Always was a favourite of mine :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dhZ2VjbxQQ
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Steve Jobs RIP - Inspiring 2005 speech
I'm not an Apple fanboy as many seem to be, but I certainly recognise that Steve Jobs' vision has had a major impact on how we live our lives today.
I've never owned a Mac, and don't yet have an iPad, but I do make good use of my iPod which was given to me as a leaving present by my colleagues when I left the Campaigns Dept. a few years ago.
It's clear from reading the obituaries that Steve Jobs wasn't perfect, and that he was very aware of this, but his drive and innovation deserve recognition.
This was his 2005 Stanford University Comemncement Address. I think it is quite inspirational, particularly his willingness to learn from his experience and his resilience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
Hat tip: DailyKos
I've never owned a Mac, and don't yet have an iPad, but I do make good use of my iPod which was given to me as a leaving present by my colleagues when I left the Campaigns Dept. a few years ago.
It's clear from reading the obituaries that Steve Jobs wasn't perfect, and that he was very aware of this, but his drive and innovation deserve recognition.
This was his 2005 Stanford University Comemncement Address. I think it is quite inspirational, particularly his willingness to learn from his experience and his resilience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
Hat tip: DailyKos
Thursday, September 22, 2011
My conference blogs wordle
This is what wordle makes of my conference blog posts:
Nothing unusual there then.
Nothing unusual there then.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
#ldconf Monday (2): In which I am inspired by those I was asked to inspire
The most enjoyable part of Monday for me was away from the conference itself.
An old friend and colleague, Simon Foster, is now a Politics Lecturer at Birmingham Metropolitan College, and he had asked me to go and speak to his A2 Politics group about Liberalism.
This term the group are learning about the main political ideologies, so the arrival of the Liberal Democrat conference in the city has enabled many of his students to get some hands on experience of a political party.
Not being in any way academic myself, I was a little unsure of where to start. I ended up deciding to talk about how I had become involved in politics (25 years ago I would have been sitting in my A Level Politics class!), how I worked out I was a Liberal, what Liberalism means to me and how that links with some of the issues the Liberal Democrats have been discussing this week.
Simon gave me a lift over to the College and blimey it's impressive. I took my A Levels at the then Sir William Turners Sixth Form College in Redcar which had about 160 students in each f its two years. It was tiny and was recently closed and demolished after merging with the bigger local FE College.
Birmingham Met is on an entirely different scale. The Matthew Boulton campus (which used to be a college in its own right) seemed to be as big as a small university.
By coincidence the College were also about to receive a visit from (Baroness) Margaret Sharp, Lib Dem peer and education policy expert, which did mean that coffee and buns had been laid on. I got to talk with a diverse group of youngsters who were waiting for her about the courses they were doing and their aspirations for the future.
I then got taken up to Simon's classroom and watched the first part of the lesson which was about the main principles of Liberalism, a nice lead in to what I had in mind to say.
It was immediately clear that Simon's students were a bright bunch, as well as a real mix, and they were very engaged in the discussion. It also struck me that whatever some people might say about exam standards they group were working at a higher level than I remember from my A Level course 25 years ago.
I then got up and did my bit. I talked about how I had first got interested in politics when I did my A Levels and that the first politician I went to hear speak was Shirley Williams, then MP. This was obviously the moment when Baroness Sharp was going to turn up on her tour of the College which she then did. The consequence of this was that she had to sit an listen to me explaining Liberal ideology for ten minutes, which is a bit of a role reversal!
She and her entourage left, and I went on to link Liberal theory with some of the issues we have been dealing with as a party: relating the ID Cards issue back to Mill, the pupil premium to positive liberty etc.
Most of the session was then left for discussion and it was, for me, a joy to take part in. The standard of debate was high, and we tackled some difficult issues. A question was raised about the limits of free speech. I posed the example of the insulting cartoon of The Prophet Muhammed which were published in Denmark in 2005 and how it related to Mill's harm principle.
