Category Archives: Op-eds

Our Man In Chicago: Paul Elgood reports back on that election night

Lib Dem councillor Paul Elgood was one of the 125,000 people celebrating Barack Obama’s election victory in Grant Park, Chicago, on the night of 4th November. Here’s his eyewitness report…

Chicago: Nov 4th 2008

It seems as if the whole world has come to Chicago. Planes full of the world’s press have descended on the city and were met by perhaps half a million party-goers hoping to celebrate the election results.

Barack Obama voted first thing this morning, having finished a final whirlwind tour of key states. He voted at dawn to make the point to his supporters to vote as early …

Also posted in LDVUSA | Tagged | Leave a comment

Opinion: Forging ahead

Something of a debate has been captivating the Liberal Democrat blogosphere recently. I don’t think this is something unique to the Liberal Democrats as a party; each party and movement is going through something of a process of struggle and redefinition due to the new financial climate in which we find ourselves.

Whatever your general view of capitalism as a social system, it is absolutely true in my eyes that the limitations of the markets have been cruelly exposed in the past weeks. Of course, this is not true if you are a die-hard libertarian; what has been exposed for them is the problems with fettering their beloved market. However, the consensus of opinion, even in such ‘loyalist’ tomes like The Economist and Financial Times, weighs heavily against the libertarian view of the correct lessons that should be drawn from the current crisis.

What has been teased out is that there is a need for a new consensus; maybe even A New Start, as posited by David Allen on these very pages. Of course, your view of how we got here will necessarily determine your view of which way forward is right.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the nature of the Liberal Democrats as a political party mitigates against the adoption of anybody’s ‘maximum program’. I would no more want to be a member of a party that abandons concepts such as social justice and the welfare of the people that the state is supposed to serve, as any libertarian would want to be of a party committed to the nationalisation of the ‘commanding heights’, or even more extreme democratisation of capital.

So, middle ground has to be found. How can we go about this?

Tagged | 15 Comments

A look back at the polls: October

We tend not to be too poll-obsessed here at LDV – of course we look at them, as do all other politico-geeks, but viewed in isolation no one poll will tell you very much beyond what you want to read into it. Looked at over a reasonable time-span and, if there are enough polls, you can see some trends.

Here, in chronological order, are the results of the ten polls* published in October:

Tories 42%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 17% – ICM/Guardian (3 Oct)
Tories 45%, Labour 31%, Lib Dems 15% – YouGov/Telegraph (4 Oct)
Tories 45%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15% – Populus/Times

Also posted in Polls | Tagged | 45 Comments

Opinion: Time for a New Start

The key policy declared at the Lib Dems’ Bournemouth conference last month was not the famous ‘Tax Cuts’. It was that the State should shrink. In the run-up to conference, argument raged as to how big the tax cuts might be, and who should receive them. Only one decision appeared to be cast in stone: State spending should shrink, by a hefty £20 billion.

This stance was bolstered by bold new policy declarations on education and health. Our ‘free schools’ policy would put large sums of public money into support for privately-run schools. Meanwhile, the National Health Service should be reformed to require ordinary NHS patients to pay for some of the most expensive drug treatments – or else go without. This last step outflanked the Tories’ Andrew Lansley, whose perceptive comment was, “If the NHS could simply exclude treatments and expect patients to pay up, the values of the NHS could be progressively undermined.”

Today, these policies lie in ruins. Not – or at least not yet – because Lib Dem members across the country have woken up, recognised a betrayal of the Party’s long-held principles, and rebelled en masse. Instead, events have taken charge.

We have seen a massive growth in State power – as the only effective means of preventing financial meltdown. Bemused neo-con Bushites, so long accustomed to treating government as the humble servant of global business enterprise, found themselves forced to let government take control. In the UK, Treasury civil servants became the new masters of the financial universe. Tony Blair, who so fretted that Brown might spoil his precious legacy, had probably not actually feared the return of Clause Four socialism. But that is effectively what has happened.

