Today, Lynne Featherstone’s constituency office received a special surprise in the post. Ben and Jerry’s, in conjunction with Stonewall, had produced a specially designed ice cream tub, complete with the Equality Minister’s photograph and the title Lynne Honeycomb, to show the company’s support for Equal Marriage. Sadly for her office staff, it didn’t actually contain any ice cream, though.

Ben and Jerry’s website has a section devoted to Equal Marriage with a link to the Home Office’s consultation on the issue and describes their joint work with Stonewall to raise awareness of the importance of marriage quality. They’ve even renamed their Apple Pie flavour Appley Ever After for the time being.

If you haven’t yet responded to the Government’s consultation, you have until 14th June to do so – don’t leave it till the last minute like I did for the Scottish equivalent.

In other equal marriage related news, the Equality Network in Scotland is encouraging Scots to write to their MSPs in support of Equal Marriage in the month before the SNP Government decides how it will respond to the Scottish consultation. Interestingly, this attracted over 60,000 responses, almost three times the amount garnered by the SNP’s consultation on the independence referendum which attracted 21,000. You may be interested to know that the SNP itself has more than 20,000 members.

* Caron Lindsay is Wednesday editor at Lib Dem Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

People who have sight loss need the extra help to, for example, help with cleaning, ironing or transport costs. They often need to pay for transport. If the place where they live has no buses after 6pm, then they may well have to rely on taxis in order to be able to enjoy a reasonable quality of life or to get to and from work at unsocial hours.  The money they currently receive under DLA is a lifeline.

The Independent article is written in the terms of rebellion and U-turns. However, if you look at the details, it seems to me like the sort of businesslike advocacy we would expect from our MPs. They can see that there is a problem and they are contacting the minister responsible and asking him to look again at this before the system is implemented next April. There is time to change it.

Especially interesting is that it’s not just the “Awkward Squad” who are involved. The concerned MPs range from Jo Swinson, Nick Clegg’s PPS, to Jenny Willott in the Whip’s Office to the usual suspects like Bob Russell and Mike Hancock.

The Parliamentary Party appears to be united in its desire to have this issue sorted. For blind and partially sighted people across the whole country, it’s very important that they succeed.

* Caron Lindsay is Wednesday editor at Lib Dem Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

What was good about my post yesterday is that a few other Liberal Democrat bloggers got in on the act and I spent a very enjoyable  hour yesterday evening going through their posts and being utterly fascinated by the selection on offer. Among them:

Liberal England will tell you everything you never knew you wanted to know about the Clegg Family Pyramid;

 Jennie Rigg was looking forward to singing rude songs about Postman Pat;

Neue Politik analyses the new Coalition Agreement;

The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant took a senior Bishop to task for describing atheists as being like Nazis.

And here’s another selection from now or round about now on Liberal Democrat Voice for the years 2007-2011

In 2007, Phil Willis’ decision to stand down at the next election as MP for Harrogate was announced.

In 2008, Mark Pack pulled up an anonymous senior Tory for being less than accurate in facts he’d given to the press.

In 2009, Stephen Tall asked  about whether the Telegraph had done the reputation of journalism any good with its coverage of the MPs’ Expenses scandal.

What it certainly shows is the danger of just one news outlet being able to command the monopoly of a story. The concepts of natural justice and due process have not just been ignored this week: they’ve been turned on their heads. ‘Guilty until proven innocent’, ‘no smoke without fire’, ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ – such statements have tripped lightly from the lips of even the most intelligent commentators this week. It’s a depressing sight.

In 2010, Iain Roberts suggested that the Liberal Democrat vote would hold up better after five years in Government. Let’s hope he was right.

In 2011, Mark Pack remembered Desmond Banks’ contribution in terms of both policy and campaigning technique (a constituency wide newspaper, no less) to the Liberal Party’s revival under Jo Grimond.

What were you writing about On This Day in Bloggery?

* Caron Lindsay is Wednesday editor at Lib Dem Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Queen’s Speech

Last week, we saw the State Opening of Parliament by the Queen. Her Majesty set out the legislation planned for the second session of Parliament following the formation of the Coalition. The legislation outlined in the speech supports our efforts to reduce the deficit, rebalance the economy and put the country on the path to sustainable growth. It also sets out our commitment to provide families, businesses and communities across the country with the support they need in these tough economic times.

