* Jack Holroyde is a political campaigner and founder of Gaining the Advantage, an organisation dedicated to improving access to democracy in the UK. He tweets at @theGladstonian.

Yet, as the contest for London Mayor begins to build up momentum, Ken and Boris’ campaigns continue to revolve around the same old topic of public transport, ignoring the deeper societal issues at stake. Whether it’s Ken promising to slash fares, or Boris pledging to take over Greater London’s railway lines, every day the Evening Standard seems to contain yet another headline pandering to its readership of tired commuters.

These debates are no doubt of significant concern to voters who are feeling the squeeze of recession. Indeed, Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick has made fairer fares a central aspect of his campaign. Yet with the Mayor recently gaining significant powers over the Metropolitan Police, and polls showing that crime is the number one issue for voters, policing should be at the top of the agenda. On top of this, there needs to be more of a debate about how to tackle the underlying causes of crime, in particular how to regenerate those neglected parts of the capital which remain blighted by violence. After all, vote-winning promises may make good headlines, but they do nothing do tackle the problems of social exclusion which continue to plague our capital.

These are the issues on which Brian Paddick has a real advantage over the other two candidates, with his extensive experience in the Metropolitan Police working in some of London’s most difficult areas. This is perhaps why the other two candidates have been so keen to steer the debate towards issues of transport, where vote-winning pledges are easily made and complex societal problems easily avoided. Brian’s visits to riot-afflicted areas such as Tottenham stand in stark contrast to Boris Johnson’s notorious refusal to cut his holiday short when the disturbances initially broke out. Moreover, Brian’s proposals to improve community relations with police, for example by stopping discriminatory stop and search practices, have shown an innovative approach to addressing the deep-seated problems which fuelled the riots in the first place.

The Lib Dem Mayoral candidate has also shown he is willing to go against the status quo and take bold decisions. As Police Commander in Brixton, scene of so many anti-police riots in the past, Paddick won huge cross-community support by shifting policing efforts away from cannabis arrests and towards tackling street-crime. That may have earnt him widespread vilification in the tabloid press, but it won him the admiration and support of the local community.  Brian also repeatedly criticised the Met’s handling of the 2005 Jean Charles de Menezes’ shooting, and more recently criticised the police investigation of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, of which he himself was a victim. This unique perspective, combining a direct experience of policing with a willingness to address entrenched institutional problems, puts him in an ideal position to tackle some of London’s most pressing issues.

Ken Livingstone’s recent pledge to increase police numbers may be a sign that the issue of crime is finally gaining prominence in the campaign for London mayor. This may in turn help to spark a much-needed public debate over crime, and give greater prominence to some of Brian Paddick’s proposed policies to improve policing. It is therefore crucial that these aspects of his campaign are conveyed to as many people as possible, and that they receive the coverage they deserve. This should not only help raise his profile in his bid for Mayor, but also give the whole party a boost in the London Assembly elections.

Not even I’m willing to believe it was the power of that blog post alone (plus natty diagram) which cowed the political classes into giving up semaphoring addiction. Yet the phrase does seem to crop up rather less often now, perhaps because of a change from the Labour government’s love of telling people what to do?

But we have not arrived in a happy new post-Brown cliché free world.

Instead, the one that now has taken its place as the object of my political ire is “ideological” or more precisely, “ideological” used as if it were a self-evident insult, mistake and appalling blunder.

You know the sort of phrase I mean. When people talk about “ideological cuts” they mean “despicable, dreadful actions that quite possibly involve killing some first-born”. Having something “driven by ideology” means it’s a sure recipe for a car crash catastrophe. And as for “ideological policies”, well they’re clearly the sort of deeply distasteful actions that people should be ashamed to be seen talking about in public during daylight hours.

What does this dreaded “ideology” mean? Here it is in its full horror, courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary:

A system of ideas and ideals.

And even worse:

[A] set of beliefs.

Doing something because it’s based on what you believe. I mean, what could be more so self-evidently wrong that it can be used as a term of abuse without need for any explanation, clarification or emendation?

Forget the idea that policies based on beliefs might be better than policies based on whatever the latest opinion polls says. No, beliefs are ideological and so evil and wrong.

Forget the idea too that policies based on beliefs might be better than policies based on the random toss of a coin. Cut or spend? Regulate or liberate? Toss a coin and decide. And hooray, you win the prize for political sainthood because you’ve avoided that nasty taint of ideology in your embrace of chance.

In fact, there’s often a rather nasty arrogant authoritarian tone about such criticisms, because of course the people making them aren’t short of a belief or two themselves. They don’t go round self-flagellating for the temerity of themselves having beliefs and following them. Oh no, it’s only someone else who has different beliefs who should be hounded for having them.

It’s the Henry Ford approach to acceptable politics – you can believe whatever you want as long as you believe the same as me.

* Mark Pack is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and writes a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Needless to say, the ceaseless commentariat and Westminster gossips are not helping matters. There have been three stories – all different in topic and angle – that have focused attention on the junior coalition partner in recent days: I shall lovingly refer to them as the good, the bad and the ugly.

First, let’s assess the good. On Wednesday (8th February), Martin Kettle wrote a piece in the Guardian entitled ‘Liberal Democrats can again enjoy the reflection in the mirror’. If you overlook the simple fact that some of us have consistently enjoyed the view reflecting back at us, Kettle’s analysis makes for encouraging reading for any Lib Dem endorser. The article looks optimistically – and realistically – at the Liberal Democrats performance over the last 18 months or so. The recent by-election victories in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Amersham are highlighted. So too are the improving national polling numbers.

