I’ll warn you up front that I’m not going to use this post to make political points, because this is beyond politics. And, as today’s event showed, it’s beyond religion too. One of the most compelling phrases I heard at the event, which both Nick and others used, was: “terrorism has no religion”.  Certainly some terrorists claim to be acting in the name of a religion, but no religion condones terrorist acts such as the one on Wednesday.

Hearing people from all faiths speak with one voice to reject the attack and agree that this brutal act is nothing to do with Islam or with any other religion, was incredibly powerful. And it makes it all the worse that there has already been a reported increase in Islamophobic incidents since Wednesday, including graffiti and vandalism at mosques and a number of Muslims, including children, being abused in the street. We cannot let this happen. The people who carried out the attack used their political and religious justification to mask what is basic brutality. As one of the other speakers, Canon Guy Wilson from the London Faiths Forum said, we should see each other first as human beings and neighbours. We cannot condone grouping people together by religion and holding the many responsible for the acts of the few who are using a peaceful religion for their own ends.

At the meeting of community leaders beforehand, many of the participants told us how important interfaith dialogue and interfaith community action are and how important it is that governments past and present have worked and continue to work to encourage and promote this. I hope to be able to announce something further in this area in the very near future.

Another very positive phrase to come out of this terrible episode, and one which all those who might think of undertaking violent acts should think about, is what a bystander said to one of the attackers in Woolwich: “You’re going to lose. It’s only you versus many.”

* Don Foster is MP for Bath and the Liberal Democrat Minister for Communities and Local Government.

Can I thank you all very, very much for being here and can I thank, particularly, everybody at the Centre, all the – all the volunteers here, everyone from the Peabody operation.  You – you’ve helped us to organise this at very, very short notice indeed.

It was a suggestion made to me by friends of mine in the London Muslim community just yesterday, that we should get together at a time of obviously heightened anxiety, given the horrific events in Woolwich.  And that suggestion was made yesterday.  And to be able to gather together like this, given how busy everybody is, is a real, real tribute to everybody at the centre, and indeed to all of you.

We are represented here in all of the wonderful diversity that we know is modern London: different political parties, different faiths, different communities, representatives from the armed services, from the police.  I really am very, very grateful to you all for being here.  And I hope that – in fact I know that I speak on behalf of everybody here when I say that my heart goes out and my thoughts are with the family and the friends of Drummer Lee Rigby, who as so brutally and savagely killed in Woolwich.

Now the fact that we’ve come here – I was just speaking to Sadiq about this – I think in many ways, the fact that we’ve come together is much more important than what anyone’s actually going to say at the event because the fact that we’re here together from so many different directions, from so many parts of the diversity that is London is a – sends out a message.

It sends out a very, very simple message of hope over fear, of community over division and that is immensely important and I think that you’ve done all of that and that by coming together in that way, by sending out that clear signal you really have provided a great service to all of the communities who are asking themselves searching questions in London and across the country today.

Because let’s be clear.  People who inflict such random, savage violence in the name of some entirely warped ideology or some entirely perverted concept of religion in the way that we have seen on our television screens – which has been made all the more unsettling I think, because the individuals concerned dressed, spoke, appeared to all intents and purposes like so many other young Londoners that we – we might come across every day of the week.

Let’s be under no illusion.  What they want, of course, is to sow that corrosive seed of fear and division.  What they want is for governments and the authorities to overreact in their immediate reaction.  What they want is for communities to turn inwards and away from each other.  What they want, in short, is to spread fear.

Fear is an extraordinarily powerful emotion and when fear takes root, all of us as individuals, we will avert our gaze from someone who we might be fearful of, who we weren’t before.  We might cross the street away from an individual who we’re not so sure about.  We might – we might worry about our children and about our families in a way that we haven’t done before.

It has a very, very corrosive effect on every part of our lives and we have a choice.  We have a choice to either allow that powerful corrosive feeling of fear to seep into every second and minute and hour of our lives or we can make a choice that we’re not going to change our behaviour.  We’re not going to disrupt normal life.  We’re going to continue our life as before.  We’re going to continue to reach out to each other.  We’re going to continue to look people in the eye.  We’re going to continue to be the diverse community that we indeed are, and you have made that choice by coming to this event.

London has made that choice by celebrating this kind of event and it has shown once again how unbeatable London is in the face of this attempt to sow, sow fear, sow division and sow mutual suspicion in our – in our community.  So I want to pay tribute, genuine tribute, to each and every one of you for making that choice.  It is a positive choice and is the most powerful dignified reply and rejection of what we saw and what we heard on Wednesday in Woolwich.