 Banking reform

Back in 2008 the UK was held to ransom by the irresponsible behaviour of some of our banks which led to a multi-billion pound taxpayer-funded bailout to secure people’s bank deposits. Since forming the Coalition Government we have been absolutely committed to ensuring that the country is never put in this situation again and the Banking Reform Bill announced in the Queen’s speech last week will do just this. The Bill will separate retail banking from the more risky investment banking to deliver greater stability for the retail side – which local business and households rely on – and to reduce the risk of taxpayers having to bailout the banks in the future.

 A fairer State Pension

Since fulfilling the Lib Dem election pledge to restore the State Pension triple-lock and end the paltry rises we saw under the previous Government, we have seen the State Pension increased by a record £5.30 per week this April. However, the Coalition Government wants to go further than this and ensure that the State Pension is even more progressive and fairer for low-paid workers and women. This is why we have announced a Pensions Bill which will introduce single tier flat-rate State Pension currently worth around £140. This will particularly benefit women who often have lower pension contributions and it will also guarantee everyone a decent state pension on retirement.

 A boost for businesses

Small and medium-sized businesses are the key to the UK’s economic recovery and the Coalition Government has made clear its commitment to reduce the administrative and tax burden on these businesses to enable them to thrive. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill announced in the Queen’s speech will cut red tape for businesses, saving local companies time and money and enabling them to concentrate on creating the jobs and growth our communities need.

 Green, clean, affordable energy

Rising energy prices here in the Borders are a major concern for local people especially as household budgets are already under pressure. Securing the country’s long-term energy needs and reducing our dependence on the fluctuating supply and price of imported fossil fuels is therefore a top priority for the Government. This is why we announced plans to introduce an Energy Bill which will reform the energy market to secure a clean and affordable energy supply and give customers a better deal. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will also deliver on a long-standing Lib Dem commitment to set up the UK Green Investment Bank to promote private sector investment in renewable energy and other carbon-saving technologies.

 Groceries Code Adjudicator

I have long campaigned for a supermarket ombudsman to end the unfair practices which have damaged many of our local farm businesses, so it was great to see the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill in the Queen’s speech last week. The Bill will establish a new independent ombudsman to ensure supermarkets treat suppliers fairly. It will prevent large retailers from varying their supply agreements and ensure they pay their suppliers within a reasonable time. This is great news for Borders farmers and I look forward to the Bill becoming law in due course, to ensure our farmers get a fairer deal.

A series of leaflets were put out during the election attacking named candidates from the two parties, accusing them of putting too much effort into housing Travellers compared to “the homeless, OAPs, and the disabled”. Although the leaflets contained a name and phone number, they did not contain the election imprint information required by law on such leaflets.

Moreover, credible estimates of the costs involved in producing and distributing the leaflets far exceed the legal limit for ‘third party’ campaigning during the council elections.

Third party campaigning of this sort against candidates can be carried out by anyone, but there is a limit in each ward of £50 plus 0.5p per entry on the electoral register for the electoral area. The local party has been told that the leaflets were delivered by a local commercial delivery firm, whose advertised rates far exceed the third party limit, even without factoring in printing costs or any allowance for the costs of more general newspaper adverts run on the same issue by the same group of people.

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

The Pupil Premium ticks all the boxes for the Party. It is designed to help the most disadvantaged, it allows schools to spend the extra money flexibly, and it is new money on top of the school budget.

So why are we not shouting about the Pupil Premium more?

It’s not because of the lack of Leadership from the top. Both Nick and Sarah Teather are always banging on about it. Sarah even came up to Manchester during the elections to help spread the word.

Our problem is that we on the ground aren’t backing up the national campaign. We are allowing our opponents to set the media agenda, and we’re too busy/scared/apologetic/unfocused/lazy to do anything about it.

Then we blame the Leadership.

We knew Nick was talking about this on Monday. We got a briefing on Friday from the Whips Office which included the figures by LEA and Constituency, and all the key facts.

It took about half an hour’s prep, which was done on Monday morning and our eleven tweets were out by lunchtime.

This is not brain surgery. It is about all of us doing all we can to get our message across. It not just Nick’s job. And the Pupil Premium is one of the best messages we have.

#pupilpremium Fact 1: We’re spending £1.25bn this year on the #pupilpremium and this will increase to £2.5bn by 2014-15

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

Fact 2. #pupilpremium is allocated if a pupil is or was on Free School Meals in the last 6 years; is looked-after or children of army staff.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 3. The poorest children are three times less likely to get 5 good GCSEs as their more well-off classmates.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 4. In 2009, out 600,000 pupils, 80,000 were eligible for free school meals. Out of those just 40 made it to Oxbridge.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 5. This money comes on top of the schools budget, which has been protected in the Department for Education budget

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 6. PP is designed to help those from the poorest backgrounds, to help them catch-up with their richer fellow pupils.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 7. Schools can spend the PP in ways that work best for them, like hiring staff, computers or creating smaller classes.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 8. By targeting the most disadvantaged and helping them catch-up, the PP helps whole classes move forward faster.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 9. Manchester is getting an extra £19.2million for the #pupilpremium. Schools in my patch are getting £2.9million extra.

