At our fringe event at last week’s Lib Dem party conference in Liverpool we were pleased to hear fulsome support for the work of charitable and voluntary organisations, and encouragement for them to get more involved in public life and in public service delivery.
And both Sarah Teather and Simon Hughes emphasised something very important in their remarks – David Cameron may have coined the phrase ‘Big Society’ but it’s a concept that chimes with beliefs about responsibility and community held by all parties.
Simon Hughes reminded us the UK had a long history of charitable organisations …
By Ramis Cizer
| Thu 30th September 2010 - 12:23 pm
I not a massive fan of the term “Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME)” and in an ideal political world it probably wouldn’t exist. But we don’t live in an ideal world and the term is required to designate certain segments of population in order to address inequalities – an uncontroversial statement in my opinion – so why does it cause such heated discussion? Too complex to answer here so I will leave it to someone else but I have some ideas on why the Diversity Motion caused a stir at the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference.
So what are we as Lib Dems going to say on the doorsteps to voters during the next General Election campaign to justify ourselves in reply to the ‘I voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out’ challenge? I can imagine it will be a common enough question, especially in close Lib Dem/Conservative constituencies where we appealed to Labour voters to ‘lend us their vote’.
To me the answer seems quite simple. We reply to the voters “We asked you to vote Lib Dem to help keep the Tories out, and it worked. Thank you and well done.”
We don’t have a Tory government; we have a Coalition government – a very different thing. In voting for us in such large numbers, our supporters achieved their aim of preventing a Conservative majority. So that means no £1 million Inheritance Tax threshold, no fiddling with the tax system to promote marriage, no brushing the expenses scandal under the carpet. It means instead raising the level people start to pay income tax, having Lib Dems in the Treasury to help ensure fairness in the upcoming cuts, and the cleaning up of our political system. As a party, we must make it clear just how different things would have been if there had been a Tory majority, and the hugely important part our supporters played in preventing that.
But what then when Mr or Ms Hypothetical voter on the doorstep accuses us of jumping into bed with the Tories?
‘Red Ed’? Congratulations! To all the newspapers that preferred easy rhyme over rigorous analysis. Because anyone who watched or read Milliband Minor’s Conference speech can see where he is aiming to position Labour: “This new generation that leads our party… will fight for the centre ground…”. And it’s this aim that shows why we must disagree with Nick.
At conference Nick Clegg quite rightly rejected creating “some synthetic differences” that would trade short term headline wins for long term damage to the Coalition. But that ‘synthetic’ misses the point. When the two other parties are leaping into the centre ground, playing …
In your speech today you warn against “the destruction of a 200-year-old constitution” and give this as a reason to oppose AV.
But aside from our voting system, there is another part of that 200 year old constitution that is also currently up for change before Parliament.
200 years ago the size of Parliamentary constituencies varied hugely. Much more than 5% or 10% and not simply on islands or in the Highlands. Massive variations were built into the system, specially to protect particular vested interests.
So if you are wanting to protect our 200 year old constitution, I …
One of the fringe meetings I spoke at during the Liverpool conference was ResPublica’s on the topic of “Growing a civil economy through a civil society”. Accompanying ResPublica’s fringe program is a pamphlet with pieces accompanying the talks we all gave and here is my piece from it.
Both a successful market economy and a healthy democracy require individuals from all walks of life to feel they have the power to change the future. The belief that you can make a success of your own business, that your firm can innovate and that existing suppliers are not locked in to permanent dominance creates the vibrancy which generates wealth in a market economy. The optimism that your voice can count and your actions can alter your community gives live to a democracy, making it more than a token intermittent meeting of pencil and paper in the polling booth.
Our economy and our democracy therefore present us with a common challenge – to tackle that lack of confidence in your own ability to alter the future which suffocates far too many communities and far too many parts of society. Removing that malaise requires a mix of many policies, only a few of which I highlight in this piece.
One of the most important is improving education in people’s early years. Those formative early years leave intellectual and psychological marks that can be very hard to shift in later years. It is a tough question for government, because so much of the evidence shows that what matters above all is the commitment of parents to their children. That is a deeply private and personal affair which the state can only touch the edges of. Nick Clegg’s commitment to the Pupil Premium to channel extra funds to help educate the most disadvantaged children is one example of the exceptions to that where the government can take effective action.
A second strand is the sort of political reform the coalition government is embarked on, devolving power from Westminster to local councils, to the Scottish Executive and offering a referendum in Wales. Going too is the worst sort of insular political elitism –one of the two houses of Parliament still completely locking out the public from electing its members. It shows a fantastic contempt by for the public that when MPs are booted out at a general election, how does the political establishment react? By giving a good number of those defeated MPs a seat for life in Parliament courtesy of the Lords.
