Here’s David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Andrew Lansley rolling up their sleeves over the NHS reforms — what do you think might be being said or thought by or about them?

And the winner of our last caption comp is…

Some fantastic entries for our most recent caption competition, Ed Davey “I’ve got Energy” Edition.

The winner, according to The Voice’s judging panel of one, was this one by Tabman, with a highly commended offering by Tony Dawson here.

Got a photo of a prominent Lib Dem you think would work well for a future caption competition? Then please email us at .

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

Party members split over the future of Europe

LDV asked: Which of the following options would be your ideal future for the UK and the European Union?

46% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU and work towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
40% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU but reject working towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
10% – The UK should secure substantial renegotiation of its existing relationship with the EU but remain a full member.
3% – The UK should leave the EU altogether and instead negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU.
2% – Don’t know / No opinion

Though the Lib Dems are generally identified in the public’s minds as the most pro-European, it’s clear from our survey that party members’ views are more nuanced. Just under half, 46%, back ever closer political and economic union — but that leaves 53% arguing for a rejection of further integration between the UK and our European neighbours, including a minority who would like to see renegotiation or even the UK’s exit from the EU.

The results are broadly similar to when we last surveyed Lib Dem members in September, though with a small shift towards a more ‘eurosceptic’ position.

Almost three-quarters back new Eurozone rules

LDV asked: The Eurozone refers to the 17 of the 27 countries within the EU that use the Euro. The UK is not part of the Eurozone. In December, European leaders agreed new rules for the Eurozone which will mean that countries in the Eurozone will have to balance their budgets, there will be punishments for countries which run up deficits that are too large, and countries in the Eurozone will have their budgets monitored by the EU. Do you support or oppose these new rules?

73% – Support
15% – Oppose
12% – Don’t know / No opinion

Almost three-quarters of Lib Dem members we surveyed supported the new rule for the Eurozone countries, with just 15% opposed.

Cameron’s Euro ‘veto’ scores badly with Lib Dems…

How well or badly do you think David Cameron handled the negotiations on behalf of the UK at the European summit in December?

Very well – 2%
Well – 6%
Total well = 8%
Neither well nor badly – 8%
Badly 33%
Very badly 51%
Total badly = 84%
Don’t know / No opinion – 1%

Well the Prime Minister’s so-called ‘veto’ may have wowed the right-wing media in December, but it didn’t win him plaudits among Lib Dem members — a net 76% of those we surveyed felt Mr Cameron had handled the negotiations badly.

… And Nick Clegg’s handling of the ‘veto’ gets a mixed response

How well or badly do you think Nick Clegg handled the Liberal Democrat response to the European summit in December?

Very well – 9%
Well – 36%
Total well = 45%
Neither well nor badly – 23%
Badly – 21%
Very badly – 9%
Total badly = 30%
Don’t know / No opinion 2%

A bit of a mixed result for Nick Clegg, with fewer than half of the members in our survey believing he handled the Lib Dem response well. Here’s a sample of your comments:

Hard position. Difficult to see how he could improve. Not worth destroying the coalition over

He took too long to make his stance clear, and there was some ambiguity as to what his stance actually was. Eventually, he was clear and right

His rhetoric was very anti-Tory but the substance was more measured.

Nick took two incompatible positions within the course of about 48 hours – he should be careful to avoid repeating this feat again in future.

Although the initial inconsistency was wrong, he took the right line.

Response could have been better, subtle reading may indicate that Nick Clegg behaviour was consistent throughout but that’s not what it looked like.

Started off badly but then improved significantly

Nick managed to claw back some respectability and influence. I wish he’d been negotiating for us.

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

Overwhelming support for ‘further and faster’ tax-cuts for low-paid

LDV asked: The Coalition is committed to increasing the level at which income tax becomes payable, from its current £7,475 to £10,000 by 2015. The tax-free threshold was expected to rise by about £630 annually. However, in a recent speech Nick Clegg said, “I want the Coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance, because the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.” Do you support or oppose the income tax allowance being raised to £10,000 as an immediate priority for the Coalition?

97% – Support
2% – Oppose
1% – Don’t know / No opinion

Well, I think that result is fairly definitive: a North Korean-esque 97% of Lib Dem members in our survey back Nick Clegg’s calls for accelerated tax-cuts for the low-paid. Here are some of your comments:

It takes the working poorest out of tax altogether – should be done immediately.