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 10. #libdems insisted PP was funded with new money outside the school budget and put in coalition agreement

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

#pupilpremium fact 11. Coalition talks with #Labour collapsed because they wouldn’t agree to fund #pupilpremium

— John Leech(@johnleechmcr) May 14, 2012

One of the group is Liberal Democrat Councillor Neil Hughes, who represents Shap ward on Eden District Council in Cumbria. Neil was previously one of our councillors in Hackney and is also a lay preacher. As you can see from last night’s film, the Seven Up series has followed Neil round different parts of the country as he underwent a period of homelessness and work searches over the years.

Last night’s programme was a joy to behold. We saw Neil in his ward and proudly showing off a toilet block for which he had fought long and hard, speaking at a council meeting and enjoying a local event.

It gives this Liberal Democrat great pride to see that Neil Hughes has so obviously found his niche in Cumbria and that this includes being an (obviously) exemplary councillor.

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a LibDem activist in Newbury, Berkshire and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Dear sir,

Thank you for your email regarding the government’s proposals to change the law on marriage in the United Kingdom. This is not a local authority matter, and so has no relevance to my role as a local councillor. However, as you have asked to know my views on this matter, I am happy to oblige.

There are, in my view, two discrete roles that marriage plays in society. The first is legal: it creates a clear contractual basis between parties that enables them to share property and divide the proceeds of their joint enterprise between them. It protects each party in the event of the other’s demise. And it provides a sound legal footing for children. In so doing it ensures that, in the event of bereavement or separation, each party is protected. Spouses and children are assured their inheritance; property is fairly shared in the event of break-up. This is especially important in an environment where it may be rational for one party to specialise in wealth-creation while the other specialises in non-financial contributions to the household, including rearing children.

The second is ceremonial. A marriage – and in particular a wedding – is an opportunity to signal to the world that one is entering into a special, unique and (one would hope) permanent relationship. It is also an opportunity for religious people to consecrate their union in the appropriate manner, and for all people to celebrate the union with a big party.

Both these functions are valid and serve an important social role.

Neither of them require the involvement of the state.

The legal function, like other legal contracts, could be facilitated by anybody with a sufficient level of legal expertise. There are thousands of solicitors and professionals with legal training who would be able to draw up appropriate contacts. It is likely that, very soon, a few standard forms of marriage would emerge as the most popular. Some of these would undoubtedly have been commissioned by religious organisations that would incorporate them into their ceremonies alongside the consecration of the union. The different forms that would emerge spontaneously would enable tailoring the contract to the parties’ needs. The role of the state would be limited to ensuring freedom of, and honouring of, contacts and adjudicating contract disputes.

As for the ceremonial role, it seems utterly unnecessary for the state to provide for ceremonial functions – indeed, existing civil marriages are very streamlined affairs, with the celebrations being organised privately by those getting married.

To suggest that marriage should be defined by the “roles that a mother and a father play in the raising of children” implies that those who are not going to have children do not benefit from, and should not be allowed to enter into or enjoy, marriage. That would exclude not only homosexuals, but also (inter alia) the infertile, those who fall in love after childbearing age, and those who choose not to procreate.

As the above should make clear, individuals who fall into any of the above groups can derive a huge benefit from entering into a legal contract of marriage that protects them against unforeseen (or unavoidable) events. Equally, many such individuals will share the desire to celebrate their union. Consequently I do not accept that childbearing is integral to, or should define the nature of, marriage.

The government seeks to create a fair system for everybody who wishes to get married, while at the same time retaining the monopoly on defining and licensing marriage. I believe that it is the government’s ongoing wish to be the final arbiter of what is, what is not, and who can engage in, marriage that is the source of the conflict over this issue today. I hope that we can one day move to a system whereby individuals are free to define their union, celebrate it and – where appropriate – have it blessed in whatever manner they chose. In the meantime, I welcome the current proposals as a small step forward in creating a free and fair system.

If you have any questions about this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,
Cllr Tom Papworth

* Cllr Tom Papworth is the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on the London Borough of Bromley.

