Anna Arrowsmith, managing director of adult film company Easy on the Eye, will stand for the party in Gravesham, Kent. Under her pseudonym Anna Span the 38-year-old has produced around 300 pornographic films. She has specialised in “women friendly” films, with titles like Where’s the Rent Boys aimed at female erotica enthusiasts.

Mrs Arrowsmith asked the people of Gravesend not to judge her on the sins of her industry and pointed to her background as a campaigner for women’s rights. The Lib Dems finished third in Gravesham in 2005 with just 4,851 votes.

She said: “I have gone into the industry with a view to changing it and making it more female friendly. In this day and age people who live in a democratic society should be able to choose what they want to watch.”

She added: “I have spent years campaigning for equal opportunities for female workers and I think this has given me an excellent experience for the coming campaign.”

Named best director in the 2008 and 2009 UK Adult Film and Television Awards, Mrs Arrowsmith, who also has a degree in fine arts and a Masters in Philosophy, is becoming involved in politics for the first time. …

A Liberal Democrats Party spokesperson said: “We are proud to have candidates throughout the country with a great diversity of backgrounds and life experiences. Anna will be a strong candidate for Gravesham and with her family links to the area we believe she is the best person to bring fairness to local people.”

Anyone bothered by this? Thought not. As Lib Dem blogger Alex Wilcock once proposed – with tongue only slightly suggestively in cheek – perhaps the party should adopt the slogan, ‘Liberal Democrats: the party that says sex is all right’.

The Spectator interview has stirred up Sunder Katawala at the left-leaning Liberal Conspiracy, who speculates that Nick’s comments will “be a major talking point at the LibDem spring conference in Birmingham this weekend, where it may not meet with universal acclaim among party members.”

Well, I won’t pretend to be able to speak for party members – y’see, part of the point of being a liberal is that we’re all individuals – but I’m wholly relaxed that Nick has spoken approvingly of the significance of Margaret Thatcher’s actions in taking on the vested interests of overwheening trade union powers in the 1980s. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Sectator interview:

Age, he claims, has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration. ‘I’m 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don’t want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed. And what has now happened to the British economy? It has gone belly-up because, once again, we have allowed a vested interest to run riot.’ He is talking, of course, about the banks. ‘They represent a vested interest. This is what I sometimes don’t understand about the Cameron-Osborne act. A real liberal believes in genuine competition, a genuine level playing field and he is unremittingly hostile to vested interests.’ As Thatcher was to Scargill, so Mr Clegg intends to be to the banks. ‘What I find so striking is that the spirit — dare I say it — of the battle against the dominance of one vested interest, the trade unions, is exactly the same spirit we need now.’

I can see why some Labour party members might not like Nick’s statement; but I can’t see why liberals (with small l’s and big L’s) would have a problem with it. That’s why we’re in rival parties, after all.

As for creating a fuss among the party membership, today’s Lib Dem blogs have scarcely been buzzing with discontent. If anything, I think most of us are rubbing our eyes in amazement to see the party leader attracting such a high profile even before the general election campaign kicks off.

I still think Nick is wrong not to rule out a coalition: the Lib Dem position, as I’ve stated on LDV before, should be cooperation not coalition. But credit where it’s due. Nick’s interviews suggest a confident, dynamic leader who’s campaign-ready, and eminently comfortable in his own skin. So let’s leave the last word to him, from the Economist interview transcript, in which Nick makes his ‘elevator pitch’:

Everyone’s talking about change; everyone’s talking about fairness. What we’re trying to focus people’s attention on is these very hard, concrete pledges we’re making on tax reform, on pupil premium, on reforms of banking, on a new politics, to get people to ask themselves the question we really want them to ask themselves: ‘What’s in it for me and my family?’ We think and all our research suggests – it’s amazing how much research goes into something which is, in a sense, as simple as that – that the more people asks themselves those questions, the more you get a dramatic falling away from the Conservatives and it benefits us enormously. People think, ‘Actually I don’t want the blather of change; I want something that really works for me’.