Final thing before I ask the Deacon and others to speak for themselves, I want to pay special tribute to those amongst you who are leaders and spokespeople of our Muslim communities.  The fact that all of you who’ve spoken out so very clearly and so very cogent and so very quickly to reject utterly, as the Prime Minister quite rightly said that what we heard from these two individuals was a total unqualified betrayal of Islam, a religion of peace was being distorted, turned upside down and inside out, perverted in the cause of a – an abhorrent and violent set of intentions from those individuals.

As I heard from someone in a discussion we just had just earlier this morning, terrorism has no religion because there is no religious conviction that can justify the kind of arbitrary, savage, random violence that we saw on the streets of Woolwich.  So thank you for speaking out as forcefully as you have done.  Thank you for speaking out as clearly as you have done for a great salvation religion, for your faith, and for the communities in which you live and in which you lead.

And in that spirit I would like to – to simply conclude by repeating a verse from the holy Quran, verse 32, chapter five: If anyone kills a human being, it shall be as though he killed all mankind, whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind. Thank you very much.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

Terrorism has no religion because there is no religious conviction that can justify the kind of arbitrary, savage random violence that we saw on the streets of  Woolwich.

He concluded his remarks by quoting a verse from the Koran:

If anyone slays a human being, it shall be as though he killed all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind.

We will have more coverage of this event and an article from Don Foster later this afternoon.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

I voted for the second reading of the bill but abstained at third reading. I tried to make clear my reasons in my three speeches on the bill in February and this week. Please read them carefully. Some of you may be pleased or relieved that some Liberal Democrat MPs, including me, voted for amendments and against third reading or abstained on third reading. You may share our beliefs on this issue or our interpretation of what is taught by our faith.

But I am clear that the majority of party members probably take a different view. And I want to say a few words especially to you.

First, if I have hurt or offended you or made you angry, I am truly sorry. I know how much some of you feel hurt – or really let down or both. I am really, really feeling that. Which is why I want to say a few other things so that some misunderstandings can hopefully be dealt with and some hurt can be healed.

I have been a Liberal and Liberal Democrat for over 40 years. I have rarely been in the minority in our party, but I know too that on many votes and issues in our party and parliamentary party there are dissenting views, and we always try to understand and respect them. On behalf of those of us with a minority party view now, I simply ask that we are given similar understanding on this issue. My record in and out of parliament on equality issues I hope stands up well to scrutiny. With Archy Kirkwood I led for us in the Commons in opposing section 28 – when the Tories supported it and the official Labour position in committee was to abstain. Though I initially wanted it to be 17 for everybody not 16, I always supported an equal age of consent. I have regularly fought privately and publicly for gay people and couples locally, nationally and internationally. And one other very important thing. My local party, our regional, national and federal parties and my own office over the years have been hugely more caring and more effective because of the contribution of the most bright, wonderful and committed gay people, many of whom I have treasured and still treasure as very close friends. I know that, acknowledge that and am proud of that and of them. Not just because of my own personal and political history and sexuality, I feel a personal responsibility to support gay and bisexual people and those struggling with sexuality whenever possible.

I have also been a member of the Christian church for nearly 20 years longer than my membership of our party. Of course Christianity did not establish marriage, or only ever countenance monogamy. Christian marriage ceremonies have not existed everywhere and all the time since the life and death of Jesus, and have only been legally recognised in this country since the middle ages – since when increasing numbers of Christian churches and other faiths have been allowed to perform marriage ceremonies conducted before God but also recognised as marriage by the state. There is no uniform Christian view on many things, within denominations or churches let alone between them. But my view on marriage is, I understand, the official and majority view of my denomination and most of the other Christian churches in this country. As well as of many other faiths. I have held this belief since long before I was first elected. I believe that all creation is of God and loved equally by God: female and male and those who believe themselves to be neither, and people of all races and ethnicity and ability and sexuality and of all faiths and none. I also believe that the partnership of one man and one woman in lifelong commitment – which came to be known as marriage – is at the heart of the created order, and especially blessed by God. And that the law of the land should recognise this traditional view of marriage.

But all my political life, I have supported disestablishment of the Church of England – and a few years ago was one of those involved in the successful initiative to make this our party policy. As an evangelical protestant Christian and as a Liberal I really want a separation between church and state. In the interests of both. Since the mid 19th century our law has legitimised and formalised non-religious weddings. Consistent with this, I believe that heterosexual, gay, lesbian, transgender and non-gendered people should all be able to have the choice of an identical sort of civil partnership or of a civil  marriage or union. This should be separate from Christian or other faith marriages. But the way of reconciling the two is for us first to separate completely in law the recognition of relationships by the state from the marriages conducted by churches, other faith groups – and humanists, but then also to allow those faith communities which wish to recognise gay and heterosexual marriages equally in their ceremonies the ability to do so, and with identical consequences in the law of the land.

