Committee
Two years ago I stood for election to the party's Federal Policy Committee (FPC). My primary reason for standing was that I wanted to help make sure that we did not ditch certain key policies from our General Election manifesto, and that I wanted to help ensure that the Manifesto was an effective campaigning document as well as a sound policy one.
There was a little bit of trepidation in this move, as I've never really been that excited about the detail of policy, although I think it's fair to say that I ended up fitting in reasonably well.
Top committees
I had previously been a member of two top committees.
Back when I worked for the Lib Dem Youth & Students (LDYS) I was a member of the first incarnation of the Campaigns and Communications Committee (CCC) under the very effective chairmanship of Matthew Taylor MP. This brought together representatives from the MPs, Campaigns, ALDC and LDYS to plan themed campaigning across the party and was, I felt, generally successful. I am still very proud of the LDYS campaign packs that came out of this process and the successful way in which LDYS campaigning complemented that of the national party.
A few years later I was elected to the Federal Executive (FE) with the aim of improving the party's approach to budgeting and improving support for and coordination of training. I achieved some of this, but found the Executive to be a more frustrating affair, and that it didn't really seem to know what its role was.
I was delighted to be elected to the FPC, coming third on first preferences behind the significantly more experienced and highly intelligent Duncan Brack and the somewhat more famous than me Claire Rayner. I interpreted this as a reflection of the strong stance I had taken on maintaining the party's opposition to Tuition Fees in my FPC manifesto.
Having enjoyed the two years, and particularly having some input into the manifesto, I have decided to not restand, largely because I don't realistically have the time to do it properly (and I don't like taking on jobs I haven't got the time to do).
Do stand and vote
I would encourage anyone who wants to to stand (although there is not long left!) and would generally encourage voting reps to take the election seriously. The rest of this posting aims to give you some idea of why the FPC is important.
So what is it really like on FPC?
Well, it's mainly as mundane as you would probably expect it to be. Most of the time was spent commissioning policy working groups to draft policy papers, reviewing those papers, rewriting bits and pieces and sometimes choosing between policy options that the working groups came up with.
Probably 90% of the time was spent on this.
But the other 10% turned out to be a) quite exciting and b) quite important.
Unlike my experience of the FE, FPC certainly does know its role, and takes that role very seriously. On the FPC each person has one vote and each vote is equal, whether you are the Party Leader or a humble elected member like myself.
In general there is a lot of genuine consensus, but where there is a disagreement the majority rules. There is no fear at all about disagreeing with the Leader or senior spokespeople.
Boo, hiss
I'm not going to tell you about which individual voted which way on what (boo, hiss, I hear you shout), because if committee members went round doing that it would seriously damage the ability of the FPC to function. But I can say a bit about some of the key issues we discussed, some of which came out in a rather public way!
The biggest bust up was over Tuition Fees. Party policy was clearly in opposition to them, and that policy had been a major and successful plank of our 2005 manifesto. But several senior members of the committee did not believe that the policy was sustainable. In the run up to last year's conference various public statements were made by senior figures which suggested that we were going to ditch the policy, or at least that it would not be a funded policy in the manifesto.
To say that there was a bit of a reaction to this would be an understatement!
Within days a draft motion had been circulated between FPC members to go to conference to set the record straight. A large majority supported it. (Technically I think it was an amendment to our own pre-manifesto motion) This was unheard of and made it obvious that the FPC was at odds with the leadership.
During conference a letter to the papers was drafted and circulated, and a very large majority of FPC signed it. This letter set out very clearly that we were committed to existing policy and that we expected the policy to remain in the manifesto.
There was also a bit of a to do about the proposal from Vince Cable for a Mansion Tax.
The following FPC meeting was, shall we say, quite interesting.
Because of the strength of the FPC a solution had to be found, and I put forward the view that we needed to find a way of keeping the policy commitment whilst ensuring that the figures stacked up. Various negotiations went on and we eventually worked out the phased funding approach that ended up in the final manifesto.
Other key issues
Other key issues that the FPC had significant influence over were schools policy (rejecting something quite similar to the Free Schools policy currently being implemented), health policy and Council Tax.
On this latter issue there was a very exciting row at one meeting.
Again the majority of the FPC strongly backed standing party policy that we should replace the (highly unfair) Council Tax with a (fair and simple) Local Income Tax.
However several senior figures, particularly those who had struggled to explain the policy at the previous election, made an attempt to drop/water down/replace the commitment.