That’s it, really. It shows, I hope, a combination of two things. Firstly, that in as much as elections are about a very crude question – do you want change or not? – we are unambiguously on the side of change from the Labour status quo, but that we think we contrast ourselves very favourably with what is a rather vacuous pitch for change, one without sincerity, one without authenticity from Cameron.

A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.

The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe.  When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.

We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding.

Note: Kudos to James Graham for being quicker off the mark blogging on this story.

I like photos of potholes. Or even empty pavements.

I like photos of candidates.

I like photos of candidates and potholes.

Looking glum or not.

But so often the ‘action’ photo of the local campaigning ‘team’ shows one static solitary person doing nothing much other than looking lonely and static.

The solution? Read this excellent set of advice on how to take better photographs – no fancy camera required.

It’s only missing one piece of advice, namely my Rule Of The Left (And Right) Nostril which, unaccountably, hasn’t yet made it big in the US.

In other words, have you ever seen a photograph taken for use in a political leaflet that was taken from too close up? There are loads taken from too far away but I’ve never seen one that makes me think, “I really didn’t want to see quite so much of that left nostril”. So however close you are, get closer. And then get closer again.

Straight after he comes off stage, he’s keen to answer questions sent in from people who are unable to attend the conference.

When: 13 March at 15.25

Where: Online, answers will be posted on his website, Facebook and Tweeted shortly after.

How to take part: Post your questions on Facebook: Here, Twitter: Here or email:

Last year when writing about the issues with online imprint rules in the UK I made reference to Florida where:

the Florida Election Commission has banned the use of Google Ads because they necessarily do not include the Florida equivalent of an election imprint – as there isn’t enough room. That ruling is being contested, and may yet trigger a change in the law but it shows the risk of doing nothing and hoping all will come out okay.

The ruling was indeed contested and it was decided that the candidate hadn’t broken the law. I’ve recently found the full Florida Elections Commission ruling online and if you’re interested in this sort of thing, it’s well worth a read.

We all have our reasons for criticism: the incompetent decision to close 6 Music, the failure to manage budgets, the excessive salaries of performers and especially of senior managers create a climate of anger which serves only to underline the perhaps more important failures to deliver quality public service broadcasting.

I have long been a critic of the ‘Today’ programme, which is overlong, too pleased with itself and too inclined to slide into its comfort zone of two party politics. Andrew Neil’s political vehicle ‘This Week’, a weekly genuflection before the altar of bipartisanship, is a disgrace to the Charter.

Meanwhile quality is astonishingly variable, especially in comedy. ‘We are Klang’ on BBC3 was jaw-droppingly awful but there is plenty across the network which challenges it for the wooden spoon. Meanwhile the brilliant ‘Outnumbered’ got lost in the schedules so that it was easier to watch it on DVD.

Clearly the institution is in need of dismemberment? Or is it? It is still a great institution. I started with my pet hates (missing out ‘You and Yours’ for reasons of space) but my list of pluses is far longer, encompassing much of Radio 4, nearly all of Radio 3, 6 Music, many aspects of local radio and the wonderful website. Others will have similar lists – but significantly these lists will differ, because the BBC is a varied broadcaster.

The clue I think was the recent Paxman interview with Mark Thompson, a man paid £800,000 a year and who has famously expressed his contempt for county council chief executives (who are paid usually no more than a quarter of that). He was hesitant, shifty and evidently poorly briefed even about his own proposals. Any council chief who performed as weakly as Thompson would be well advised to start negotiating a severance package.

The BBC needs and deserves better leadership. Costs can be managed. Marketing (be honest – had you ever listened to 6 Music before the axe began to swing?) can be improved. Past mistakes (eg the move out of London and the move to White City) can be rectified. The culture of extravagance can be changed if those at the top set an example.

Kelvin MacKenzie, speaking immediately after the Thompson interview, said that most of it can be sold off and managed commercially.

This was a bit of a giveaway. The real issue for the right is that the BBC is seen as a threat to the Murdoch empire. We must not pander to this agenda by agreeing that the BBC is somehow too big while suggesting helpfully which bit can be sold off in order to keep this other (less popular) bit in the public broadcasting fold.