There seems to be little reason to delay doing this immediately. It’s not that we can’t afford it. We choose not to be able to afford it.

However, it would be more progressive to raise the National Insurance thresholds.

Provided we take equal action to recoup the cost through increased crackdowns on tax evasion etc.

We should aim to increase the threshold to £10k as soon as possible and then press for it to be further raised to the level of the minimum wage – after that, bring back the 10p rate up to the level of the “living wage” in each region.

Support – so long as the rise can be afforded without further expansion of the deficit

I support the idea of the minimum wage level being the income tax threshold

It should be the number 1 priority and we should seek to go further.

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

One interesting answer by the Deputy Prime Minister which caught my attention was on the topic of individual voter registration. Asked by Liberal Democrat peer Lord (Chris) Rennard whether there would be changes to the government approach as set out in the earlier White Paper when we see legislation on the issue soon, Clegg had the following to say:

The short answer is ‘yes’….We set out our proposals [and] a large number of comments, and indeed very heartfelt concerns, have been raised about what it actually would mean for the register in the future….We will be producing very shortly…our response to the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report on this, which will include a lot of our new ideas, responding not to all of the concerns – and some of the concerns we think are misplaced or are exaggerated – but it’s certainly prompted us to look very, very long and hard at a number of issues.

…[w]hat we are trying to do here is firstly bear down on fraud – that’s the central motivation of all of this – but to do so in a way which doesn’t needlessly or carelessly disenfranchise people.

The whole evidence session is available to watch until Sunday night on the BBC iPlayer.

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

The Lib Dem Voice survey results I mention are covered in the piece Which four Liberal Democrat ministers have most improved their standings in 2011? and for more on why I rate Ed Davey’s record see Community Buying: a welcome move from Ed Davey (an approach very relevant to his new post) and Ed Davey: someone getting the messaging right.

Helped by having known for a long time that Friday’s events might occur, Nick Clegg and the media team handled events very calmly and efficiently in the circumstances I thought, with the reshuffle and surrounding media coverage looked after well.

The reshuffle also throws some light on how far Nick Clegg is willing to take his commitment to greater diversity in Liberal Democrat ranks. Both the new entrants to government are women (Jo Swinson and Jenny Willott), but once again the Liberal Democrat Cabinet ranks are solidly male. How much you view that as glass part full or glass mostly empty depends mostly on your expectations I suspect.

It is likely that in addition to joining the government, Jo Swinson will take over as chair of the Federal Policy Committee – the first time a woman has chaired the body. This is a very influential role in the party, particularly when it comes to general election manifestos, and given that the majority of the electorate is female it is perhaps about time that the party had a talented woman in the post. Jo has also got a very good track record at turning potentially dry, abstract policy into effective campaigns which generate media coverage. Assuming she does take up the post, her influence on the policy process will be fascinating to watch – and very positive.

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

We asked: Would you support or oppose David Laws making a return to government at the next reshuffle?

• Yes – to a cabinet post 58%
• Yes – but only to a non-cabinet post in government 14%
• No – he should not return to the government at the next reshuffle 21%
• Don’t know / No opinion 7%

In total, then, 72% of Lib Dem members in our sample wanted to see David Laws return to a ministerial post in the Coalition government, with most wanting to see him return to the cabinet 18 months after he was forced to resign. However, a significant minority, 21%, opposed his return, at least at the ‘next’ reshuffle (as it then was). You can read a sample of the comments received from members below.

Nick Clegg was asked directly about a return for David Laws in Paul Waugh’s excellent interview for The House magazine — here’s how he replied:

Speaking of possible ministerial reshuffles, would he bring back David Laws at non-cabinet level if needed? “I’m not wildly hierarchical and David certainly isn’t. It’s one of the many things that I like so much about David, he’s a sort of an unusual combination of being a politician but actually quite a modest character, which you don’t find very often in politics. David is not after status. What I would like to see David do is to be close to the centre of power in one shape or form with, ideally, quite a broad view of government policy, because I think he’s got an ability to see the connections between policies – which is quite unusual.”

So though David may not have returned officially to the heart of government in Friday’s reshuffle, we can be pretty sure unofficially he’ll be there or thereabouts regardless.

