Category Archives: Op-eds

Steve Cooke

Opinion: Margaret Hodge should go

By Steve Cooke | Sun 27th May 2007 - 2:30 pm

Margaret Hodge has provoked furious discussion by suggesting that ‘indigenous’ British families should receive priority for social housing over migrants regardless of need. I admit being shocked when I heard her comments on the BBC – they seemed so very clearly to echo BNP policy.

Throughout the piece I was prepared to accept that her comments without thinking her racist (though I did, and do, think she’s a damned fool), right up until I heard her say, in relation to the needs of migrants, “and their need will often override the entitlement that my white families feel”. What I’m still not clear about is whether she’s putting out her message because she believes it, or because she’s scared that if she doesn’t echo the BNP message in her constituency, she’ll lose votes.

I spent a couple of days mulling over what Margaret Hodge had said and found myself asking a few questions. I kept returning to just what an indigenous Britain actually is? Indigenous is a tricky word because it doesn’t have a clear definition. Trawling various dictionaries reveals connections with ethnicity, birthplace, natural association etc. What is clear is that it doesn’t refer to citizenship – and that is the problem. I think when Margaret Hodge linked indigenous population and white families she gave the game away. If she’d talked about the entitlement of British citizens over migrant workers to social housing then I think she’d be receiving far less criticism today. Sadly, she didn’t.

The question of whether citizenship should grant greater entitlement to social housing is, however, another area that’s not as straightforward as it first seems. You see; most migrant workers pay UK tax and make National Insurance contributions. Migrant workers also make a huge contribution to our economy and there are several sectors of our economy that could well collapse without them. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) concluded that every 1% rise in inward migration resulted in +1.5% growth to our economy. The issue of whether someone should be prioritised on grounds solely of nationality (or ethnicity as Mrs. Hodge would seem to want) becomes problematic – should a single British-born man be given priority for a council home over a large foreign family who are homeless (and might have lived here for many years)? I can certainly see how citizenship might be a factor used in the calculations that determine social housing allocation – but those calculations are currently based entirely on need. If we are to change that need-based calculation, then perhaps people might start asking for other factors to be taken account of – like criminal record, time spent in the country, contribution to society, etc. It becomes a very slippery slope.

Continue reading »
9 Comments
Laurence Boyce

Opinion: It’s only a boat

By Laurence Boyce | Sun 27th May 2007 - 2:24 pm

A tragedy of epic proportions has been unfolding before our eyes. A national treasure has been lost – a glorious piece of our maritime history – the ““Concorde of the waves” no less. A majestic ship, which for years ruled the South China Sea, as she conveyed to the nation that most essential of commodities – a nice cup of tea. But at the risk of becoming the most reviled person in the country, I have to say that I was not in the least bit upset to learn on Monday morning that the Cutty Sark had been burnt to a cinder.

Ironically, the old vessel was undergoing a “restoration” effort worth some £25 million, which seems like rather a lot of money to spend on a ship which was last sold for a mere £3,750 in 1922. Of the £25 million, £13 million came from the Heritage Lottery Fund or HLF. Since 1994, the HLF has awarded over £3.6 billion to more than 22,500 projects across Britain. Well I suppose that nobody is forcing anyone to buy a lottery ticket, but even so I thought it might be worth checking out a few items of expenditure.

Transport projects in general are well favoured by the HLF. More than £58 million has been awarded for over 70 old boats of various descriptions, including the Cutty Sark. More millions have gone on a variety of trams, trolley buses, and trains. But when I say trains, I mean more Thomas the Tank Engine rather than anything which is likely to convey you to a useful destination. Historic buildings have also been well endowed. For instance, £447,500 was awarded to conserve the Harrogate Turkish Baths – the perfect setting to unwind after a tense day at conference, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Continue reading »
3 Comments
Geoffrey Payne

Opinion: Divisions between the rich and the poor

By Geoffrey Payne | Mon 21st May 2007 - 2:00 pm

To the average person on a low income or who is unemployed, the idea that voting for a political party can make much, if any, difference to their life would seem absurd.

