Last month I asked for your views on the new members’ magazine to replace Liberal Democrat News.
We got loads of really good feedback and we’ve tried to get as much of it into the magazine as possible.
Of course, no one has ever made 100 per cent of Liberal Democrats happy 100 per cent of the time, but we sincerely hope AD LIB lives up to most (if not all of) your expectations.
We’re not giving away too much about the content yet, but Twitter and Facebook profiles for AD LIB are up and running and for a teaser we’ve released the front cover (above right).
I know, I know, as defenders of transparency in public life how can we justify keeping the contents secret?
Well, you’ve got us bang to rights, but on this occasion we want to keep you guessing for just a little while longer 😉
What we will say is this: AD LIB will be crammed full of the news, views, politics, policy, humour and gossip you don’t get in the mainstream media.
The Liberal Democrats are a family. We share deeply held convictions on life, liberty and society, and we love nothing more than to argue politics and policy long into the night.
But we’re more than just like-minded individuals. We campaign together, help each other and socialise together. We respect each other and we tease each other. We share wisdom and we make mischief.
AD LIB aims to reflect all that in words and pictures.
If you’re a party member, the first issue will be dropping through your letterbox in the first week of December free of charge.
As members, you can subscribe to AD LIB for the introductory price of £35 for 12 issues. It’s £50 if you’re not a member.
And if you’re a current Liberal Democrat News subscriber your subscription will carry over automatically. You are, of course, welcome to cancel your subscription, but we sincerely hope you won’t!
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Support Daniel today!
Polls open 7am-10pm today - and you don't need your polling card to vote
Good luck to every Liberal Democrat candidate tomorrow
April 2004 books
Disgraced Brexit Party founder backing Johnson shows how far the Tories have sunk
Maghull – Town Council's Parks Survey
Does Greenland's meltng ice sheet suggest climate change is irreversible?
Peter Watson
Dennis Wake
Peter Martin
Tom Harney
Peter
John B
18 Comments
Helen, As I just said in my email to you – I don’t want to shoot the messenger but to refer to us as a party which “shares deeply held convictions on life, liberty and society” on the day our peers are being whipped to support secret courts would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.
And “defenders of transparency in public life” ? We will never be able to say that again if this wretched Bill passes.
To be fair, the party does have these deeply held convictions, Jo. That’s why such a broad range of people from every geographical and philosophical viewpoint are backing your campaign on secret courts. The only people who seem to be unopposed to it are those on the Government payroll.
“The only people who seem to be unopposed to it are those on the Government payroll.”
Can you tell me how many Lib Dem MPs voted against this bill?
£35 for 12 issues? Isn’t that what LibDem News cost for a year (until someone suddenly hiked the price)?
Now what about getting it to be self-funded by selling advertising space so that it can then be sent to every member, not just the few… or if the accountants say it has to be paid for why not link it to membership subs so that anyone subscribing more than, say £25/30 gets it for free (the more you print the cheaper it gets)?
If we see the point in continuing to make the effort to have a printed and posted publication, we really must get it to as many members as possible. Even though half of us are now on-line the hard copy is still needed, and it is easy publicity for the party if every reader is encouraged to pass it on or leave it at the doctor’s waiting room.
Will there be an online version available?
“Can you tell me how many Lib Dem MPs voted against this bill?”
You’d better scratch that question, as it’s apparently never been before the Commons. I assumed from a previous LDV headline about the bill “going back to the Lords” that it had.
Jo/Chris,
Perhaps the issue here is that this is Government legislation, not Conservative or Liberal Democrat legislation. As such, our Parliamentarians are expected to support it, in the same way that we expect the Conservatives to. Thus, the whip, and it is naïve to think differently.
However, whilst in the Commons, an MP is obliged to balance a range of factors, including, “if I vote against the Government, will I be able to achieve my goals in other areas?”, in the Lords, the range of factors is somewhat simpler. Promotion? Not likely. Punishment by the Whips? Limited. Which is why there has, I am led to understand, been differing approaches to this Bill on the red benches.
So, before we get too worked up, let’s see what happens this evening, eh?