This is a time for liberals to promote loudly our liberal values. For us to support not orthodoxy but difference and dissent. For single people and couples, straight or gay, of all faiths and none, to be able to practice our religions, express our beliefs and choose our relationships within the law with equal freedom. But always permitting, respecting and celebrating our differences and different views. Equal but not identical .Nobody a prisoner of the old orthodoxies or the new.  And all of us always seeking to love, respect, serve and value each other more – every day. Which I am very conscious is something I still need to do much better myself.

Perhaps that’s alright though, there are probably many in the party more comfortable talking about making our society fairer rather than talking about making us, collectively, richer. However, polling shows that for the average voter the state of the economy is a huge concern. Thanks to Julian Huppert’s work last year developing our science policy, we have something that can rebalance the first half of that slogan. Julian called for “a 15-year annual increase in a ringfenced Science Budget, of 3% more than inflation.” As research and development (R&D) spending as a proportion of GDP declined under the last tory government and stagnated under labour, this ambition is something we can really make our own.

Although innovation is claimed to have been ( responsible for two thirds of economic growth between 2000 and 2008, the UK is lagging behind in R&D spending. At 1.79% of GDP, R&D investment in the UK is at a level similar to that of the PIGS (Spain – 1.39%, Italy – 1.26%, Portugal – 1.59%) rather than the more dynamic economies of Germany (2.82%), Denmark (3.06%) and Sweden (3.42%), and generally not making much progress towards our target of 3% of GDP. The most recent ONS figures reported an increase in business R&D of 6% adjusted for inflation, excellent news as 60-65% of all R&D spending is private sector. In comparison, higher education R&D increased by 0.2% (adjusted for inflation). The government clearly needs to do more, not just to keep its end up, but to give confidence and attract further investment.

If my rough estimate is right, reaching the 3% of GDP target would cost around £6-7 billion, assuming the proportion of publicly funded R&D remains the same. Not a small amount of money,  but then the benefits of a stronger, more innovative economy, less reliant on the city, are self-evident. With the right presentation, this might even prove quite popular. While we’re waiting for the next manifesto, you can sign this excellent petition calling for an increase in Governmental spend on R&D to 0.8% GDP.

* Tad Jones is a Liberal Democrat member in Nottingham

It just takes a couple of clicks to arrive at free videos which depict women in a subjugative role, as little more than receptacles. The language used about those women is demeaning and deeply misogynistic. The expectations of a generation of boys are being guided by their access to this stuff.

The BBC reports on a study commissioned by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in England which recommends that sex education must adapt to take account of the effect of internet pornography and help children develop a resilience to its effects, which they outline as:

It can lead to more sexually permissive attitudes, more casual sex, sex at a younger age, and the belief that women are sex objects with males dominant and females submissive, suggests the study.

There is a correlation between children and young people who use pornography and “risky behaviours” such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners and using alcohol and other drugs during sex, say the authors.

What’s also worrying is the gender difference – boys seeks this stuff out, while girls are much more wary of it.

I am pleased that the recommendations of the report emphasise the importance of education, robustly dealing with this stuff. Controversially, it suggests that it should be compulsory in all schools, including faith schools, colleges, private schools and academies. I think that is a very sensible approach to a problem which could ruin young people’s lives. If you think I’m being melodramatic, we are already seeing young women put in horrible predicaments after being pressured into sexting. Note that the young men who put pressure on their girlfriends to supply the photos and subsequently breach their trust by distributing them to all and sundry seem to get away without attracting any sort of disapproval.

There was a tv series about 4 years ago where Channel 4 compared porn with reality. It busted a lot of myths and challenged young people’s perceptions and expectations by showing them how real bodies looked and how the porn industry worked. That, to me, along with ensuring that our young people grow up knowing what a loving relationship is all about, is much more likely to be effective.

What relevance does this have for the Coalition? They now have to decide what to do with this report. Well, the Tories are more inclined towards  opt-ins and measures to get ISPs to restrict access. That’s futile, to be honest. Even if your child is safe at home, they may not be round at their friends’ houses. Not only that, but I feel very uneasy about having some piece of software at an ISP tell me that I can’t access articles on breastfeeding. I wrote about this last year:

 A ban, though is unworkable. It’s much worse to hand over control of what I consider acceptable for my daughter (or me to that matter) to see to the likes of BT or Orange. When I think that sites likeMark Pack’s blog have been blocked for having pornographic content by some providers, you see how easily mistakes can be made. While that’s a humourous example, I also would not like to think that a teenager looking for advice on safe sex or maybe coming to terms with their own sexuality would not be able to find what they need. I know that there are some things that my daughter would find way too exruciating to talk to me about, so inobtrusively providing her with access to accurate, reliable information is important to me.

I hope that our ministers within the Coalition will press the need fro compulsory, evidence based, quality sex education for all young people. That to me is the most liberal solution.