Those are Nick’s thoughts; here are some of our party members’:

Running the country well is more important than some pretty trivial personal tomfoolery. If he’s the right person for the job, give him the job.

David Laws is an exceptionally capable individual that should be central to our government and its achievements.

No objection to him being in government per se, I’d just rather we kept some of our best people available to be Lib Dems rather than government spokespeople.

A very gifted man, but his ethics and integrity were found to be incompatible with his position.

He does not represent the kind of liberalism I generally support, but he is probably our most intelligent and competent MP and deserves a place at the Cabinet table.

Good man, but I’d like someone less right-wing in the cabinet.

There is no doubt that David is immensely talented and would make a valuable contribution to government. But I would prefer that he remains outside of the government, supporting the Lib Dems in government and looking to the future and the 2015 election.

He is valuable and, writing as an older gay person, I know the fear that some folk have of being “out” – I had this once. He has been punished enough.

His resignation shouldn’t have happened, but I see why he did it. Bring him back.

But much as I would love to see David back in the Cabinet, can we PLEASE have a woman LD Cabinet minister first!!!

We can’t afford to waste talent like his although I’m sure he is playing a major role behind he scenes

David Laws is a clever man who behaved stupidly. He’s paid the price. He’d be an asset in Government – provided he’s not turned Tory-Lite.

Should not return to government until he has been re-elected as an MP.

He’s a talented man but his re-appointment would play badly when the public still regards most politicians as corrupt.

He’s the brightest and the best MP we have. Bring him back!

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

In the run-up to the general election, you may remember, the tabloids were screaming, saying that if there was a hung Parliament locusts would descend from the sky and the sun would be blotted out, you know… so we needed for those first few months to show the most important thing of all, which is this is a government that works, and actually works rather well.

Of course, after that phase you then get [that] we’re different parties, we do have different instincts, we do have different values. I just think we are quite relaxed in government that we have our differences – sometimes they are played out in private, sometimes they are played out in public.

Nick goes on to discuss what he sees as significant achievements for the party in government, and, in a telling line, describes the difficulty Lib Dem peers face in supporting legislation they wouldn’t under different circumstances:

Let’s be blunt: I am asking, day in, day out, Liberal Democrat peers to vote on things that they wouldn’t do in a month of Sundays if it was a Liberal Democrat government.

The interview covers such ground as reform of the upper house, Nick’s stance on the Middle East and changes to the tax system.

You can read the whole interview here.

Please sign this to persuade George Osborne to fast track the Lib Dem policy to increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 in the next budget, and hence take thousands more people out of tax and put £700 back in people’s pockets. There are measures that can be taken to pay for this including the clamp down on tax avoidance and a mansion tax. Please support this and help the Lib Dems to help the lowest paid and middle income workers in this country.

You can sign the petition here.

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

Together with Solihull M.P Lorely Burt and an entourage of press and media broadcasters, Mr. Clegg came from London to see us so that we could share with him our curriculum developments using ‘Pupil Premium’ funding to support the learning and personal development needs of all pupils, with a specific focus at times, on those pupils who are eligible to receive Free School Meals. … Mr. Clegg was particularly keen to know more about this work and also the work of our new Child & Family Support Worker, Debbie Shaw, whose post is funded by Pupil Premium. Once again after a conversation with Debbie, he recognised the value of our intentions to create a meaningful partnership between ourselves, our pupils and their families. …

Perhaps the most unexpected element to arise from today’s visit was the personality of Mr. Clegg himself. You never get to see the complete picture of a person from their persona on television or from a newspaper. Today we all saw the real Mr. Clegg – the dad of three children, the man who is genuinely interested in connecting with people and the person who has that unique ability to make an instant positive impact upon children and make them feel important and valued, as the photographs clearly show. He is a natural teacher.

You can read the full report at Peterbrook’s website here.

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

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

(Available on the BBC website here.)

And here’s how Jeremy Browne handled the issue on BBC1′s Question Time on Thursday night.

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

Ahead of Monday’s summit of EU leaders, which is due to finalise “political agreement” on the fiscal compact treaty, the government signalled that it would not challenge a role for the European commission and, more sensitively, would also allow resort to the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg to enforce new debt ceilings and fines for fiscal miscreants in the eurozone. ..

