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

The damage that has been done to the Tories’ standing in the country over this issue can be seen in the latest Survation poll that has UKIP on 22% of the vote. This is only two per cent behind the Conservatives and if repeated at the next general election would result in a loss of around a hundred Tory seats.

UKIP would be unlikely to elect more than one or two MPs and quite possibly would end up with no representation whatsoever. The main beneficiaries would be Labour and the Liberal Democrats.  The former would be left with a crushing majority on a relatively low share of the vote. The Lib Dems would wind up with much the same number of MPs as now due to gains from the Conservatives counterbalancing losses to Labour.

The effect on the Conservative party would be to eliminate a large chunk of their more liberal MPs and hand power to the right. The average ukipper might very well see this as mission accomplished. They would have had a similar effect on the Tories as militant trade unionists had on the Labour party in the late 1970s.

The choice for centrists in the Conservative party after the next general election may very well end up being similar to the choice that faced the social democrats in Labour after 1979. Should they stay put in the hope that sanity returns to their party in a decade or two’s time or should they strike out and try to break the mould of British politics?

If a sizeable chunk of Liberal Democrats are left after the election then at least some of the liberal-minded Tories might opt to dissolve their partnership with the Conservatives and form a new alliance. A hundred years ago the Conservative and Unionist party was formed from a merger of Conservatives and renegade Liberal Unionists. The ultimate result of the rise of UKIP could be to send the liberal wing of the Tories back home.

Of course all of this is predicated on UKIP still being a force to be reckoned with by the time of the next general election. It might not be. The Conservatives could recover their discipline and some fresh calamity could befall one of the other parties.

Whether the scenario painted above comes to pass is simply a matter of how far the Tory right are prepared to go along their current direction of travel.

* Andrew Chamberlain is a freelance journalist and Liberal Democrat member and activist from Ayrshire. He was a councillor from 2007-2012.

How did Liberal Democrat MPs vote on the Third Reading?

There were no huge surprises – and given that 11 had voted on an amendment, which was defeated, to give registrars an opt out from marrying same sex couples on religious grounds, the fact that only 4 actually voted against the Third Reading was better than some had expected. Simon Hughes and Tim Farron were two high profile abstainers. They clearly struggled with the issue. Simon’s speech in the debate on Monday night showed his inner conflict:

 First, I have struggled with the issue of sexuality since I was a teenager, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). I remember that at school it was not an easy issue in the slightest. Everybody knew that there were gay people at school, but it was never taught or spoken about formally. Secondly, I am chair of the board of governors of a Church of England primary school. Thirdly, I am a trustee of a Church of England secondary school. We have excellent teachers who do their jobs very well, but I have to say that there is still some nervousness.

It  is a valid point that kids in a similar position at school today might, because of legislation like this, have an easier time of it. Some people in the party will undoubtedly and understandably feel let down and angry by their choice.  I will take comfort from the fact that they didn’t obstruct the bill, nor did they put it in any danger of not being passed. I’m not going to stop liking them or working with them just because of this vote. Life is too short for that. I am a particular admirer of Sarah Teather’s passionate commitment to improving support for those in the immigration system. Votes on this issue do not cancel out good work in other areas.

As I said yesterday, I think it’s also important to note that all Liberal Democrats MPs have been nothing but respectful in their public comments on this matter. There has been much to cause offence coming from the Tory benches, but not from ours.

So, the summary:

Against

As before, Alan Beith, Gordon Birtwistle, John Pugh and Sarah Teather

Absentions

Simon Hughes, Tim Farron

Unclear

David Ward hadn’t voted on anything all week so may not have been in Parliament. Sir Robert Smith was there on Monday, but it’s unclear whether he abstained or was absent last night. (Update: he was absent, travelling back to Scotland).

In favour

The remaining 43. We can add to them 5 MPs who were not there for various good reasons and who had otherwise expressed support. Bob Russell, who was telling, had also told the Coalition for Equal marriage he was in favour. So, 49 of our 57 are unequivocally in support of the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone emails party members

Today we took a huge step forward for equality as MPs voted overwhelmingly to support equal marriage. I am proud that we, as Liberal Democrats, began this in Government and tonight were supported across the House. We all played our part, and you can be confident that we wouldn’t be where we are now without our party in the Coalition Government.