We also discussed Lib Dem education policy (tuition fees and EMAs were both high on their minds) and how different people have come to different conclusions about spending priorities and how that might relate back to Liberal principles.
Most of Simon's students were already applying for University but I was keen to end the session by encouraging them on that path. I talked a little about my personal experience, coming from a background where University wasn't the common option, and what a life-enhancing experience University had been for me. I'm glad to say that they all seemed to be keen on applying and several chatted about where they were hoping to go and what they hoped to do.
I cannot express how impressed I was with the level of debate and the eloquence of the students and felt quite inspired by the whole experience. They were great kids and I hope they go on to fulfil their ambitions.
An old friend and colleague, Simon Foster, is now a Politics Lecturer at Birmingham Metropolitan College, and he had asked me to go and speak to his A2 Politics group about Liberalism.
This term the group are learning about the main political ideologies, so the arrival of the Liberal Democrat conference in the city has enabled many of his students to get some hands on experience of a political party.
Not being in any way academic myself, I was a little unsure of where to start. I ended up deciding to talk about how I had become involved in politics (25 years ago I would have been sitting in my A Level Politics class!), how I worked out I was a Liberal, what Liberalism means to me and how that links with some of the issues the Liberal Democrats have been discussing this week.
Simon gave me a lift over to the College and blimey it's impressive. I took my A Levels at the then Sir William Turners Sixth Form College in Redcar which had about 160 students in each f its two years. It was tiny and was recently closed and demolished after merging with the bigger local FE College.
Birmingham Met is on an entirely different scale. The Matthew Boulton campus (which used to be a college in its own right) seemed to be as big as a small university.
By coincidence the College were also about to receive a visit from (Baroness) Margaret Sharp, Lib Dem peer and education policy expert, which did mean that coffee and buns had been laid on. I got to talk with a diverse group of youngsters who were waiting for her about the courses they were doing and their aspirations for the future.
I then got taken up to Simon's classroom and watched the first part of the lesson which was about the main principles of Liberalism, a nice lead in to what I had in mind to say.
It was immediately clear that Simon's students were a bright bunch, as well as a real mix, and they were very engaged in the discussion. It also struck me that whatever some people might say about exam standards they group were working at a higher level than I remember from my A Level course 25 years ago.
I then got up and did my bit. I talked about how I had first got interested in politics when I did my A Levels and that the first politician I went to hear speak was Shirley Williams, then MP. This was obviously the moment when Baroness Sharp was going to turn up on her tour of the College which she then did. The consequence of this was that she had to sit an listen to me explaining Liberal ideology for ten minutes, which is a bit of a role reversal!
She and her entourage left, and I went on to link Liberal theory with some of the issues we have been dealing with as a party: relating the ID Cards issue back to Mill, the pupil premium to positive liberty etc.
Most of the session was then left for discussion and it was, for me, a joy to take part in. The standard of debate was high, and we tackled some difficult issues. A question was raised about the limits of free speech. I posed the example of the insulting cartoon of The Prophet Muhammed which were published in Denmark in 2005 and how it related to Mill's harm principle.
We also discussed Lib Dem education policy (tuition fees and EMAs were both high on their minds) and how different people have come to different conclusions about spending priorities and how that might relate back to Liberal principles.
Most of Simon's students were already applying for University but I was keen to end the session by encouraging them on that path. I talked a little about my personal experience, coming from a background where University wasn't the common option, and what a life-enhancing experience University had been for me. I'm glad to say that they all seemed to be keen on applying and several chatted about where they were hoping to go and what they hoped to do.
I cannot express how impressed I was with the level of debate and the eloquence of the students and felt quite inspired by the whole experience. They were great kids and I hope they go on to fulfil their ambitions.
#ldconf Monday: In which the veterans demonstrated their resilience
Why Paddy, Lynne, Vince and Tim are so resilient
Those of us who got involved in the party around the time of merger will have had a lot of sympathy with Paddy's recollection of the period we registered as an asterix in the opinion polls.