Cameron is understood to have made it clear to José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, in a telephone call on Wednesday that Britain would no longer object to using the ECJ to enforce the new treaty. … Cameron’s concession marks a significant watering down of his previous position and represents a victory for Nick Clegg, who has been urging the prime minister to recover ground after wielding the veto. The deputy prime minister lobbied hard inside Whitehall for Cameron to drop his objections to the use of EU institutions to enforce the compact.

There’s good reason for Nick Clegg’s stance. The only way the UK would be able forcibly to prevent Eurozone countries from making use of the European court of justice would to challenge it in the courts. Legally there’s no guarantee such a challenge would work. And politically it would pit the UK against the vast majority of its neighbours who have signed-up to use the ECJ — not a smart move.

Mr Cameron has landed the UK in neither a winning nor an attractive position. But that is what happens when — as the Prime Minister did in December — you issue an ultimatum without laying the necessary groundwork, and then walk out of the negotiations before you can gain any concessions.

Of course, none of this may now matter to Mr Cameron. His ‘veto’, however unintentional, earned him rave reviews from his backbenchers and the right-wing media, and is credited with providing the Tories with the polling boost that has seen them overtake Labour, piling more pressure on the beleaguered Ed Miliband. That just a few weeks later the Prime Minister now backs down over technicalities such as the ECJ, which few will understand or care about, will probably matter little to the political mood music.

But the stark truth of the matter is that Mr Cameron’s cack-handed negotiating has delivered nothing of lasting significance for the UK.

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

Since the £963, 000 shares bonus for RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester has been revealed there have been opinions pouring out from across the political spectrum.

When Ed Miliband accused David Cameron of a “failure of leadership” over it, Cameron promptly distanced himself from the process altogether, with George Osborne claiming it was due to rules put in place by Labour.

Boris Johnson seems to be against it, as is our usually economically liberal Defence Minister Jeremy Browne. And Nick Clegg has said he has “great sympathy” with the public’s opposition to the bonus.

So what do you think?

Is it justified performance related pay or profligacy with the pubic purse? Should Stephen Hester turn it down on principal or accept it for a job well done?

The subject of both the letter and the meeting will be the recent voting record of our peers on aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill ranging from sickness and disability benefits, to the household benefit cap and child benefits.

The meeting in particular will be a chance for our MPs and peers to hear from representatives of organisations such as Liberal Youth, the Social Liberal Forum, the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, the Welfare Reform Consortium, the Children’s Commissioner Office and others. Both the letter and the meeting will allow voices within the party and wider society to explain to our parliamentarians our concern over the way they have voted on the Welfare Reform Bill.

In particular, three weeks ago 51 Lib Dem peers voted for a one year time limit to ESA, directly opposite the request of a motion passed last conference, and the government’s benefits cap, as currently planned, is at odds with policy made at conference on reducing child poverty and safeguarding universal child benefit. More important than raising concerns, however, is to discuss productive ways of moving forward.

Above all, the organisers of the meeting and the letter hope to ensure that voices within the wider party are listened to on future votes on the Welfare Reform Bill in order to guarantee that the final welfare reforms implemented by the government are in keeping with not only party policy made by conference, but also with the spirit and fundamental values of the Liberal Democrats as described in our constitution and as felt by ordinary party members up and down the country.

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

(Available on the BBC website here.)

Here’s what my LibDemVoice colleagues had to say about Nick’s call for lower taxes:

And here’s how the rest of the Lib Dem blogosphere reacted:

All in all, a good day’s work for Nick — advancing a policy which is not only right in principle, but which is also popular, AND differentiates the Lib Dems from both the Tories and Labour.

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

Personally I think this intervention is very welcome, not only because the policy is a good and liberal thing in itself, but because its implementation couldn’t have come at a better time: it both helps those on low incomes struggling with the effects of high inflation and stimulates an economy suffering a severe demand crisis.

Here’s what I wrote back in October for the Guardian, including a quote on the issue from Clegg himself:

When it comes to inflation, while George Osborne’s options to tackle the problem itself may be limited, he can certainly take action to negate its effects on the people on whom it impacts most severely. One of the most effective things he could do is to let those on low and middle incomes keep more of the money they earn. The coalition agreement already commits the government to raising the threshold at which people begin to pay income tax to £10,000 over the course of the parliament. Given the way in which the economic outlook has deteriorated since last May, wouldn’t it make sense to do so more quickly?