It is fair to say that the resulting discussion got a little heated, and that the ensuing 'debate' was not carried out on the usual restrained basis, but everyone eventually calmed down and some progress was made.
Once again it was the strength of the majority view that prevailed, after some careful negotiation around the precise wording, with some wording that I proposed eventually being adopted.
Slartibartfast
And this links to my final point. As an individual member of FPC you do get the chance to have a direct influence on policy, and on the manifesto. In the same way that Slartibartfast was very proud of his fjords, I am extremely proud of some of the wording of the bits about abolishing the Council Tax and investing in Shipyards.
Throughout the process, and whilst not always agreeing with them on some key policies, my liking and respect for both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander steadily grew, and the same goes for the incredibly hard-working Vice-Chairs Jeremy Hargreaves and Richard Grayson.
So, with apologies that I haven't named names, or told you which Shadow Cabinet member behaved in a way my children would get a good telling off for, I hope that you will be convinced that the FPC fulfils an important role, and doesn't shy away from asserting its view when necessary.
If you are thinking of standing, and are someone who knows their own views and will stand up for them, please stand.
If you a voting representative, please vote.
And if you are a member of FPC, please forgive me any indiscretions in this article and the very best of luck with the important job you do for our party.
There was a little bit of trepidation in this move, as I've never really been that excited about the detail of policy, although I think it's fair to say that I ended up fitting in reasonably well.
Top committees
I had previously been a member of two top committees.
Back when I worked for the Lib Dem Youth & Students (LDYS) I was a member of the first incarnation of the Campaigns and Communications Committee (CCC) under the very effective chairmanship of Matthew Taylor MP. This brought together representatives from the MPs, Campaigns, ALDC and LDYS to plan themed campaigning across the party and was, I felt, generally successful. I am still very proud of the LDYS campaign packs that came out of this process and the successful way in which LDYS campaigning complemented that of the national party.
A few years later I was elected to the Federal Executive (FE) with the aim of improving the party's approach to budgeting and improving support for and coordination of training. I achieved some of this, but found the Executive to be a more frustrating affair, and that it didn't really seem to know what its role was.
I was delighted to be elected to the FPC, coming third on first preferences behind the significantly more experienced and highly intelligent Duncan Brack and the somewhat more famous than me Claire Rayner. I interpreted this as a reflection of the strong stance I had taken on maintaining the party's opposition to Tuition Fees in my FPC manifesto.
Having enjoyed the two years, and particularly having some input into the manifesto, I have decided to not restand, largely because I don't realistically have the time to do it properly (and I don't like taking on jobs I haven't got the time to do).
Do stand and vote
I would encourage anyone who wants to to stand (although there is not long left!) and would generally encourage voting reps to take the election seriously. The rest of this posting aims to give you some idea of why the FPC is important.
So what is it really like on FPC?
Well, it's mainly as mundane as you would probably expect it to be. Most of the time was spent commissioning policy working groups to draft policy papers, reviewing those papers, rewriting bits and pieces and sometimes choosing between policy options that the working groups came up with.
Probably 90% of the time was spent on this.
But the other 10% turned out to be a) quite exciting and b) quite important.
Unlike my experience of the FE, FPC certainly does know its role, and takes that role very seriously. On the FPC each person has one vote and each vote is equal, whether you are the Party Leader or a humble elected member like myself.
In general there is a lot of genuine consensus, but where there is a disagreement the majority rules. There is no fear at all about disagreeing with the Leader or senior spokespeople.
Boo, hiss
I'm not going to tell you about which individual voted which way on what (boo, hiss, I hear you shout), because if committee members went round doing that it would seriously damage the ability of the FPC to function. But I can say a bit about some of the key issues we discussed, some of which came out in a rather public way!
The biggest bust up was over Tuition Fees. Party policy was clearly in opposition to them, and that policy had been a major and successful plank of our 2005 manifesto. But several senior members of the committee did not believe that the policy was sustainable. In the run up to last year's conference various public statements were made by senior figures which suggested that we were going to ditch the policy, or at least that it would not be a funded policy in the manifesto.
To say that there was a bit of a reaction to this would be an understatement!
Within days a draft motion had been circulated between FPC members to go to conference to set the record straight. A large majority supported it. (Technically I think it was an amendment to our own pre-manifesto motion) This was unheard of and made it obvious that the FPC was at odds with the leadership.