The genious of the BBC is that it reaches all of us when it gets things right. No wonder Murdoch hates the competition.

[This book] wants to persuade you to vote but gives dozens of very good reasons why you shouldn’t.

On the positive side, it should give you a few laughs and provide enough trivial information to amaze your friends … What we hope it might do is persuade you to influence how the country is run.

If you’re familiar with my comments on the positive signs there are around about increasing turnout in some elections (such as this) and how the true story about levels of electoral registration is cautiously optimistic, you won’t be surprised to know I grumbled rather at the cliches such as: “Something is going seriously wrong in Britain if growing numbers of citizens feel voting isn’t worth bothering with.”

No. That was the story. But over the last few years turnout has not been falling. In many cases it has risen. Even at the last general election turnout was up – not by much, but it was up not down. In local elections, Mayoral elections and Parliamentary by-elections we have frequently seen rising turnout (when comparing like with like).

But once we get beyond that and – even worse – the comparison of the number of votes in Big Brother with general elections (multiple voting anyone?), the book picks up with a fast paced dash through the history and workings of our democracy, never dull or detailed but providing the sort of basic information that a large number of people don’t actually know – such as that the Prime Minister isn’t simply the person whose party got the most votes across the country – which was what the Jenkins Commission found many people believed.

The book repeatedly pokes fun at the way democracy works, but in an affectionate way rather than an angry way as if it’s bemoaning the way a slightly dotty elderly relative leaves dirty washing around the home. Hence this description of our system:

It has never been as perfect as the theory suggests – it couldn’t be when, by definition, a political system system has to be run by politicians. A recent suggestion that non-politicians should be allowed to get involved is like suggesting that non-drivers should be let loose on the roads or plumbers take over from doctors – or, for that matter, doctors take over from plumbers.

When it comes to the BBC and its love of long documents outlining editorial policies, the book turns Jane Austen:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a broadcasting organisation in possession of a good fortune must be in want of producer guidelines.

The book also takes a well-aimed pot shot at the media’s love of a rogue poll:

Let’s say there are half-a-dozen political polls a month and five of them, in common with the six from the previous month and the six from the month before, show that the Tories have a lead of around 12 points. Then one poll comes up with a Conservative lead of 8 points. Sensation! Tories slump in popularity! Labour closes the gap dramatically! Are the Tories on the skids? Could Labour sneak up and actually win the election? These are the questions on which thousands of words are expended.

The answer can be given in one word though: No. Or at least it is on the evidence of this poll. The near certainty is that this is a rogue survey … But that truth hasn’t prevented not just the paper that commissioned the rogue poll but all the others and the broadcasters merrily, sensationally and learnedly banging on about something that is plainly wrong.

The book misfires on occasion, such as with the string of clichés when poking fun at electoral campaigning, ignoring the evidence and breezily affirming that campaign activities such as knocking up supporters on polling day don’t work.

There are a few slip-ups – such as it is over 4,000 criminal offences introduced under Labour, not new laws, and Parliament has moved on from having a sequence of MPs ask the Prime Minister his engagements for the day (it’s now just the first question). Similarly, whilst the book makes the common claim that the NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese Army and the Indian railways, on the figures presented it is actually a smaller employer than Walmart.

What is common across the mistakes – and the misjudgements over falling turnout – is that they are only a small step away from the truth and reflect commonly repeated claims. Perhaps a sign of a book written in a little too much haste with a little skimping on the fact checking?

It all adds up to a rather odd book. For most of its length it pokes fun and aims ridicule at politicians and the political process, with rarely a generous word and often an exaggerated case against them made. Finally, in the last few pages there is an impassioned stretch about how politics affects everyone – and how if you don’t vote you don’t get a say in the decisions which alter so many aspects of your life.

By that stage in the book, will anyone still be listening? But it’s a light and breezy journey through the book. And who can not enjoy a book that talks about the impact of hats on the 1931 New Zealand election? (See page 4.)

You can buy page 4, and indeed the whole book, from Amazon.

