Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall. He writes a fortnightly column for ConservativeHome and 'The Underdog' column for Total Politics magazine. He edited the 2013 publication, The Coalition and Beyond: Liberal Reforms for the Decade Ahead, and is a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum. He was awarded the inaugural Lib Dem ‘Blogger of the Year’ prize in 2006, was a councillor for eight years in Oxford, including a year as Deputy Lord Mayor, and appears frequently in the media in person, in print and online. Stephen combines his political interests with his professional life as Development Director for the Education Endowment Foundation, though writes here in a personal capacity. Follow @stephentall
Yesterday’s Times reported the news that David Cameron has decided not to spend his political capital campaigning against electoral reform, whenever the referendum on changing from first-past-the-post to the alternative vote is to be held:
Cameron insisted he remained a supporter of the present voting system: “I will not change my view that the alternative vote is not an improvement to first-past- the-post, so I will make that clear at the time.”
However, he also made clear he would not play an active role in the “no” campaign: “I will have other things to do as well.” …
Ministers are expected to announce that they are scrapping Labour plans to introduce “pay as you throw” rubbish schemes. Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, will confirm that they will end schemes in which people are charged for household waste collections or for producing too much rubbish.
In one sense this is a bit of a non-story. Labour didn’t, despite the Guardian’s misleading report, plan to introduce ‘pay as you throw’ rubbish schemes – what they did was enable councils to pilot such schemes if they wished. Unsurprisingly, not least given the furore …
Welcome to the Golden Dozen, and our 172nd weekly round-up from the Lib Dem blogosphere … Featuring the seven most popular stories beyond Lib Dem Voice according to click-throughs from the Aggregator (30th May – 5th June, 2010), together with a hand-picked quintet, normally courtesy of LibDig, you might otherwise have missed.
Don’t forget: you can sign up to receive the Golden Dozen direct to your email inbox – just click here – ensuring you never miss out on the best of Lib Dem blogging.
As ever, let’s start with the most popular post, and work our way down:
Here’s contender for the Lib Dem deputy leadership Tim Farron at the Lib Dem conference last autumn, drumming up funds for the party. What do you reckon he might be thinking, or saying?
I’ve been intrigued these past couple of days to see themainLabourblogs fall over themselves to argue that the current three front-runners for the Labour leadership – now they have the MP nominations needed to be on the ballot – should urge their parliamentary colleagues to nominate one of the three also-ran contenders to ensure “the widest possible field of candidates in the leadership election”.
I can understand the principle behind the campaign, of course. Frankly, if I were in the shoes of a Labour member (as I was for a number of years), I …
After an extended election break, we’re reviving our Saturday slot posing a view for debate:
The election campaign of 2010 will, above all, be remembered for the transformative effect of the television debates, and the breakthrough of Nick Clegg. They were, in the main, substantive discussions in which real policies – and real political differences – were openly debated. But they also re-inforced the impression that British politics is, above all, about personality; and in particular, that the quality politicians need above all is empathy, an ability to connect with the voters they seek to represent.
Empathy is a vital quality of leadership. It is one which is perhaps tipping the balance of opinion in the Labour party against David Miliband, who comes across as less of a listener than his brother and rival, Ed.
But empathy can all too easily tip over into something else: an overly emotional reaction which blinds politicians to sound reason. The moment a politician loses his rag – however understandably, however provoked, however gloriously – is the moment I feel my respect draining away.
I do not want a politician who knows only how to emote. I want a politician with cool, clear, concise judgement. Our leaders are faced with umpteen improbably tricky decisions before breakfast: they cannot afford to waste their energies as the mood takes them.
Perhaps the ultimate exemplar of the non-emoting politician happens also to be the world’s most powerful leader, President Obama. Yet he has come in for criticism in recent days from the Washington media for failing to show sufficient anger at BP, forcing Obama to declare himself somewhat falsely ‘furious’ (while reasonably pointing out he wasn’t hired to yell at people):
With a tip of our hat to the Daily Mail – which today asks its readers 13 questions so they can tell if they’re posh or not – Lib Dem Voice presents our special How Lib Dem are you? test:
(Click on the image to enlarge).
All you have to do is answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the following questions to get your answer …
1. Do you complain about long driveways and low letterboxes after an afternoon’s leaflet delivery?
2. Do you obsessively count the number of garden posters of the different parties
I don’t pretend to understand a huge amount about the science of opinion polling – like any political geek, I dabble, but that’s it. However, I do understand a little more of the art of opinion polling, of manufacturing the response you want to deliver a story.
So I was pretty disappointed to read the latest ComRes poll, commissioned by The Independent, which asked a couple of deeply flawed questions. Here’s the worst of the bunch, asking the public to agree or disagree with the following statement:
The political horsetrading which followed the inconclusive General Election result showed that an outright win is much more desirable than a hung parliament.