During conference a letter to the papers was drafted and circulated, and a very large majority of FPC signed it. This letter set out very clearly that we were committed to existing policy and that we expected the policy to remain in the manifesto.
There was also a bit of a to do about the proposal from Vince Cable for a Mansion Tax.
The following FPC meeting was, shall we say, quite interesting.
Because of the strength of the FPC a solution had to be found, and I put forward the view that we needed to find a way of keeping the policy commitment whilst ensuring that the figures stacked up. Various negotiations went on and we eventually worked out the phased funding approach that ended up in the final manifesto.
Other key issues
Other key issues that the FPC had significant influence over were schools policy (rejecting something quite similar to the Free Schools policy currently being implemented), health policy and Council Tax.
On this latter issue there was a very exciting row at one meeting.
Again the majority of the FPC strongly backed standing party policy that we should replace the (highly unfair) Council Tax with a (fair and simple) Local Income Tax.
However several senior figures, particularly those who had struggled to explain the policy at the previous election, made an attempt to drop/water down/replace the commitment.
It is fair to say that the resulting discussion got a little heated, and that the ensuing 'debate' was not carried out on the usual restrained basis, but everyone eventually calmed down and some progress was made.
Once again it was the strength of the majority view that prevailed, after some careful negotiation around the precise wording, with some wording that I proposed eventually being adopted.
Slartibartfast
And this links to my final point. As an individual member of FPC you do get the chance to have a direct influence on policy, and on the manifesto. In the same way that Slartibartfast was very proud of his fjords, I am extremely proud of some of the wording of the bits about abolishing the Council Tax and investing in Shipyards.
Throughout the process, and whilst not always agreeing with them on some key policies, my liking and respect for both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander steadily grew, and the same goes for the incredibly hard-working Vice-Chairs Jeremy Hargreaves and Richard Grayson.
So, with apologies that I haven't named names, or told you which Shadow Cabinet member behaved in a way my children would get a good telling off for, I hope that you will be convinced that the FPC fulfils an important role, and doesn't shy away from asserting its view when necessary.
If you are thinking of standing, and are someone who knows their own views and will stand up for them, please stand.
If you a voting representative, please vote.
And if you are a member of FPC, please forgive me any indiscretions in this article and the very best of luck with the important job you do for our party.
That Was The Conference That Was
I always enjoy party conference and my 24th Autumn Conference, and the party's first in Government, was no exception.
Apart from the higher level of security it was little different to others on the face of it, although the mood was definitely a little different.
Lib Dem Conference goers have got used, over the years, to the media coverage of our conferences bearing little relation to what those of us there experienced. If anything I would say there was less of that this time.
Expectations
Journalists may have to come to Liverpool expecting bust ups and for the leadership to be given a hard time, but in general that didn't happen and their reporting was more subdued.
I thought the article by Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian - 'Lib Dem Conference: 10 things I've learned' - summed the change in attitude up well.
I think it also reflected the steady change in mood of party activists too. A week ago many didn't really know what to expect. There are very real concerns about the impact of the coalition, and particularly the coming cuts, and party conference might have been the place that concern would turn to anger.
In fact the opposite happened. Nick Clegg and other leading figures rightly acknowledged the concerns, encouraged a feeling that we were all part of a team that would face the problems together, and moved on to set out the very real achievements we have already made in government.
Mingling freely
Nick, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State mingled freely (and as usual) with party members around the fringes and in the bars, and spoke freely and frankly about how things are going.
From a personal perspective it was great to see people I have known for 20 years or more chatting about what it is like to be a Minister and what they are starting to achieve. For example I had a long chat with Jeremy Browne, who I have known since we were fighting NUS elections together, about the life of a Minister and how hard he is working to continue to serve his constituents (something Jeremy does exceptionally well). It was also good to chat to (the greatly underrated) Danny Alexander about his onerous responsibilities and his expectations about what was to come.
Where this conference differed from previous ones was that there was a much more serious tone to a lot of the debate and discussion.
No longer are the Lib Dems discussing policy in the abstract, but policy that might be implemented by the Government, or at least feed in to its thinking.
No stifling
It was also very positive to see that there has been no attempt to stifle debate. The leadership clearly disagreed with the motion about Free Schools and Academies, but did so by joining the debate. There was no attempt to stifle dissent, and no return of the kind of stroppiness we would have seen back in Paddy's day.