I also hope that this report will make the men who tell me that I am a humourless, frigid killjoy when I write about these things take notice and realise that we need to take action to deal with the effects of such easy access to pornography, which perseverate long after the initial viewing of the pornography.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

These attacks differed in only one important feature, in that one of the attackers had something to say and sought help from passers by in order to communicate his message to as many people as possible.

Without the assistance of others, the ambitions at terrorism in Woolwich would have failed. I am not suggesting that members of the public should not have accepted requests to film the murderers (It would have been dangerous for them to refuse the requests of a man waving a meat cleaver at them). But once the attackers were apprehended by the police, the amateur film-makers should have made a point of handing their footage to the police in full view and earshot. The phrase “Your message of hate will only be heard as evidence against you” might have been appropriate.

I saw apparent experts on the television describing this murder as “easy terrorism” or something similar that it would be “impossible to prevent”, and drawing parallels with Al Qaeda. All coverage of this sort is granting these men a status among their extremist peers that they could have easily been denied. It cements the attack as an example of “successful” terrorism and tells their peers that terrorism is “easy”.

The heroic public act is to refuse to spread their message; to deprive them the oxygen of publicity. The responsible course of action in the media is to refuse all footage of proselytising hate criminals and all pictures of perpetrators beyond their pitiful mugshots.

But instead the media have failed the British people abysmally in this instance. Special mention has to go to ITV for being first to show the attacker’s speech. But for the BBC News Channel to follow clearly stating “ITV showed this first” was cowardly in the extreme.

I hope in the coming weeks that the Government issues new anti-terrorism guidance. I hope guidance is all that is necessary to stop the public and media turning despicable hate criminals into blueprints for successful terrorism. If guidance isn’t successful then we have to ask ourselves whether in the digital age the man who passes mobile phone footage to the press rather than the police is aiding and abetting an act of terror.

Imagine how sick these men would feel if they had to trawl the papers for any tiny mention of their actions. Next time – and the media have almost certainly ensured there will be a next time – let’s make sure they suffer a lifetime in prison regretting the futility of their murderous deeds.

* Ewan Hoyle is the founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform and member of the Scottish Liberal Democrat policy committee.

A proposal to require schools to check on the immigration status of their pupils has been shelved after the Liberal Democrat schools minister David Laws decided the idea would be bureaucratic and difficult to implement.

In a sign of the Lib Dems’ determination to assert themselves in the coalition, Laws told the education secretary Michael Gove the proposal was a “non-flyer”.

According to Whitehall emails leaked to the Guardian in March, Laws asked officials earlier this year to carry out a “cost-benefit analysis” of carrying out checks on the immigration status of pupils “as part of school admissions”.

Laws, who was understood to be sceptical about the idea, ordered the analysis after officials warned ministers that Britain would be in breach of the UN convention on the rights of the child if it attempted to ban illegal immigrant children from schools.

The ideas were being considered as part of the work of a ministerial committee, chaired by the immigration minister Mark Harper, that has been charged with drawing up new restrictions on immigrants.

Downing Street wants these in place ahead of the lifting of labour market restrictions on workers from Romania and Bulgaria next January.

The Lib Dems are full members of the ministerial committee and are signed up to toughening immigration rules. But they believe the Tories, who are nervous about Ukip, need to be restrained at times.

One source said Laws has vetoed the school vetting proposal. “David decided that this idea would be extremely bureaucratic and difficult to implement,” he said.

“It would end up placing a major burden on teachers. Michael Gove has agreed to that and the Department for Education has said this is not an idea that is going to fly.”

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

This is therefore a unique opportunity to stimulate growth and jobs and contribute to the Liberal Democrats’ key objective of building a stronger economy in a fairer society. As Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s US Delegation, I will be pushing for a speedy conclusion of negotiations so we can reap the benefits as soon as possible. There is currently enough momentum on both sides of the Atlantic to see this deal signed off within the next few years, and we must not let this great opportunity pass.

After the EU, the US is the biggest source of investment in the UK. American firms account for a quarter of overseas investment in Britain and support an estimated one million British jobs. One of the major attractions for US investors is our continued membership of the EU, which makes Britain an important gateway to the rest of the single market. It is worth remembering that more US companies set up their European headquarters in the UK than anywhere else in the EU. David Cameron in Washington last week acknowledged that it was only as part of the EU that the UK could get this prize of a transatlantic deal, pointedly disavowing those in his own party who say we can build important trade ties on our own. President Obama has repeatedly made clear that the US also values our role as a liberal-minded and influential EU member, but that our special relationship will no longer be special if the clamour for the exit from Tory Europhobes and UKIP is successful.