Also addressed is the recent impact of the Huhne saga that appears to have forced most pundits to take leave of their senses. Kettle maintains a sane approach in his analysis:

Chris Huhne’s cabinet resignation last week, widely regretted even by those who disliked him, does not inflict the wider damage on the party. That’s not to say Edward Davey is a heavyweight in the way that Huhne almost was. Nor to say that Vince Cable is not now a little more isolated on the Lib Dem left in the cabinet. What it is to say, however, is that the Lib Dems, both in government and more widely, are a more resilient and coherent party than their critics generally allow

Kettle, whilst not directly alluding to such achievements, at least acknowledges the fact that the Lib Dems have performed an outstanding role within the coalition government. The radical-responsible balancing act has worked wonders for Clegg et al and the motto ‘Radical on civil liberties, credible on economy’ must be utilised as often as possible. Yes, mistakes have been made; not least in the communications over tuition fees and the AV referendum defeat. But on the whole, the Liberal Democrats can hold their heads high knowing they have offered and delivered heart to the coalition; the Tories have provided the head.

Inevitably, as is often the case within politics, such positive news is often followed by some bad. Thursday (9th February) witnessed the Independent’s Andrew Grice delivering some sobering food for thought: ‘Boundary changes could leave Lib Dems with 11 seats’.

The Liberal Democrats face a “double whammy” of declining support and boundary changes that could destroy their chances of holding the balance of power after the next election

Grice’s article focuses on the impact of boundary changes; alerting us to the fact that when looking hypothetically at the 2015 election (with current polling and provisional new boundaries taken into account) the Tories would have 293 seats, Labour 273, Lib Dems 11, and others 23. Admittedly, this still implies a hung parliament, but the Lib Dems may not possess all the aces. As Grice points out, this scenario potentially means that “a calamity may become a disaster”. Though hyperbolic, this scenario should act as a stark warning to all of us that it is imperative that we don’t rest on our laurels. Only hard work and brave leadership will see us through these choppy waters.

To many, the ugly referred to in the headline will not be such an unsightly entity. However, to anyone who wishes to avoid internal disputes, the emergence of Liberal Left will be a concern. As we face a difficult few years it must be remembered that Labour suffered greatly in recent years through internal division. Blairites and Brownites openly clashed on policy, and, still to this day, squabble incessantly. The Liberal Democrats must avoid factions forming and forging their own separate identities. We must stay strong and united. Needless to say, there is nothing wrong with innovative ideas and think-tanking. However, statements such as this should concern anyone affiliated with the party:

The group’s launch was greeted with derision by some Liberal Democrats, claiming it was a campaign by people who should be in the Labour party

One of the defining moments of Charles Kennedy’s tenure was his handling of the Orange Book affair. Kennedy managed to merge his own social liberal views with those of the new, modern Orange Bookers. He illustrated beautifully how a leader must approach potential storms and diffuse troubling situations. How Clegg reacts to Liberal Left will be crucial to the Lib Dems future. As the last seven days has once again proved, “a week is a long time in politics”.

* Scott Hill is Commissioning Editor of Left Central and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post

Essential to Cameron’s election campaign was the promise to protect the health service – his dishonest break with that commitment will prove toxic, not only for him but also for also for Lib Dems. The public and media will not fail to remind us that the current reforms are in direct contradiction to commitments in the Coalition Agreement’s detailed programme (The Coalition: Our Programme for Government), signed by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

Whilst GPs and other clinicians do in fact support the concept of clinically-led commissioning, they believe that this expensive upheaval of the health service fails to achieve that and acts as a distraction from the financial challenge facing the NHS. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) – the UK’s largest medical Royal College supports a greater role for GPs in the planning, design and delivery of services within their local communities – but it does not support a Bill which in their view would damage the care and services that GPs deliver to patients. RCGP Chair Dr Clare Gerada called instead for the ‘consolidation of the current organisational structure, such that PCT clusters remain, with GPs placed as the majority of the Board’.

But it is still not too late for the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg should withdraw our support for the Bill and in doing so halt a damaging, unnecessary and expensive reorganisation with its potential for leaving the poorest and most vulnerable in society to bear the brunt. This position is strengthened through the recently published joint editorial by the Health Service Journal, Nursing Times and British Medical Journal, which predicted the changes would be so destructive that another expensive reorganisation would be needed within five years.

Taking such a bold decision would mark out clear lines in the sand in a public manner, differentiating us from the Tories and creating that vital space for debating our social liberal ideals on the doorstep. As a get out clause, the Deputy Prime Minister could argue that the growing public and professional outcry now shows that the consequences of the bill have turned out to be entirely different from the principles which were originally agreed. This is a plausible position and one which the party grass roots, patients, professionals and wider public will understand and respect.

If we continue along this trajectory, the impact will be disastrous not only for public health services in England, but also for our Party in terms of grass roots de-motivation and further erosion of public confidence in the face of a very difficult General Election campaign in 2015.

* Issan Ghazni is Chair of the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and former National Diversity Adviser for the Liberal Democrats

Our commitment to the environment was why I joined the party in the first place.

So I understand why many of you were confused and disappointed when the Government appeared to scale back the Feed in Tariffs that allow people to install solar panels in their homes and businesses, not least when our decision was challenged in the courts.