It has not always been this way. The Liberal government of 1906 did much to respond to the social agenda, although it did not do enough to halt the emergence the Labour party. The 1945 Labour government implemented policies such as the introduction of the NHS which secured the disproportionate support of the working class, even to this day.

Today of course the divisions between rich and poor are getting …

Continue reading »
7 Comments
Ed Maxfield

Opinion: Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring!

By Ed Maxfield | Mon 21st May 2007 - 8:00 am

Menzies Campbell with Charles Kennedy behind himWell, here’s a thing. I didn’t think I would be rushing into print to defend Ming Campbell’s leadership of the Lib Dems.

Last year I voted enthusiastically (although fairly quietly as I was employed by the party at the time) for Chris Huhne. I didn’t think it was wise for the party to opt for a sexagenarian leader just when we had connected so effectively with young voters over issues like Iraq and tuition fees. I feared that he would …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 20 Comments

Opinion: So just how strongly did the Lib Dems oppose the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill?

By Hywel Morgan | Sun 20th May 2007 - 12:34 pm

“This is unacceptable” said Ming Campbell in an email to party members and supporters on the eve of this bill being given its third reading in the Commons.

But having watched this bill progress through the Commons I’ve not been hugely impressed by the Lib Dem commitment to oppose it.

To take it in stages.  This bill received an unopposed second reading.  I’m not an expert on the minutiae of Parliamentary procedure but according to the committee stages of this bill, it could have been blocked if it had it received an objection from a single member.

The bill then passed to the committee stage.  You would expect that a bill which the party considered to be unacceptable would be strongly opposed at committee stage.

Yet not a single amendment was put.  Not a single vote was called for.

Indeed to read Nick Harvey’s comments there wasn’t even a Lib Dem MP on the committee.

“I agreed to serve on the Committee to provide some of the insight that I have gained through my work on the House of Commons Commission and the Members Estimate Committee. I am not here as a party spokesman; I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a House matter on which Members must make their own judgments. I would not expect party Whips to seek to get involved in it.”

(Nick Harvey – Committee stage – 7th February 2007)

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 20 Comments

Curious goings on in Local government

By the founding editor | Fri 18th May 2007 - 9:42 am

First, as has been reported all over the Lib Dem blogosphere, Oxford is to have two Conservative cllrs – formerly Lib Dems.  Two councillors do constitute a group, though who’ll be leader and who’ll be deputy, who can say?

“The pair said they did not quit the council and call a by-election because of the cost to the taxpayer.”

B***cks. The pair thought they would not quit the council because they’d lose their seats and their cosy income.

And curious events at North Devon District Council yesterday afternoon. The Tories, despite a notional majority of one Councillor, failed to take control of the Council  as …

Continue reading »
Also posted in News | 3 Comments
Geoffrey Payne

Opinion: Why did the SNP outperform the Lib Dems?

By Geoffrey Payne | Sat 12th May 2007 - 11:20 pm

We are assured by the Scottish Lib Dems that there is NOT an upswell of Scottish Nationalism taking hold at the moment. And indeed it is true, many SNP voters do not actually support independence. They do not mind a referendum, they will simply vote no.

Yet if you strip away the nationalism of the SNP, you are left with a party that is very similar the Liberal Democrats, only more forthright for example in not wanting to replace Trident.

That being the case, why is it that in the space of a couple of years, the SNP has suddenly done so …

Continue reading »
27 Comments
The Voice

Opinion: Ming keeps his head down and his mouth shut

By The Voice | Sat 12th May 2007 - 2:43 pm

Carl Quilliam writes…

DimblebyOn Thursday night Ming Campbell made what can only be described as his most recent appearance on Question Time. For large portions of the show he gave a reasonable performance, no more than I would expect from a party leader. However, there were a few glaring omissions as well as some quite strange statements that make me personally to further doubt his leadership. When he was asked about how he became party leader, he firstly seemed to delight in the insinuation that he knifed Charles Kennedy take the leadership and then, …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Richard Huzzey

Opinion: Ming must stay

By Richard Huzzey | Fri 11th May 2007 - 11:05 pm

Ming must stayDropping the pilot is precisely the wrong reaction to our local election results. Last week’s results were not fantastic, although Mark Pack has rightly pointed how well we held up in our key seats. That old saying remains true, though: while success has many parents, failure is an orphan. This seems to be the case with our “mixed bag”.

