Fifty-six Lib Dem PPCs have put their name to an open letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin:
Dear Mr Speaker,
As Parliament continues to be dragged down by the allowance system, and its rules, the role of those in public service across the country is being undermined.
We are Liberal Democrat candidates seeking to be elected to Parliament and yet we find ourselves disappointed, and frustrated, at the way in which this matter is being handled. Every day our residents are telling us loudly that this must stop and this must stop now.
Three things stand out:
• The resistance to the releasing of these documents and the attempt to exclude Parliament from the Freedom of Information requirements
• The way in which Norman Baker and Kate Hoey were treated when they sought to raise legitimate concerns
• The fact that, through you, Parliament could now release the information into the public domain and cut short this parade of drip-fed news and empower MPs and citizens through a new transparent relationship.
It is vital that Parliament must become transparent and accountable now. We call on you, as Speaker of the House, to do everything within your power to force the full publication of all expenses immediately. We also call on you to accept the independent review of MPs expenses and salaries chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly.
If you are unable to do this we then ask you to consider your position. Time is running out for politicians of all parties to repair the damage to our democracy.
Yours sincerely
56 Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates
Ed Fordham, Hampstead and Kilburn
Sal Brinton, Watford
Andrew Simpson, Northampton North
Bridget Fox, Islington South & Finsbury
Duncan Borrowman, Old Bexley and Sidcup
Steve Goddard, Oxford East
Adrian Collett, Aldershot
Adam Carew, East Hampshire
Gareth Epps, Reading East
Sally Morgan, Central Devon
Sue Doughty, Guildford
Rebecca Hunt. Chatham & Aylesford
Sarah Carr, Hereford and South Herefordshire
Guy Voizey Canterbury and Whitstable
Jo Shaw, Holborn and St Pancras
Liz Leffman, Meon Vallley
Merlene Emerson, Hammersmith
Sandy Walkington, St Albans
Richard Burt, West Worcestershire
Caroline Pigeon, Vauxhall
Kevin Lang, Edinburgh North & Leith
Andrew Dakers, Brentford and Isleworth
Andrew Duffield,Hexham
David Kendall, Brentwood and Ongar
Ann Haigh, Epping Forest
Simon Wright, Norwich South
Liz Simpson, Tonbridge and Malling
Sam Webber, Bromley and Chislehurst
Rabi Martins – Luton North
Greg Stone, Newcastle East
Theo Butt-Philip, Bridgwater and West Somerset
Dave Radcliffe, Birmingham Selly Oak
Richard Clein, Sefton Central
Mike Cox, Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Andy Stamp, Gillingham & Rainham
Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne & Willingdon
Mark Blackburn, Westminster North
Denis Healy, Hull North
Robin Lawrence, Wolverhampton South West
Alex Feakes, Lewisham and West Penge
Andrew Falconer, Brighton Pavilion
Dave McBride, Orpington
Nigel Quinton, Hitchin & Harpenden
Alan Beddow, Warwick and Leamington
David Goodall, Southampton Itchen
Ryk Downes, Leeds Central
Chris Took, Ashford
Peter Wilcock, Saffron Walden
Karen Hamilton, Birmingham Perry Barr
Qurban Hussain, Luton South
Keith Angus, Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Stephen Robinson, Chelmsford
Mike Bell, Weston-super-Mare
Dave Raval, Hackney South and Shoreditch
Fred Mackintosh, Edinburgh South
Munira Wilson, Feltham and Heston
Paul Zukowskyj, Welwyn Hatfield
The letter is here, on Facebook. No word yet whether the Speaker is also on Facebook. Although Jonathan Calder has found his blog.
31 Comments
I absolutely agree that Parliament should be more open and transparent and that the Speaker should be held accountable for his personal shortcomings in trying to delay this process.
On the same token, tomorrow I will be reporting a number of Liberal Democrat MPs, PPCs and local parties to the Electoral Commission for trying to steal votes from opponents through publishing misleading statistics and statements in their election leaflets.
They include Bridget Fox in Islington and Jo Shaw in Holborn and St Pancras.