It’s a debate that’s bounced back and forth for decades. Both sides have plausible explanations as to how their claims can be true.

Perhaps, after watching pornography, men are more likely to feel agressive and commit sex crimes. If the increased availability of pornography over the last thirty years has led to more rapes and sexual assaults, surely there’s a good case for our society being more censorious.

Or maybe porn can act as a safety valve, making it easier for men to get sexual release in their own homes and actually reducing sex crime.

Until now, there have been occasional studies but no systematic review of the evidence.

But a study from the University of Hawaii has looked at a variety of different studies in different countries and concluded that

the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis [that more pornography leads to more sex crime] is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes.

It also found no evidence that viewing pornography leads to a more negative attitude towards women.

Are rapists more likely to have viewed pornography?

As The Scientist comments in its write-up of the paper

Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.

Even if we accept this evidence (and, of course, it’s open to challenge and may be flawed), there are still many reasons why we might want to restrict or ban some types of pornography.

For example, it may be entirely appropriate for a society to put limits on the sorts of pornography it’s willing to accept, or on who has access to it.  We might also want to restrict it in public if, regardless of the effect it has on its consumers, it made others feel uncomfortable or vulnerable.

But perhaps, on the important issues of whether pornography causes sex crimes and whether it leads to men having worse attitudes towards women, it’s time to stop debating from entrenched political positions and start looking at the evidence.

What none of them seem to be prepared to face is the fact that people are poor principally because they have less money than others; and that when poverty goes along with a feeling that it is not going to be possible, whatever one does, to get out of poverty, it does not matter what “opportunities” are provided – poor people will see through the pretence that the opportunities apply to them and will continue to feel themselves a neglected and despised under-class.

Middle class people can be motivated by the prospect of buying a house, traditionally the route to prosperity. They are often helped along the way by parents and grand-parents who, in their day, made money out of house-ownership.

Poor people don’t get parental help. If they have a job, it may well be at or around minimum wage level. Whatever they do, their prospects of getting on to the property ladder are zilch, unless they happen to win the lottery. So they manage as best they can, leave nothing to their children, and exist, in many cases, in a cycle of deprivation from which escape seems impossible. And their noses are rubbed in their plight when they read about the fabulous sums earned by people like bankers, Chief Executives and Premier League footballers.

From time to time we get governments which say they are going to tackle the problem. I believe the present government would quite like to do so. But, terrified by the prospect of upsetting the middle class voter, they run away from the real problem and rely on snake-oil solutions like “trickle-down” (an approach which many political scientists and development economists saw through when it was applied in countries like Pinochet’s Chile) or palliatives like SureStart.

“When I was young, I saw that there are rich people and there are poor people. When I grew up, I realised there are rich people because there are poor people.” These words from the perhaps unlikely source of Evita Peron, seem to me to sum it up pretty well.

So how can we deal with embedded poverty?

It would take a bolder man than I to claim to have a complete solution. But it seems pretty obvious that it has to include raising the minimum wage to a level which would allow poor people to feel a bit more like citizens; raising, rather than lowering the level of inheritance tax, to avoid embedding both privilege and poverty down the generations; and narrowing the gap between high and low earners ( I wonder how long it would take for revolution to break out if all companies were obliged to publish the earnings of the top five per cent of their employees, expressed as a multiple of the lowest salary paid by the company and also as a multiple of the national minimum wage?). That’s for starters. Ending the obscenity that the fees at top public schools are more than the average earnings of ordinary working people might come next, which would mean ending the obfuscatory approach which pretends that all parents will eventually be able to exercise choice in education.

And if all this sounds like bad old class warfare, take a look at that marvellous work The Spirit Level, in which Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show, in a properly argued and footnoted work of real scholarship, that there is compelling evidence that more equal societies produce greater achievement, greater satisfaction and more happiness for all sectors of society. So, fascinatingly, reducing privilege and equalising wealth would probably benefit even those currently enjoying a privileged life. What are we waiting for?