Make no mistake, I want solar power to be as widely available as possible.

The fact is the Feed in Tariffs scheme, as we inherited it, helped too few people. With the cost of solar panel installation dropping dramatically in recent years, having an unnecessarily high tariff means fewer people can take advantage of it.

By lowering the tariff we can extend it to more people – making clean, green, renewable energy available to the many not the few.

That’s why, in my first decision as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, I am announcing a consultation to look at exactly how we reform the tariff to make sure as many people as possible take advantage of it.

I want more solar panels installed and more carbon emissions saved than under the old scheme. I want the returns you get from solar power to be predictable, sustainable and attractive. I want to be able to give guarantees to those of you who install solar panels for your communities to use. And I want to give a real boost to other forms of renewable energy like micro-combined heat and power, which allows people produce clean, green electricity in their homes.

I am proud of the big, ambitious green measures my predecessor Chris Huhne and the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government have undertaken:

• The Green Deal which will lead an energy efficiency revolution in our homes
• The Green Investment Bank to kickstart green businesses and green jobs
• The most ambitious climate change targets a country has ever set
• And real progress at Cancun to get international agreement on climate change

I don’t believe that fighting climate change and rebuilding our economy are mutually exclusive. I believe green jobs are the key to our recovery.

And I don’t believe going green means hitting people in the pocket. Energy efficiency, our reforms of the energy market and giving consumers more information will help bring down bills.

I am determined that this will be the greenest government ever. I’m up for that challenge and I’m sure all Liberal Democrats feel the same.

Twitter is free, fast and tragic. And if it wasn’t powerful in facilitating the fall of dictators or mindless riots, governments wouldn’t consider using its censorship option. 39 of our 57 Lib Dem MPs use it and our party president Tim Farron assures me he can help us to improve on that. But should they bother with any new technology that isn’t proven to add value? Retweeting ICM polls from an iPhone won’t improve our electoral fortunes (but keep trying anyway). If our MPs want to replace paper with iPads perhaps they should buy their own and truly embrace CONNECT.

We can’t waste precious campaign time, every second invested should increase our returns at the ballot box. The more tangible gift to our residents in the form of a 4 foot pile of literature provides us with greater reassurance than online banter, assuming something more positive happened on the way to the round filing cabinet recycling box.

You can use social media to add value, through following or leading – to engage people as Julian Huppert does. He tests opinion through tweeting polls to his audience, such as “what do you want me to ask at PMQs?” and it delivers spot on results. That third-party testimonial is a ready-made Focus vox-pop.

Councillor Jamie Matthews represents students and aptly chooses to challenge poor internet service provision on their behalf over Twitter. Councillor Victor Chamberlain also regularly uses it to report back on his ward activities. We’re all probably familiar with “20 is plenty” speed reduction campaigns, yet there’s something motivating about watching the action unfold, leaving a digital campaign trail, from council chamber motion to action photo. This helps to spread best-practice activity among other campaigners.

We repeatedly ask “what’s new?” of our friends, family and now, followers. Irrelevant, old information just isn’t worth sharing. We merge communicating with the people closest to us with less deserving online strangers. Like-minded individuals are drawn to one another through statements, photos and web links.

Loosely-affiliated groups form around shared opinions, oppose other groups and do constant battle. Some win at the expense of another, opinions become exhausted, or expire to give birth to others. Groups disband and regroup, gaining some people formerly on the opposing side of another issue.

Whether using it as a blunt broadcast instrument, to shape debate through persuasion or gather intelligence, you alone are not going to make the country a better place through it. But your individual participation may help build the team to get us there.

Consequently I dusted down my new year’s resolution to ‘laugh a lot more’ and began thinking about Labour’s attitude to economics. I propose to look at the Labour leadership’s deeper economic instincts to provide a guide as to how they might actually run the economy.

Ed Balls famously endorses post neo-classical endogenous growth theory: a theory which might be regarded as a left-wing version of the famous ‘trickle down economics’ which Thatcher practised.

Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory argues that if a government concentrates on creating high-skill, high-salary jobs, the wealth created by these jobs will create further, lower skilled jobs down the line, for less skilled workers to do, culminating in full employment without the government having to intervene.

This is a fundamentally liberal theory, and is much closer to the economic liberalism of Keynes than to the social democratic tradition of labour.

The problem with this theory and how it was applied in Britain is that successive governments of both the other parties ensured that most ‘high end’ value added jobs in the economy came to London and the surrounds, and even if one accepts the trickle effect, Britain is quite simply too large for all the regions to benefit from such a policy .

Under the coalition, the focus has changed, the talk is of rebalancing the economy, with thousands of apprenticeships created and a determination to revive manufacturing.

But perhaps the biggest clue to the current Labour leadership’s economic DNA can be found in relation to their rejection of the “lump of labour” theory .

Lump of labour theory states that there are a finite number of jobs in the economy at any one time, so the only cure for this is for the government to directly create jobs in equal number to the amount unemployed.

This theory fell from favour among most economists quite some time ago, they declare it a fallacy. Indeed “lump of labour fallacy” is now far better known than the original theory, which is now only used by ardent protectionists and crude neo-fascists trying to give their prejudices an economic veneer.

But it wasn’t always thus. ‘Old’ Labour politicians believed that government’s should pursue a ‘full employment’ policy, because they subscribed to lump of labour theory, which is also a central tenet of a Marxist analysis of capitalism.