While we all take pride in the quality of our local campaigning when he win, we are naturally more inclined to blame the national leadership when we lose. So is it all down to local fighting or national leadership? The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 28 Comments
Laurence Boyce

Opinion: Ming must go

By Laurence Boyce | Fri 11th May 2007 - 11:50 am

Menzies CampbellThere is a well known political maxim (or at least there ought to be) which states that, “the party faithful are the last people who should be consulted upon their choice of leader” – the point being that it is to crucial swing voters that the leader must appeal, not to committed party members. Of course the membership may attempt this calculation themselves, but the result often comes out a little skewed. So it was that the Conservatives made a whole series of amusing blunders and misjudgements regarding the leadership, largely on account of an internal obsession over Europe, before finally settling on the undeniable charms of the boy Cameron.

And so it was that Sir Menzies Campbell was duly elected last year, polling an initial 45% of the vote on a turnout of 72% (a worryingly low figure incidentally which suggests to me that at least a quarter of the membership might be dead). What followed has been a frankly embarrassing succession of glib and hollow performances, wholly lacking in flair, imagination, or lightness of touch. The unvarying sombre and humourless intonation, perfectly suited no doubt to his former role of commenting upon unfolding catastrophe in the Middle East, now simply fails to inspire. In short, he has become an electoral liability.

Without doubt, the biggest single disappointment has been at Prime Minister’s Questions. Ever since he rose in January 2006 to enquire why one in five schools are without a permanent head teacher, Sir Ming’s performances have been irredeemably lame. He should silence the house when he rises to speak; instead the members typically groan and snigger, and not without reason. While Cameron hits the target on a regular basis, Ming routinely causes the Prime Minister no difficulty whatsoever. Even John Prescott is a more effective performer in his own inimitable way.

Take last week’s effort, on the day before the elections. “The President made the decisions, the Prime Minister argued the case, the Chancellor signed the cheques, and the Tories voted it through.” Was that supposed to be the killer blow intended to deliver the goods last Thursday? Leaving to one side the questionable relevance of Iraq to a nation with rubbish collection uppermost on its mind, the delivery was weak and unconvincing, and it wasn’t even framed as a question – just a regurgitated line from the Harrogate conference speech. Blair swatted him away easily as he does every time.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 50 Comments

Opinion: will the election results spell the end for Menzies Campbell’s leadership? The answer is in your hands as much as his.

By the founding editor | Fri 4th May 2007 - 11:41 pm

Menzies CampbellSteady on before you leap in to the comments and cut my head off straight away – it’s a question plenty of people will ask, and it needs an answer. This is my personal attempt.

First, let’s look at where we are at the end of Friday. According to BBC statistics we’re down two hundred and fourty two councillors, and four councils, in England (net). Again net, we’re down one MSP in Scotland, and we’ve treaded water in Wales.

In England we gained control of Rochdale, Hull, Caradon, Eastbourne, Hinckley & Bosworth and Northampton …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 83 Comments
Alex Wilcock

Opinion Polls April 2007: Lib Dems On the Up – A Bit

By Alex Wilcock | Wed 2nd May 2007 - 9:08 pm

When activists stagger home the night before polling day, it’s not just their sore feet and the thought that they’ll be up again to deliver more leaflets before dawn that makes them wish it was all over. By this point in a campaign most voters have already decided, so the desire to know the outcome is almost unbearable. It’s easy, then, to read opinion polls for a bit of ‘news’. Of course, when it comes to local elections you might as well read the tea leaves as national polls, but they’re still irresistible, aren’t they? And, this month, vaguely hopeful. I’ve written before that opinion polls showing a rise in the Lib Dem vote should be taken with as big a pinch of salt as those showing us in decline. They’re a very blunt instrument, and very few show a clear long-term trend instead of an hysterical margin-of-error blip – though the 24-hour news cycle’s desire for instant gratification (and the blogger’s, to be fair) means you rarely sit back and say, ‘Well, I’ll wait to see if that’s a trend over the next few months…’ So, with that health warning given, time to pretend they matter and pore over the entrails, but just remember that the time to celebrate or weep will only be Friday morning. In the meantime, good luck to Liberal Democrats working in local elections throughout most of the UK, and in the Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly campaigns.