You can though help us continue to produce interesting content for a growing audience. Here are three simple ways:

1. Let us have your tips for stories. Perhaps there’s something outrageous going on in your local council? Or you’re an expert in a particular area and have spotted a story other people have missed? Or you’ve seen some news no-one else is mentioning? Just drop us an email at .

2. Share our content with other people. Like a story you see on the site? If so, please let your friends know about it. Whether it is by sharing it on Facebook, sending a tweet, adding a link from your blog, saving it on a social networking site or anything else – the more people share good stories, the wider the audience they reach.

3. Donate. We keep our costs to a minimum, but our hosting costs have gone up as our traffic has grown, and any additional funds beyond that can go on better Conference activities and more internet advertising to promote our site and stories.

4. Shop at Amazon via our affiliate link and help raise funds another way – but without costing you anything extra.

The site’s success is down to far more than just The Voice’s team. Readers like yourself are a keep part of our success. If you’re already doing any of these three – many thanks. And if not, why not try one of them this coming month?

Today is notable as the day before LDV’s fascinating fringe event on how to make authoritarian MPs pay at the ballot box – do join us tomorrow in Birmingham to find out how.

302 years ago today, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to withhold Royal Assent from a bill of Parliament.

In 1864, Sheffield saw a Great Flood when a dam under construction burst. The ensuing inundation wrecked a number of bridges, destroyed 800 houses and killed 270 people.

People born on March 11th include Laurence Llewellyn Bowen, Harold Wilson and Douglas Adams; and deaths include Alexander Fleming, John Wyndham and Slobodan Milošević.

2 Big Stories

Parties battle over high speed rail

Will Labour’s Y or the Conservative Reverse-S win the day? Find out in The Times

Clegg will unveil 4 demands

The Independent is trailing party leader Nick Clegg’s keynote conference speech. Will he take Stephen’s sage coalition advice?

Mr Clegg will use his party’s spring conference in Birmingham starting tomorrow to unveil “four steps to fairness” that would be his initial negotiating demands for backing a minority government led by David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

Four things, you say? Whatever could they be?

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• Stuart Bonar puts the costs of the Iraq war into perspective
• Jennie Rigg trumpets the rise and rise of the sex-positive feminist

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.

One final thing – did you realise how big and scary Google is? Bonus points if you can identify the end image before the film gets to it.

the Liberal Democrat leader also revealed that his party would try to calm jitters in the financial markets about a hung parliament by calling for a £10bn “repayment” to cut Britain’s public deficit. It would be found from £15bn of spending cuts to be outlined this month.

Mr Clegg declined to speculate whether his party would lean towards Labour or the Tories and insisted that all options, including a formal coalition with Liberal Democrats sitting in the Cabinet, were possible. He said he would talk to the party that won the “strongest mandate”.

Ideas for savings already floated by Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ Treasury spokesman, include a freeze on the public sector pay bill; scrapping bonuses for civil servants; a review of public sector pensions; abolishing quangos; axeing the renewal of the Trident nuclear missile programme, identity cards and a computerised system for NHS patient records. Some of these will become official party policy before the Budget.

Many MPs have a record of repeatedly voting for authoritarian measures in Parliament. But will they suffer for that at the ballot box?

Come and hear how we can make authoritarian votes in Parliament a vote loser for MPs on general election day – and see the new Liberal Democrat Voice website which will help do just that.

Speakers:
Paul Burstow MP (Chief Whip)
Bridget Fox (PPC Islington South and Finsbury)
Mark Pack (Co-editor, Lib Dem Voice)
Alex Wilcock (Former Vice-Chair, Federal Policy Committee)

Chair: Helen Duffett (PPC Romford, Lib Dem Voice Contributing Editor)

If you use any of these social networks, please do sign up to say you’re coming and also promote it to your friends:

ACT: http://act.libdems.org.uk/events/make-authoritarian-mps-pay-at
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?invites&eid=389511041627
Flock Together: http://www.flocktogether.org.uk/event/6344

* You think I’m exaggerating? Heck, they had to demolish a wall in order to let the crowds in at one of our previous events. So don’t miss out. And breathe in.