For post neo-classical endogenous growth theory to be effective, ‘lump of labour theory’ must be a fallacy, because post neo-classical endogenous growth theory, as we have seen, is predicated on there being an elastic number of jobs in the economy even without direct government intervention.

Thus it could be argued that labour have abandoned ‘full employment’ as a policy, and embraced the more economically liberal stance of people like Vince Cable, who have been arguing for a generation that ‘lump of labour theory is a fallacy’. By embracing such a view, the two Eds are embracing classical, economic liberalism.

The reason they appear to be such ineffective leaders of the opposition is that they must constantly neglect their liberal instincts for the rhetoric of the left in order to keep their grassroots happy. In reality Ed Milliband has shown himself on numerous occasions to be a classical liberal.

On economics and a range of other matters, his instincts are much closer to the Orange Book than the Red Flag, which must be awkward for those in the Liberal Democrats who have, since the formation of the coalition embraced Milliband as an alternative to the economic liberals within the Lib Dem leadership. Still its an improvement on previous attempts by Lib Dems to embrace Tony Blair, who has described himself as a ‘conservative on economics and foreign policy’

Liberals of all hues should rejoice that as historically with the Welfare State, Climate Change, the EU, the leadership of the Labour party are starting to embrace liberal solutions. .

However, news of yet another splinter group from the left of the party has got my hackles up.  I think it will damage us to have many fractious cliques for a number of reasons.

Entrenched groups are forming at precisely the time we need to be united. The future for the party is to claim the centre ground and muscle Labour and Tory out of it.  Remember Paddy claiming this as the Liberal Age?  We are enjoying our first spoils of that by being in government.  Whether we get any more rewards remains in the balance, but we need to be in a position to take advantage in 2015 if it tips our way.

We need to be a party of Blairites, Ken Clarke, Orange bookers, economic Liberals, social democrats, blokes in hairshirts & sandals and slightly unhinged former MPs.  All those people are up for grabs, but I can only guarantee Lembit’s vote at the moment.  It may feel like the age of the Orange book if you are in one of the other trenches, but in no man’s land it is very equal mix.

We are a coalition and have been from day one.  There are still fissures from that merger that have never healed with some members but what threatens to engulf us over the coming years is a new split of the same divergent ideologies.  I am a Liberal Democrat in the purest of senses, because, paradoxically, I want two competing ideologies to fight it out and one (or a mix) claim the spoils.

The coalition at government is not perfect, nor could it ever be, but government is much better than during the decades of elective dictatorship that preceded it.  My own MP, John Leech, rebels regularly but picks his fights to keep a united party. His vote has more weight  than the Labour lobby fodder a decade ago.

The emergence of the Orange Bookers, the Social Liberal Forum & now Liberal Left are all bad for the party.  We are in danger of moving from a broad church to numerous angry sects.  It is a danger for the other two main parties whether it is Technicolor Labour or a Tory party with the wets in charge.  They don’t matter,  but you infuriating Liberal Democrats do, whatever your politics.

* Paul Ankers is Chair of Manchester Withington Liberal Democrats.

For example, to put what Jenny said another way, 4 in 10 people affected by the time limit will lose ESA completely. That’ll be 280,000 people with long term illness or disability that prevents them from working. Those who lose it completely will be those with household savings over £16,000 or with a partner working more than 24 hours a week. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want disabled people’s partners to be allowed to *work* after all. They might be able to get other support but, without ESA, there is no support specifically for the disabled person as they won’t even be allowed to receive Job Seekers Allowance – they, as an individual, will receive nothing at all.

And, given that the assessment system is so broken that even the man who designed it has called it “not fit for purpose”, her assurance that the sickest will be placed in the unconditional support group isn’t worth anything at all. When you get terminally ill cancer patients being found “fit for work” then you know the system is broken – and, while the time limit will start ejecting people from contributory ESA by April, the assessment won’t be fixed until 2015 at the earliest.

And that’s not mentioning that they’re also preventing severely disabled children from ever being allowed to receive contributory ESA and increasing the DLA payments to severely disabled children by less than £1.50 a week while using that as an excuse to take about £40 a week from all the other disabled children.

And there’s also the small matter that most of those receiving contributory ESA will be unable to return to work after one year. And the government cutting Disability Living Allowance by 20% over five years when the fraud rate is just 0.5%.

But more pertinently, Jenny Willott’s article was misleading about one crucial factor: our MPs did not face a choice between two arbitrary time limits. There was the government’s arbitrary time limit and the Lords amendment for a time limit of no less than two years. Neither was ideal but the former was clearly against party policy on time limiting while the latter was not.

Though, when you come down to it, the bottom line is that 280,000 sick and disabled people will lose ESA entirely. And I don’t think that pulling the rug out from under 280,000 vulnerable people is why we entered government. It’s certainly not what conference voted for.

* George Potter is a member of the Liberal Democrats and blogs at the Potter Blogger. He is a member of Liberal Youth and drafted the motion on ESA at autumn conference 2011

Unfortunately, to some my gender disqualifies me from discussion of these issues because of my ‘privilege’. Those people will likely dismiss this article out of hand because to them only a female can understand why it is so vital that half of our political representatives are of the female gender.

