Author Archives: Alistair Carmichael MP

Alistair Carmichael MP writes…The truth about those “secret Tory talks”

A couple of weeks ago I was due to meet with one of my counterparts in the Conservative whips office. These meetings are routine and are not normally the subject of comment.  This particular meeting was intended to deal with allocation of offices between the parties for MPs to use. In fact the meeting did not go ahead although I DID meet the Government Chief Whip’s Private Secretary (known inside the bubble as the usual channels).

The meeting that did not happen (mundane though it was) somehow found its way into the Daily Mail who proceeded to speculate wildly about whether the meeting was indeed a sign that the Lib Dems were now cosying up to the Tories to stitch up a secret coalition deal.

Of course at that time the Conservatives were trying to negotiate a deal with the DUP, negotiations were going badly (due mostly to their own mismanagement).  Briefing the press in this way was a mark of the desperation with which they were seized.

So when I read in the Times yesterday that Tim Farron’s chief of staff Ben Williams had met with his No 10 counterpart Gavin Barwell last Thursday I took it with a pinch of salt. Not least because I knew that Ben was in Leeds on Thursday.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 27 Comments

Alistair Carmichael writes: for allowing mixed sex couples into civil partnerships

The late great Groucho Marx once said, “Marriage is a wonderful institution – but then, who wants to live in an institution?”

I have no problem in answering “I do” – coincidentally the same words I spoke on September 19th 1987 when my wife and I got married.

Like everyone else, our marriage has had its ups and downs but when we got married I had no doubt that it was the right thing to be doing and I have never doubted it for a second since. I like being married. For us, marriage is a good thing. In fact I …

Posted in Op-eds | 15 Comments

Alistair Carmichael MP writes…Sometimes it is not a bad thing to be an elitist!

Now that I have your attention let me explain what I mean.  In 1982 I was part of an “elite squad” of Liberals and Social Democrats who campaigned in the Queens Park by-election.   It was not the most fertile of territory and despite having an excellent candidate (one Graham Watson, sorry Sir Graham) we finished, I think, a “good fourth”.

For me it was the first taste of what was to become a minor obsession, namely campaigning in parliamentary by-elections.  Since then I have seen the good, the bad and the indifferent.  A “good by-election” is like nothing else.   If Theresa May had realised how stimulating and addictive by-election campaigning can be for Liberal Democrats then she would have found a way to bring it within the Psychoactive Substances Act.

Last Thursday and Friday I joined our excellent candidate, Liz Leffman and her awesome team in Witney.

Let me tell you – Witney is a GOOD by-election.

In fact, it is good and getting better and heading for being excellent.

What can make the difference between good and excellent?  You can.

Bluntly the party needs you to get to Witney tomorrow and on Wednesday and again on Thursday.  You can have your life back again on Friday.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 3 Comments

Alistair Carmichael MP writes: Snoopers’ Charter debate was a circle of Hell even Dante could not have imagined

This week in Parliament we debated the Investigatory Powers Bill or, as some would have it, the Snooper’s Charter take 2. It was two days of my life that I will never have back and, after fifteen years as an MP, it was two of the most depressing days I have known. Being an MP is a great job and when parliament works as it is supposed to it can be exhilarating. When it fails to do what it is elected to do, namely to hold the government of the day to account, then it is hell. The debate on this bill took us to a new circle of hell that even Dante could not have imagined.

The Bill is rotten to its core and I wish we could have blocked it as we did in Coalition when faced with the Communications Data Bill. Dealing with Tories in government was difficult. Dealing with Tories in government and Labour in opposition is impossible.
We had two days to debate hundreds of amendments in the House of Commons. The government alone brought forward one hundred and four amendments on the first day and a further twenty on the second. After all the amendments the provisions on bulk data collection and the retention of “internet connection records” are not even half-baked. They are raw.

You would have thought that this would be grist to the mill of any decent opposition. You would be right in that. Unfortunately we don’t have a decent opposition, we have the Labour Party. There was not a single amendment in the whole two day debate on which Labour considered worthy of voting. For two days they were absent from the voting lobbies. We did get a little excited on day two when we heard through the usual channels that they were “going to vote on something”. We need not have got our hopes up – it turned out that “something” was a third reading of the bill (ie on the bill as a whole) and the vote they cast was to support it.