Later in the day, the party issued an email from John to all members and supporters explaining his decision:

Today I launched my pamphlet, Lost labours, with Nick Clegg.

As somebody who has a long involvement with the Labour party, including editing the New Statesman magazine, I have been able to give a frank and honest appraisal of a decade and a half of New Labour. And in it I explain why I can no longer support them, and am instead turning to the Liberal Democrats. You can read a more condensed version in an article I wrote for the Guardian here.

Alongside one million other voters, I deserted Labour in 2005 in protest at Iraq in favour of the Liberal Democrats, the only party to oppose the war. My decision to back the Lib Dems in 2010 is based in a more fundamental appraisal of Labour’s record together with a positive assessment of the Liberal Democrats’ platform.

New Labour in office has had one all-consuming purpose: re-election. Since 1997, their every working day was based around the task of prolonging their term of office. It filled in the ideological hollow and justified ever-encroaching authoritarianism and a pandering to the right on criminal justice and other areas of social policy. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat analysis of the failures of the deregulated market has been consistently, and painfully, accurate. Nick Clegg’s tax reform plans, taking four million low paid workers out of tax altogether, are the most redistributive of any party. And the Liberal Democrat approach to criminal justice, human rights, foreign and social policy is close to mine.

People can only for so long be exhorted to hold their nose, to vote for a party they feel has let them down, simply because the alternative is worse. It is deeply damaging to politics to resort perpetually to the double negative. The Liberal Democrats offer a positive, radical and different vision. That is why they have my support.

His defection from the Labour to Lib Dem cause clearly rattled Labour, with former leader Lord (Neil) Kinnock peevishly labelling him “amnesiac and myopic”. Sky News’s Adam Boulton understood the significance of the move:

… it is a wake-up call as to just how important the Lib Dems and their vote are going to be in a general election. … [in the coming election] the Lib Dems would be taking seats from Labour in the North and Scotland, which would go some way to compensate for their seats in the South, Southwest and Wales under threat from the Conservatives. The Tories would be squeezing the Lib Dems but the Lib Dems would be squeezing Labour in the parts the Conservatives can’t reach.

Kampfner-type defectors fit exactly into this scenario. In fact he personally isn’t much of a scalp – he voted Lib Dem last time because of the war and lives in the safe Labour seat of Holborn and St Pancras. But the more disillusioned Labour supporters who follow in his path, the worse it will be for Gordon Brown, even if Kampfner himself is not yet signing up to Clegg’s dream that the Lib Dems could one day replace Labour as Britain’s party of the Centre Left.

(One quibble with Adam’s analysis: the Lib Dems are second-placed in Holborn and St Pancras, with Jo Shaw requiring an eminently gettable 7% swing to oust Labour).

Heres what Lib Dem bloggers have been saying:

• Another endorsement for the Liberal Democrats (Andy Crick)
• John Kampfner supports Liberal Democrats in 2010 (Simon Wilson)
• John Kampfner comes out for the Liberal Democrats (Jonathan Calder)
• Was Robin Cook the Candidate I Never Had? (Stephen Glenn)
• John Kampfner: Why I’m backing the Lib Dems (Giles Wilkes)
• Would Robin Cook have switched to the Lib Dems? (Mark Thompson)
• Lost Labours (Neil Bradbury)
• Former New Statesman Editor pledges support for Lib Dems (Judith Brooksbank)
• Lost labours – why I support the LibDems (Fraser Macpherson)
• John Kampfner Backs LibDems (Paul Ankers)
• Adam Boulton: Kampfner defection should worry Labour (Jonathan Calder)
• John Kampfner explains why he is supporting the Liberal Democrats (Lynne Featherstone)

Please do add any links which I’ve missed, or published subsequent to this post.

Several of us have submitted an emergency motion on Freedom, creativity & the internet for the Spring Conference. It concerns an issue which affects the daily lives of almost everyone on which the party appears to have no defined or consistent policy: the internet. A BBC poll shows that 75% of UK adults think access to the internet should be a fundamental right of all people.

