I was disappointed once again to hear the Green Alliance slag off the Liberal Democrats - along with all the other political parties - for its record on the environment - arguing that “None of the three main parties are currently showing the vision and courage to prepare the UK for the challenges ahead.” You can read their full report here.

What their critique amounts to is this: that although the Liberal Democrats have always led the field; and although the party has filled in the missing gaps identified previously by the Green Alliance; and although there is nothing “anti-Green” about us that they can identify - and indeed they acknowlege our radical Green energy policy - they accuse us of that catch-all term of “having a low profile”.

What they do not say is what we are supposed to do about it. What they do seem to like to do is always lump the Lib Dems together with the other parties, and they seem to always find a way of doing so.

It would be nice if we did have a higher profile. It is not a deliberate strategy of the party to have a low profile. As far as the media is concerned, the Lib Dems being Green is old news, so they simply don’t report it. As a news issue, being Green seems to be filed under, ‘Maybe important but not interesting’, and therefore gets ignored.

Maybe that doesn’t let Nick Clegg off the hook. He appeared to promise much more during his leadership campaign than he has been able to deliver so far. But that is easy to say. Every Lib Dem leader has this problem. If anyone has any bright ideas about how to improve our profile, then let’s say what they are…

I do have an issue of the Green Alliance being continuously negative about us. First time round it worked because it motivated us to fill in our policy gaps - so that is good work on their part, and a good response on our part.

On the other hand, it would help us if activists in the Green movement who consider themselves to be liberal were actually to join us, and help the Lib Dems develop our policy and improve our profile. When criticism from the Green Alliance stops being constructive and simply adds to the overall sense of inertia within party politics, that simply motivates Green activists not to get involved with any of the political parties. And that makes the situation even worse.

* Geoff Payne is secretary of Hackney Liberal Democrats.

Bob Ainsworth the defence minister had a torrid time on The Today Programme this week. He tried to persuade us that the British troops leaving Iraq today was a “success story”. John Humphreys put to him a quote from the police commander that “They have left me militias, they have left me gangsters, they have left me all the troubles in the world”.

On behalf of the government, Bob had to waffle on in response that “things were not perfect but they are better than before …”. Patently this was not the case, but the pretence had to be maintained in order for the government to save face.

The logic of his position weakened further when he admitted that the British troop presence had become more of a problem than a solution. How long has that been the case? I wanted to ask.

Isn’t it an odd coincidence that our “success story” just happened to coincide at the same time as our troops being perceived as the main problem in Basra? How is it possible to plan the timing to leave with “success” being achieved at the same time that in local opinion polls 85% of the residents of Basra believe the British troops have had a negative effect?

Often in politics there is often the reason that sounds good, and then the real reason.

The reason that sounds good is that our troops have been a success. I doubt even Bob Ainsworth really believes in that.

And the real reason is that for years there is little useful that our troops can do there, and they have been defeated. It is as simple as that.

This is bad news for virtually everyone. It is also another nail in the coffin for neo-Conservatism

In the coming leadership campaign, I would like to see a revisiting of the replacement of Trident debate where the party settled on a policy of fudge. Reluctantly I have to accept that we cannot do this before the next general election, but I am sure that whoever wins will be leader for at least the next two general elections, and he will have a big say in how the policy develops.

I believe that the current fudge of a policy gave the SNP a stick to beat us with in the last Scottish elections - and for them it worked. I admit that to say so suits my own personal agenda, since I believe that replacing Trident is a colossal waste of money, but the evidence is there all the same. And many Scottish Lib Dem activists I met in the Brighton conference say so as well.

So which of those standing for the leadership are more likely to suggest that we should NOT replace Trident?

Well for now I very much doubt that any will be able to say. They have to support existing policy. This is a policy that gives everyone the freedom to say almost whatever they like. They could all easily say “The policy of the Liberal Democrats is that we should not replace Trident now, but of course after the next general election we will have a better idea of the threats facing the UK and we can look again at what policy will be best for securing our future”.

All options open then. But whoever we elect now will push their preferred policy in the future, and we have no way of knowing what it is.

* Geoffrey Payne is secretary of Hackney Liberal Democrats.

Best Fringe meeting:

The Liberator/ Lib Dem peace group “War on Terror”, with Craig Murray, former ambassador to Uzbekistan. There were some terrific fringe meetings this year, but this one was breathtaking.

Craig Murray was sacked from his position in Uzbekistan because he was determined to speak out against the appalling abuses of human rights in this country.