Also posted in Party policy and internal matters | 82 Comments

Opinion: Why Lib Dems should go on the National Climate March (6th Dec)

What happens to the fight against global warming in a time of economic crisis? Lib Dems know that it must be fought as strongly as ever. However, there are those who will say that economic recovery must be the top priority and that other causes, however worthy, must take a backseat – for example, some politicians and representatives of companies whose interests are threatened by the battle against global warming who will be only too happy to encourage that type of thinking. They should not be allowed to succeed.

We should not let the need to tackle economic troubles take away …

1 Comment

Opinion: First they came for the Icelanders

Gordon Brown, earlier this month, used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze Icelandic assets in Britain, in response to their government failing to guarantee British deposits in their faltering banks. My links with Iceland begin and end with the purchase of frozen foods from that nation’s commercial namesake. But it still troubles me deeply. We should be profoundly concerned at the use of anti-terrorist legislation for political and economic ends. This is at the heart of fears about the extent of the powers the state has claimed since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

The British government has demonstrated precisely why civil liberties campaigners have been so concerned at the demands of Labour to trade our liberties for the promise of greater security. New terrorist legislation has – rightly – been considered in the post-9/11 world. Yet anxieties that counter-terrorist legislation should be given checks-and-balances, and justified as a necessary trade of liberty for security, are dismissed in a cavalier fashion by New Labour. A casual use of anti-terrorism powers for completely different ends is the most obvious symptom of that attitude.

A minister, Geoff Hoon, recently told Lib Dem MP Julia Goldsworthy that “the biggest civil liberty of all is not to be killed by a terrorist”, when she spoke out against a new database of all British citizens’ communications records. He is, of course, right in suggesting that we should contemplate and weigh up any options that would significantly reduce the chance of a terrorist attrocity. However, deciding where the balance lies between the likelihood of thwarting a terrorist, and surrendering the very way of life those terrorists seek to undermine, is a question he should treat with greater respect.

The rights and wrongs of Icelandic financial institutions are irrelevant to the fact that Brown abused legislation intended for very different purposes. This should profoundly worry anybody who cares about good governance. By using anti-terrorist legislation as a convenient way to respond to the global banking crisis, the British government have demonstrated why we should fear their cowboy attitude to checks-and-balances, and to the careful drafting of specific powers for specific purposes.

Anti-terrorist legislation should be used against terrorists. This seems a pretty reasonable assertion. Iain Dale has highlighted an Icelandic petition against this perverted contortion of the Terrorism Act, which spurred me to write on the topic. What worries me the most is that this ‘thin end of the wedge’ can be (and is being) replicated in the state’s use of other terrorist legislation. For example, new terrorist laws provide police with the powers to stop and search individuals, even if they actually do so for reasons unrelated to suspicion of terrorist offenses. Local councils have also been exposed using counter-terrorist powers to intrude into Britons’ privacy, to investigate matters wholly unrelated to acts of terror.

If we want to give our government the power to freeze Icelandic assets, or to give our police officers those powers in other criminal matters that they have been given in terrorist matters, then let’s debate and consider laws in parliament that openly permit those ends.

Also posted in Big mad database | Tagged and | 6 Comments

The Independent View: Broke Britain, not Broken Britain – have banks and the Government swindled the next generation?

Banks are jeopardising the prospects of the next generation, discouraging financial responsibility and leaving young people facing the sharp end of the credit crunch. With the Government, they have created a “gilded generation” of pampered and over-protected young people, mired in debt and unable to understand their finances.

The liberal free-market think-tank Reform’s new report, written in conjunction with the Chartered Insurance Institute and published this week, finds that the “IPOD generation” of 18-34 year olds – whom we have described as Insecure, Pressurised, Over-taxed and Debt-ridden – have been failed by the “financial establishment”.