When I put that very question to Nick Clegg last month, his response was this: “My simple answer is if we can do it tomorrow, I think we should do it tomorrow.” However, he also expressed practical concerns about the affordability of implementing the policy early: “It is an extraordinarily big shift in the tax system, and it costs billions – that’s basically the problem.”

It seems that a combination of the deputy prime minister seeking to be more vocal on Liberal Democrat priorities combined with the worsening economic picture means the reservations he expressed on the feasibility of such a move are now outweighed by the necessity for bold and urgent action to increase demand in the economy and help those on low incomes.

The big question that remains, though, is whether the Tories – and particularly George Osborne – will back Clegg. Certainly many in the Conservative party like the Lib Dem income tax policy and would probably agree with Clegg, but it remains to be seen whether a deficit-focussed Treasury can be convinced of the merits of this radical change.

Clegg’s speech, though, also signifies a very important and welcome change to the Lib Dem approach to the coalition, with Clegg putting public pressure on his colleagues in government either to reach a compromise on the policy or say why they don’t think it’s the right thing to do at this time. It’s far from clear whether Clegg’s call will materialise in the upcoming budget, but it should hearten Liberal Democrats that the deputy prime minister is pushing this policy and doing so in such an open way.

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

Here’s a sample:

In a country used to coalitions, having the leader of one of the parties in government talk about their tax priorities a few months ahead of a budget would not be remarkable. With the British media habits, it had made today’s speech from Nick Clegg to banner news – lead story on the Today program’s news headlines, front page banner headline in the Daily Telegraph, a wide range of TV interviews and more.

Nick Clegg and his team have not stinted in their media push – heavy pre-briefing of the media, that large round of interviews (trailed in advance on Twitter) and a crack of dawn email from Vince Cable.

That email even leads readers through to a web page on the party’s website which contains a personal story illustrating the party’s views on tax:

“Imagine a mum who works 3 days a week as a teaching assistant – earning £10,000 a year or just over £190 a week. Under Labour she paid more than £1,000 in income tax and national insurance. Although she wanted to work more days a week she knew it was not financially worth it. Under Labour; once tax, tax credits and housing benefit has been deducted, for every extra pound she earned she was able to keep just 10.5p.

“Under our plan she would see her income tax bill cut to zero making her £700 a year better off.”

For anyone in communications, the use of such personal stories is a standard way of simplifying complex details and giving the message more emotional impact. That has made the frequent absence of such stories a cause of complaint from party members such as political narrative expert Neil Stockley in the past. Key phrases to trigger the right emotional reaction (to Lib Dem leaning voters) are also scatted through the page, including “super rich”, “hedge fund managers” and “ordinary workers”.

You can read Mark’s post in full here.

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

This is of course closely linked to wealth taxes as they are a way to raise the funds to pay for the income tax cuts.

Aside from the numbers adding up – a very important consideration for tax policy – it also has the merit of fitting well with what the public wants from political parties (a commitment to fairness). Moreover, it is rather a political win-win: the idea of income tax cuts attracts Conservatives enough that it may happen, but the Tory-repelling wealth tax part means it is clearly seen as a Liberal Democrat package.

The importance being attached to this message by the party is shown by the speech not only being heavily pre-briefed to the media (resulting in, for example, the lead headline on the Daily Telegraph’s front page: Nick Clegg: speed up the tax cuts) but also a pre-speech email to party members from Vince Cable:

As families face more of a squeeze, today Liberal Democrats are arguing for greater tax cuts for hard working people.

Between now and the Budget, Nick and Danny and I will be arguing for faster tax cuts, giving you a reward for hard work. And Nick will be setting out our case in a speech today.

Given the budget constraint we have to raise money for the tax cut elsewhere and have plans to raise an equivalent amount from the wealthiest taxpayers.

At the last election the Liberal Democrats promised to raise the personal allowance for ordinary taxpayers to £10,000. I am proud that the Coalition has committed to doing so over the course of this Parliament.

For millions of ordinary hard working people, that means paying £700 less in income tax each year. Low earners, mostly women will benefit from being lifted out of tax altogether.

But times are tough and quite simply, Liberal Democrats in Government want to help families who are currently being squeezed by moving more quickly.

Whether it’s targeting an extra £7bn from tax evaders and avoiders, taking an extra £2.5bn every year from the banks in a balance sheet tax, or the announcement I made on Monday to curb the excesses of executive pay, this Coalition is taking important steps to deliver a fairer economy.