For example, Jo Shaw’s leaflet says that the Conservatives “can’t win here”. She seems to be confused about the forthcoming election for the European Parliament where votes are aggregated across the whole London region and the polling in any single constituency is irrelevant.
It’s hard to see this as anything other than trying to “nobble” opponents by confusing voters into thinking that there’s a need to vote tactically in this proportional representation election.
How much damage does this kind of thing do to our democracy?
Rather than tearing one off the Speaker, perhaps these candidates could address these serious accusations against themselves.
Full details here:
http://adrianshort.co.uk/2009/05/15/418/
“tomorrow I will be reporting a number of Liberal Democrat MPs, PPCs and local parties to the Electoral Commission”
Well I’d suggest you check out what powers the Electoral Commission have before wasting a stamp.
The facebook link doesn’t seem to be working Alex!
Facebook link works for me – do you maybe need to be a friend of Ed Fordham for it to work? The slightly flakey nature of Facebook publishing is why I’ve reproduced the open letter in full here.
Another example of the party not keeping up with fast moving developments or has it just taken a while to be posted on here ? The PPC’s call on him stand down if he doesn’t meet some very vaguely worded requests.
However yesterday morning Nick Clegg called on him to stand down full stop. Even that is after many senior members of the party and front benchers have been calling for im to go for days.
What is the point rhetorically of an open letter from Lib Dem PPC’s calling for something signifigantly LESS radical than party policy?
It isn’t a bad idea. 56 “clean skin” aspirants calling for reform. However as people outside the club it will only work as a campaign if you are more radical not less.
Unles its just a face book scam to build a mailing list but aren’t people wise to that ?
Adrian – for info, here’s what the Electoral Commission say they do:
How do you stretch one of those to include monitoring leaflets?
Hywel and Alex,
Thanks for the advice/info.
If it turns out the Electoral Commission are unable to deal with the matter I’ll see whether anyone else can.
If these manifestly unfair practices are “within the rules” (recognise that phrase?) then perhaps we need to strengthen the rules so that parties and candidates that just can’t restrain themselves from telling lies to the electorate about how the voting system works are prevented from doing so.
I would like to think there are enough decent people in the Lib Dems to support such a measure. But who knows? No-one here seems to have broken a sweat about it yet.
Adrian, it is essentially the middle of the night…
Typical mealy-mouthed Lib Dem rubbish. Don’t ask him to “consider his position” like a bunch of little girl scouts, tell him to resign NOW – like your leader did yesterday. Are you so backward?
THIS is the message you should be sending to him:
David: I think you’re being a little unfairly harsh in your criticism. The letter started circulating for signatures a couple of days ago as I understand it. Yes, I suspect events in the last 24 hours means the wording would be a little different if worded now rather than, but anything that involves getting a group of people to sign up to something takes a bit of time and runs this risk. The only sure way to avoid the risk is to never do anything like that in fast moving events. I’m not sure having lots of people sit on their hands saying “Can’t do anything; events might change” would get your praise if that happened…!
Adrian, it’s also a matter of freedom of speech. You disagree with how the Lib Dems are presenting their case in some leaflets. But in no case are the numbers false or described as something they are not (e.g. using local election figures but labelling them general election figures), nor do any of the leaflets say the voting system is different from the one actually being used (e.g. none of them say the Euros are run on first past the post).
What you disagree with is the implication that you draw from the accurate information given in the leaflet. Fair enough, it’s a free country. Other people draw a different implication, but why should your implication be encased in law and different views be banned?
Think of the situation in reverse. Other people clearly take a different view from you as to what the leaflets imply and what is reasonable. So is it ok for them in turn to campaign for your views to banned or your website to be illegal? Of course not, that would be daft. As I said, it’s (amongst other things) a matter of free speech.
Mark:
“What you disagree with is the implication that you draw from the accurate information given in the leaflet. Fair enough, it’s a free country. Other people draw a different implication, but why should your implication be encased in law and different views be banned?”
While I agree one can’t legislate for misleading information in political leaflets, you are being disingenuous here.
We all know precisely what effect these “two-horse race” graphics are intended to have. They’re intended to persuade supporters of other parties that it would be a waste of time voting for them. Pushing that message in European elections is sheer dishonesty.