Of course, not every woman sees the need for her gender to be given an unfair and discriminatory leg-up . ‘Gender balance’ is not necessary – I am no better represented by our local Labour MP because he is a man than if he were a woman. I do not subscribe to this patronising belief that women are some hitherto-unknown minority in desperate need of a leg-up, that women have ‘issues’ only capable of being dealt with by a woman, or that you should promote a woman to a position instead of a man so that some arbitrary target of 50/50 can be reached.

I’m also going to be extra-edgy and not include ridiculous caveats about being male and white and therefore of less pertinent opinion. I’m not going to try and disprove some meekly-assumed reader assumption that since I don’t want women promoted for their gender alone I must hate them, by saying that some of my best friends are women (although it’s tempting!) or follow our Prime Minister’s example in the leaders’ debates  and tell you a story of how I met a woman (forty years old, in the navy for thirty years, etc.

See, it may be uncommon in an apparently liberal party, but I don’t believe that women are better than men or vice-versa, I look at people as individuals and judge them on ability. So if I compare Ed Davey and, say, Lynne Featherstone on the basis of suitability for a job, and choose Davey on this basis, he is, therefore, better than Featherstone – not because he is male, but because his experience and talent suits the position better than hers. Nick Clegg clearly agrees with me, as the position went to Davey. Those arguing that Featherstone should have got the job therefore seem to believe that Davey was only chosen as part of some vast, devious male conspiracy to keep women out of the top jobs of politics (despite the glass ceiling of female party leadership and female Prime Ministerhood having been smashed many years ago by a certain grocer’s daughter!).

Face facts – our party’s political troubles are not going to be magically solved by replacing our leadership with a cadre of working-class women headed by Jo Swinson. I say this in the quiet certainty they would perform exactly as well as our current leadership, no better, no worse. After all, when individuals are brought together to work as a team, the makeup of the team matters less than the personalities – if clashes happen, it will be because of said opposing personalities, not because of an extraneous factor like gender. I do not believe that people will work together any better or worse just because they are a mixture of genders, deliberately picked to fit into some politically-motivated notion of ‘balance’. Look first and foremost for their individual talents and for what they can offer to a team, not for balancing a quota or ticking boxes, and certainly not for choosing artificial ‘equality’ over the solid evidence of talent. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to putting Jacqui Smith in the Home Office, and that’s disastrous!

So, ultimately, the answer to the issue posed here is simply that Nick Clegg should stop talking about diversity and get on with getting the best people to do the jobs, regardless of gender or background. This doesn’t make me a hater of women or some defender of stereotyped southern privilege over northern austerity – quite the contrary, those who would see women promoted on the basis of their gender are the sexists, if they would but realise it. Women don’t need to be catapulted anywhere, they need to be treated the same as men would be; as individuals, given the same chances to shine and given the same rewards for their skills.

And yes, that title is ironic!

* Zadok Day is a Liberal Democrat activist based in Bury. He also blogs at A Song of Liberty.

I have been following the debate on internal party democracy with first interest, then frustration, and now a degree of numbing disbelief, as the Parliamentary Parties have taken significant flak from a cross-section of Party members and activists.

And yet, from my perspective of a reporter on events in the Lords, a very different story emerges to the increasingly popular one of rogue Parliamentary Parties trashing Liberal Democrat policy in an entirely unaccountable way. But let me tell you a story…

Once upon a time, a small, furry political party lurked in the undergrowth. It was small, but it had big dreams, dreams of changing its world for the better. It was full of ideas, ideas drafted by the brighter amongst its numbers. All it needed was to get rid of those wretched dinosaurs… But it was utterly convinced that only it was in charge, all could be well.

But evolution is a funny thing. The ability to go from lungfish to bird is, as scientists tell us, entirely realistic. However, it doesn’t happen at once, and sometimes, in fact, usually, there’s a transition phase in between. And so, the cute, furry ones came to do a deal with the dinosaurs. In return for not being torn to pieces and eaten, they promised not to eat dinosaur eggs. It was an uneasy arrangement, but both sides promised to stick to it.

The Coalition is a bit like that. As Liberal Democrats, we haven’t held power at Westminster. We aren’t, if truth be told, entirely in it for power – it would be so much easier to join the Conservatives or Labour, depending on where we live. And, as a result, we make policy on the basis that either it can be popular, or it can be good, and sometimes both. However, it is ours, holistic (hopefully) and part of a bigger package – a manifesto, if you like.

In coalition, that doesn’t necessarily work well. Yes, the Conservatives can only get their policies through if we support them in Parliament, but the reverse is true too. All of those good things that we want to do? Entirely reliant on Conservative support. And you know something, they don’t like what’s happening much either. My Conservative near-neighbour, Lord Tebbit, really doesn’t like it that we’re in coalition with them, and he’s not alone.

And so, the two sides negotiate. Sometimes it’s done by megaphone, sometimes by quiet diplomacy, sometimes in the public eye, sometimes behind closed doors. And believe me, it happens. Coalition policy is a combination of Conservative and Liberal Democrat ideas, some good, some not so good. But Liberal Democrats in Parliament cannot simply say no, unless an idea is so obviously barking that no sensible person could accept it. Instead, they work to knock off the rough edges, doing so within the framework of a financial settlement that is very difficult, and making that policy as liberal as they can.

Opposing the difficult decisions is easy, as Labour have demonstrated since handing the keys of a wrecked economy over. But when even they accept that some truly ghastly cuts will have to be made, the question is not how much, but what, to whom, and how many can you save? A Liberal Democrat government would be better, it would make better decisions – if I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t remain a member – but we don’t have one.