A third strand is – or should be – tackling the elitist insularity in the commercial sector. Whether it is the deeply lopsided rules that give the favoured company directors a huge head-start in elections or the widespread use of “commercial confidentiality” clauses to keep scrutiny at bay, what would cause outrage if tried by a politician is far too often par for the course by those who like to look down on politicians.
Tying the different strands together needs to be a stronger sense of how people can successfully work together, because so often the collective voice has the strength and skill to succeed where lone individuals are thwarted. Whether it is the Community Politics of the Liberal Democrats or the Big Society of the Conservatives, success will come not from seeing voluntary collective action as an excuse for cost cutting but as a means to a vibrant and successful country.
By Andrew Reeves
| Tue 28th September 2010 - 7:16 pm
I resigned from Stonewall many years ago when I realised that they don’t speak for me or much of the UK’s LGBT community and is too blinkered and led by its own politics, rather than campaigning for what their members want.
Ben Summerskill and Angela Mason before him only appear to do what Labour wanted, when Labour wanted it.
In recent weeks we have seen Stonewall attacked for their silence on the issue of gay marriage, but I want to throw in an extra attack on them before I get onto gay marriage.
When the Big Society entered mainstream political debate a few short months ago the concept was relatively vague. Many people no doubt grasped that it was something to do with what government was or wasn’t going to do. And what we might be expected to do for ourselves or organise at a neighbourhood level. Beyond that things got rather murky.
The process of elaborating the concept continues, but at a practical level things move on apace. The June budget cuts, and the prospect of worse to come, have triggered many local councils to reflect upon their role as service provider …
By Stephen Tall
| Tue 28th September 2010 - 4:35 pm
The election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader — despite losing the vote among Labour party members and MPs/MEPs — presented an easy target for the Lib Dems, a party which has always believed in one-member-one-vote, and where the views of our MPs carry equal weight as any other party member.
However, there is another election about to take place within the Labour party: for the 19 places available in their shadow cabinet. All MPs are eligible to stand, and the electorate comprises their colleagues; a separate ballot will decide who will be the Labour chief whip. So far it’s …
By Helen Duffett
| Tue 28th September 2010 - 11:37 am
Politicos use Twitter to communicate with voters, activists and the media. It’s sociable and fashionable. It’s useful but it has its limits.
And if this was Twitter I’d stop there, for the paragraph above is a 140-character summary of the popular micro-blogging service and its emerging role in politics. Having the luxury of a whole chapter, rather than a couple of lines, I can expound a bit. But sometimes I relish Twitter’s brevity and the way it gives me both the discipline and the excuse not to write at length.
Twitter was to the 2010 General Election what blogging had been to the previous one: novel, topical, conversational, personal. Blogging, in long and short form, is good for quickly spreading campaign messages, news and rumours and it’s freely accessible for anyone with an internet connection.
When I first subscribed to the service a couple of years ago, few news outlets or political candidates were tweeting, although the three main parties were already using it to link to party information and election results.
Over the past year, Twitter has been increasingly taken up by MPs and councillors, bloggers and journalists, even government departments, but crucially by thousands of people who are none of the above, but want to converse with them on an equal footing.
The parties continue to tweet, but now candidates, MPs and party leaders themselves are using the medium, with varying degrees of skill.
One of the most commonly made comments about insurgencies such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq, and most famously Vietnam, is that in order to win the insurgents simply need to survive. It’s a piece of conventional wisdom challenged in a thoughtful piece in Foreign Affairs, based on looking at 89 insurgencies over the last fifty years:
Many have assumed that insurgents invariably win by simply holding out. This is incorrect. Historically, governments have won more often than insurgents in the long run. And even wars that seemed to be spiraling inexorably toward defeat, such as Colombia’s against the Revolutionary
For too long, policymaking has been monopolised by civil servants, self-serving pressure groups and sensationalist journalists. We get a vote once every four or five years and we’re expected to be satisfied with that.
Public services are too important to get lost in headline issues, and too big to leave to those who have the time and energy to write letters or sit on committees. The best communication happens when it’s easy to do, and when it’s a conversation, not just a complaint.
The Liberal Democrats have an image problem. We are predominantly a party of middle class members, which I know because I’ve met a lot of members and they nearly all talk like me.
Because of the depressingly predictable socio-economic data, this also means that, since our members are better off, they are more likely to be male, white, and able bodied than your average Briton. The only conventional diversity stream that is not underrepresented purely by means of the economic correlations is LBGT, and this group is well represented in the party which hopefully also has something to do with Liberal …
By Joss Garman
| Mon 27th September 2010 - 1:14 pm
The Guardian reported last week that Chris Huhne is having to do battle with the Treasury on a number of policy fronts to save his department from drastic cuts, including to clean energy budgets. According to the newspaper, “When all government departments were asked to model the effect of 40% cuts over the summer, officials at Decc told ministers that cuts of that level to its £3.2bn budget would make it unable to stand alone as a viable entity.”