And we have already made a big difference, click here to see how.

We are building a new economy, one that benefits the whole country, not just bankers in the City of London. Making the tax system fairer is crucial to that. This is a huge task that will make Britain a fairer and more liberal country for generations to come.

 A footnote for political vocabulary fans: “alarm clock Britain” is set to make a return in today’s speech.

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

By calling the settlement building “an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years”, Nick hit two important nails on the head. The first was that announcements of settlement expansion can only be a deliberate tactic to scupper negotiations. The Israeli government knows full well that the PLO cannot negotiate while Israeli actions continue to call into question the Palestinian right to those territories Israel occupied in 1967, and which once formed part of the Mandate of Palestine. This is rightly the Palestinian red line on territorial issues and is fully supported by international law.

Secondly, there has to be an end to the moral equivocation which has enabled Israeli government spin doctors to construct a narrative that the settlements are on land that is “disputed”, and which seeks to imply that the settlers have a “right” to build their homes there which is morally equal to the rights of the indigenous people of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The latter, of course, are entitled in international law to exercise their right of self-determination by establishing their own state on the entirety of their land.

Nick also stated that “the continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable”. Far too often, politicians have confined themselves to calling for a halt to settlement construction, rather than drawing attention to the key point that they should never have been built in the first place. Come on, Cameron and Miliband, can’t you say the same?

Of course, in negotiations, the Palestinians may agree to cede some of the land on which settlements have been built in exchange for an appropriate quid pro quo, but such negotiations have to be conducted on an arms’ length basis by parties which recognise the rights of the other in international law, something which Israel still refuses to do. Israel must not be allowed to bludgeon the Palestinians into making concessions as a result of the duress inherent in its brutal occupation. Any peace treaty achieved in that way will not last.

It is to be hoped that Britain will shortly see fit to recognise Palestine on the entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and support its application for UN membership. It is only by international recognition of Palestine that the parties can be enabled to negotiate as equals towards a final peace.  Although he did not call for British recognition, Nick’s endorsement of Palestinian rights brought it that little bit closer.

It would be meant something if Nick had called for employees to have the right to be given shares in their companies when they asked.   It would have meant even more if he could have set out a scheme suggesting what level of employee share ownership he considered appropriate.  Better still, he could have specified whether the shares should be made available at current price, at a discount, or free of charge in return for performance, in the way so many chief executives receive them at present. He did none of these, and I found it frustrating that this opportunity to speak clearly on a subject that is clearly of interest to the media was evidently not thought through as fully as it might have been.

In his speech, Nick called William Gladstone and Jo Grimond in aid.  Actually, both men produced rather more radical ideas on business ownership than the timid plans Nick proposed. When 19^th century train operating companies seemed to be acting against the public interest, William Gladstone as Liberal Leader took powers to nationalise them (now there’s an idea!)

Jo Grimond had much more far-reaching ideas on employee rights. His book “The Liberal Future” (1959) has a full chapter called “co-ownership”. In it he wrote

 Liberals want to see the growth of a body of worker-shareholders (which) would mean that the workers came to regard themselves as employers of management.

Grimond recommended tax incentives and changes in the Company Acts to achieve this.

When he led the Liberal Party into the 1966 General Election Grimond’s ideas had developed further.  The Liberal Manifesto for that election states: “ These councils were to give employees a say on all major issues affecting their company.”  Incidentally, this would clearly have included Directors’ pay and bonuses. These radical proposals provoked much interest and probably contributed substantially to the rise in the Liberal vote at that election.

Fifty years on, suitable modernisation and extension of these ideas should form the basis of our approach. Instead of woolly talk about “the John Lewis model” (a phrase  borrowed from another Party, and one about which Grimond was fairly scathing) we need clear and specific aims of achieving

• co-ownership of companies by shareholders and employees;
• employee participation in all major decisions including top-level rewards; and
• clarity on the changes to the law and tax regimes to make these happen.

Co-ownership is a powerful way of breaking up entrenched concentrations of power. We need to less fearful about explaining it in a meaningful way.

* Nigel Lindsay was Aberdeen's first Liberal councillor in the 1970s, building the group until it took control before moving south to run a rural development agency in Lincolnshire. He is now based in central Scotland.