Now it’s an interesting question to find out what the public did feel about Britain’s first taste of post-election bargaining in the full glare of rolling news – I’d love to see a genuine question putting it to the test.
But this question by ComRes is risible – a serious pollster would not use the loaded term ‘political horsetrading’ if they were genuinely interested in finding out the public’s views. Unsurprisingly the public reacted negatively to the notion of ‘horsetrading’, with 74% saying they preferred an outright win.
What, though, if the pollster had tested the public’s attitudes with a more neutral question, something like:
On 7th May no single party won an overall majority, so the three major parties opened discussions to see if they could reach agreement. Some people say that this is a good thing, resulting in a programme for government based on the most popular policies from each of the parties. Other people say it is a bad idea, and that it would be better if a single party had won an outright majority and could govern alone. What is your view?
Now I wonder what might have happened if ComRes had asked that question. I suspect they would have got a very different answer to the one they got. Which leaves one question hanging … Why did they ask a slanted question that they must have known would provoke a negative response?
Voting intentions:
For the record, ComRes found support for the parties as follows:
Conservative 37% (-1), Labour 33% (-1), Lib Dems 21% (n/c)
This is consistent with most other polls – indeed, I think it’s the sixcth consecutive poll which has shown the Lib Dems at 21%. Okay, the balloon of ‘Cleggmania’ may have popped, but that’s a lot better than some of us would have dared hope in the immediate aftermath of the coalition deal being struck. But it’s very early days of course.
ComRes also tested post-coalition attitudes to the Lib Dems, using one of those “putting words in your mouth” questions beloved of newspapers but which brings political science into disrepute: “Now that they have joined a coalition with the Conservatives, it is difficult to know what the Liberal Democrats stand for” – 65% agreed, but 29% disagreed. Given it’s a statement which invites the public to offer a nod of cynical agreement, I was mildly encouraged that getting on for one-third of the public disputed it.
Electoral reform:
ComRes also asked a question about changing the voting system, testing the statement: The first-past-the-post system for elections to the House of Commons should be replaced by a system that reflects more accurately the proportion of votes cast for each party.
It’s welcome, though entirely unsurprising, to discover that 78% agree, with only 18% disagreeing. It would have been more interesting, though, to find out what the public thought of the Alternative Vote (a non-proportional system) compared with a genuine system of proportional representation (such as STV) or the status quo of First-Past-The-Post.
A propos almost of nothing, here’s a famous clip from Yes, Prime Minister which looks behind the opinion polls:
There’s an interesting in-depth feature in today’s Guardian, focusing on the future prospects for the Lib Dems now the party is in government: Will the Liberal Democrats survive the coalition? (It’s a question I think we’ve all been asking ourselves for the last three weeks).
It’s a generally fair and balanced take – highlighting the many acknowledged threats to the party, recognising there are opportunities, too – with interviewees including Lord (David) Steel, Simon Hughes and James Graham.
However, it’s a little marred by some rather strange omissions by its author, Andy Beckett. For example, it seems odd to talk …
Lib Dem Voice polled party members registered on our members’ forum at the weekend asking them about the contest to succeed Vince Cable as Lib Dem deputy leader. Over 460 members responded, and here’s what you told us …
LDV asked:Vince Cable stood down this week as Deputy Leader of the party. Some have suggested all members should have a vote to decide who is the party’s deputy leader. Others say that members elect the party president, and it is right MPs decide the deputy leader. What’s your view?
42% – Party members should elect the Deputy Leader 44% –
Nick Clegg is not normally reticent about commenting on the Middle East – see, for example, his public call for the international community to stop arming Israel 18 months ago.
So why did it take more than a day for the Lib Dem leader to speak out against the “unjustifiable and untenable” blockade of the Gaza Strip? Why do his words appear only on the Press Association website, rather than the party’s? It was at least tweeted by the official Lib Dem account, but that was the only communication via official party channels.
… We’d say a big thank you to the 136,557 ‘absolute unique visitors’* who read Liberal Democrat Voice in May.
That’s over 20% higher compared to our April 2010 figure of c.112,000, and we are up some 227% on the equivalent figure for May ’09. Anyone would think there had just been a general election. In fact, the site passed 100,000 unique visitors by 14 May … which suggests traffic has stabilised since at c.2,500 absolute uniques a day.
This brings our absolute unique visitor readership for the last year to date (1 June 2009 – 31 May 2010) to 503,653, over 87% higher than the equivalent figure for 2008-09 of 268,359.