This week leading business figures, including Richard Branson, made a strong economic case for why Britain should remain an EU member. They pointed out that EU membership is worth up to £3500 to each household, and could be worth far more if we focus on achieving reforms and delivering a more competitive Europe. The TTIP alone would be worth as much as £10 billion to the UK economy, the equivalent of almost £400 per household. Liberal Democrats have already delivered a £600 tax cut to more than 20 million people. We now want to focus on creating jobs, getting the economy moving again and putting more money into people’s pockets, not on endless navel-gazing about our relationship with Europe.

* Sarah Ludford is London MEP and the Liberal Democrat European spokeswoman on justice & human rights. She is a leading member of the European Parliament's civil liberties, justice & home affairs committee.

Clegg’s speech, in particular, impressed – for two reasons:

First, it was a firm defence of the coalition government against its enemies on the Tory benches. In fact it was a much firmer defence of the coalition than Cameron, stylishly ducking and weaving in his radio interview, would now dare to make. Cameron may be the more natural communicator, but it was Clegg who sounded more like a statesman.

Second, and even more interestingly, it was a robust defence of coalition and centre-ground government in general. The section in which Clegg calmly rehearsed the reasons why voters should continue to like coalitions and centrist politics – which have been under almost constant attack since 2010 – was especially effective. “Neither left nor right but forward” may be pretty vacuous, but it could be smart politics. The speech was a timely reminder that the Lib Dems are not dead yet, not least because they continue to lay claim to something important.

And he concludes that Lib Dem participation in government might continue for rather longer than people had originally anticipated:

But the British experiment with coalition has proved more resilient – which is just as well, in view of the increasingly four-party message from the opinion polls. That’s why Labour, prodded by Andrew Adonis’s recent writings and interviews, is again beginning to face up to the possibility. Whatever your view of Clegg, he is the one party leader who believes in coalitions as well as having a self-interest in them. In spite of everything that has happened since 2010, he may well find himself, two years from now, in the right place at the right time once again.

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

He stated that UK exports to the EU have risen by 40% while exports to the EU from countries outside of it have risen by 75%. If we were to leave the EU we would have to start paying import duties, the UK would not (at least in the short term) have a free trade agreement with the EU. This would mean that our exports to the EU would become more expensive relative to developing economies.

At a time when nearly half of our exports go to the EU, leaving the EU would destroy our competitive advantage and weaken our export market.

Lord Lawson mentions the City of London and how it would be good if we left. But a large proportion of people working in the City of London are dependent on EU membership for their jobs. Many headquarters of international businesses are based in the UK because we are part of the EU, not despite it. If they lose access to the common market questions over their efficacy will be thrown into doubt, with the likely result that headquarters would move to EU countries.

Across the UK 1 in 10 of all British jobs are dependent on the UK being in the EU. 3.5 million jobs would be put at risk, potentially creating an unemployment crisis.

At a time when our own economic future is not certain talk of leaving the EU is a dangerous political game to play.

Lawson does highlight an important fact: that there is huge economic and political growth in the world outside of Europe. But rather than participate in the largest economic and political grouping in the world he would happily see us sat on the sidelines, further destroying our ability to take part in international negotiations. With the US about to sign a free trade agreement with the EU they will have very little time for a small country that wants to make itself smaller.

What is becoming very apparent is that the UK is likely to have a referendum on its membership in the EU. The Conservatives are feeling threatened by UKIP and are swinging widely to the right in the hope that it wins back some of its “traditional vote”. This is an argument they are having internally, they have had it before, and it is going to continue until they have a referendum. Meanwhile Labour are struggling to make the impact they should be and are likely to jump on board any populist policy they can to get them a few more votes. If we do have a referendum it is our responsibility as a true liberal, internationalist and (sometimes) pro-European party to make a positive case for the EU now.

This means selling the positives economically, environmentally, for security, for jobs and how these positive benefits affect people’s everyday lives.

* Richard Davis is a prospective Member of the European Parliament for London. His website is here.

Humza has spent this week in Doha at the International Forum there. This is an event which discusses key international issues as they affect the Middle East. He has been caught on video telling this international audience of academics, political leaders and intergovernmental organisations that the UK Government wants to leave the European Union. Unfortunately for him, he was caught on video doing it. Have a look at the 6th video down, starting at 2 hrs 6:20 in.

Even at the moment, the United Kingdom Government is wanting the UK to leave the European Union but the Scots wish to remain a part of the European Union.

To try to suggest that the personal views of a couple of Cabinet ministers on how they would vote in a referendum that is not going to happen in this Parliament is the official position of  the UK Government is at best mischievous.

Willie Rennie has called on First Minister Alex Salmond to rein in his errant colleague:

The Minister for External Affairs seems to have deliberately misrepresented UK Government policy.  At no stage has the UK Government stated it wants to leave the European Union.

After comparing the Scottish independence movement with the Arab Spring, Humza Yousaf is morphing into a Scottish version of Johnny English.