Labour are not offering anything fundamentally different. Regional benefit caps even tighter than those currently proposed, a welfare assessment process introduced by them that degrades and terrifies those genuinely vulnerable people within our society – that’s what Labour’s contribution to the debate really is.

So, before you wade in with charges of betrayal, remember this. Our Parliamentary Parties are caught between you and the Conservatives, on one hand wanting to deliver as much of your agenda as possible, but knowing that only so much can be forced down the throats of the Conservatives. They’ll do their best, but they’re human. Our policy is, itself, a compromise, and they’ll get the deals with the Conservatives wrong sometimes. Sometimes, they’ll get a really good deal. And sometimes, they won’t be able to tell the complete story, because to do so will put at risk what they might win in the future.

Trust is a funny thing. In the past, we’ve traditionally distrusted our leaders because, well, they’re our leaders. And now that it really matters, we really don’t trust them. Pity that, because they’re the best chance of delivering Liberal Democrat policy we’ve got…

Mark Valladares is a parish councillor in deepest Suffolk, and is married to a Liberal Democrat parliamentarian.

But having thought about this a little more, I am left perplexed by Gove’s decision. The impact goes against so much I thought was accepted wisdom.

Industry has for many years had a concern that school leavers do not have the skills and experience to meet employers’ needs.  Back in 2004 the Tomlinson Report had suggested new ways forward.  This opened up opportunities for more vocational education, and was cautiously welcomed by industry.

Clearly some vocational courses don’t have the academic rigour of one GCSE, let alone several.  But there are others that are academically challenging and both fill an educational niche and meet industry’s needs.

For example, young people from here in Derby have, for the last two years, had the opportunity to go to the new JCB Academy  in Rocester on the Staffordshire/Derbyshire border.  This worked with exam board OCR , major local businesses like Rolls-Royce  and Toyota  and universities including Cambridge  and Warwick to develop new Engineering and Business Diplomas.  They integrate learning ‘horizontally’ across traditional subject areas, and were judged to be worth several GCSEs each.

Now Gove’s decision has shattered the specialist curriculum at the JCB Academy– the reason d’etre for their existence – declaring that their core specialist elements are worth only 1 GCSE each.

Will industry be as willing to participate in government initiatives in future if support in return is so fickle?

The Tomlinson Report was also generally well-received by the Liberal Democrats.  And key elements of its new vision for 14-19 education were included in our 2010 manifesto.  Some of these also found their way into the Coalition Agreement, such as

• We will improve the quality of vocational education, including increasing flexibility for 14–19 year olds and creating new Technical Academies as part of our plans to diversify schools provision.

And

• We will create more flexibility in the exams systems so that state schools can offer qualifications like the IGCSE.

At a stroke Gove has attacked this expectation of a wider range of qualifications, and alienated at least one of the only two new Technical Academies that have so far opened.  How many of the other Technical Academies in the pipeline will now withdraw from the process?  Less than 12 months ago his department was welcoming these and talking up the very qualifications he’s now rubbishing.

So what next?

Schools and colleges will now not just teach children to jump through the assessment hoops on which school performance is judged, but also the schools and exam boards will offer ‘vocational’ courses primarily designed to meet GCSE expectations.  Whether these will also meet industry’s needs and engage the more challenging pupils remains to be seen.

Maybe the worst point of all is the way this shows a severe lack of co-ordination between the Department of Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.  Dave and Nick – please do something to bring these together!

* Lucy Care was a target candidate in Derby North in 2010 and would have been the second ever female Chartered Engineer in Parliament if she had been elected. She blogs at lucycare.net.

While one expects the Tories to be at their most equivocal on green issues, it’s a bit worrying when our side joins in – not the least when the newest wind turbine factory in the UK is actually in Wales, at Chepstowe. The environment to one side, I can’t imagine a political strategy of trying to prevent jobs is going to be successful. That being said, the strength of local opposition to onshore wind farms – particularly amongst the retired, who are more likely to vote – can make it difficult for traditional localists like ourselves to not join in. I can understand why Roger and Mark have found it expedient to sign up to the Tories’ letter.

However, they were wrong to do so, as the letter itself is simply incorrect. It demands that subsidies for onshore wind are transferred to other, cheaper, forms of renewable energy. It doesn’t specify which ones, for the very simple reason that they don’t exist. Onshore wind is the cheapest low-carbon energy source, less expensive than nuclear, and much less expensive than carbon capture and storage (CCS). Cutting subsidies for onshore wind means we’ll need to pay other technologies more to displace the same emissions, pushing up the cost of going green.

It will have other costs too. People make a big deal out of wind power being intermittent, without realising that’s kind of the point. It’s a free resource we can use when it’s available, and go back to non-renewable sources when it’s not. It allows us to minimise the emissions of our existing energy infrastructure, until it’s replaced or we finally get CCS working, whenever that might be. Even then, it will save fuel – fuel that’s only going to get more expensive.

And this is the fundamental point. Even if the subsidies are cut, all it will do is delay the expansion of wind power, which will always have the advantage of zero fuel costs. Bloomberg has predicted that it will become cost-competitive with gas power by 2016, meaning that all the Tory proposals will do is delay its expansion by at most ten years. However, that’s ten years of higher carbon emissions, and hence a greater risk of climate change. If we drop it now, we’ll only repeat the 80s – when the previous Tory Government failed to support the nascent British wind power industry, and all the jobs went to Denmark and Germany. If we want to build a green economy – and I would hope all our MPs support that – onshore wind must be part of it.