Uzbekistan is an “ally” in the war “against” terror and an important strategic country for the mining and transportation of important natural resources. It is also a totalitarian state with an appalling human rights record that easily compares with Iraq under Saddam Hussein or North Korea.

Craig spoke of how the government there claims that the opposition is part of Al-Qaeda. The government uses torture to force alleged opponents to admit they know a list of people they have never heard of before, and this “intelligence” is used by western intelligence agencies to “prove” that Al Qaeda is operating in Uzbekistan, and hence we support the government there. The “intelligence” services even know this is the case – because Craig told them - but they prefer the narrative to the truth.

The words “45 minutes” spring to mind.

I would like to write more, but it is best to read his own words in his book.

The meeting was at times very funny, and at other time horrific.

Most Important Fringe meeting:

Reinventing the State book launch - since the publication of the Orange Book, some Lib Dem members have got over-excited and started proclaiming the Lib Dems as a doctrinaire free market party. David Laws himself has claimed that his controversial chapter was misunderstood, and this fringe meeting proved to be an important correction. The anti-state rhetoric of both the Tories and the Lib Dems may sound similar at times, but the Conservative preference for a small state is very different from the Lib Dem preference for a decentralised state.

It was good to see such a wide range of speakers including Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg. And now I sense the party is a left-of-centre party again, as Ming said it would be under his leadership.

This fringe meeting was a book launch so here is the link.

Best speeches:
Read more »

This I am writing just before the Lib Dem conference gets started in Brighton. Events will take their course, and I do not know where the Lib Dems will end up by next Thursday. But I for one am feeling rattled already.

The Liberal Democrats have never been seriously divided over Europe before. Whilst Labour and the Tories tear themselves apart, the Liberal Democrats have been left sitting pretty, even though the electorate have been largely unsympathetic to our policy. Never mind, we reassure ourselves, the electorate don’t care about Europe anyway. To a large extent that is true, but it would obviously be better if they positively supported our policy.

Now all of a sudden, the most pro-European party may well inadvertently find itself supporting policies that lead the country out of the EU. How did it come to this?

The way in which the Lib Dems choose whether to support referenda or not is certainly something that I find confusing. We could have had a radical coalition in Scotland with the SNP, introducing the Local Income Tax, opposing the replacement of Trident and introducing radical Green taxes.

All that was thrown away because the party did not want a referendum on Scottish independence, which we were told would create uncertainty that would damage the Scottish economy. Now we are told that we support a referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU. What effect on the uncertainty of the outcome would that have on the economy?

Quite a bit more I would have thought!
Read more »

There is meant to be a political consensus in this country. Global warming is taking place, and humans contribute to that. There is also a scientific consensus that this is the case as well, so since we are all agreed, it is surely the case that the BBC can go ahead to what is now the important next step; try to encourage the population of this country to do something about it?

In the same way the BBC encourages us not to commit crime, it is important for our future safety and wellbeing, indeed our survival, that we do not destroy the environment in which we live.

It appears we are not there yet. There is still a powerful anti-green movement in this country. When the BBC announced it was dropping an awareness-raising programme on climate change, only Chris Huhne had the courage to speak out against the decision:

“The consensus about global warming in the science community is now overwhelming, so accusing the BBC of campaigning on such an undisputed threat is like suggesting it should be even-handed between criminals and their victims.”

Why was that? What do Brown and Cameron think? If they both publicly agreed with Huhne, then surely the BBC would have to change its mind?
Read more »

Recently Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell commented on three things that Gordon Brown should be saying to George Bush;

“There are three things which should be on Gordon Brown’s agenda when he meets President Bush: renegotiation of the one-sided extradition treaty; the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre; and a negotiated withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

“These should be the objective of a candid friend. The excessively subordinated relationship between the President and Mr Blair should be put to bed.”

I agree wholeheartedly with all three. The problem is - as Lib Dems will well remember from Harrogate, when Ming offered Brown “5 tests” - that if you list things out loud then what is not included becomes just as important.

Four obvious omissions are: Read more »

When Gordon Brown became prime minister, we were briefed that he was suspect on the environment. He did not have a good record as the chancellor, and we were going to attack him on that.

So why would this be?

Labour ministers often start with good intentions on the environment, but fail to deliver. Their failure is down to how strong the anti-green movement is. Popular elements of the anti-green movement include the pro-car movement, which contains the likes of Jeremy Clarkson; the anti-tax movement (recently the Taxpayers Alliance was complaining about the amount spent on informing the public about global warming); the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express/Sun; and the NFU and the CBI.

To be fair, the record of the CBI is mixed. Recently it has become ‘green’, and of course we do rely on new technology to mitigate the human contribution to global warming. The CBI has something to gain.

But the CBI also lobbies for things we do not agree with, such as nuclear power, and an expansion of the road building program. Incidentally, I checked the CBI website and I could not find anything there about road building. However that is their record up until now.

So if we attack Gordon Brown for not being green, we should attack those who lobby the government to water down their green policies, namely the CBI, of which of course Digby Jones was, until last year, the Director General. Digby Jones was recently made a trade minister by Gordon Brown in his new government.

So why is it that it is only the Labour left that is attacking this appointment?

In fact I notice that one of our “senior MPs” claimed he was one of ours.

What is going on? Why are we so half-hearted, again?

* Geoffrey Payne is the secretary of Hackney Liberal Democrats.

Recent criticism of Ming Campbell over the tactics of Gordon Brown has been unfair.

He should have said “no” immediately we are told by some. Well apart from silly arguments that have been made about it so far, which will soon be forgotten by the electorate, I do not see anything wrong in consulting colleagues first before giving an answer. As Liberals we are opposed to centralised power, so it must be right that Ming consults before deciding?

And I do not see anything wrong in Lib Dem members being advisors to the government. Surely it is in the national interest that they do so?

The article on the BBC website about Shirley Williams I think does credit to the Liberal Democrats.

To the average person on a low income or who is unemployed, the idea that voting for a political party can make much, if any, difference to their life would seem absurd.

It has not always been this way. The Liberal government of 1906 did much to respond to the social agenda, although it did not do enough to halt the emergence the Labour party. The 1945 Labour government implemented policies such as the introduction of the NHS which secured the disproportionate support of the working class, even to this day.

Today of course the divisions between rich and poor are getting wider, and have done so for many years. The Lib Dem policy of extra income tax for the very rich to secure more funding for public services was a net vote winner at the last general election, by a substantial margin.

However I am not going to argue that we change this policy back again. The argument that the Red-Green coalition in Germany had been changing their tax policy in the other direction was well made by Vince Cable in the debate last year. The key criteria is the net take taken by the exchequer, and if specific progressive taxes causes the rich to dodge the tax laws and pay less then there is no point in doing it.

In any case, as was pointed out in the debate, the FSA was quoted as saying that our tax policies overall are even more progressive than before.

So what concerns me, coming from a Labour stronghold, is that the message is not getting made. Nationally the Lib Dems are not associated with tackling poverty.

At the last conference Vince Cable made what I thought was a very interesting speech which again sounded very progressive. And in his leadership speech, Ming made it very clear that the division between rich and poor was one of his top priorities.

Yet I am meeting at a grass roots level activists who do not care about this division, and they say that the division should be left to market forces. This of course will mean that you extrapolate the trends we saw under Thatcher and Major.

So I am concerned that the party is rather half hearted on this issue.

More generally I am wondering what we can do in terms of policies in addition to taxation.

The UNICEF report that put the UK 21 out of 21 countries in the world, in how we look after children in this country. 20th place went to the USA.

The anglo-US economic model, low taxes and underfunded and privatised public services does not work well for children, even if it makes the GNP figures look good (to some extent helped by easy credit and high level consumer spending generated from high personal debt levels financed by an unsustainable housing boom).

So where is our commitment to public services? How do we turn this sorry state of affairs around for the Liberal Democrats?

We are assured by the Scottish Lib Dems that there is NOT an upswell of Scottish Nationalism taking hold at the moment. And indeed it is true, many SNP voters do not actually support independence. They do not mind a referendum, they will simply vote no.

Yet if you strip away the nationalism of the SNP, you are left with a party that is very similar the Liberal Democrats, only more forthright for example in not wanting to replace Trident.

That being the case, why is it that in the space of a couple of years, the SNP has suddenly done so well, and not the Lib Dems?

I think the answer is obvious.

We have a leader who is low key and who has failed to capture the national debate in this country.

I am sure that if he could do better he would have done so by now.

It is time to give someone else a chance, before it is too late.

I have written to Ming to tell him so.

I do not believe in plotting. Everyone should send him an email and let him know, whether you think he should continue or not.

Then it is up to him to decide.