It is not fitting for a government minister to misrepresent the position of either of Scotland’s governments on the world stage. This blundering, cavalier style of diplomacy can paint a false picture to international partners and have real implications for our businesses.

The First Minister needs to rein in his minister before he causes any more problems.

He has put down a motion to the Scottish Parliament which calls on the Scottish Government:

to review the way in which it conducts its international relations so that audiences, whether domestic or international, can have confidence that its ministers are giving an accurate and honest statement of the position of other governments.

On the Arab Spring issue, there is a predilection amongst some nationalists to compare their fight for independence to other struggles against brutal regimes. I wrote about that a couple of weeks ago after a comment to that effect was left on here. On this occasion, I think that maybe the pudding was being over-egged a little bit by his critics. After all, he did explicitly say that you couldn’t directly compare the two.  I think the rest of his comments were more deserving of further scrutiny. He talked about the need for:

We need to learn more about how we can use digital media as a means of consulting with the youth, to make young people feel more engaged.

Well, maybe – but you could try talking to them as well. The techy stuff is an add-0n. There’s nothing as good as actually listening to what they have to say in person.

And I hope he was joking when he said this, on the construction of a new political framework:

More importantly than anything it must be inclusive of women, young people, minorities and even of our opponents.

Wow. Don’t get too over-enthusiastic about the idea of political pluralism, there, Humza.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Social mobility: it’s a phrase much-beloved by politicians from all three parties. Who, after all, can possibly disagree with the fine sentiments of Nick Clegg in his social mobility strategy paper, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers (April 2011)?

In Britain today, life chances are narrowed for too many by the circumstances of their birth: the home they’re born into, the neighbourhood they grow up in or the jobs their parents do. Patterns of inequality are imprinted from one generation to the next. The true test of fairness is the distribution of opportunities. That is why improving social mobility is the principal goal of the Coalition Government’s social policy.

Let me ask you another question, though: when did you last hear anyone unconnected with the Westminster Village — an ‘ordinary voter’ — talk about social mobility? It doesn’t even rate a mention in Ipsos MORI’s polls tracking the issues of concern: unsurprisingly, the economy comes top.

This chasm between how the Government talks about the principal goal of its social policy and the concerns of the public is in itself a problem. But perhaps more telling is the way all parties are happy to engage with social mobility as a smokescreen for the debate that still matters more: how is inequality best tackled?

Before we address that question, though, let’s be clear about our definitions. The extent to which you’re able to do better than your parents were — what’s termed absolute social mobility — may simply be a function of economic growth or technological change. How likely it is you’ll be able to move up (or down) the social or income ladder compared to others is what’s known as relative social mobility. The political focus is on the latter measure, as Nick Clegg’s white paper makes clear:

For any given level of skill and ambition, regardless of an individual’s background, everyone should have an equal chance of getting the job they want or reaching a higher income bracket.

In other words, the Coalition’s priority is delivering equality of opportunity. The drive has been, therefore, to improve the education of the poorest in society. The reason why is not surprising. A five year-old child living in poverty today is already the equivalent of eight months behind their better-off peers in terms of cognitive development. And this gap between children from rich and poor backgrounds increases throughout their time at school.

One of the Lib Dems’ top priorities at the 2010 general election was the introduction of what’s known as the ‘pupil premium’, significant new funding targeted at low-income pupils. Implemented by the Coalition, it will be worth up to £1,300 for each eligible child by 2015. The aim is clear: to reduce the attainment gap and enable everyone to get on in life.

But equality of opportunity cannot stop at 18. The Coalition’s higher education reforms in England, though undoubtedly controversial and politically costly to the Lib Dems, mean the poorest 30% of university graduates will pay back less overall than under Labour’s fees system while the richest will pay more. Potential students seem to have noticed: application rates from disadvantaged areas hit their highest level ever in 2013.

Vince Cable has also emphasised the critical importance of adult education citing his own family experiences:

My mother’s escape from domestic drudgery and isolation occurred at adult education college when she was 40. Our family was fortunate to have these opportunities and want the present generation to have the same.

And beyond formal education, apprenticeships have been expanded, with almost half-a-million created in 2010-11, two-thirds more than in Labour’s last year in office.

In its own terms, then — delivering equality of opportunity — the Coalition is doing a lot. The big question is whether improvements to the education system will be enough to advance relative social mobility, the Coalition’s stated aim.

The evidence suggests not. As Oxford professor John Goldthorpe has highlighted, relative social mobility remained broadly static for most of the twentieth-century despite all the changes thrown at the education system. And in his neutrally scholarly way he had laid down a serious gauntlet to politicians of all stripes:

… [if] the creation of a more fluid and open society is a serious goal, then politicians will need to move out of the relative comfort zone of educational policy and accept that measures will be required, of a kind sure to be strongly contested, that seek to reduce inequalities of condition.