Lib Dem Voice has been conducting a survey of party members registered on our members’ forum asking them for their views of the coalition, Labour leadership and the party’s general election result. Over 400 have responded, and here’s part five of what you’ve told us …
LDV asked: The coalition government is proposing that in order to legislate for fixed-term parliaments it should take a vote of 55%+1 of MPs to dissolve Parliament. (NB: this does not affect a vote of no confidence in the government which can still be carried by a simple majority of 50%+1). What is your …
Lib Dem Voice has been conducting a survey of party members registered on our members’ forum asking them for their views of the coalition, Labour leadership and the party’s general election result. Over 400 have responded, and here’s part four of what you’ve told us …
LDV asked:The Lib Dem / Conservative coalition government published its full partnership agreement last week. Based on what you have read, seen and heard how would you describe your view:
Here’s what you said:
27% – Very happy, I agree with almost all of it 59% – Moderately happy, I agree with more of it
Lib Dem Voice has been conducting a survey of party members registered on our members’ forum asking them for their views of the coalition, Labour leadership and the party’s general election result. Over 400 have responded, and here’s part three of what you’ve told us …
LDV asked: What was your number one highlight of the general election campaign?
Here’s what you told us:
1. “I agree with Nick”. Shame there was more than one debate
2. “I agree with Nick.”
3. #nickcleggsfault
4.
Here’s contender for the Lib Dem deputy leadership Simon Hughes hard at work, gardening for Springwatch in London. What do you reckon he might be thinking?
Welcome to the Golden Dozen, and our 171st weekly round-up from the Lib Dem blogosphere … Featuring the seven most popular stories beyond Lib Dem Voice according to click-throughs from the Aggregator (23rd – 29th May, 2010), together with a hand-picked quintet, normally courtesy of LibDig, you might otherwise have missed.
Don’t forget: you can now sign up to receive the Golden Dozen direct to your email inbox – just click here – ensuring you never miss out on the best of Lib Dem blogging.
As ever, let’s start with the most popular post, and work our way down:
Well that was a depressing 24 hours, depressing in so many different ways.
I don’t think I’d describe David Laws’s forced resignation as either right, or wrong: it was quite simply inevitable. There was no way he personally, nor the coalition politically, could withstand the clamour for his head. Eventually he would have been dragged down by the explosion of self-righteousness that the right-wing press and Labour tribalists have let rip over the past two days. I find that depressing.
It is one of the ironies of coalition government that, as it brings together two different, competing parties – two parties …
Lib Dem Voice has been conducting a survey this week of party members registered on our members’ forum asking them for their views of the coalition, Labour leadership and the party’s general election result. Over 400 have responded, and here’s part two of what you’ve told us …
LDV asked: Putting aside your Lib Dem allegiance who do you think would make the best Labour leader?
Here’s what you said:
37% – Ed Miliband
25% – Diane Abbott
17% – David Miliband
9% – Andy Burnham
8% – John McDonnell
3% – Ed Balls
(Excluding Don’t know / No opinion =
Lib Dem Voice polled party members registered on our members’ forum today asking them whether David Laws should resign following the Telegraph’s allegations over his expenses. Over 350 members responded, and here’s what you told us …
LDV asked: In the light of allegations made against Lib Dem chief secretary to the treasury David Laws and his expenses claims, what do you think should happen next?
Here’s what you told us:
59% – He should stay put in his job
29% – He should step down temporarily pending the findings of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner
Lib Dem Voice has been conducting a survey this week of party members registered on our members’ forum asking them for their views of the coalition, Labour leadership and the party’s general election result. Over 400 have responded, and here’s part one of what you’ve told us …
LDV asked: How would you rate the Lib Dems’ general election result?
Here’s what you told us:
1% – Very good
9% – Good
22% – Okay 52% – Disappointing
16% – Very disappointing
LDV then asked: Which of the following reasons do you think best explain why the Lib Dems did less well in …
Last night, Lib Dem Voice covered the Telegraph’s story that David Laws, the chief secretary to the treasury, has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner because it is alleged his second home expenses claims breached the rules which state rent cannot be paid to an MP’s spouse.
The story is dominating today’s news agenda, presenting the coalition government with its first real test. There are, as I see it, three options:
1) Tough it out. David has referred himself to the Commissioner, maintaining that he has done nothing for personal gain, even if he has broken the rules. Many …
David Laws has apologised, promised to pay back up to £40,000, and referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner after the Telegraph published expenses claims showing he rented a room from his partner.
David claimed between £700 and £950 a month between 2004 and 2007 to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London, owned by his partner who was also registered as living at the property;
from 2007, David then began claiming of £920 a month to rent the second bedroom from a new house bought by his partner,
Suddenly the British political chatterati are catching up with a fact that’s been known by Lib Dems for years: David Laws is a deeply impressive politician.