A Yougov poll, commissioned by Greenpeace, and published here exclusively on Lib Dem Voice, shows that Chris Huhne has his …
This article is appearing in The Total Politics Guide to Political Blogging in the UK 2010-2011, which is available from Amazon.
Just as people running political campaigns often learn from other disciplines, those active in other disciplines can learn from political campaigns. Much has been written (including by myself, such as in the Hansard Society report http://scr.bi/hansardsociety) on how social media was used in the 2010 general election campaign; far less common have been pieces looking at the lessons that those outside politics can learn from the deployment of social media in that election.
By Iain Roberts
| Mon 27th September 2010 - 9:10 am
There are two different economic debates to be had with Labour politicians these days.
One of them is a sensible debate about how fast, and how far, cuts should go. Alistair Darling, just a few months ago, told us that Labour wanted to cut deeper and longer than Thatcher did in the 1980s, with talk of a 25% cut in public spending over seven years and hefty tax rises.
The Coalition Government takes the view that the pain of cuts should be slightly shorter and sharper than Labour had planned – still 25%, but spread over five years rather than …
By Malcolm Bruce
| Sun 26th September 2010 - 4:11 pm
It is a fact that women are living in some of the direst circumstances in situations of conflict. Not only is poverty often most severe in conflict situations, but women are frequently deliberately targeted for violence in order to fuel conflicts and undermine prospects for peace, development and human progress. Without addressing violence against women, we’re not going to get people out of poverty, and we’re not going to end conflicts.
I visited a hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo that is supported by the European commission and also our government. 90% of the work of that hospital was about …
By Eric Avebury
| Sun 26th September 2010 - 1:36 pm
With the 10 year Millennium Development Goal Review Summit taking place this week, now is a good time to take stock of the Coalition Government’s International Development policy so far.
The Coalition Government promised, in their “Programme for Government”, to commit to the internationally agreed goal of 0.7% of Gross National Income spent on aid by 2013 as well as supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and prioritising “aid spending on programmes to ensure that everyone has access to clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education; to reduce maternal and infant mortality.”
As Joint Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for …
Love your coalition partner all the time in public: that was the clear line taken by Nick Clegg, reinforced by other senior party figures and not challenged directly in any high profile way during conference (save for one question during the Nick Clegg Q&A). And yet… whether or not the party should let its strong debates with the Conservatives within the coalition show a little more in public was …
By Iain Roberts
| Sun 26th September 2010 - 8:45 am
Ed Miliband has a big job ahead of him, to bring the Labour Party back to power following their second worst general election result since the second world war.
I wish him well and congratulate him on his victory. Whatever concerns people may have about the way he came second among both MPs and party members, he’s won fair and square by the rules the Labour Party set for the contest.
Personally, I would have problems being in a party that thought that particular setup was a fair and democratic way to run elections, but I’m not in that party and …
The Coalition Government promised, in their “Programme for Government”, to commit to the internationally agreed goal of 0.7% of Gross National Income spent on aid by 2013 as well as supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and prioritising “aid spending on programmes to ensure that everyone has access to clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education; to reduce maternal and infant mortality.”
By Stephen Tall
| Sat 25th September 2010 - 3:35 pm
In an hour’s time we shall know who is the new leader of the Labour party. Though the bookies now make Ed Miliband favourite, my hunch is that older brother David will get the nod, just. We shall soon see. The best guide I’ve read on what to look out for as the votes are announced is over at Next Left; Adam Boulton’s blog also has a good guide to the nuts and bolts of what happens when.
But whichever of the Milibands wins through, here are three issues they will need urgently to address heading into the party’s …
By Prateek Buch
| Fri 24th September 2010 - 6:39 pm
Oblivion; rebellion; split; tension. Words that the media reporting on the recent Lib Dem conference – and gosh weren’t there a lot of cameras, reporters and microphones present? – used both before and during the last few days in Liverpool – and crucially, words that were largely conspicuous by their absence inside the arena. Not a surprise given that large parts of the media, and the pubic too perhaps, is still coping with having a democratic, pluralist party at the heart of government. My word of the week, in contrast is perspective – and here’s why.
What a strange few months it’s been for the Liberal Democrats. In Bournemouth a year ago, few LibDems would have truly believed that this was to be their last annual conference in opposition.
My sense of the mood in Liverpool this year was that it matched the political and economic times we live in. Serious, but somewhat apprehensive. There seemed a lot of quiet satisfaction – although never smugness – that there were Liberal Democrats in government, but a nervousness about what the “end game” might be.