This, at last, gets to the heart of the issue: inequality.

There has long been a tension between the liberal goal of equalising opportunities and the social democratic goal of equalising outcomes. The Coalition has explicitly prioritised the former, both through its education and training measures and by preferring to incentivise work through cutting taxes for the low-paid rather than increasing benefits for low-income groups. These policies may well deliver on promoting absolute social mobility, stimulating economic growth and ensuring the next generation can live a better life than their parents.

By themselves, however, they are unlikely to deliver the relative social mobility Nick Clegg promises: your background will still continue to exert an unfair influence on what you’re able to do in life. To paraphrase the deputy prime minister: “Patterns of inequality will continue to be imprinted from one generation to the next.”

The Coalition Government’s focus on education — in particular the education of the poorest — is to its credit. But if it wants to encourage relative social mobility it is going to have to tackle an issue it prefers to skirt around: delivering a more equal society. There really is no alternative.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

“EU must get tough on tax” says Sharon Bowles MEP
 
Ahead of yesterday’s EU Summit in Brussels, the European Parliament backed a common European strategy to combat tax fraud, evasion and havens.
 
UK Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles, who chairs the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, said:
 

It is totally unacceptable that corporate tax avoidance is now the norm in Europe, aided and abetted by aggressive tax planning and tax consultancy firms.
 
I have been fighting for companies to pay their fair share in tax for many years now and this can only be achieved by much more transparency in how companies prepare their accounts and with much better European and international cooperation.
 
The European Parliament vote today sends a strong signal to Europe’s Finance Ministers, ahead of the EU Summit tomorrow, that the time has come to clamp down on tax evasion and tax havens once and for all.
 
Hopefully, Mr Osborne sees that the EU can in fact help the UK in combating a problem that costs the Inland Revenue an estimated £4billion a year.

MEPs demand mandatory renewables target for 2013
 
Ahead of yesterday’s European Council on energy, MEPs in Strasbourg sent a strong message to national governments in support of renewable energy calling for mandatory targets for 2013.
 
Fiona Hall MEP, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament and energy spokesperson, commented after the vote:
 

The 2020 renewables target kick-started the industry and created jobs and growth in a time of economic downturn. We need to keep up the momentum – and continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. It is a win-win situation. 
 
Putting in place new renewables targets for 2030 will give the industry the certainty it needs to make important long-term investment decisions.
 
The ball is now in the court of Member States and the Commission to agree on a 2030 renewables target as part of the 2030 framework for climate and energy policies.
 
The renewables industry estimates that its current growth of 6% a year will slump to 1% if there is no strong political framework post-2020.

Lib Dem MEPs press Commission for answers on olive oil regulation
 
Lib Dem MEPs have demanded an explanation from the European Commission regarding the decision to ban reusable olive oil dishes in restaurants, and will be tabling a series of parliamentary questions to get the bottom of the matter.
 
George Lyon MEP, Liberal Democrat European agriculture spokesperson, commented:
 

At a time when the focus should be on promoting jobs and growth, this latest decision from the Council and European Commission really beggars belief. Banning reusable olive oil jugs would place an unnecessary burden on restaurants and potentially drive up prices for customers.
 
It now falls to the Commission to justify the reasoning behind this daft proposal and explain exactly how it would be enforced.

 
Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat European spokesperson on environmental affairs, added:
 

The Commission claims this is about protecting consumers from adulterated oils, but it appears to be more a case of extending an olive branch to producers in Southern Europe. The decision to impose a blanket ban on all reusable containers is a massive overreaction to what is in reality a very minor problem. I am demanding to know what this will mean in practice and what level of flexibility there will be for restaurant owners.

* Mark Valladares is a Liberal Democrat member of the ALDE Council, and isn’t dead yet…

Group leader Cllr Stuart Bray expressed his pleasure at Cllr Moore’s decision:

We are delighted to welcome John to the Lib Dem Group. I have worked with him over the past 6 years on Burbage Parish Council and latterly the Borough Council and have always found him a man of great integrity who cares passionately about Burbage and the area as a whole. John is a great asset to our group on the Borough and Parish Councils.

Cllr Moore said that he had reached his decision over a combination of local and national issues:

Over the last 12 or more months I have found it increasingly difficult to recognise, on a national basis, the Party I have supported for the last 50 years. I have, at times, given voice to these doubts and concerns but will also be aware that I had managed to separate in my mind the National and local situation. However recent changes within the Conservative Group mean, that on reflection, our direction of travel is not one that I can with good conscience support or follow.

Therefore I have concluded that the option I favour is to seek membership of another Party. I find that I share with Liberal Democrat Party their views on the major issue facing our nation – the need to eliminate the deficit inherited from Labour, but that this needs to be a controlled elimination, with the burden being fairly spread across the sectors of society, recognising that there will be significant numbers requiring support.