The other factor that I think played a big part in settling people's nerves was the strong promotion of the the Fairer Votes Referendum. From the rally last Saturday onwards the party promoted the importance of the referendum, an issue which broadly unites the party and gives people a very positive reason to get out there and campaign.
Humble organiser
For me it was a quiet conference. Being back in the role of a humble Constituency Organiser my time was largely my own. I helped run one training session, and had a couple of meetings to attend, but apart from those spent more time in debates and chatting to folk than for many years.
It was great to have time to sit down and talk to people rather than the hurried hello in passing that I had got used to in my years as a Campaigns Officer. It was also great to socialise with many of my former colleagues and, in particular, to finally get to see the hilarious Will Howells perform at one of the local Comedy Clubs.
All in all this conference did the job it needed to do. We left with a sense that while Nick and our ministerial team are set on their coalition course, they do understand the concerns of members and activists. We also left with a long list of genuinely liberal achievements which have been made, are being made and will be made soon.
Apart from the higher level of security it was little different to others on the face of it, although the mood was definitely a little different.
Lib Dem Conference goers have got used, over the years, to the media coverage of our conferences bearing little relation to what those of us there experienced. If anything I would say there was less of that this time.
Expectations
Journalists may have to come to Liverpool expecting bust ups and for the leadership to be given a hard time, but in general that didn't happen and their reporting was more subdued.
I thought the article by Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian - 'Lib Dem Conference: 10 things I've learned' - summed the change in attitude up well.
I think it also reflected the steady change in mood of party activists too. A week ago many didn't really know what to expect. There are very real concerns about the impact of the coalition, and particularly the coming cuts, and party conference might have been the place that concern would turn to anger.
In fact the opposite happened. Nick Clegg and other leading figures rightly acknowledged the concerns, encouraged a feeling that we were all part of a team that would face the problems together, and moved on to set out the very real achievements we have already made in government.
Mingling freely
Nick, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State mingled freely (and as usual) with party members around the fringes and in the bars, and spoke freely and frankly about how things are going.
From a personal perspective it was great to see people I have known for 20 years or more chatting about what it is like to be a Minister and what they are starting to achieve. For example I had a long chat with Jeremy Browne, who I have known since we were fighting NUS elections together, about the life of a Minister and how hard he is working to continue to serve his constituents (something Jeremy does exceptionally well). It was also good to chat to (the greatly underrated) Danny Alexander about his onerous responsibilities and his expectations about what was to come.
Where this conference differed from previous ones was that there was a much more serious tone to a lot of the debate and discussion.
No longer are the Lib Dems discussing policy in the abstract, but policy that might be implemented by the Government, or at least feed in to its thinking.
No stifling
It was also very positive to see that there has been no attempt to stifle debate. The leadership clearly disagreed with the motion about Free Schools and Academies, but did so by joining the debate. There was no attempt to stifle dissent, and no return of the kind of stroppiness we would have seen back in Paddy's day.
The other factor that I think played a big part in settling people's nerves was the strong promotion of the the Fairer Votes Referendum. From the rally last Saturday onwards the party promoted the importance of the referendum, an issue which broadly unites the party and gives people a very positive reason to get out there and campaign.
Humble organiser
For me it was a quiet conference. Being back in the role of a humble Constituency Organiser my time was largely my own. I helped run one training session, and had a couple of meetings to attend, but apart from those spent more time in debates and chatting to folk than for many years.
It was great to have time to sit down and talk to people rather than the hurried hello in passing that I had got used to in my years as a Campaigns Officer. It was also great to socialise with many of my former colleagues and, in particular, to finally get to see the hilarious Will Howells perform at one of the local Comedy Clubs.
All in all this conference did the job it needed to do. We left with a sense that while Nick and our ministerial team are set on their coalition course, they do understand the concerns of members and activists. We also left with a long list of genuinely liberal achievements which have been made, are being made and will be made soon.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Why I'm Backing Tim Farron for Party President
The role of Party President is a flexible one. There are some things the President has to do, like chairing the Federal Executive, but most of the roll is down to how whoever is elected to the post wants to play it.
Ros Scott has done a good job, and was the right person for the last two years.
My reasons for deciding to support Tim Farron are based on my view of what kind of President the party is going to need over the next two years, which will be very different from the last.
We are very likely to face a difficult few years as a party. Even if our decisions to join the coalition and prioritise cutting the deficit are proven to be right in the long run there will be a few hard years before it becomes clear.