I know many of you have been following the debate closely and adding your voice to the campaign. Thank you.

But our LGBT+ friends and family can’t go to the register office just yet.  The next stage is the House of Lords.

For now though, with the Bill safely through the House of Commons, let’s take a moment to reflect on this victory for equality and celebrate those who made this possible. Make sure you tell all your friends on Twitter.

Best wishes,

Lynne Featherstone MP

One of those occasions that I as a Scottish member doesn’t really mind getting an email that doesn’t apply to Scotland.

I think we should also acknowledge the input of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats in this, from bringing the motion on equal marriage to Conference, to engaging with our MPs and informing them in the run up to this debate. It’s taken many dedicated, patient and painstaking hours of work and we wouldn’t be here without them either.

The best speech of the debate

Julian Huppert was the Liberal Democrat star of the debate for me, over the whole two days and for more than the looks of horror and bemusement when offensive comments were made by Tory MPs. He supported amendments allowing humanist celebrants to conduct marriages and in support of transgender people. Sadly, these were not put to the vote because of Government objections, but he explains very well the legal anomalies and real hurt experienced by transgender people:

One problem that many transgender people face is when their marriage is stolen from them. A number of people are in a perfectly stable and loving married couple, one of whom wishes to transition. I know a number of people in that category. As it happens, the ones I know have been male to female transitions, but that is not uniquely so at all. Under the current law, for somebody to transition, they have to end the marriage. We, the state, say to people who still love each other, “You must get a divorce and break your marriage.” They were allowed a civil partnership when those were introduced, but they still have to go through that process, which is quite an upsetting thing to do.

I would recommend you watch the whole thing here from about 16:27 in. Julian illustrates very well  and very practically the problems that trans people face on a daily basis. These issues need resolving and it’s important that people become more aware of them.

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

Up to 600 Afghan interpreters who worked alongside British troops are to be given the right to live in the UK, government sources have confirmed.

The plan marks a climbdown from ministers who had decided they should not get the same UK resettlement rights as interpreters in the Iraq conflict.

Afghan interpreters who worked on the front line for a year or more will initially be offered a five-year visa.

This is something, as we reported 3 weeks ago, that Nick Clegg and Paddy Ashdown have been arguing for.

Earlier this week, Paddy Ashdown said that it was Downing Street that was blocking UK visas for the interpreters. Now it seems that arguments from Nick Clegg, Paddy and other Liberal Democrats have won the day.

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

Next stop for this measure is the House of Lords after the recess on 3 June.

There will certainly be challenges to it there but the momentum from the last two days of debate and the fact that it was passed by such a large majority bodes well.

We can be sure that without the Liberal Democrats, the measure would not have made it even on to the Commons agenda, given the opposition from within Conservative ranks.

The co-operation across the House by those in all parties who want to see this pass restored my faith in genuine cross party working on legislation. It was allvery grown up. I just wish we saw more of it. The Labour Party could have decided to be silly but worked to sort the civil partnerships issue to their credit.

I have lingering concerns that Maria Miller & Helen Grant made more of a meal of that and the issue of humanist weddings than was strictly necessary. However, this is a time to celebrate. Work on these issues will continue.

Tonight is a night for high fiving Nick Clegg. He was the leader who was not afraid to proudly back same sex marriage. Then Lynne Featherstone set the process in motion as a minister. And Stephen Williams, Greg Mulholland & Julian Huppert have been particularly marvellous in the debates he last two days, trying to secure humanist ceremonies and sort out the anomalies that cause so much heartbreak when one party to a marriage changes gender.

Now, what of those of our MPs who voted in a way that those of us who support equal marriage disagree with? Well, some of us may well be annoyed with them, and have told them so. We’ll get through it, though. Especially as none of them expressed themselves in anything other than a genuine & respectful manner. Some people have said that they won’t help them win re-election. that would be counter productive. Refusing to campaign for them risks them being replaced by right wing Tories with views like those of Gerald “aggressive homosexuals” Howarth or Dominic “tiddlywinks” Grieve.

So let’s celebrate,thank those who have made this happen and then put our energies in to making sure this Bill goes all the way to Royal Assent.