Here is the inescapable fact. Power is now moving, increasingly, beyond the confines of the nation state and is rapidly making many of its institutions irrelevant.

He continued,

We must start taking global governance seriously. The nation states, their governments and their politicians are going to hate it. But the longer they leave it the more powerless they will become; the more chaos will be caused and the more painful the transition.

Paddy also delivered a criticism to Conference, which many in the Lib Dems should take note of,

Many of our most long-standing policies are actually being implemented. Many more have stood the test of time. But in some areas we are, I fear, running the risk of becoming rather lazy and complacent in our thinking. If we Liberal Democrats will not think afresh, then we risk falling into the easy trap of leftist, oppositional politics. And that would mean making ourselves irrelevant again for a generation.

I believe now is the time for us to rediscover our progressive radicalism and set out a bold new course for the country. Some in the party seem content with simply telling the electorate of Lib Dem ‘achievements’. A list of policy measures ‘delivered’ which lacks a coherent Liberal Democrat narrative behind it.

Yet that strategy ignores the basic rule in politics, people don’t vote to say thank you, they vote for what you will do next.

Our achievements should serve as springboards to bolder measures and not simply be seen as ends in themselves. There is no time like the present to start thinking afresh – the country is waiting.

But our message has to be distinctive, not just ‘we want to help the poor’ or ‘we believe in fairness’ – which other party do you know that doesn’t say the same thing? We need to go right back to first principles and answer: Why do we want to help the poor? What does Liberal Democrat fairness look like?

Knock on any door in the country and ask, what does the Labour party, Tory party or even Green party have as their vision and you will get an answer, ask the same about the Liberal Democrats and it becomes a bit more difficult. Our ambition for the next few years should be to remind ourselves of the answer to that question and start to explain our achievements based on that vision.

You can read the full speech here.

* Chris Richards was a candidate for the London Assembly in May 2012 and is a Lib Dem activist in London.

Last week in the tractor factory Nick Clegg appeared to confuse the ‘deficit’ with the National Debt when he said, “We have a moral duty to the next generation to wipe the slate clean for them of debt. We have set out a plan – it lasts about six or seven years – to wipe the slate clean to rid people of the deadweight of debt that has been built up over time.”

It sounded like a fail in GCSE Economics. But suppose he wasn’t mistaking the policy to eliminate the structural deficit by 2017 for a moral crusade to wipe the slate clean by removing the deadweight of the National Debt, all £1,300 billion of it.

At the other end of my straw was the realisation that Nick Clegg might have become an extreme Market Monetarist and was revealing his plan to re-establish Nominal GDP back to its trend line, even if that meant buying in the whole of the National Debt in the mother of all quantitative easing exercises.

Now, wait a minute before you pile in with the derision. We have already bought in roughly a quarter of the National Debt with the QE so far and our head is just above the water. That lot is sitting in a computer in the Bank of England as a figure owed by the Government to the (nationally owned) Bank of England. It is just a press on a delete button to wipe it clean, so why not go the whole hog, hoover up the rest and press delete. Could that be Nick’s intention?

Madness you say. Think of the criticism he would receive from the Telegraph.

Until, that is, you read a piece on Monday by the Telegraph’s senior economics commentator Ambrose Evans-Pritchard entitled, World Edges Closer to Deflationary Slump as Money Contracts in China. The gist of Evans-Pritchard’s argument is that we are on the verge of another shock similar to that of 2008/9. Whereas then, the BRICs were able to keep the world economy afloat (just), this time the BRICs are in the mire too.

The situation in China, India and Brazil makes scary reading. Writes Evans-Pritchard, “My fear has always been that the credit cycle in the Rising World would blow itself out before the Old World has safely recovered, or reached “escape velocity” to use the term in vogue”. And the second straw? The stock market fell by 2% today. Pundits pointed to Europe, but just suppose the market is responding to similar fears expressed by Evans-Pritchard. Greece and its politics have surely been factored in. The election and the aftermath can’t have come as a shock to anyone. In fact, says I, grasping at the second straw, Syriza and the Greek people probably have it right. Greece is too important for Germany to allow it to fail. Faced with a Greek exit or renegotiation, the Troika will blink before the Greek people do.

In pursuit of extreme monetary stimulus, Evans-Pritchard is all for loading the helicopters tonight, “sovereign central banks have the means to defeat any depression thrown at them by launching mass purchases of assets outside the banking system, working through the classic Hawtrey-Cassel quantity of money mechanism until nominal GDP is restored to its trend line.”