Young people have grown up in …

Also posted in The Independent View | Tagged | 4 Comments

This is what happens when you forget that private means private, George

When the story of Peter Mandelson and George Osborne’s meeting was leaked to the press by the Tory shadow chancellor three weeks ago, I argued on Lib Dem Voice that Mr Osborne had behaved pretty shabbily:

There’s a principle at stake here, even if it’s one increasingly regarded as old-fashioned: that private conversations held in good faith should be respected.

At the time, Iain Dale (every Lib Dem’s favourite Tory blogger) accused me of being “pious”. But, in fact, there’s more to not leaking private conversations than good manners: it’s also good sense. Who knows exactly why Mr Rothshild decided …

Tagged and | 3 Comments

Opinion: A Truly Liberal Vision for the Liberal Democrats

Can the Lib Dems put forward radical, exciting, truly liberal policies and still attract substantial and growing levels of electoral support? According to Liberal Vision, which I helped set up last month, the answer is a definitive “yes”. In fact, adopting the former could well be the best way of achieving the latter.

Liberal Vision wants to see the party adopt a consistent approach to lowering taxes, reducing the size of government and extending personal freedom. At present, the party’s approach in these areas is patchy.

Whilst, the new tax package adopted at Bournemouth represents a dramatic step in the right direction, there is still a long way to go. I would like to see tax cuts even for those on relatively sizeable incomes, but am delighted that the party now at least believes the total tax burden should be cut, rather than increased.

Tagged | 148 Comments

The Independent View: Keep your good name safe – lock the fraudsters out

In this time of great financial uncertainty, Nick Clegg’s endorsement of ‘credit freezes’ for all – the ability for individuals to lock and unlock their own credit records – last week in Cambridge may not have received much media coverage. It should have.

NO2ID believes that giving people meaningful control over their own personal information is a truly radical and significant policy. It could, if broadly and properly applied, begin to carve out a genuine alternative to the database state. And in the immediate future it could also prevent a great deal of fraud at zero cost to the …

Also posted in The Independent View | 7 Comments

Opinion: Smoking and Liberty

Stephen Tall, starting a debate last week on the Lib Dems’ position in the polls, unintentionally started a quite different debate regarding the specific issue of smoking and liberty.

Laying my cards on the table from the start; I am a smoker and have been for over a year although I am in the throes of trying to cut back. Despite this, when it was introduced I just about came out in favour of the ban because I think there was enough evidence that the public health concerns are genuine, and, ultimately, I was prepared to trade a little of my individual liberty in this instance. You can debate the scientific evidence for and against this point ad infinitum, but there is also the issue that smoking smells pretty terrible etc, etc.

In these circumstances I found it possible to support the restriction on my liberty because I was imposing on others. Could you possibly extend that logic to support a ban in all public places? Yes, I guess you possibly could, but this would be a point where a line is crossed because the effects of second-hand smoking were exacerbated by being in a confined space. Ultimately smokers are usually aware of the risks and it is their decision whether to take that risk or not. It is a question of whether people have the right to control and govern what they do with their own bodies. Smoking in a confined space took that right away from other people, but smoking in an open space where air can circulate does not.

The Guardian reported recently that the latest smoking figures show nine million people still smoke – which is a minority but nonetheless a sizeable one. Disproportionately it is people on lower incomes who smoke the most (although income is not a sole determinant):

According to Professor Martin Jarvis, a psychologist at University College London and a leading specialist in the field of smoking and health inequality, this is not a question solely of income: every main indicator of a lower socio-economic status is likely, independent of each of the others, to predict a higher rate of smoking. If your educational level is below the average, you are more likely to smoke. If you live in rented or overcrowded accommodation, you are more likely to smoke. Ditto if you do not have access to a car, are unemployed, or on state income benefit.”

So, people who think higher taxation is the answer should consider this; that you are already hitting people hard who are at the bottom of the pile.

95 Comments

The Independent View: New clauses on abortion – a once-in-a generation opportunity for MPs

Speaking at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority conference on 13th October, Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo MP spoke of her enthusiasm for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which reaches third reading and report stage in the Commons on 22nd October. The Minister stressed to the IVF and embryo research regulatory body that the law must keep pace with scientific and medical developments, and that services need ‘proportionate’ regulation. She rightly called for a law that is both ‘right for science and right for society’.