We can all then look forward to the first marriages being conducted.

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

The SNP controlled Scottish Parliament Education & Culture Committee has published a report, critical of cuts at BBC Scotland, with the implication that the Scottish arm of the Corporation would be unable to produce adequate coverage of the 2014 Commonwealth Games and the independence referendum.

The Committee forgets that BBC Scotland is one part of a much bigger organisation. Indeed, the shiny new HQ at Pacific Quay isn’t just home to BBC Scotland, it’s full of production staff for ‘UK’ based programmes such as Question Time, The One Show, News, as well as BBC Alba. It’s part of a global brand, catering not just for Scottish viewers, but those in Scotland, England and beyond! Waterloo Road, Case Histories and Wallander are a few of BBC Scotland’s productions.

The Committee has ignored assurances from senior BBC management regarding their own monitoring procedure to ensure maintenance of the quality of outputs post-cuts. Of course cuts are a concern, especially when we see the resources that are being poured into other parts of the organisation such as at Media City in Salford. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t an ulterior motive behind the Committee’s decision.

The SNP has continually criticised the BBC and their independence debate coverage, so it’s not a surprise that the Committee has failed to focus on other broadcasters in Scotland, particularly the other public broadcaster, Channel 4. Nor has there been an equivalent examination into the available resources of ITV licence holder, STV, but then what would be the merit in asking about the resources of a Scottish broadcaster £45m in debt!

These developments are a grave concern; that a group of 9 MSPs (5 SNP, 2 Lab, 1 LD, 1 Con) believe they have the right to ‘monitor’ the BBC, something which goes beyond the remit of elected politicians in the UK. Would it not be more productive for them to examine the potential implications of independence on Scottish broadcasting and how the BBC in Scotland would then be able to cover such events as the Games with a lack of UK resources to draw on?

Oppressive regimes around the world ‘monitor’ media at the behest of governments and politicians. When Churchill wanted the BBC to put out wartime propaganda, Lord Reith (then head of the BBC) refused, pointing out that the BBC is, and must remain, impartial. Today it remains separate from the government and independent. Would this Committee seek to overturn this and have the BBC in Scotland become a puppet of the state?

* Andrew Tibbs is the Vice-Convener of Edinburgh North East and Leith Liberal Democrats

In addition to the 11 who voted in favour of registrars being able to exempt themselves from conducting same sex marriages, there were two abstentions, from Vince Cable and Mark Williams. We had 36 voting in favour and Sir Bob Russell was telling.

The next vote was on whether marriage between a man and a woman should be made a protected characteristic of a religion in terms of the Equality Act 2010.  Eight of our MPs voted in favour with most voting against:

Alan Beith

Gordon Birtwistle

Tim Farron

John Hemming

Simon Hughes

John Pugh

Sarah Teather

Mark Williams.

Three MPs who had voted in favour of the opt-out for registrars voted against this. They were Duncan Hames, Norman Baker and Paul Burstow. Mulholland abstained.

On the next vote, nine Liberal Democrats voted for protection for those public servants who refused to conduct same sex marriages. They were:

Alan Beith

Gordon Birtwistle

Tim Farron

Sir Nick Harvey

John Hemming

Simon Hughes

Greg Mulholland

John Pugh

Sarah Teather

Only three MPs supported Tim Loughton’s attempt to introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples as part of the Bill now rather than wait for the review. They were Alan Beith, Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland, who made a long and detailed speech on the subject.

Seven MPs appear to have been absent because they don’t seem to have voted on anything. They are:

Malcolm Bruce – on constituency business, although he definitely supports the bill, because he told me so yesterday.

Mike Hancock – ill

Mark Hunter – believed to be absent with permission of whips.

Norman Lamb – out of the country on ministerial business but would have voted with Government  - see comment below

John Leech – but his support for the bill is clear.

David Ward

Jenny Willott – on maternity leave, although she is also in favour of the Bill.

I should point out that none of these votes should be considered as an official rebellion. MPs were not whipped, as I reported last week.  However, readers and particularly Liberal Democrat members will no doubt have their own opinions on the way MPs voted.

There are more amendments coming up today – some proposed by Stephen Williams and Julian Huppert on such subjects as legalisation of humanist weddings.

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