Today’s most exciting polls are undoubtedly those suggesting the Scottish Parliamentary elections might put the SNP and Labour in a dead heat, while support for independence slips still further. Though both predict gains for the Liberal Democrats, they also suggest the party’s vote has been squeezed over the month, which must give Scottish Lib Dems mixed feelings. The most remarkable figure for me is the Guardian / Scotsman’s ICM poll on the gender difference in the Lib Dem vote – the most striking I’ve ever seen for any party – which suggests we have the support of 20 per cent of women in Scotland, but only 10 per cent of men. I wonder if the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party Election Broadcasts heavily promoted some of the party’s excellent women spokespeople, unlike the all-male ones we saw down in England? Without detailed breakdowns of Scottish voting intentions to hand, however, I’ll point you to Freethink for the figures, and take a look at changes in the party’s UK-wide support.

What did April’s Britain-wide opinion polls purport to show? Taking the mean average figures, it looks like both Labour and the Conservatives dropped a percentage point or so, with the proceeds split between the Liberal Democrats and the combined ‘Others’ (from 6.6% in March to 7.8%, though those figures measure so many different parties I don’t trust any samples of them, up or down).

Continue reading »
Also posted in News | 2 Comments
Bridget Fox

Opinion: Vive la difference!

By Bridget Fox | Sat 28th April 2007 - 8:42 pm

It’s not just the UK that goes to the polls next week. France will elect its first truly post-war President on 6th May.

“I’m not issuing any voting instructions. The French citizens who voted for me are free to follow their conscience and make their choice”. So says Francois Bayrou, the ALDE-backed candidate, contemplating the Sego vs Sarko run-off.

But how should a conscientious liberal vote? Bayrou famously joked that the others offer a choice between the woman who wants France to be like Scandinavia and the man who wants France to be like the USA.

Either …

Continue reading »
8 Comments

GLA candidates websites reviewed and rated

By the founding editor | Sun 22nd April 2007 - 10:00 pm

GLA site

Soon, members across London will select their candidates to run for election to the Greater London Assembly. Most of the selection campaign e-mails from candidates have included a link to a standalone selection website, which has been approved in advance for publication by the Returning Officer.

As a London-based member who will have a vote, but hasn’t yet decided whether to exercise it, let alone whom to excercise it for, I decided to put the candidate’s websites head to head. At the end of the post, in the interests of fairness, a full list of candidates appears. If I’ve missed off a candidate’s website, please let me know.

What criteria did you use to assess the sites?

Candidates scored big points for:

  • Having a manifesto that was easy to find and digest
  • A website that was well structured and easy to navigate
  • Meeting disabled accessibility and good coding standards (don’t worry if you don’t understand these tests in the review – failed is bad, passed is good).

Bonus points were received for e-campaigning wizardry such as blogs, online video etc. It’s important to note that candidates did not score points for having a website that was bigger than their rivals. In my estimation quality is more important than quantity – the goal of these sites is to win votes, not rival War & Peace.

The majority of sites were reviewed on 17 April. Ajmal Masroor and James Allie were reviewed on 21 April. By this point the selection campaign was well underway, and in my judgement, the sites should have been fully ready to be public. The sites are listed in descending order, the joint ‘winners’ first. Where two sites have a joint score, or no score, the sites are listed in alphabetical order by candidate surname.

Note: this review is a review of the candidate’s ability to put a website together. It’s up to you to decide how important that skill is when you come to cast your vote, so I wouldn’t obsess too much about ‘your candidate’ coming top or bottom of this review.

I’m a candidate, or I built a candidate’s website, and I think you’ve been unfair, what can I do?