As a former Director of Policy and Communications at the HFEA, I remember the frustration of scientists and clinicians who were unable to pursue rational and ethical lines of work because of the prohibitions of an overly prescriptive and out-of-date law. This HFE Bill is necessary, if not overdue, to set the legislative framework necessary for fertility research and treatment in the twenty-first century.

The same frustrations are shared by the doctors and nurses striving to provide a modern, evidence-based abortion service as part of family planning care in the UK. The 1990 HFE Act amended the 1967 Abortion Act, shaping the manner in which abortion services are currently provided. Ungainly as it may seem to yoke these two areas of legislation together, new clauses to the HFE Bill on abortion are appropriate and necessary to make sure that abortion services, too, can keep pace with scientific and medical developments and are regulated proportionately. The proposed new clauses to the HFE Bill affecting abortion care are primarily:

▪ Removal of the need for two doctors’ signatures to give permission before an abortion can be carried out- instead abortion would be provided on the basis of informed patient consent and in their best interests, as with all other medical procedures. (Evan Harris MP et al, New Clauses 1 & 13)
▪ Allowing nurses and midwives to carry out abortions where appropriate (Frank Dobson MP et al, New Clause 2 & 14)
▪ Allowing abortions to be carried out in GPs surgeries and Family Planning Clinics where appropriate (Jacqui Lait MP et al, New Clauses 7 & 10)
▪ Home administration of misoprostol (the second dose of medication when undergoing early medical abortion (Christine McCafferty MP et al, New Clause 9)
▪ Preventing misleading advertising by pregnancy counselling services to require clarity in advertising where they won’t refer for abortion and don’t provide treatment (John Bercow MP et al, New Clause 11)
▪ Clarifying that the legal right of conscientious objection does not also extend to the non-provision of contraception on this ground (Evan Harris MP et al, New Clause 12)
▪ Extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland (Diane Abbott MP et al, New Clause 30)

Abortion, as a solution to the serious public health problem of unintended pregnancy, is very much a part of modern society. No woman ever wants, or sets out to have an abortion, but women want, and need abortion to be there as an option for them when our contraception fails, or we fail to use it effectively.

Also posted in The Independent View | Tagged | 7 Comments

Why don’t liberals talk about morality?

First a confession: I understand what is going on with the global wunch crunch far less than I’m comfortable with. The world’s leaders seem to be making up as they go along, adopting a throw everything at the market until something sticks approach. Gordon Brown’s plan looked like it was going to pay off at the beginning of the week; now it looks like we are rapidly heading back to square one. None of it makes sense to me; I find it highly ironic having people complain about the “complexity” of Georgism earlier this week when it is kindergarten …

38 Comments

Are the Tories playing the expectations game?

There’s been a fair amount of publicity today generated by ConservativeHome’s ‘scoop’, a briefing they’ve been fed received on the party’s analysis of the political impact of the current economic crisis, and in particular:

Team Cameron readily concede that Brown has enjoyed a good few days. They expect the Conservatives’ poll lead to drop into single figures in the next month or so. They expect to lose the Conservative lead on economic competence but expect it to be restored by the new year.

Now, forgive me for lapsing into cynicism, but this strikes me as a rather easy way …

Tagged | 6 Comments

The financial crisis: what will be the impact on Labour?

Yesterday I looked at the impact of the current financial crisis on the Lib Dems, the one party which correctly anticipated the credit crunch and its impact. Inevitably (if frustratingly) much of this will depend on the extent to which the public blames Labour for the mess the UK currently finds itself in, or the extent to which they credit Labour if the Government’s bail-out package helps rescue the UK from amidst the debris of the current global crisis.