“The problem is not scientific,” he continues. “A world slump is preventable if leaders act with enough panache. The hindrance is that the Euro Tower still haunted by Hayekians, and most G10 citizens – and Telegraph readers from my painful experience – (and Lib Dem Voice readers from mine, B le B) view such notions as Weimar debauchery, or plain Devil worship. Economists cannot command a democratic consent for monetary stimulus any more easily today than in 1932.”

In 1932 they couldn’t print gold. In 2012, the ECB, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve can print Euros, pounds, yen, and dollars.

Nick, don’t let me down. You can eliminate the whole of the National Debt and you may have to. But more importantly you will be saving future generations from the legacy of a preventable depression. Winter is coming early if you don’t.

* Bill le Breton is a former Chair and President of ALDC and a member of the 1997 and 2001 General Election teams

The Pupil Premium is the government’s main policy for reducing educational inequality in schools, meaning that schools get extra funding for every child on Free School Meals (£488 this year, £600 next year). IPPR has always welcomed the Pupil Premium but have expressed concerns that it will not be spent directly on providing extra support for the children who need it. Under the current model, schools are free to spend it on whatever they like – and the majority of heads say they are using it to plug gaps in existing budgets.

Today, Nick Clegg has sought to respond to these criticisms by announcing a string of supplementary measures. The government says that Ofsted will assess how effectively the money is being spent on ‘closing the gap’ in educational attainment, although it is unclear whether this will mean that a school will fail an inspection if it doesn’t narrow the gap. Schools will also be offered cash prizes, with the 50 schools that have made most progress receiving £10,000. There will be some extra money to support children who leave primary school without Level 4 literacy and some of the PP budget is being spent on summer schools for children in deprived areas starting this year.

All of these measures are welcome, but on their own they are unlikely to be sufficient to make sure that schools focus the new funds on extra support for the most disadvantaged pupils. The government says it will hold schools to account for their progress on narrowing the gap, but the effect of this is blunted by the fact that schools are now to be held to account for a whole range of other things as well.

In particular heads have been told that the ‘gold standard’ in terms of league table position will be the proportion of their pupils who attain the new ‘English Baccalaureate’ in key academic subjects. Given that only a small minority of children on Free School Meals are on track to attain the English Baccalaureate, this creates a powerful counter-incentive for teachers to focus on the better off children who will.

Those schools in the bottom half of the league tables are told they should focus on another target: that 50 per cent of their intake should get 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths. This encourages these schools to focus their efforts on the performance of children on the borderline between a C and a D, rather than focusing on narrowing the social class gap between pupils.

If the priority in our education system is to be closing the gap then the government should design an accountability system for schools that makes this every school’s objective. Instead we have a confusing mix of different accountability measures, with the attainment of the E Bacc taking most prominence.

The government needs to go further. It should introduce a Pupil Premium Entitlement such that all of the Pupil Premium money for each child is spent on additional support for that child. Schools should be accountable to those children’s parents for delivering this entitlement in the ways it thinks best. This must not be too prescriptive but parents should be given a clear indication of the kind of additional support their child will receive, which could include intensive reading catch up or family support.

The Government should also look again at the accountability system for schools, moving away from league tables based just on raw attainment and towards a School Report Card system that gives schools a clear grade based on a number of metrics, including closing the gap in attainment between children from different backgrounds. This would hardwire the Government’s social mobility objectives into the way every school is assessed.

If steps are not taken to focus this money on where it is needed, the Government will have missed a massive opportunity to start reducing educational inequality.

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email if you are interested in contributing.

* Rick Muir is Associate Director of IPPR

It’s not that the UK is a massively corrupt country. It isn’t. However, when we talk about corruption in this country we tend to lurch from scandal to scandal without taking in the bigger picture. This is that most people in this country, rich or poor, believe that money can buy influence and that few people really believe this can change. It is beliefs like this that show that we have a problem.
 
Tackling corruption is an aim that is completely consistent with other Liberal Democrat and Coalition aims. Corruption is bad for economic growth as it distorts markets, entrenches monopolies and reduces the efficiency of government spending. Corruption leads to increased government spending and decreased tax revenues, making it harder to reduce our fiscal defect. Finally, corruption is deeply unjust and contributes to an unequal society where the voices of ordinary people count for less and their opportunities are fewer.
 
I believe that the UK can and should be right at the top of any measure of control of corruption. This should not be too hard as most of the countries ahead of us are either our close neighbours (Germany, The Nordic Countries, The Netherlands and Belgium) or share many aspects of our political system (Australia, Canada and New Zealand). As a former resident of Hong Kong I am deeply proud of the work that the UK did to clear out corruption before handing the territory over the china, work whose legacy remains in the fact that Hong Kong too does better than the UK on measures of international corruption.
 