And it is not going to be easy for a party which has developed its collective skills as a campaigning opposition party to adapt to the role of a party of government.
During this period it is vitally important that we have a Party President who can keep morale up, keep the troops rallied and communicate our distinctiveness through the media.
My experience of Tim is that he has the skills needed to be that kind of President in spades.
I've known Tim since we were both involved in the National Union of Students. We were both Presidents of our respective Students' Unions (him Newcastle 91-92, me Leicester 92-93), and we attended several NUS Conferences together where it is fair to say that being a vocal Liberal Democrat was something of a novelty and often drew an excitable, noisy and negative response from a largely left-wing audience.
Even back then Tim was a passionate and engaging speaker, and to this day I always look forward to hearing Tim speak. His speech to the fairer votes rally on Saturday was no exception, despite his lack of preparation time.
Some people rightly question whether or not an MP should take the role of President.
My view is that it depends on the individual and the circumstances.
During the last Parliament Tim turned a wafer thin majority into a massive one. He did this while having a key role in the Parliamentary Party.
I am certain that he is more than capable of combining the role of a backbench MP with that of President and wouldn't support him if I had any doubts about this.
And I also know that when Tim says that he will be supportive of Nick and his role, whilst also being a critical friend of the coalition, that he understands the distinction between these two things and will do both of them well.
Finally I know that Tim's is a liberal through and through, and that he has given his heart and soul to campaigning for our party. During the next few years it is going to be hard work on the ground and Tim had been there and done that. He will lead from the front and enthuse members and activists wherever he goes.
So please vote for Tim Farron to be our next Party President.
The other three declared candidates are also great candidates, each in their different ways. It is great thing that our party's democracy is such that such a diverse field can stand and campaign.
I would like to put a plug in for the pledge bank supporting Jennie Rigg. Jennie does not have a huge income and if she wins will need support to get by. No-one should feel unable to put themselves forward because of financial worries so, if you are able, and regardless of who you are supporting, please consider making the pledge to support her.
Ros Scott has done a good job, and was the right person for the last two years.
My reasons for deciding to support Tim Farron are based on my view of what kind of President the party is going to need over the next two years, which will be very different from the last.
We are very likely to face a difficult few years as a party. Even if our decisions to join the coalition and prioritise cutting the deficit are proven to be right in the long run there will be a few hard years before it becomes clear.
And it is not going to be easy for a party which has developed its collective skills as a campaigning opposition party to adapt to the role of a party of government.
During this period it is vitally important that we have a Party President who can keep morale up, keep the troops rallied and communicate our distinctiveness through the media.
My experience of Tim is that he has the skills needed to be that kind of President in spades.
I've known Tim since we were both involved in the National Union of Students. We were both Presidents of our respective Students' Unions (him Newcastle 91-92, me Leicester 92-93), and we attended several NUS Conferences together where it is fair to say that being a vocal Liberal Democrat was something of a novelty and often drew an excitable, noisy and negative response from a largely left-wing audience.
Even back then Tim was a passionate and engaging speaker, and to this day I always look forward to hearing Tim speak. His speech to the fairer votes rally on Saturday was no exception, despite his lack of preparation time.
Some people rightly question whether or not an MP should take the role of President.
My view is that it depends on the individual and the circumstances.
During the last Parliament Tim turned a wafer thin majority into a massive one. He did this while having a key role in the Parliamentary Party.
I am certain that he is more than capable of combining the role of a backbench MP with that of President and wouldn't support him if I had any doubts about this.
And I also know that when Tim says that he will be supportive of Nick and his role, whilst also being a critical friend of the coalition, that he understands the distinction between these two things and will do both of them well.
Finally I know that Tim's is a liberal through and through, and that he has given his heart and soul to campaigning for our party. During the next few years it is going to be hard work on the ground and Tim had been there and done that. He will lead from the front and enthuse members and activists wherever he goes.
So please vote for Tim Farron to be our next Party President.
The other three declared candidates are also great candidates, each in their different ways. It is great thing that our party's democracy is such that such a diverse field can stand and campaign.
I would like to put a plug in for the pledge bank supporting Jennie Rigg. Jennie does not have a huge income and if she wins will need support to get by. No-one should feel unable to put themselves forward because of financial worries so, if you are able, and regardless of who you are supporting, please consider making the pledge to support her.