As Jonathan Powell says in his book, The New Machiavelli, and as was evident during his time in office, Tony Blair was strongly pro-Europe. He understood, as we do, that a) the largest common market in the world is something that we should be actively engaging with and leading, and b) there are threats and issues facing this country that we cannot fight alone. Terrorism, climate change and (by definition) people trafficking do not stop at a nation’s borders.

Yes, the European Union needs reforming to make it more flexible in its reaction to fast moving events, as demonstrated by the never-ending economic crisis in southern Europe. However, the Conservative right wants to leave the EU, the Conservative centre has to throw some red meat to the Conservative right every so often (even if it’s putrefied, like that ‘veto’) and no one really knows where Labour are in all this.

The Liberal Democrats have free market proponents, educational and health reformers and classic liberals. We also have those that are committed to social justice and using the government as an instrument of change.

The party has people on the left, people on the right and people who subscribe to the third way anyway. The difference is that all of those people have a voice and it is of equal weight. Yes, David Cameron is the most centrist Tory leader there has been for a while. But what about after he goes? What if the party – dissatisfied with his abandonment of the right – go for a right winger? Would Blairites be joining the Tories if Liam Fox or David Davis had won the leadership contest? I doubt it.

Powell in his book, when offering advice in a Discourses style, would often begin the sentence with the phrase ‘A prudent prime minister would…’

A prudent Blairite would join the Liberal Democrats.

* Luke Tyson is Vice Chair of Basildon, Billericay and Thurrock Liberal Democrats

The historic decision made in 2009 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by the UN was predicated on calls from more than a million people across the world. They argued for the arms trade to be brought under control and for governments to take their responsibility more seriously.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu was one of the first signatories to an Interfaith Declaration – supported by religious leaders from all the major faiths. The declaration states that ‘the world’s leaders have a moral responsibility to ensure’ that a strong Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is negotiated and signed within an international legal framework.

As the ‘Arab Spring’ unfolds in front of our very eyes on television screens, governments across the Middle East and North Africa are using lethal and uncompromising force to stop protestors calling for human rights and democratic reforms.

Research conducted by Amnesty International shows that the majority of weapons, munitions and armaments are bought from USA, Russia and European countries.

Look across the troubled region and you will see riot police and security forces using firearms, shotguns, live ammunition, rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons and armoured vehicles to suppress legitimate protests and demonstrations.

Grad rockets, mortars, artillery, heavy weaponry and tanks have been used in densely populated civilian areas in Libya and are still being deployed with merciless results in Syria. It is estimated that over 250 civilians have just been killed recently by government forces shelling homes and public places in Homs in Syria.

The main arms suppliers to Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria between 2005 and 2010 were France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the UK and USA.

The treaty will only work if it is strong, comprehensive and watertight whilst backed by bold political will.

As expected, there are some countries which support greater controls and others who wish to see a lot of flexibility. This is largely split between the emerging nations and large scale arms exporters such as the USA, China and Russia – all of whom prefer weaker controls covering a stricter and more defined range of weapons.

The influential role of the UK therefore as a major arms exporter is in the spotlight – the time has come for our Government to consider whether our presence within this industry is either part of the solution or part of the problem. Where do we as Liberal Democrats stand on this issue?

Getting this treaty right will make history – it is about grasping the opportunity to protect human rights, upholding human dignity and saving hundreds of thousands of lives across the globe.

* Issan Ghazni is Chair of the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and former National Diversity Adviser for the Liberal Democrats

Such ‘pre-emptive resignations’ are a slur on the legal system. They render its actions useless, by defying the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This principle can be abused by criminals anxious to escape justice, but it is a cornerstone of the law of this country. The court may or may not recommend a sentence: the person who resigns has already accepted a punishment, quite often far in excess of the original accusation.

Moral guilt is an important consideration. Someone who keeps their post in the face of general and sustained opprobrium from public and colleagues alike, as many politicians have, must consider the political wisdom of their actions. Defiantly clinging on is something Huhne has had some practice in, and too much of it can engulf anyone’s career. But the alleged offence at the heart of this affair (though undoubtedly serious) is not on the same page as corruption or misuse of one’s position. These are the types of offences that should, and often don’t, bring about resignation.

When a member of the public loses their job over accusations of wrongdoing before due process has run its course, it is regarded as an injustice. Huhne is a public figure, but he’s in the same position – with the difference in treatment due largely to media attention.

So is the crucial factor in cases involving public figures the worry of being hounded by the press? All politicians work with one eye on the media. But as the Leveson inquiry is presently demonstrating, to allow the media to step in as de facto lawmakers is to placate a bully. And bullies are never satisfied.

This might not be a popular view – or one that a politician in Huhne’s position could adopt – but it is a great pity that many talented people have their careers blighted for the sake of ‘what people might think’. We need to change something in our media culture and our political culture to prevent automatic resignation being the expected option.

* Rebecca Taylor is a Lib Dem activist, Membership Development Officer for Streatham Lib Dems and approved candidate for Parliament (but not the MEP!).She also serves on the Women Lib Dems Executive.