We can do better than this and we should do better than this.

* Simon Beard is a Quaker, a Philosophy student and a Lib Dem from Sevenoaks

The Lib Dem night of the long beards

The drastic, dramatic and painful option. Clegg says the Liberal Democrats need David Laws’s expertise and media savvy at the heart of economic decision making, restoring him to Chief Secretary to the Treasury and expressing tearful regret that Danny Alexander is off out of the Cabinet, with a resting place as a new Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Cabinet Office where he will not have to handle quite so many tricky TV interviews.

Education, education, education

Too problematic to bring back Laws in a tax and cut role? Bring him in back in his area of policy interest and expertise then, decides Clegg, bringing Laws in for Teather, shifting Teather sideways with the non-Cabinet male Lib Dem ministers playing a game of scissors, paper, stone to decide who gets the chop as Clegg preserves a modicum of concern over male-dominated politics.

Clegg means it when he says he wants more women

Out go Baker, Harvey, Moore and Stunell and in come Burt, Swinson and up go Featherstone and Teather as Clegg says, “I admit it. It would be too embarrassing if the first Lib Dem coalition in a century started, continued and ended dominated by men and with an all-male Lib Dem Cabinet line up”.

Celebrity politics for a celebrity age

Lembit Opik becomes made a life peer, coming in to government at transport with a plan of a free Segway for every child in receipt of free school meals. “Lembit is taking our social mobility drive to an all-new all-star level”, explains Clegg.

Appearance is all

David Heath asked to shave off his beard as Clegg talks about the need for the Liberal Democrats to look like a party in government, non-hirsute variety.

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

POLICE have launched an investigation into voting at this month’s local elections.

Labour officials have made a complaint about irregularities concerning proxy votes in Hyndburn.

A proxy vote is when votes are placed at the polling station on somebody’s behalf, usually when they are unable to leave the house or are on holiday and have chosen not to vote via post.

Police said they had also launched an investigation into claims constituency MP Graham Jones [Labour, Hyndburn] had intimidated voters.

They said this was not connected with the proxy votes allegations.

In three wards in Hyndburn there were more than fifty proxy votes issued, which is a very high number as the number of proxy votes typically does not get into double figures in such local council wards. As for the allegations against the MP, he denies them.

P.S. Long-time readers may recall Hyndburn Council as one of the ones with an entertaining series of website terms and conditions, especially regarding photocopying and mobile phone access. Endearingly, the website’s terms and conditions are still not fully in the modern world, what with the reference to how all site visitors will incur “telephone charges” for browsing the site.

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

The implication was that we supported the FTT but only if the entire world agreed. The usual reasoning for this stance is that if we, or Europe, unilaterally institute an FTT it would disadvantage banks within the EU and encourage them to move their operations outside our borders, losing us jobs and tax revenue from the financial sector.

The thing is, while the EU has agreed to an FTT, getting America and Asia on board seems much less likely, and perhaps impossible. At the moment, it seems that the FTT would only be possible within the EU, which would simply disadvantage EU banks and encourage them to take their business outside of EU borders and jurisdiction.

But what if we could institute it without putting European banks at a disadvantage?

Taking our call from Stamp Duty

Stamp Duty is a tax paid whenever British shares or British property is bought. That is, whether a British, or European, or American, or Asian, or even Martian bank were to trade the British asset, they would need to pay the stamp duty. That is, it’s the same for all banks no matter where they’re situated – if they trade a British asset, they have to pay the British-imposed stamp duty on their sale.

With stamp duty, British banks are put at no disadvantage because foreign banks have to play by exactly the same rules. Can you see where I’m going with this?

Making the FTT a tax on transactions linked to EU assets.

Most bank transactions tend to be linked to an asset, an asset that belongs to a particular country.
E.g. A purchase of shares of a company within the EU, or a mortgage on an EU property, or a loan with an EU asset as collateral or insurance on an EU asset.

What if the FTT only applied to transactions linked to an EU asset? That way, the same rules would apply to all banks, whichever country they were situated in. American, Asian, European; the transaction linked to an EU asset would be subject to an FTT. The EU would only recognise transactions that paid the associated tax.

Any transactions without the tax paid would be unrecognised by the EU, so potentially worthless for the buyer.

This would allow the EU to collect tax on any transactions made on its assets. It would also protect EU assets from the distorting and destabilising effects of complex financial instruments involving multiple transactions, but without disadvantaging banks within the EU, as these rules would apply to any bank dealing with EU assets – no matter where in the globe they were situated.