A few things truly surprised me. Support for the principle of entering Coalition with the Conservatives was close to unanimous. A straw poll at the IEA’s fringe meeting showed about 95% felt that Nick Clegg had made the right decision in those tense few days after the General Election. The national media were, of course, on the look out for any sign of coalition-fatigue, but seemed initially disappointed – and then rather impressed – about the absence of much strategic dissent.
But looking through the tea leaves of Liverpool, there are some longer term issues which the party will have to address.
I went to conference expecting something entirely different, perhaps influenced by the daily articles and news reports, that this conference was going to be like no other. That there was much unrest, and even anger amongst the Party’s ranks. Instead I found myself amongst many Lib Dem party members and friends who were upbeat and positive.
I didn’t speak to anyone – nor as far as I can gather did the media – who was vehemently opposed to the Coalition Government. Yes, this conference was like no other. It was the largest conference we’ve ever had, and our Leader is …
Adrian Trett is Chair of DELGA, the person responsible for the Equal Marriage motion and someone I am proud to call a dear friend. Following the success of the motion I interviewed Adrian about his feelings about conference in general and the motion in particular
Q: What was your overall impression of conference?
A: I was really pleased, I thought it was exhilarating, everyone was so enthusiastic. On the way to conference I thought there may be arguments, but I found it to be a pleasing atmosphere and was thrilled to be there.
By John Howson
| Fri 24th September 2010 - 11:59 am
I attended my first Liberal Party Conference at Blackpool in 1968, in the days when our MPs could all fit in a taxi, rather than needing a rather large bus. Work in education prevented me attending regularly again until 1998, but I have been at every autumn conference since.
For those with long memories, 1998 was the year of the community school motion when, despite an impassioned speech by Phil Willis, the leadership lost the day, just as they did with amendment 2 on Monday: more about that later.
When I arrived in Liverpool on Friday afternoon, I detected a palpable …
By Paul Reynolds
| Fri 24th September 2010 - 10:54 am
The Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference this year was subtly different from all others I have attended.
Being part of the Coalition of course meant a larger UK and international press contingent, and a greater diplomatic representation from around the globe. Lib Dem ministers talked of the problems of persuading their Conservative colleagues of the benefits of key Lib Dem policies and approaches, as well as the more general problems of working with the slippery inflexibilities of government administration.
However by far the more significant difference was for me something unseen, almost unconscious. It affected every conversation, every fringe meeting, and …
Well fellow Lib Dems, Bloggers and Tweeps… what did you make of conference then? Having been granted the honour of being “Guest Editor” (quaking in me boots it has to be said!) I thought, given the timing, it may be an opportunity to reflect on the last week in Liverpool.
What I want to do is to try and get a feel from members across the spectrum of our party, has conference left them feeling uplifted, confused, motivated, anxious, hopeful, proud?
I hope what follows today, especially for those of you who weren’t there, will give you a bit of …
By Davina Kirwan
| Thu 23rd September 2010 - 5:21 pm
The Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats’ (EMLD) motion containing positive action measures to practically address the diversity of Lib Dem elected representatives was ripped to not much more than a review by amendments mostly from Liberal Youth, with the requirement to have at least one BME candidate on shortlists where a Lib Dem MP has resigned, or within a by-election, being lost.
Goodness me. I think the Liberal Democrats are the new Conservatives. Deciding not to act because doing so would be hypocritical? Is this not the worse kind of irony that has seen the ill-representative nature of the party prevail? WAKE-UP! …
Graham Evans Whatever the message, we need a leader who can clearly enunciate it, and not simply make party policy on the hoof. Ed Davey's intervention on the issue of local...
Peter Davies "Wanting to tear down historical statues , monuments , portraits, sanatise books etc ….It’s what the Taliban did in Afghanistan." It's also something Cromwe...
PM If Brexit is the cause of all our problems in the UK, what is the cause of the similar, or even worse, problems in France, Germany, Belgium, Italy etc?
The ...
David S Even if one's conclusion after examining all the complexities of the Civil War (which is a good deal more than "monarchy vs. democracy") is that Cromwell was a ...
Pawel Urbanski Much-needed piece. You are right that young people are the audience, but I am not sure Europe is the way in. The polling you quote shows they already agree with...
Our economy and our democracy therefore present us with a common challenge – to tackle that lack of confidence in your own ability to alter the future which suffocates far too many communities and far too many parts of society. Removing that malaise requires a mix of many policies, only a few of which I highlight in this piece.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1603
Methodism at Horton, Gower
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Graham Evans 
Peter Davies 
PM 
David S 
Pawel Urbanski 