I suggest you leave a comment underneath the post, and I’ll reply there too – so if your site is marked up or down for any reason, the rationale for doing so is immediately made public.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 38 Comments
Laurence Boyce

Book review: The Great City Academy Fraud

By Laurence Boyce | Sat 21st April 2007 - 9:23 pm

Book coverA dismal tale of betrayal and failure in our education system has been penned by Francis Beckett in recent times. In The Great City Academy Fraud, Beckett exposes the con which lies at the heart of what is nothing more than the Conservative’s old City Technology Colleges scheme, rehashed and reheated by New Labour. The present facts are these: that that a sponsor willing to put up £2 million may effectively control and run a City Academy, towards which the taxpayer will have paid a vastly greater sum, not to mention running costs and salaries in perpetuity.

In fact Beckett shows that even the £2 million is not all that it appears, frequently comprising “payment in kind” – pretend money in the form of consultancy services and the like – as the government has been forced to water down its funding requirements in a desperate bid to attract new sponsors. And yet for the sake of this moth-eaten contribution from the private sector, unenthusiastic parents and local authorities are encumbered with a school which need form no part of a local education strategy, and which is entirely exempt from the body of education law built up since 1944.

While Academies were supposed to replace failing schools, Beckett reports how they have all too often disrupted the life of well loved schools against local wishes, with the aid of bullying tactics which emanate straight from the top. Of course parents may object to a proposed Academy, and sometimes they even get their way, but they are then made to feel as though they have deprived their patch of millions in education investment, which in a sense they have. The deal is that they can either have the school which the government and sponsor wish to impose on them, or they can go to hell.

Continue reading »
8 Comments
Richard Huzzey

Ming to Dave: Get Lost

By Richard Huzzey | Wed 18th April 2007 - 4:05 pm

Benedict Brogan reports that Sir Menzies Campbell told Cameron to get lost over any Lib-Tory pact dreampt up by Tory Central Office. Quite right too. It’ll be interesting to see how much Greg Dyke was involved in the Tories’ idea; you would have hoped he would have had better judgement than to be seduced by the idea.

 

—-

 Editor’s note:

This has been a fast moving story this afternoon.  It’s worth noting in full the party’s press release on the subject:

LONDON DESERVES A LIBERAL CHOICE FOR MAYOR – DAVEY

Leader of the Liberal Democrats Menzies Campbell today rejected a Conservative approach for the …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 5 Comments
Richard Huzzey

Greg Dyke as Lib/Tory candidate: April Fool?

By Richard Huzzey | Wed 18th April 2007 - 2:53 pm

As bizarre as it may sound, Iain Dale is reporting that Greg Dyke is being approached by the Tories to stand as a joint Liberal Democrat – Conservative candidate in the London Mayoral elections. It seems incredible that anyone would seriously expect such an arrangement to be met, and I can only treat the news with a large pinch of salt.

Clearly, many, many Lib Dems – me amongst them – would be appalled at the idea of sharing a ticket with the Tories. Dale implies that our party has yet to be approached over this madcap scheme. We can …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 10 Comments

Time to disenfranchise Commonwealth citizens living in the UK?

By the founding editor | Tue 17th April 2007 - 11:30 am

Lib Dem Anders Hanson has a thought-provoking blog piece.

2 Comments
James Graham

Should we become a nation of contented losers?

By James Graham | Thu 12th April 2007 - 3:51 pm

Direct democracy could not merely complement representative democracy, but could save it from its worst excesses. Claims that it leads to ill-considered, rightwing populism are just plain wrong.

The great thing about being a Liberal Democrat is that the party practices what it preaches about democracy. While the Conservative Party made a big deal out of the fact that at its last conference it encouraged people to cast non-binding votes on topical issues and even hosted a version of Dragon’s Den with Ann Widdecombe in the chair, the Lib Dems had a passionate, principled debate on tax (which the Tories rubbished, and then quietly stole a number of key policies from). Labour has debates at its conferences, but they are held in such disdain that the results of them are dismissed even before the votes have been cast.

I would contend that it is this internal democracy that has kept British liberalism alive over the past few decades. It gives us all a stake in the party which in turn buys the party enormous reservoirs of loyalty and goodwill. Even when we as individuals disagree with the direction the party is going down, we are comforted by the fact that it was as a result of a democratic process, and subsequently that it is possible to change.