Potential Disadvantages

Even though our banks would not be disadvantaged by such an arrangement, there may be potential drawbacks elsewhere. Traders who like to use complex financial instruments may avoid investing in EU assets from now on. That is, shares from companies in the EU may be harder to sell and be less likely to secure essential investment.

That said, the kind of “investment” that an FTT deters is the speculative sort that uses a company’s share for its current “market value” with no regard for its future. The more valuable investments, where an investor takes a long-term stake in a company, with a view to build it up and increase its value, would be barely affected by a FTT. One might argue that only unwelcome short-term “investments” would be deterred by an FTT, leaving the market open for more of the more valued long-term investments that companies need to grow and thrive.

An EU FTT is more or less ready to go…

With the EU having largely welcomed an FTT, with only Britain resisting, we could have it implemented quickly. It’s a matter of British political will. The thing is, some of our members who were quite happy for it to be policy for an unlikely global agreement, are less enthusiastic when it becomes a realistic possibility. Questions arise on whether it will damage the banking industry that much of our tax depends on. Would such a tax cause more loss in income and corporation taxes than we’d make back from FTT takings?
Would such a tax create the stability we require or just cripple the industry?

The question we now have to ask ourselves as a party is: do we really agree with a Financial Transaction Tax, and, if so, are we ready to do what it takes to see it implemented?

Co-operative Energy emerged yesterday as winner of the much-heralded Big Switch campaign launched by Which? and 38 Degrees.

The collective bargaining scheme aimed to find cheaper energy deals for more than 280,000 people who signed up. But the Co-op – which won the auction by offering the lowest tariff – will offer its deals to 30,000 people on a first come, first served basis.

Nigel Mason of Co-op Energy said: “We have used the auction as a launchpad for our new fixed rate tariff for people who want certainty about the rates they pay. Peopleneed to stay with us for 12 months and that allows us to offer a slightly reduced unit rate for both gas and electricity.”

The winning deals will be £1,048 a year for the average household if they pay by direct debit, and £1,144 a year if they pay by cash or cheque. On average people could save £119 if they pay by direct debit, or £183 if they pay by cash or cheque.

Co-op Energy was launched a year ago as an ethical alternative to the existing Big Six firms. It says it is committed to fair pricing and lower carbon energy, and is wholly owned by its customers, who are given a share of profits every six months.

David Babbs, executive director of 38 Degrees, who worked in partnership with Which? on The Big Switch campaign, said:

It’s great news that Co-operative Energy have won The Big Switch auction. Not just because tens of thousands of people are going to save money, but because it’s proof that people power can stand up to the big gas and electricity companies, and win.

* Newshound sets the agenda, as you would expect from a Red Setter

Norman features on the cover, with the strapline “The business minister on why ‘flunking’ the coalition is not an option”.

The interview took place on election day, so Norman had thoughts for those facing tough polling fights, while defending the coaltion:

It’s very difficult for those people who are doing brilliant work in their local communities if they lose seats because of the position we are in in government, but you’ve got to try and do the right thing.

Obviously you’re concerned about the impact of government on a party, but I think… there’s a sort of national duty, not to put it too highly, for parties to actually take some responsibility. We could have just opted out, we could have just said, you know, we’re not going to participate in this [and] we will just criticise from the sidelines.

Do you do that to maintain cheap popular support or do you just take responsibility and get stuck in? What’s the point of being in this job, why do it if, ultimately, you flunk it? I just think you take responsibility, you see it through, you try and explain and justify as much as you can and ultimately, even if you’ve gone through very difficult periods, if you can see it through and actually end up in a better place [then] there is a possible reward in that.

* Newshound sets the agenda, as you would expect from a Red Setter

Don’t forget: you can sign up to receive the Golden Dozen direct to your email inbox — just click here — ensuring you never miss out on the best of Lib Dem blogging.

As ever, let’s start with the most popular post, and work our way down:

1. Lib Dems face existential crisis by Dan Falchikov on Living on words alone.
“What the party needs to do now is to identify one or two big, liberal and popular issues and start to do what it did in opposition – campaign.”

2. How Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency voted on Thursday by Neil Monnery on The Rambles of Neil Monnery.
Hallam’s healthy Lib Dem vote.

3. A broken party and broken hearts: The election result shows we are asking the wrong questions by Matthew Gibson on Solution Focused Politics.
Matthew says it’s time to listen.