David’s pivotal role in the Lib Dem negotiating team, combined with his unshowy economic and intellectual self-confidence, has quickly marked him out as an early star of the cabinet, earning an excellent profile in today’s Guardian by Allegra Stratton. It’s well worth reading in full, but here’s a fascinating snippet:
Laws is one of Ashdown’s friends from “the winter days, not the summer days”. He joined the party at the same time as Nick Clegg and Jeremy Browne under Ashdown’s leadership, when the Tory party was illiberal and even more Eurosceptic than most. Laws has told Tory colleagues recently that he would have been one of them were it not for their party’s policy on section 28, the controversial law banning the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools. Evan Harris, one of Laws’s former colleagues before he lost his seat at the last election, agrees. He said: “Compared to Vince he is fully socially liberal on equality, abortion and faith schools and on religion and the state. Also he’s very sensible on the discrimination issues and sex education. Whereas someone like Vince is more of a social conservative, he’s not at all. He’s probably much more pro-choice than Vince.”
Some Conservatives (indeed, a handful of Lib Dems) appear still to harbour the misapprehension that he’s actually one of them: but just because he can add up doesn’t make him a Tory. However, there’s no doubt the glances of envy in the Lib Dems’ direction that it’s our party which has provided the biggest economic talents sitting at the cabinet table: ConservativeHome admires his talent for culling pot-plant expenditure, while Iain Martin whispers “the words ‘potential future prime minister’ don’t sound entirely silly.”
You can watch David in action in three videos, below …
First up, is his virtuoso performance in the Commons this week which has grabbed the sketchwriters’ headlines:
* Floella Benjamin OBE DL – actor, presenter and campaigner for children’s issues
* Mike German OBE AM – former Deputy First Minister (Wales)
* Meral Hussein Ece OBE – Local Government Councillor in Islington, advocate of equality issues
* Sir Kenneth (Ken) Macdonald QC – former Director of Public Prosecutions
* Kathryn (Kate) Jane Parminter – former Chief Executive of Campaign to Protect Rural England
* John Shipley
It’s early days – Vince only announced he was stepping down as the party’s deputy leader last night, in order to focus on his cabinet responsibilities – but who would you, LDV’s readers, like to see take over from Vince?
Of course the electorate for the deputy’s post are the party’s 57 MPs (party members choose our leader and president), and I imagine and hope there will be four criteria uppermost in their minds:
1) Ensuring a ‘balanced ticket’ for the party leadership. Nick and Vince have worked well together precisely because they look, sound and are different. Their combined blend of …
In an effort to cure my election campaign withdrawal symptoms I’ve been reading a book published in 1964, Why Liberal?, a Penguin special which was one of a pre-election series covering the three major parties’ policies. This publishing tradition was revived most recently by imprint Biteback, with Why Vote Liberal Democrat?, edited by Danny Alexander, proving a surprise hit.
The 1964 version was written by Harry Cowie, then director of the Liberal party’s research department – probably in something of a hurry, as big topics such as the health service are apologetically omitted (“as they have in any case been …
A couple of months ago, Lib Dem Voice identified five candidates standing for the party in this general election in winnable seats whose campaigns needed a helping hand from readers willing to make a donation.
Thank you to all LDV readers who responded – collectively you helped raise some £1,831, a terrific response. Two of the five candidates, Lorely Burt and Stephen Lloyd, are now MPs thanks to the campaigns they ran. Our commiserations and best wishes for their future campaigns go to the three – Willie Rennie, Sal Brinton and Carol Woods – who didn’t make it this time.
All general donations to the LDV election appeal have been shared equally between the five, and cheques will be winging their way to their local parties this week.
Here’s the final tally for the LDV election appeal:
The new LDV members’ survey is now live. So if you are one of the 1,000+ registered members of the Liberal Democrat Voice forum – and any paid-up party member is welcome to join – then you now have the opportunity to make your views known. Questions we are asking your opinion on include:
– your views on the full Lib Dem / Conservative coalition agreement;
– how long you expect the coalition government to last;
– what you think of the Labour leadership contest; and
– your assessment of the Lib Dems’ general election performance.
paul barker Nine By-elections since May 7th & Reform have only won one, perhaps a sign of hope....
George Thomas I think this article is well written, thank you. This past week has seen a reminder in two different ways of when the LGBTQ+ community supported the miners and ...
Nick Baird Ajax should of course have been cancelled years ago. Unfortunately due to the sunk costs the MOD and Government seem to be converging on a plan to spend another...
Peter Chambers > The standout project is Ajax, which should be immediately cancelled.
Oh if only! Ben Wallace confided that "the money is spent" and that if the programme...
Tristan Ward It has been perfectly obvious since the start of trump's second term that UK defence spending must rise. The political difficulty is equally obvious given th...
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
District council backs a parish council for Market Harborough
New by-election poll gives Burnham 5 point lead
Pope Leo speaks for all liberals when he condemns racism, supports migration, and supports Ukraine
Growing Asylum backlog undermines Government's case
paul barker 
George Thomas 
Nick Baird 
Peter Chambers 
Tristan Ward 