“Perhaps the issue here is that this is Government legislation, not Conservative or Liberal Democrat legislation. As such, our Parliamentarians are expected to support it, in the same way that we expect the Conservatives to
…
So, before we get too worked up, let’s see what happens this evening, eh?”
I still wish I could understand how and why it came to be government legislation. That required Lib Dem support, didn’t it? And isn’t the fact that it was supported by the party reason enough to get “worked up”?
Regarding secret courts: I’m with Jo and Chris. There’s no victory in getting syphillis instead of AIDS – they’re both STDs and both should have been guarded against. This bill getting in front of the Lords in the first place is an STD, and yes, they might well cure it, but that doesn’t mean it won’t leave scars.
Regarding the new magazine: what Peter said. It should be an optional addition to subs if it has to be paid for at all.
Chris,
It isn’t supported by the Party, and it is typically obtuse of you to suggest that it is. Ministers propose legislation and take collective responsibility for it. Accordingly, our Ministers supported it in the Lords this evening, whereas the rest of the Parliamentary Party voted it down with Labour.
And no, it doesn’t require Liberal Democrat support to be proposed. Remember, we’re still a minority in this Government, and in the Cabinet, and in every Ministry. Sometimes, the Tories will propose things, our Ministers will lose the Departmental battle and the legislation takes its chances. Clearly, in this instance, there was no prospect of a deal, and the Lords have amended it to make it more palatable. How much more palatable, I can’t say, I’m not a lawyer, but if David Pannick and Anthony Lester are agreeing strategy across the chamber, that’s a pretty serious alliance, and I’d tend to trust the two of them.
As one of the campaign to get rid of secret courts we will be looking carefully at what happened yesterday. However I would point out that Lord Pannick voted, along with many Liberal Democrats, to remove clause 6 altogether (ie to delete secret courts from the Bill). I take great comfort from the principled stance taken by so many Liberal Democrats (and others) in the face of apparent complacency from some about the effects of this Bill.
Mark
First of all, I’d be grateful if you could refrain from personal abuse. It’s sad if you can’t make your point without name-calling.
Second, please don’t misrepresent what I said. I didn’t say it was “supported by the Party”. Obviously it isn’t supported by the party at large. But it is a government bill because it was supported by Lib Dems in government, including Nick Clegg, who according to the BBC is chair of the committee that signed off this bill.
If your second paragraph is supposed to give the impression this bill wasn’t supported by Lib Dem ministers, then that is a false impression. And I think you are simply wrong in saying it could have been presented as a government bill without Lib Dem agreement. Can you give me an example of a bill that was true of?
“What we will say is this: AD LIB will be crammed full of the news, views, politics, policy, humour and gossip you don’t get in the mainstream media.”
Which really says alot about the effectiveness of the Lib Dem media organisation – such that it is. It seems to consist of 4 people, presumably working in shifts and looking at the main Party Website, not even putting out press releases. From the 25th Oct to the 14th November – just 6 press releases are on the site – including such boring stuff as Lib Dem co-chairs announced – like anyone cares.
“Accordingly, our Ministers supported it in the Lords this evening, whereas the rest of the Parliamentary Party voted it down with Labour.”
And sadly, that is completely untrue. On the question of principle – that is on the amendment to remove the clause enabling secret courts – Lib Dem peers voted by 38-16 to keep secret courts in the bill, by my reckoning.
I wish someone would explain why most Lib Dem parliamentarians are supporting this illiberal measure. There must be some reason.
Back to Ad Lib. I concur with Peter’s comment on the price, but argue with the detail. I paid £30 for 12 months of LibDem News in September 2011 and £58 in 2012. I.m still trying to work out whether the remainder of my sub at the £35 pa rate is more or less. (And wonder what happens to my Direct Debit.)
Still mourning LibDem News…
“Ministers propose legislation and take collective responsibility for it.”
This is true. However it is possible to ask “Why?” Collective responsiblity isn’t a given – indeed there are two instances set out in the coalition agreement where it won’t apply and the world did not come to a shuddering halt.
This wasn’t in the coalition agreement – the fact that we are bound by collective responsibility for every piece of legislation is entirely of our own doing.
Collective responsibility is of dubious utility in a one-party government and utterly useless in a coalition government.