At a wider level, we are deeply committed to establishing a similar model of participation and democracy in the British political system. The current system is deeply flawed, and the party has done much to highlight the evidence: we are one of the most centralised countries in the world and have an electoral system that ensures that a party with just a third of the vote can secure 60% of the seats in our primary legislative chamber.

Party policy has always been very robust in its approach to constitutional reform. However, if there is a criticism to be made, it is that we tend to instinctively reach for a solution that involves directly elected politicians and lawyers, rather than give the people themselves more of a direct say in government. Too often, our rhetoric about Community Politics has not been matched by our actions. To be fair have existing policy in favour of mild forms of participation such as increased use of citizens’ juries and increased use of (non-binding) referendums, but we have been wary of purer forms of direct democracy.

Continue reading »
15 Comments

Opinion – better to get the mayoral selection right than rush it

By the founding editor | Wed 11th April 2007 - 10:00 am

Three men and one woman applied to be the party’s choice to take on Ken Livingstone – none were sitting MPs, MEPs, or Peers.  It seems that after consideration, the regional volunteers involved in shortlisting and running the process have decided not to announce a shortlist, and possibly to run a new round of applications.  The most plausible explanation I’ve heard for this is that those regional volunteers felt they couldn’t put a long enough shortlist (are you with me still?) to the selectorate, in this case every Lib Dem member in London.

As the Conservatives know only too well, it’s better to

…

Continue reading »
4 Comments
The Voice

Opinion: Owen is the only credible candidate for Mayor

By The Voice | Sun 1st April 2007 - 1:12 am

Specualtion has been to rife as to all the opposition parties will nominate as their candidate for Mayor of London and take on Red Ken. The Tories are having a primary to consider the huge range heavy-hitters being touted, such as Nick Boles, Steve Morris and Iain Dale, while the Greens have just plumped for Sian Berry over veteran Green candidate David Icke.

But who will we Lib Dems field? One candidate mentioned in the Tory race as an outside possibility is none other than John Major. Oh yes. The former PM is enjoying a resurgance in popular support, as the …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 23 Comments

Guido dents his reputation on Newsnight

By the founding editor | Wed 28th March 2007 - 10:17 pm

Sitting in darkness in the BBC’s Millbank studio, he looked ridiculous. Hesitant and lacking a point – Michael White quite simply wiped the floor with him. You bit off more than you could chew there, Mr Fawkes – and damaged your reputation in the process.

Watch out Paxman and White though, I’m sure hell hath no fury like a Guido scorned.

Still – braver than me. In the unlikely event that I’m ever asked on Newsnight I shall whimper “mummy!” and flee to safety.

3 Comments
Bridget Fox

Opinion: Tories show their true colours [hint – not green]

By Bridget Fox | Tue 20th March 2007 - 10:44 pm

Islington’s Lib Dem council has broken new ground by setting up a £3M climate change fund to take local action on climate change, through promoting renewable energy, energy conservation and sustainable transport (walking & cycling). This is despite Islington’s council tax rise being around 1.5% (continuing to deliver a longstanding pledge to keep Islington’s tax below the London average) and giving residents like me who pay by direct debit a £20 discount. In a neat twist, there’s an invitation to give the £20 to the climate change fund – a free ‘I feel good’ moment with every tax bill…. what’s …

Continue reading »
14 Comments

Opinion: The ‘five tests’ raise deeply worrying questions about strategy

By Charles Anglin | Sun 11th March 2007 - 12:18 pm

Menzies Campbell with Charles Kennedy behind himI didn’t vote for Ming Campbell to be party leader, but I’ve never been one of those who have criticised his leadership, I have had no time for those who listened to the media fluff about dissent in the party over his style & age. In fact his first year has been better than I expected or even hoped for. He has imposed a degree of organisational rigour on the party that was sadly lacking previously, he has set a clear policy lead challenging much of the party´s soggy corporatist hobby horses and he has generally repaired and steadied a ship that was badly holed below the water line by Charles Kennedy’s messy departure.

So far, so good or at least until last weekend it was. 