4. The local elections on Eric Avebury’s blog.
Differentiation, Lord Avebury says, is about pushing for an equal society. See his list for inspiration…

5. Thoughts from a LibDem Candidate in LibDem Siberia by Nicola Prigg on Nic Prigg’s blog.
Nicola’s got a taste for it now…

6. Reasons for the political micro climate in Southport by Iain Brodie Browne on Birkdale Focus.
Life on the Lib Dem Riviera.

7. Coalition Negotiations 2015. A Play. on Mark Thompson’s Blog.
Mark sets the scene…

And now to the five blog-posts that come highly recommended, regardless of the number of Aggregator click-throughs they attracted. These are normally chosen using the LibDig bookmarking website for party members, the site where you can highlight blog-posts you want to share with your fellow Lib Dems. Remember, though, you’re still more than welcome to nominate for the Golden Dozen a Lib Dem blog article published in the past seven days – your own, or someone else’s – using the steam-powered method of e-mail … all you have to do is drop a line to .

8. Happy Birthday to the LiberaTory Coalition by Alex Wilcock on Love and Liberty.
“Daddy Alex outlines why we need to be brave & stick with the Coalition, even though it is horrendously bad sometimes.” (Submitted by caron via LibDig.)

9. Lib Dems voters did not defect they stayed away by Matthew Gibson on Solution Focused Politics.
“The Lib Dem vote is still there it’s just they are staying at home.” (Submitted by neilmonnery via LibDig.)

10. Communications Interception: LibDem party view, round two by Zoe O’Connell on Complicity.
“…Julian Huppert very much Gets It, and if he doesn’t he’ll ask those of us that do.”

11. The #Clegginar – Nick Clegg bites polos and chats with members about the Queen’s Speech by Caron Lindsay on Caron’s Musings.
Caron reports back on the latest Lib Dem ministerial online Q&A – exclusively for party members.

12. The day Nick Clegg first heard my name… by Edward Sainsbury on Voice of a Citizen.
…was also the day Edward set out his own blueprint for the future.

And that’s it for another week. Happy blogging ‘n’ reading ‘n’ nominating.

Featured? Add this to your blog post!

<a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/top-of-the-blogs-the-lib-dem-golden-dozen-8-28511.html"><img src="http://www.libdemvoice.org/images/golden-dozen.png" width="200" height="57" alt="Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice" title="Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice" /></a>

Lord Owen attacks coalition over Lords reform ‘farce’ (Telegraph)

Lord Owen was one of 43 of the peers polled who said the Upper House needs to be reformed, even though he disagreed with the changes devised by Nick Clegg and other senior Liberal Democrats. “There does need to be change,” said Lord Owen. “You look around the chamber and you can see the person who is a friend of George Osborne. You can see the person who was a big donor. And you can see the person who is an expert and deserves to be there.” The peer, who served as a Labour foreign secretary in the late 1970s, has a range of criticisms of the Coalition’s proposed changes, which he decribed as a “farce”. “The 15-year terms are too long – they should be six or seven years,” he said. “There is also no need for youth peers – I think there should be a minimum age of 45. It should be a revising chamber, not a challenger to the Commons.

Councillor suspends herself after EDL Twitter comment (BBC News)

A Bournemouth councillor has apologised “unreservedly” after saying online that only the English Defence League “sticks up for the English”. Conservative councillor Sue Anderson said she had suspended herself from the party and referred herself for disciplinary procedures.

Liberal Democrat leader resigns from party (Cambridge News)

The leader of the Liberal Democrats in East Cambridgeshire has resigned from the party … Cllr Ian Allen, who represents Haddenham ward, has announced he has resigned from the party and become an independent councillor. He said: “The stage has been reached where I can no longer support coalition policies that are unfairly directed at worsening the lives of the least well off in society.”

Backbenchers more rebellious than at any stage since World War Two (Independent)

The analysis, by Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart of Nottingham University, discloses that Tory MPs rebelled in 28 per cent of divisions in the two-year parliamentary session that ended last week. Liberal Democrat MPs were almost as mutinous, stepping out of line in 24 per cent of Commons votes. The combined rate of 44 per cent outstrips previous parliaments – and will be particularly alarming for Tory and Liberal Democrat managers as, historically, MPs have tended to be more rebellious as general elections approach.

Fastest defector yet ditches Lib Dems day after election (Press & Journal)

A Highland Liberal Democrat councillor is believed to have made history as the fastest political defector. Veteran councillor Biz Campbell retained her seat of Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh on Friday, but confirmed the following morning she was quitting the Lib Dems because they had “lost direction”.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.