In short, what the Lib Dems have to say is unlikely to have any immediate positive or negative impact on …

Tagged and | 2 Comments

Mandelson and Osborne: private should mean private

The man-they-love-to-hate is back. Peter Mandelson may be unpopular with his Labour colleagues; but it is the Tories and right-wing press which truly despise him. His crime? Being part of the New Labour team which got Tony Blair elected and consigned the Tories to the footnotes of history for a decade. And now they are, to coin a phrase, ‘dripping pure poison’ on his return to the cabinet.

I hold no brief for Peter Mandelson: I met him once (when I served him a cup of hot water, his favoured tipple, back in my student waitering-to-pay-the-bills days). He strikes me …

Tagged | 10 Comments

An ambitious aquatic analogy of British politics from 2008 onwards

The British political scene in 2008 can be compared to three vessels on the sea.

Currently the Titanic is the ship in the spotlight. Many passengers got on board, but the only place it’s going fast, is down. Passengers are panicking, looking for a rescue ship, and the only thing they can see is the lovely looking Marie Celeste. From distant observation it seems perfectly seaworthy, it’s got some damn fine sails. So, naturally, people jump overboard and swim towards it.

Just one problem.

As soon as people climb aboard the Marie Celeste, they will realise that there isn’t a …

Also posted in Humour | 5 Comments

Opinion: time to stop taking money from Councils

Now both Tories and Labour want to take more money away from local government.

The only tax cut the Tories are putting firmly on the table is a complex 2.5% sweetener for local authorities which manage to freeze their expenditure – worth, they say £200 per year for the average band D property. It’s wrong in so many ways, not least because of how little that really is for the average householder. It translates to a whopping £5 per person per month in my Band A, two people, two cats household.  And yet it’s still more generous to the wealthiest in …

Also posted in Local government | 4 Comments

Opinion: The Granny State

The Nanny State: what a slogan that’s been. No three words have done more to undermine the basic thought processes behind Labour governments.

The role of government is to make people fitter, happier and more productive, they say. Leave us alone, we reply. Wherever ‘The Greater Good’ and ‘For Your Own Good’ come together, Labour’s on the case with awareness campaigns, initiatives, Quangos and, if you’re unfortunate enough to be a smoker, some pretty degrading laws too.

The Liberal Democrats haven’t been blameless in this game, but slowly the instinct we share for liberty, for adults to be regarded as… …

34 Comments

A look back at the polls: September

We tend not to be too poll-obsessed here at LDV – of course we look at them, as do all other politico-geeks, but viewed in isolation no one poll will tell you very much beyond what you want to read into it. Looked at over a reasonable time-span and, if there are enough polls, you can see some trends.
Here, in chronological order, are the results of the eight polls* published in September:

Tories 44%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 17% – ComRes/Independent (6th Sept)
Tories 46%, Labour 27%, Lib Dems 16% – YouGov/Sunday Times (14th Sept)
Tories 52%, Labour 24%, Lib Dems

Also posted in Polls | Tagged , and | 19 Comments

Vince Cable on the Liberal Democrat Fairer Future Economic Recovery Plan

Gordon Brown’s response to the economic crisis has been too little, too late.

For years I warned him of the oncoming economic problems. Unsustainable levels of personal debt, mostly secured against the illusory ‘wealth’ of rising, vastly inflated property prices. An economy based so heavily on debt was never going to be in a fit state to deal with global shocks like the credit crunch.

And so it has proved. Gordon Brown is now facing the consequences of his years of inaction. The housing bubble has burst. Unemployment is rising fast. Tens of thousands of families are losing their homes.

With people struggling …

Tagged and | 30 Comments

Opinion: A million doors or a moral vacuum?

Fifty years ago, the Labour MP for my home town of Lincoln was Geoffrey de Freitas. In those days, Lincoln was a very safe Labour seat and Geoffrey de Freitas was a very wealthy man.