Our Parliamentary DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport) Team has been doing a great job tackling the worst effects of Digital Economy Bill and has promised to continue to do this. But Tory-imposed amendment 120a is not good enough. PPCs have been receiving emails from many people refusing to vote Lib Dem over it and we’ve seen the longest thread ever on this website as Lib Dem members struggle to reconcile it with their LibDem and personal values.

Our emergency motion tries to put this right by clarifying our Lib Dem values in this complex area, upholding the rights of internet users, creators and performers, and strengthening our Parlimentarians’ mandate to stand for freedom. Now we need your help to make sure it is both selected for debate and adopted at conference.

How you can help

• We’ve started a ‘Lib Dems Save the Net’ group in Facebook. Please join it and invite your friends/supporters to join it.
• If you’re on Twitter, tweet “#ldsavenet Lib Dems push to save Net from UK #debill http://bit.ly/cpRNli“.
• If you’re not on Twitter, you should be. Open a free account now and submit this message.
• If you are a PPC and support the motion, add this logo to your website, and link it to the Facebook group. Don’t forget to tell your local press contacts that your policy on the internet and the Digital Economy Bill is expressed in the description of this group.

We firmly believe that the LibDems are the only mainstream party in the UK to have the ethical integrity to champion the cause of freedom, creativity and the internet. Grassroots activism has been fundamental to our party’s existence for decades. LibDems work in the same way as the internet: empowering individuals.

Liberal Democrats have liberal values and Liberal Democrats are democratic.

Let’s prove it!

Have the Liberal Democrats been taken over by the Flat Earth Society?

To find his answer read here.

This week Fawcett, with more than 40 other organisations are launching our pre-election campaign. Instead of the usual “manifesto” of policies we’re turning the tables on the parties and literally asking What About Women?

All the leaders, Nick Clegg included, have been courting women voters – noted by the mainstream media, this campaign was briefly dubbed the ‘Mumsnet’ election.

But there’s a stark difference between making nice gestures to a group of voters and actually giving tangible policies that will deliver. That’s why we’re running our campaign. We want the leaders and their parties to properly explain how the policies they’re proposing will actually affect women and women’s equality.

Fawcett are genuinely excited by some of the policies being put forward by the Liberal Democrats.

Lifting everyone who earns below £10,000 out of income tax will overwhelmingly benefit women. Banning advertising to children using touched up images, and indicating in adverts where models have been electronically improved, will help tackle girls self-perceptions as they are growing up. We strongly advocate the idea of parental leave rather than only maternity leave.

Perhaps where we’re most impressed with Liberal Democrat policy is tackling the pay gap. Your party supports the use of hypothetical comparators rather than the current law that requires women to find an actual example to prove they are being underpaid – it’s wrong and it’s out of step with other equalities legislation. Compulsory pay audits and allowing group complaints to be taken to court could also be taken straight from Fawcett’s wish list. It’s heartening to see mainstream political support for what were once were fringe concepts.

But for all the good policy there is, across the three parties, there are still gaps – both in policy and the debate. Our campaign is an attempt to get politicians to plug these gaps and account for how policies will affect men and women differently. And to make sure voters ask them to.

Often people don’t properly understand how policies can have different impacts – in fact, Fawcett polling demonstrates very little public understanding that policies can have very different impacts.
So here goes. 65 per cent of public sector employees are women. So any cuts to jobs have an automatic gender bias. Women are also heavier users of public services. They provide more care, both for children as mothers and for dependent adults – a free service that contributes a whopping £89bn to the economy each year and yet largely goes unrecognised.

There’s still a significant pay gap meaning more women are lower paid. This means that many more women than men are likely to be more reliant on services, benefits and tax credits provided by Government.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on where policy can have a disproportionate and detrimental impact on women. This is why Fawcett and our campaign partners from over 40 other organisations are challenging politicians to really explain what their policies mean for women, what will the impact on their lives be and will it make them more or less equal with their male peers.

We simply don’t think that this is being done by any party at the moment. We hope that Lib Dem Voice readers will join us and our partners in asking all politicians What About Women?

‘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.