For our part, despite our overarching opposition to the Bill we had tabled a raft of amendments in an attempt to make the Bill a little less awful. The SNP took the same approach. I will not bore you with them all but give you a flavour below.

First, I proposed – and pushed to a vote, an amendment which would have deleted provisions in the Bill for the introduction of the collection and storage of Internet Connection Records (ICRs). Now, I’m not yet 100% clear what an internet connection record is. Nobody is – even the Home Secretary. I surmise that it will probably be your web history. This will then be stored for 12 months just in case you ever come under suspicion. Meanwhile, that information can be hacked and stolen revealing an enormous amount of detail about your life, activity and even your state of mind. I knew that when I pushed the amendment it would not pass. Andy Burnham the shadow Home Secretary had already said that whilst he accepted that ICRs were incredibly intrusive and might not even be helpful in solving crime he supported their collection in principle (God alone knows what the principle was but by this time I had given up on trying to understand the Labour Party’s position).

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 3 Comments

Alistair Carmichael MP writes…Suzanne Fletcher reminds us how one person can make a difference for vulnerable people

Today in Parliament the Minister for Immigration was forced to explain why G4S were housing asylum seekers behind red doors, leaving them open to targeted attacks. The Minister, who said he was “deeply concerned”, in response sprang into action announcing an audit of asylum seeker accommodation in the North East. Good to see the Minister reacting so quickly to something that was only in the papers that morning you might think. Not so.

Suzanne Fletcher, former Liberal Democrat Councillor and now Chair for Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary, has been campaigning on this issue doggedly for years. In fact, it is predominantly down to her campaign work that this became a news story today.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 11 Comments

Voting with the government to opt-in to Prum

Politicians tend to disagree with one another on a lot of issues – luckily, catching criminals is not one of them. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be voting with the Government on the decision to opt-in to Prum: an EU process which allows member states to quickly exchange DNA, fingerprint and vehicle information in order to identify and catch serious criminals and terrorists.

The last time this decision was put in front of Parliament during the Coalition the Liberal Democrats couldn’t agree to it. At that point there were still millions of innocent people on DNA databases and schoolchildren were having their fingerprints taken in schools. The Freedoms Act 2012 put a stop to this, and with the additional safeguards the Home Secretary is proposing we can support opting-in to Prum this time round.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 1 Comment

Alistair Carmichael MP writes…Britain should not be rolling out the red carpet to President al-Sisi

Today, in the House of Commons our Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Tom Brake, asked an Urgent Question highlighting the appalling human rights record of the Egyptian Government – led by President al-Sisi, who has arrived in the UK for a state visit. While David Cameron was rolling out the red carpet for a human rights abuser in Downing Street, in parliament it was yet again Liberal Democrats who stood up for his victims.

The Egyptian President heads a government with a poor and deteriorating human rights record. The imprisonment and torture of political prisoners and an increasing use of the death penalty are at the heart of its suppression of dissent. Since January 2014 438 people have been sentenced to death – shooting up a league table on which no civilised government should want to feature. 63% of these sentences were handed down for involvement in political protests.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 4 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 23rd Oct - 12:34am
    Compare and contrast, 'We are in politics to take and use power.' vs,'Truly some are in politics to take and use power. They are usually...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 22nd Oct - 11:57pm
    Correction accepted, Bolano, I may have misheard. But Wera's record of success over several years is undeniable. She evidently had a great record in local...
  • User AvatarBolano2 22nd Oct - 11:22pm
    "70% Remain vote in Somerset" - which vote was this? Bristol managed 60%; Bath 57% - outside these areas the rural constituencies all voted Leave....
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill 22nd Oct - 9:54pm
    Usain Bolt supports Lewis Hamilton, who also gets a handshake from Bill Clinton. At the end of a Formula race they play the national anthem....
  • User AvatarPalehorse 22nd Oct - 9:31pm
    Caron, But what if the result of #referendum 2 is only very slightly remain? Say 1%?
  • User AvatarMike MacSween 22nd Oct - 9:30pm
    Tony Greaves is right, except the 'when' should be replaced with 'if'.