In common with many MPs of that era, de Freitas did not maintain a home in his constituency (a practice that at least had the merit of incurring no controversial expense claims). Indeed, he spent little time in his constituency at all. On the rare occasions he paid a visit, he and his wife would get in the Rolls Royce and drive north to Lincoln, his …

15 Comments

Jonathan Fryer’s Diary of a Euro-candidate

Wednesday

On the tube over to West London, I wonder how Ukraine and Slovakia have managed to have their national celebrations on the same day, and both at lunchtime. Fortunately the two embassies are close to each other, and predictably there is a lot of toing-and-froing between. I decide to do Ukraine first, having recently been in the country itself and I am not surprised to find the mood somewhat sombre. After the Russian intervention in Georgia, there are rumblings in the Crimea again and the government in Kiev is falling apart. I have earnest discussions with the diplomats there, …

Tagged and | 1 Comment

Opinion: Clegg half-way there on tax cuts

The Liberal Democrats made a significant step forward at their Conference last week when we passed the Make It Happen policy paper.

The main issue of the debate revolved around Nick Clegg’s pledge to cut billions of pounds from the income tax of low and middle income families. The party has broadly welcomed this, though many have accepted it only as long as it is accompanied by a promise that the overall tax-take will remain the same, and that richer people should shoulder more of the tax burden.

This redistributionist error was sadly reinforced by Clegg himself in an …

Also posted in Party policy and internal matters | Tagged | 34 Comments

Opinion: Why the party shouldn’t be auto-phoning people

The plan for the Lib Dems to phone 250,000 people on Wednesday evening, after the conclusion of the party conference, has attracted some criticism both inside and outside the party.

If this is the big idea to come back from sending people to the US Democrats’ Convention then I’m not sure the flights were worth it. Automated phone messages were used in the 2000 Presidential election and possibly before in America. I may not have been the first in the UK to use them, but I did use them at the 2001 General Election. The results then were not particularly significant, other than sending a few Tory activists apoplectic with fury (maybe justification for using them on its own!).

However there would seem to be two strong reasons (and one less strong one) why this scheme isn’t a good idea.

Firstly it is, at best, legally ambiguous. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR) clearly requires the prior consent of anyone to receive communications “comprising recorded matter for direct marketing purposes”.

The SNP were recently on the wrong end of an adjudication regarding these regulations, where it was confirmed by the Information Tribunal that they do apply to political parties. It should be noted, though, that their activities were slightly different from what is reported to be happening here.

The question therefore is whether these calls are for direct marketing purposes. Generally it is regarded that “genuine market research” isn’t a direct marketing purpose.

This doesn’t seem to be a technique used by market research companies to conduct political polls. Certainly it’s hard to see how the questions necessary to establish whether your sample is accurate can be put. It’s also questionable as to how much a genuine poll will be affected by having an introductory message from the party leader as is the case here – or indeed what would be the point of a message which didn’t carry any element of promoting the party.

Another key point about genuine market research is the use to which the data is put. The Information Commissioner’s guidance is that:

We are aware that political parties do not just communicate with individuals for promotional purposes.

A political party can conduct genuine research just as professional market research companies do. Parties should, however, be careful to ensure that such communications are not in reality soliciting support under the guise of research. For example, a telephone call which starts by seeking opinion and then urges support or invites contact with a candidate would be considered as a marketing call and must therefore be conducted in accordance with the PECR.

Where a political party makes a market research call with the intention of capturing certain details in order to identify those judged likely to support that party for the purpose of targeting them with marketing follow ups by mail, telephone or visit, then we consider that the original profiling call will have been made for direct marketing purposes. Again it will be caught by the PECR.

So if this exercise is to be legal, it is clear that the information obtained can’t be used for any campaigning purpose. It therefore seems a good question to ask why the party would spend the money and effort phoning 250,000 people two years before an election, when it can’t record and use the responses for any further campaigning, recruitment or fundraising purpose.

37 Comments

Conference: Liberal Vision and the Free Society

Tuesday lunchtime in Old Harry’s Bar was packed to the rafters with delegates promised something better than food: a list. Don’t we just love lists? Not this time the 10 most influential fluffy bloggers, but a ranking of how liberal the 63 Liberal Democrat MPs are on the basis of Parliamentary votes and Early Day Motion (EDM) support, on issues relating to personal liberty – i.e. drinking and smoking, rather than tax and CCTV. Nobody really believes the methodology behind the list to be sound, but, hey, it’s just a bit of fun, isn’t it?

I was quite pleased to observe …

Also posted in Conference | Tagged and | 4 Comments

Opinion: Doctor Beeching was not to blame for everything!

I caught a fair chunk of the Transport Debate from Conference on Wednesday morning, and generally I found it impressive. But, there are two points I’d like to explore.

First, at least two speakers appeared to claim that government support for the railways has increased a thousand-fold since the days of British Rail. Now, I’m quite happy to accept that there has been a significant increase under privatisation. I also realise that calculating the overall level of support is not easy given the byzantine complexity of the relationship between the various public and private sector entities involved. 

But the estimates I have …

Also posted in Conference | 6 Comments

Opinion: a good week for Nick, a good week for the Lib Dems

There’s a paradox about party leaders’ conference speeches (akin to Prime Minister’s Questions): they are dissected by supporters, opponents and journalists, while in reality the ‘real people’ in the country might perhaps catch a 10-second clip on the news. But speeches remain fundamentally important – not only for the morale of members, but also as probably the only time in the year when serious journalists (not always an oxymoron) will listen for any length of time to a politician expressing their ideas.

Let’s be clear about one thing straight away: Nick’s speech was excellent. Every Lib Dem who heard it …

Also posted in Conference | Tagged , , and | 56 Comments

Opinion: Eco-Towns – what about social justice?

The Eco Towns motion passed at the Liberal Democrat conference was flawed: in seeking to oppose centrally imposed Eco-Towns the policy centrally imposed a rigid policy across the country, with no regard for local circumstances.

In my hometown of Oxford we have some of the worst housing problems in the country. I myself was homeless only eight years ago, sleeping in the city’s homeless shelter for young people. I’ve also been at the sharp end of trying to solve the crisis, as Oxford city council’s housing portfolio holder from 2006 until this May.

The reality is that the housing crisis in Oxford is destroying lives. We have thousands of people on the waiting list, and thousands more in private sector accomodation not even on the list. We have hideous problems of overcrowding, homeless shelters and hostels that are regularly full, with few homes free for people to move off the streets. The average waiting time for larger affordable homes is 10 years. Locally produced estimates of housing need show that we need at least 1700 new affordable homes every year just to keep pace with demand, let alone tackle the backlog. Remember: behind these statistics are real human lives, real tragedies.

Also posted in Conference | Tagged | 3 Comments

Paul Holmes writes… ‘No’ to Make It Happen’s public spending cuts

It would appear that Liberal Democrat policy has changed to one of cutting public expenditure to fund tax cuts rather than switching wasteful or less desirable New Labour expenditure to fund needed investment in accord with Liberal Democrat policies. This has been announced at various press conferences and interviews since the 17th July – but has neither been discussed by the Parliamentary Party or passed by Conference.

Given that – as the Times, Independent, Telegraph and Financial Times have all pointed out – this is a major shift in our policy, it is strange that it is not even mentioned in …

Also posted in Conference and Party policy and internal matters | Tagged and | 73 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tim Rogers
    Might finally wake SirEd out of his invisibility....
  • Jana
    Hi Tom, Do you think Burnham is preparing the ground for a snap election? Lots of little goodies delivered each day for a couple of weeks then claim he needs a...
  • Hywel
    Increasing the basic threshold by £1000 will make someone on £40,000pa £200 a year better off whilst doing nothing for someone on £12000 a year though. "...
  • Tony Vickers
    Not higher taxes but different taxes. We said in our 2015 manifesto we'd look at how (not whether) to introduce a Land Value Tax within a single Parliament. Co...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Daniel, You could have a point. Do you mean the government of the Federal Republic Of Germany? They certainly adopted the position of speaking for the ...