And, locally, he  thinks that the Liberal Democrats have the right ideas:

These include a positive view regarding the regeneration of the Bus Station site, based on its value to the community – rather than a hope for failure based on the perception that this would bring political advantage and a recognition that it is necessary to build relationships with officers based on mutual trust and respect (yes I accept that there will sometimes be differences of opinion and political direction) in order to deliver the things that really matter to the residents of Hinckley and Bosworth.

You can find more information on the Hinckley and Bosworth Liberal Democrats website.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

I thought there were some interesting nuances in the language Nick used today, particularly ramping up the idea that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are “staunch opponents” rather than two parties working together. Suits me, I must say.

Two staunch opponents, working together to find answers to the most critical questions facing Britain today, pioneering major reforms that will stand the test of time. That’s what this Coalition has always been about – and it’s what it must continue to be about.

Conservative backbenchers have not shown themselves at their best over the last few weeks, to put it mildly. The likes of Gerald Howarth and Sir Tony Baldry have put paid to any claims that the Conservative Party is modern. Howarth’s comments about “aggressive homosexuals” belongs in a 1970s sitcom – and not a good one at that.

Today felt a bit like Nick saying “It’s ok, Don’t worry, there’s still a responsible adult around to look after things while the toddlers squabble.”  He gave three reassurances:

• The Coalition will last until 2015
• Our priority is the economy
• We will remain anchored in the centre

I have never thought leaving the coalition was a realistic option, for the very reason Nick pointed out:

The idea that the Liberal Democrats could suddenly win back those people who have never liked us going into government with the Conservatives is nonsense. As if we could pull the wool over people’s eyes, using an early exit to somehow erase the previous four and a half years.

And, frankly, that isn’t what we want. The Liberal Democrats look forward to fighting the next election as a party of government, on our record in government, and with a distinct vision of our own for the next government – having seen this one through until the end.

And in this section, he made it clear that he didn’t expect the next to years to be plain sailing – and nor were the Liberal Democrats going to take all the blame for the compromises made. Maybe we’re going to get a bit more assertive about the daft Tory ideas that we’ve stopped. I’m sure there must be more than restricting child benefit to two children and taking Housing Benefit from under 25s.

It won’t all be plain-sailing.

Some of the most divisive issues – like the UK’s role in Europe – are not going to go away.

We also have to be realistic about the other challenges that come with the later stages of Coalition. As we head towards the election there will be increasing pressure on David Cameron and myself to act as party leaders as much as PM and DPM: pressure to put party before nation. And I don’t pretend I won’t relish the moment I can hit the campaign trail on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the run up to the General Election.

But here’s the bigger truth: whether you are the larger or smaller party, the fact is governing together in the public interest carries a cost. Making compromises; doing things you find uncomfortable; challenging some of your traditional support – these are the dilemmas the Conservatives are coming to terms with, just as my party has had to.

There was plenty to satisfy “stronger economy and fairer society” bingo players today, but also that “governing in the centre ground” phrase was back. I’m not sure it’s either helpful or accurate to suggest that Ed Miliband’s Labour party is in any way left wing. You certainly can’t trust them with the purse strings, but they’d faint if they met a proper socialist. There’s some mixed messaging, too. Either Ed Balls loves the City and heads there on prawn cocktail charm offensives or the party is left wing. You can’t have both. Surely “they screwed up the banking system and spent all the money” is enough?

He also highlights welfare fraud and immigration abuse, both issues of the right with which both Labour and Tories are associated. I wish we could just stick to being Liberal Democrat about them. There is no evidence to suggest widespread fraud in the welfare system and surely we should be sorting out our disgraceful immigration system by making it fairer.

He topped and tailed his speech by talking about the parliamentary game playing of the last few weeks. Everybody knows that it’s not the Liberal Democrats who have been showing themselves up, as our Nick Thornsby wrote so eloquently on Conservative Home.

One final interesting thing – how come he’s started using the term “gay marriage?” Maybe I’m so attuned to the phrase “equal marriage” that it just sounds strange.

There was a lot of sensible stuff in the speech, particularly on the economy. I’ll let Nick have the last word:

Our priorities must be people’s priorities: boosting business, creating jobs, helping with the cost of living.

On the big ticket items the Coalition parties must continue to find a way forward together. Just as we have done on cutting income tax; dealing with the deficit; creating a million new jobs; transforming the education and welfare systems; providing unprecedented guarantees – £50bn worth – for infrastructure and new homes; greening our economy; creating record numbers of apprenticeships…

And there must be no doubt that this Coalition remains united on the end we all seek:

A stronger, rebalanced economy, built on sound public finances, with opportunities spread to every corner of the UK.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings