Author Archives: Tony Greaves

Lord Greaves writes… We must make the Lobbying Bill work

Big Ben Orange Blue 200It is rightly said that this Bill has had a disgraceful lack of scrutiny, and I agree with that. But we are where we are. The Government are not going to withdraw it, and it is not going to stop. If we can work together as a House and the Government can work with us, we can make a much better fist of this Bill than we have at the moment.

Tony Greaves writes on the Transparency of Lobbying, Third Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, commonly known as the Lobbying Bill, drawing on his statements during the Second Reading on Tuesday. The committee stage begins on Tuesday 5th November, at which amendments will be tabled.

Posted in Op-eds and Parliament | Tagged and | 13 Comments

Lord Greaves writes…We must do more for wage-earners below income tax threshold

I have tabled an oral question in the Lords to ask the government what measures they will take to ensure that wage-earners who are below the income tax threshold will benefit from any future increases in the personal allowance.

In a little-noticed debate last September the Liberal Democrat conference debated social and economic inequality. Inequality, the conference decided in the obscure language motion-writers use, “is an obstacle to individuals determining their own destinies and reduces aspirations”.

The resolution also, equally clumsily, said that inequality “prevents talent from fulfilling its potential to the detriment of the economy and society”. And, more accessibly, that …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 23 Comments

Tony Greaves writes… The health and social care bill. The party has spoken. What happens now?

The next big event comes very soon and is nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats or the coalition per se – it’s the BMA’s Special Representative Meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) which they say “will form a key part of our activities to step up member engagement and lobbying”. I suspect it will also get a lot more publicity than the Liberal Democrat conference did.

There are some outrider motions of no confidence in Andrew Lansley and calls for “industrial action” which will result in a lot of press noise and no action, but there seems little doubt that the meeting …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 58 Comments

Tony Greaves writes: seeing the wood for the trees

Why did the Government drop its proposals for the Forestry Commission (FC) and the forests and woodlands it manages? I thought it would happen but I was astonished by the speed of it. It comes down to three things. An ill-considered and foolish policy. Incompetent presentation. And a stupendously successful and largely under the radar campaign which burst through with stunning effect.

The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) included a target of £100million from selling around 15% of the national forestry estate in England. This is the most that can be sold under existing legislation. But over the summer DEFRA Ministers …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 9 Comments

Tony Greaves writes: Coalition, Government and the Lords

We are in a new situation which started with the coalition being negotiated. Nobody in the political parties had thought it through. It had to be made up as they went along and it is still being made up, week by week, month by month. It has had a major effect on the resulting policies. It has also had an effect on the ongoing processes of government.

The coalition was put together in five days. An important lesson must be that future coalition-building in this country after an election really ought to take place at a slightly more measured pace, and …

Posted in Op-eds and Parliament | Tagged and | 46 Comments

Opinion: Post-election blues

This is the worst possible election result for Liberal Democrats but we have to make the best of it.

A majority for one party would have left us in our usual comfort zone of simple opposition.

The expected gain of 40 seats or more would have left us with real momentum and a genuine balance of power in the Commons – the chance to turn the screw in negotiations with the other two parties and act as the catalyst for substantial political reform including STV.

Even a Lib-Lab majority in the Commons, with no Lib-Con majority, would have provided the chance (and the …

Posted in Op-eds | 52 Comments

Tony Greaves writes… Abolish postal voting on demand

I want to abolish postal voting on demand, which was introduced in 2000 with the best of intentions. It has proved to be wide open to electoral fraud, corruption and fiddling, and is a thoroughly bad thing.

Ministers have talked about the “convenience” of voting. This is the word the Government used in the Electoral Administration Bill in 2006, when I was ploughing the same furrow. They talked about convenience and increasing turnout. Unfortunately there are unintended consequences, many of which are unavoidable.

The Electoral Commission report in August 2004, following the last European election – Delivering Democracy? The Future of

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 25 Comments



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTsar Nicolas 18th Sep - 10:19pm
    Serious question. There's bad weather around the Western Isles. If one of the fishing boats carrying a ballot box was sunk in a gale, would...
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 18th Sep - 10:10pm
    Recent ONS statistics for a consumer prices index are available here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/august-2014/consumer-price-inflation-summary--august-2014.html . Using the data give in the downloadable Excel file, prices now are...
  • User Avatartonyhill 18th Sep - 9:46pm
    It's 'Gerry' Stoker, not 'Jerry'. This is a really interesting debate, but is rather ill-timed because it is going to get completely swamped in an...
  • User AvatarYorkshire Guidon 18th Sep - 9:45pm
    Strangely dismissive of regional assembly for Yorkshire.
  • User AvatarStephen Glenn 18th Sep - 9:37pm
    52.4% No 47.6% Yes
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 18th Sep - 9:29pm
    Not changing the date of the general election would surely mean that the Scots wouldn't agree to anything they thought a Labour government would concede...