Ming’s speech to the party’s Spring Conference has left me deeply worried about the strategic direction of the party and the advice that he is getting. In his speech he laid out Five Tests for a Gordon Brown government. This was at best a very peculiar thing to do. Don’t get me wrong the tests themselves were perfectly sound in as far as they went, though they were a little vague and with one or two glaring omissions. However, publicly declaring them was I believe a serious tactical error.

One of Charles Kennedy’s significant achievements as Party Leader was to reach a point where the Lib Dems were being judged, for better or for worse, on our own agenda and our own terms. He did this by resolutely refusing to discuss the idea of pacts, deals or coalitions, until journalists finally became bored of receiving the same non-answer, something he even managed to maintain under the intense pressure of two General Elections.

That achievement is now being undermined. Although the 5 Tests were presented to the party as criteria for judging a pre-election Brown Government it is clear from the media reaction that virtually no-one has taken them at face value. They are widely seen as the opening gambit for coalition talks should Labour be the largest party in a hung Parliament after the next general election. Even if they genuinely are not, that is how they are perceived, perceived by the public, the media and by the Labour party. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | Leave a comment

Opinion: There will be no dancing in the streets of Crystal Palace over Lords reform

By the founding editor | Wed 7th March 2007 - 9:45 pm

I don’t believe in a 100% elected House of Lords.

There you go, I’ve said it – there’s no point reading any further, the comment boxes are below and you can start calling me an undemocratic monster…. now.

I won’t be joining Paul Walter who is, as you read, dancing through the streets of Newbury. As I type this at home in Crystal Palace I even find myself in that rarest of positions – less than entirely in agreement with Alex Wilcock.

But then, I’m a monarchist too. There you go, I’ve said that as well. Mainly …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 21 Comments

Opinion: Questions should be asked about how the Trident vote was won

By the founding editor | Mon 5th March 2007 - 7:00 am

A majority of voting representatives backed the official Trident motion at conference, and it has also received some positive reception in the Lib Dem blogosphere.

However, while the media have been busying themselves with their made-up story about future coalitions, some questions are also being asked about the mechanics of how the Trident motion was won.

Writing on his blog, Alex Foster says:

I’m not sure, however, I buy the theory that it was Ming that swung it. No, that was shadowy strong-arm tactics. Key PPCs got phonecalls from high-ups. Local party chairs (like me) got a lobbying pack we were supposed to give to our conference reps posted out to us, but those on the other side of the argument were denied first the opportunity, then the data list to send the mailing themselves. Lots of the parliamentary party were brought to wave their voting cards. All of that adds up to more than the 40 votes that swung the argument.

Commenting on this blog, Lord Greaves said:

Whatver the rights adn wrongs of the issue, the way it was done is a disgrace to a supposedly democratic party.

Continue reading »
16 Comments

Opinion: Coalition questions are premature

By the founding editor | Sun 4th March 2007 - 9:58 pm

Have the media gone collectively insane?

Take this, from the BBC:

A keynote speech by Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has been overshadowed by speculation over his strategy in the event of a future hung Parliament.
In his speech to the party’s spring conference he set out “five tests” for a Gordon Brown-led government.

A party official suggested it was the first indication Sir Menzies would be interested in forming a coalition if the Lib Dems held the balance of power.

Ed Davey, Sir Menzies’ chief of staff, said the briefing was “unauthorised”.

“The tests Ming set for Brown were about his likely government in

…

Continue reading »
Tagged | 3 Comments

Opinion: Menzies Campbell’s year as leader has been one of consolidation and caution.

By the founding editor | Thu 1st March 2007 - 7:41 pm

To comment on the performance of the leader of a political party – a person at the top of their game – requires gravitas, oodles of political knowledge and skill, and a good few decades experience of politics under your belt.

I have none of these things, so as I look back on Menzies Campbell’s first year as Liberal Democrat leader I can write only from the perspective of a party foot-soldier.  What follows are my personal reflections on the leadership, and what it means to me – I don’t expect or consider it to have any particular weight.

First, to put this whole thing in context – how important is the leader to me personally, as a party supporter? Day to day – not very. Our paths aren’t likely to cross any time soon, and the only time I much care what he says or does is when I’m watching the TV news, or when there’s a major debate in Parliament.