Universal Credit will replace the complicated mix of tax credits, JSA, ESA, Housing Benefit and so on with one simple benefit. And the Universal Credit is why the Welfare Reform Bill is so crucial. It will revolutionise the way we support those who are unemployed, disabled, sick or caring for a loved one and is why we have to support the Bill and ensure it becomes law.

However, alongside this important measure, the Bill included proposals to reduce spending on various parts of the welfare budget. Across Government, departments are having to cut their budgets in order to reduce the deficit, and since DWP has the biggest budget by a long way, if we don’t make savings here, every other department would face impossible cuts.

Cutting money from DWP is not easy, as by definition it goes to those most in need. But the Government is trying to protect the most vulnerable from the cuts it has to make and I believe that this means protecting the sickest and the poorest.

The most controversial proposal in the Bill was the plan to limit to one year the length of time someone receives Contributory Employment and Support Allowance.

I want to make it clear that no-one has found this Bill easy and all Lib Dem MPs were acutely aware of the Conference motion rejecting any arbitrary time limit on ESA payments. But I also want to explain why we made the decision to support the Government.

Firstly, let me be clear – the choice before us last week was between two arbitrary time limits. One was just longer than the other. And the Lords’ Amendment would have cost £1.6b a year, money which would have to have been found from elsewhere in DWP’s budget.

To explain the policy itself: the time limit only applies to those in the Work Related Activity Group, who need support but are likely to be able to return to work in the future. The sickest and most disabled people go into the Support Group, and they are not affected by any time limit.

The proposals also do not affect the poorest people. Anyone with savings below £16,000, who has a partner working fewer than 24 hours will still get ESA for as long as they need it. Because of this, 6 out of 10 people will continue to receive some or all of their ESA after the end of their year on contributory benefit.

And those who don’t receive ESA after the 12 months will be entitled to housing benefit, council tax benefit, working tax credits and child tax credits, so many will still receive a significant amount of support.

So, given that these proposals won’t affect the sickest, as they will be in the Support Group, and they won’t affect the poorest, as they will still receive ESA, I think this is the fairest way of implementing a cut that no-one wants to bring in.

For me the most important thing is to make the system fairer; to ensure that people get into the right group in the first place, so that those who need it go into the Support Group with no time limit.

This means making sure that the Work Capability Assessment works, and that is why I strongly support the work being done by Prof Harrington. His first recommendations on improving the WCA have already been implemented and they appear to be making a difference. The Government has promised to follow his future recommendations as well, especially on chronic pain and fatigue. These are often huge barriers to work for many of those with chronic conditions but they are not properly picked up in the assessment.

The Government is also currently consulting on changing the rules for those with cancer, so the presumption is that they should go into the Support Group and as a result receive indefinite support.

I accept that many Lib Dem members are disappointed that we MPs supported the Government on Wednesday. But the Bill has changed in many ways during its passage through Parliament, and we can be proud of driving many of those changes. I hope that you can understand why we voted the way we did and see that it was all with the aim of improving the system and making the cuts as fair as possible.

Jenny Willott was the Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Party Committee on Work and Pensions until last Friday.

As has been pointed out, Ed Davey’s appointment as Huhne’s replacement has removed a ‘big beast’ from Cabinet: someone who can stand up for a broader range of party opinion. However, his appointment reveals just how narrow our leadership base actually is. Ed Davey is – and I’m genuinely sorry to have to say it – not a very inspiring politician. His background is identical to Huhne’s. He has been involved in politics since the year dot. He has spent most of his life working for the party. He is white. He is middle class. He went to an elite school – the same one as Ed Balls. And like Balls, Huhne, Cameron and pretty much everyone on earth, he got a First in PPE from Oxford.

This places him in very cheery company. Of our five Cabinet ministers, two went to Oxford, two to Cambridge, and one to the northern wastes of Edinburgh. Of course, this limitation is no different from the other parties. But hey, we’re better than them, right? It simply isn’t good enough that we turn out the same machine politicians to put our case to the public. The public, not unreasonably, dislikes them. By extension, the public dislikes us.

Why don’t we focus on politicians with background in something other than politics? And what about electing an ethnic minority MP? Or more women? (A bonus of Huhne’s resignation is that there are now more Cabinet Ministers who are women than who are alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford. It is, I suppose, a fantastically desultory start.) The Liberal Democrats are not a party based on class or geography. We’ve got a very large variety of people. Why do none of them seem to reach the top?

To show we’re different, we need someone different. And Ed Davey, for all his talents, isn’t.

* Robin McGhee is a Liberal Democrat member in Oxford.

In the Australian system even a single rebellion against your party can mean the whip is withdrawn but in the UK we’re much more used to MPs ‘crossing the floor’ and voting against their party.

In fact there’s been a fair amount of coverage on Lib Dem Voice of Mark Pack’s research on the number of backbench Lib Dem MPs who have rebelled against the government since the last election.

One could argue that MPs have a duty to vote with the party that helped get them elected and ultimately the party that people voted for. Or in the current situation of a coalition perhaps MPs should seek to vote with the spirit of their party’s manifesto? But if all MPs did that, how would coalition work?

Even very recently the party’s activists have been lobbying our Lords to enact a policy that wasn’t decided until after the election by our conference. Should this bind our parliamentarians, in either house, since it wasn’t necessarily what people voted on?

There is also of course the famous quote from Burke:

 Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

What do you think? When should an MP or peer rebel against their party? And what principles should they set their judgement to rebel or not against?

*Hat tip to Stephen Tall for the idea for this debate.