How the coalition is affecting local results
As readers of Lib Dem Voice will know (and there seem to be a lot of you, from the numbers who've already mentioned our victory on Thursday to me at conference) we have just celebrated the third of three local by-election victories in the Oxford West & Abingdon (OxWAb) constituency since May.
Sadly all three by-elections were caused by the deaths of long-standing, effective and hard-working local councillors, Audrey Tamplin, John Wyse and Pat Hobby, each of whom I had helped elect originally and each of whom I had a lot of respect for.
Following our loss of Evan's seat in the General Election there was a real danger (as the party has seen in other places) that our local seats would start to fall like dominoes as a result.
But the activists in OxWAb are, I'm pleased to say, made of sterner stuff. Within a few days of the General Election our Abingdon team were back out on the streets canvassing and delivering for a Town Council seat in Dunmore ward, one of a minority of wards in the constituency that has seen some Conservative representation in recent years.
We selected the excellent Julia Bricknell who had fought and won the same ward in a district council by-election a year ago, and she worked her socks off. I'd like to say we fought an excellent but it was actually a fairly straightforward one. We had a good, local candidate, a positive record of working for the town and a good local issue around the need for a full interchange on the A34 at Lodge Hill.
And the coalition, which was being formed during the period of the campaign? A fair few people mentioned it, some negatively and some positively. A very small number, typically of previous tactical supporters, said they wouldn't vote for us a as a result, but a few others gave us credit for making a difficult decision and went with us a result.
But the over-riding message is that nearly everybody said nothing about the coalition at all and wanted to talk about local issues in the town.
We held the seat with very little change from previously.
The day after polling day in Dunmore was the nominations deadline for a Cherwell District by-election in Kidlington North, at the other end of the constituency. This seat had been held for 12 years by the indefatigable John Wyse who had originally been elected in an election with the slogan 'Vote Wyse-ly' (see what we did there?) and who had built up a formidable reputation over his years as a councillor.
If we were to lose ground to the Tories in OxWAb, Kidlington North would likely be one of the first places to go.
We selected a keen young candidate in Alaric Rose who proved to be a real find. A local resident, he got out on the doorsteps and personally spoke to hundreds of residents. The Kidlington team, augmented by help from across the constituency and beyond, worked very hard and secured another victory.
As far as the coalition was concerned it was much the same as in Dunmore. A small number of people against, some of whom said they would not vote for us as a result, but many others pro, and an overall sense that in a local election the work our Kidlington team have been doing to improve the village is far more important than what is going on in Westminster.
Kidlington was different to the two Abingdon by-elections in that Labour did run and active campaign, with leaflets attacking the coalition. They also had a big team out on polling day, including several helpers from Oxford East. It didn't seem to make much difference and they still trailed in a poor third.
And finally (and, to be honest, the novelty of by-elections was starting to wear off at this point) we faced out third by-election in Abingdon Northcourt.
We were very lucky to persuade one of our long-standing local deliverers, Helen Pighills, to stand. The campaign got off to a slower start - it was mid-August and most of the electorate and quite a few of our key activists were away. I even managed a lovely week in Somerset myself.
We got a couple of leaflets out and from the Bank Holiday the campaign started motoring. Helen canvassed regularly, and the Abingdon team once again trooped out to help her.
And the coalition - well, sorry to disappoint those of you looking for doom and gloom, but it was exactly the same as the previous two by-elections. As soon as folk knew it was a town council by-election they wanted to talk about the town. And once again the combination of a very good local candidate, our positive record of improving Abingdon, and highlighting the Conservative run County Council's failures, was enough to deliver us a 3% swing from the Tories.
Once again a few people raised the coalition and/or the coming cuts, but it was only a small number, and those who wouldn't vote for us as a result were even fewer.
So as far as our campaigning through to next May is concerned I think there are a few useful lessons (and none of them new ones!):
Those of us who remember campaigning in the post-merger 1988-1991 period know that we can win seats and councils at local level even in the face of dire national poll ratings (we were at about 4% in the polls when I helped us win control of Oadby & Wigston in one of those years!).
But we will only win where we put in the work on the ground. Anyone who thinks that it will be as easy this time round, or that they can rely on our national success, is deluding themselves. Whenever you have started your campaigns previously, start earlier. However many leaflets you have delivered previously, deliver more. And however many doors you have knocked on previously, knock on more.
Good luck!