Standing at the side of a conference room in Local Government House a year ago, it all seemed much more important – and personal. I’d supported one of Menzies Campbell’s rivals. A party activist sidled up to me. “Do you know who’s won?” he asked “Yep”, “And?”, “No great surprise” …… “Oh no, not MING?”.

And so it went throughout the day – ‘Ming? Really?’ Privately, never said aloud, I was expecting Chris Huhne to squeak through. On the day the result was declared I was disheartened, but I set about doing my volunteer duty on the party’s website – scrubbing out pictures of Charles Kennedy, airbrushing in Menzies Campbell. It took months for Menzies Campbell to win me, a pretty regular joe-soap supporter, around. There was no road to Damascus moment – what won it for me was the delivery of much needed stability to the party. For a short while I was grateful to him for bringing an end to a turbulent period. Now a year has passed since he was elected, and my less grateful mind is preoccupied with a different thought – “is that everything you’ve got?”

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 16 Comments

John Stevens comments on the amendments submitted by the Liberal Democrat Peace and Security Group to the main motion on Trident at the Spring Conference

By John Stevens | Wed 28th February 2007 - 10:04 am

There is much that pro Europeans can support in this. I believe that the inserts in para v,vi and vii  are correct. Above all, the statement against our dependence on the United States is more forthright (and right) than my colleagues and I finally settled upon, in order to encourage some realism from our defence team. Having seen the company they seem prepared to keep in the columns of The Independent the other day, I rather wonder whether such deference is deserved.  

However, I do not agree that we would be better spending money on conventional forces. What history since the mid eighties has demonstrated, I would submit, is the efficacy of nuclear deterrence, and the inefficacy of conventional war making. With the possible exception of our assault on Serbia over Kosovo (the last Act of which, of course, has yet to be played out) it is difficult to point to a single instance where the possession of a greater conventional capability would have served the national interest. Intelligence, both electronic and human, yes, paramilitary police style capability yes, humanitarian and emergency aid capability yes, but not more tanks, aircraft carriers, strike fighters or whatever which cost the real money. Indeed it has been the illusions such capabilities have fostered that have contributed greatly to the crass policy errors that have been made in the Middle East. 

Continue reading »
Leave a comment
Nick Harvey

Opinion: Nick Harvey MP makes the case for an unamended Trident motion

By Nick Harvey | Mon 26th February 2007 - 7:00 am

All rational people must be sincerely and passionately committed to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, so destructive is their potential. The age-old debate is about how best to do this. The FPC motion for Harrogate is a combination of the best traditions of unilateralism and multilateralism.

For the first time in a decade the Party is proposing a radical reduction in the size of the British nuclear deterrent. By unilaterally cutting Britain’s nuclear weapons by 50% yet keeping our seat at the table, we have the best chance of driving forward a multilateral disarmament agenda.

Cutting our nuclear stockpile in half now would send a positive message to non-nuclear or aspirant-nuclear states that Britain will live up to its obligations under the NPT. It puts nuclear disarmament back on the international agenda, and commits Britain to leading preparations for the 2010 NPT review conference – as Robin Cook did running up to the productive 2000 conference. Labour failed to capitalise on that momentum – not least by supporting Bush in Iraq and tarnishing our reputation as an honest broker.

Continue reading »
11 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Raw
    @ Catherine Hodgkinson Completely agree, although I suspect Mark Carney is perfectly capable of looking after himself (and Canada)....
  • Catherine Hodgkinson
    I am only posting this here because I don’t know where else to vent my frustration. Canada is being increasingly bullied by Trump and,yet we are hearing nothi...
  • Geoff Reid
    Abolishing capitalism is a non-starter. That doesn't stop us from campaigning against the follies and oppressions of unacceptable forms of capitalism and learn...
  • Linda Chung
    Good article, I very much agree on the headings. Thus, I also believe we are not mushy thinkers. We are poor, mushy communicators? That elusive slogan that wi...
  • expats
    Guardian Headline ....Burnham to face pressure at Labour conference to recognise Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide...Grassroots groups to urge PM to break ...