I joined the Liberal Party in 1987 and became active as the parties were merging and remember keeping track of opinion polls in which we bumped along at 4% or so, competing with the continuing SDP and the Greens. As Paddy pointed out there was one month when the pollsters couldn't find even enough supporters for us to get a score at all.
I remember several NUS conferences in the few years following where a small Lib Dem grouping which included Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and several other now veteran party campaigners when the national party was, frankly, seen as a joke. I also remember organising a couple of visits by Paddy to Leicester as part of the party's strategy to get anyone to notice that he and the party actually existed.
The first set of elections I was heavily involved with was the 1989 County Council elections in Leicester. Although we gained the East Knighton County Council seat (Bob Pritchard) and one of the City Council seats in a by-election (Arnie Gibbons), the results across the country were pretty dire.
We regained some of our credibility by holding our own in several rounds of local elections and then by avoiding a complete disaster in the 1992 General Election. Not long afterwards I remember going to speak at a Haringey Lib Dems AGM, attended by Lynne Featherstone amongst others, at a point when the Lib Dems had not even one councillor in that borough.
We had a few by-election successes which got us taken a bit more seriously (for which my noble friend Chris Rennard deserves much of the credit) but it wasn't really until the 1997 General Election got going that we really found our feet.
And that explains why so many of our party's leaders and activists, much to the surprise of many in the media, are far from depsondent.
Those of us who slogged through that tough ten years from after the '87 election through to our breakthrough in '97 don't see a temporary dip in the polls 18 months into Government as something to be gloomy about.
If anything it is encouraging that the polls seem to be showing a slight upturn already given the economic situation and the tough decisions that have had to be taken.
Our activists are a pretty resilient bunch, and the response to the difficult year we've just had will be to redouble our campaigning efforts and re-engage with the communities we seek to represent. We are acheiving a lot, and by the next general election we will, as always, come out fighting.
Those of us who got involved in the party around the time of merger will have had a lot of sympathy with Paddy's recollection of the period we registered as an asterix in the opinion polls.
I joined the Liberal Party in 1987 and became active as the parties were merging and remember keeping track of opinion polls in which we bumped along at 4% or so, competing with the continuing SDP and the Greens. As Paddy pointed out there was one month when the pollsters couldn't find even enough supporters for us to get a score at all.
I remember several NUS conferences in the few years following where a small Lib Dem grouping which included Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and several other now veteran party campaigners when the national party was, frankly, seen as a joke. I also remember organising a couple of visits by Paddy to Leicester as part of the party's strategy to get anyone to notice that he and the party actually existed.
The first set of elections I was heavily involved with was the 1989 County Council elections in Leicester. Although we gained the East Knighton County Council seat (Bob Pritchard) and one of the City Council seats in a by-election (Arnie Gibbons), the results across the country were pretty dire.
We regained some of our credibility by holding our own in several rounds of local elections and then by avoiding a complete disaster in the 1992 General Election. Not long afterwards I remember going to speak at a Haringey Lib Dems AGM, attended by Lynne Featherstone amongst others, at a point when the Lib Dems had not even one councillor in that borough.
We had a few by-election successes which got us taken a bit more seriously (for which my noble friend Chris Rennard deserves much of the credit) but it wasn't really until the 1997 General Election got going that we really found our feet.
And that explains why so many of our party's leaders and activists, much to the surprise of many in the media, are far from depsondent.
Those of us who slogged through that tough ten years from after the '87 election through to our breakthrough in '97 don't see a temporary dip in the polls 18 months into Government as something to be gloomy about.
If anything it is encouraging that the polls seem to be showing a slight upturn already given the economic situation and the tough decisions that have had to be taken.
Our activists are a pretty resilient bunch, and the response to the difficult year we've just had will be to redouble our campaigning efforts and re-engage with the communities we seek to represent. We are acheiving a lot, and by the next general election we will, as always, come out fighting.
Monday, September 19, 2011
#ldconf Sunday: In which we discovered we weren't married to the Tories, just sharing a flat with them, or something
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)