Sadly all three by-elections were caused by the deaths of long-standing, effective and hard-working local councillors, Audrey Tamplin, John Wyse and Pat Hobby, each of whom I had helped elect originally and each of whom I had a lot of respect for.
Following our loss of Evan's seat in the General Election there was a real danger (as the party has seen in other places) that our local seats would start to fall like dominoes as a result.
But the activists in OxWAb are, I'm pleased to say, made of sterner stuff. Within a few days of the General Election our Abingdon team were back out on the streets canvassing and delivering for a Town Council seat in Dunmore ward, one of a minority of wards in the constituency that has seen some Conservative representation in recent years.
We selected the excellent Julia Bricknell who had fought and won the same ward in a district council by-election a year ago, and she worked her socks off. I'd like to say we fought an excellent but it was actually a fairly straightforward one. We had a good, local candidate, a positive record of working for the town and a good local issue around the need for a full interchange on the A34 at Lodge Hill.
And the coalition, which was being formed during the period of the campaign? A fair few people mentioned it, some negatively and some positively. A very small number, typically of previous tactical supporters, said they wouldn't vote for us a as a result, but a few others gave us credit for making a difficult decision and went with us a result.
But the over-riding message is that nearly everybody said nothing about the coalition at all and wanted to talk about local issues in the town.
We held the seat with very little change from previously.
The day after polling day in Dunmore was the nominations deadline for a Cherwell District by-election in Kidlington North, at the other end of the constituency. This seat had been held for 12 years by the indefatigable John Wyse who had originally been elected in an election with the slogan 'Vote Wyse-ly' (see what we did there?) and who had built up a formidable reputation over his years as a councillor.
If we were to lose ground to the Tories in OxWAb, Kidlington North would likely be one of the first places to go.
We selected a keen young candidate in Alaric Rose who proved to be a real find. A local resident, he got out on the doorsteps and personally spoke to hundreds of residents. The Kidlington team, augmented by help from across the constituency and beyond, worked very hard and secured another victory.
As far as the coalition was concerned it was much the same as in Dunmore. A small number of people against, some of whom said they would not vote for us as a result, but many others pro, and an overall sense that in a local election the work our Kidlington team have been doing to improve the village is far more important than what is going on in Westminster.
Kidlington was different to the two Abingdon by-elections in that Labour did run and active campaign, with leaflets attacking the coalition. They also had a big team out on polling day, including several helpers from Oxford East. It didn't seem to make much difference and they still trailed in a poor third.
And finally (and, to be honest, the novelty of by-elections was starting to wear off at this point) we faced out third by-election in Abingdon Northcourt.
We were very lucky to persuade one of our long-standing local deliverers, Helen Pighills, to stand. The campaign got off to a slower start - it was mid-August and most of the electorate and quite a few of our key activists were away. I even managed a lovely week in Somerset myself.
We got a couple of leaflets out and from the Bank Holiday the campaign started motoring. Helen canvassed regularly, and the Abingdon team once again trooped out to help her.
And the coalition - well, sorry to disappoint those of you looking for doom and gloom, but it was exactly the same as the previous two by-elections. As soon as folk knew it was a town council by-election they wanted to talk about the town. And once again the combination of a very good local candidate, our positive record of improving Abingdon, and highlighting the Conservative run County Council's failures, was enough to deliver us a 3% swing from the Tories.
Once again a few people raised the coalition and/or the coming cuts, but it was only a small number, and those who wouldn't vote for us as a result were even fewer.
So as far as our campaigning through to next May is concerned I think there are a few useful lessons (and none of them new ones!):
- Keep it local. In local elections the voters are primarily concerned about local issues and our local record.
- Work hard. In each of the three by-elections we delivered more leaflets and knocked on more doors than the opposition.
- Keep it simple. In each by-election we stuck to a small number of simple messages promoting our strong candidate, our positive local record, pointing out the Tory County's failures and squeezing the Labour and Green vote throughout.
Those of us who remember campaigning in the post-merger 1988-1991 period know that we can win seats and councils at local level even in the face of dire national poll ratings (we were at about 4% in the polls when I helped us win control of Oadby & Wigston in one of those years!).
But we will only win where we put in the work on the ground. Anyone who thinks that it will be as easy this time round, or that they can rely on our national success, is deluding themselves. Whenever you have started your campaigns previously, start earlier. However many leaflets you have delivered previously, deliver more. And however many doors you have knocked on previously, knock on more.
Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)