Mark,
We can talk freedom of speech issues until the cows come home and I’m well aware that every limitation of speech by law needs to be incredibly carefully considered. But I see no problem in principle with restricting people from inducing people to change their vote based not on political argument but by making substantial misrepresentations about how the voting system works. I suspect that you and I may differ that that is in fact what’s happening here, but that’s my view of the principle.
On the facts of the matter I think you are taking an overly legalistic view of the “truth” of the information presented. In Paul Burstow’s leaflet the election results bar chart isn’t even labelled so the natural assumption is that it represents results from the previous European election rather than the Westminster parliament. This is, after all, an election communication for the European Parliament election.
But it’s not just the bar charts. Tom Brake’s leaflet says that “Labour are out of the race” and the Green party “cannot win”. What do you think the effect on voters of those statements is likely to be?
Simon Hughes’s leaflet says that “every Tory vote helps Labour win”. How on earth is that an accurate statement in the context of the European election?
The overall effect of these and various other statements is to mislead voters into changing their vote away from their natural political preferences for erroneously-conceived “tactical” reasons. Whether or not these statements may be true or defensible in some context isn’t the point; the point is they help make voters ignorant about how their vote works in _this election_.
On the whole, I agree with Adrian/Anon1. The timing of these releases is disingenuous – and as a result, actually harms causes close to our hearts. They do effectively act to obscure the democratic process of EU elections – and we’re the pro-European, pro-democracy party aren’t we?
On the other hand, I do not agree with Adrian’s statement that:
“I see no problem in principle with restricting people from inducing people to change their vote based not on political argument but by making substantial misrepresentations about how the voting system works”
How would such restrictions be effected? On the face of it, these leaflets do not misrepresent anything at all – an alien just arrived on planet Earth reading them would note that they do not purport to be about the European elections. It’s only our wider awareness of the atmosphere and timing of their release that tells us they are disingenuous. How would you legislate for that without the rules being impossibly wide and vague?
I suggest a better solution is an informal and voluntary code of conduct as regards leaflets which can be drawn up and signed up to by ALL parties, and which can cover this sort of case, amongst other things.
Sadly, this is unlikely ever to happen, precisely because of the sort of unpleasant gloating hostility on display in Adrian’s original post, and in his comment at 1.58am. Frankly he sounds more pleased to have caught his political opponents out than outraged about democracy, and determination to find a solution comes a very poor third. “More rules! And ones that just happen to hurt my naughty political opponents!” is hardly ever a sensible answer to anything.
Alix,
I expect an alien arriving on planet Earth and receiving an “election communication” that has been sent (with public funds, from what I know) in connection with the European election would make the fair assumption that they contain material relevant to that election.
You make an assumption about my political affiliations that is in fact not true. I am not a party member or activist and never have been. However, I have spent many years in various forms of campaigning work trying to improve local communities and democracy and that’s why I find it particularly offensive when any political party tries to muddy the waters about how a vote can most effectively be cast.
I made it quite clear in my blog that I will criticise any political party that tries these kinds of tactics and I will do exactly that. Thus far, however, it’s only the Lib Dems that I’ve seen do it. Please do let me know if you spot any examples from your opponents.
I see – so you’re a constructive “critical friend” to the political process as a whole.
In that case, perhaps you’d care to comment on my substantive suggestion?
Adrian,
Firstly, let’s clear something up given the political environment at the moment! Material which comes through the post marked “election communication” is not paid for by the taxpayer – it’s paid for by the candidate / political party whose leaflet it is. The leaflet is then delivered to all houses by the Post Office. This is something which all candidates of all parties and none are entitled, and is used at elections for all levels of government above local government.
On the issue about the bar charts, I suspect this is because the European elections are to be declared on a Westminster parliamentary constituency basis rather than on the Euro constituencies – the votes are then added together at the central count point and the seats distributed. Frankly this idea is stupid because it was bound to lead to parties confining their campaigns to the local constituency level and sidelining the European issues which the election should be about.
Actually Adrian, after looking at your site I think you’re maybe just a jealous activist in another party….
“in connection with the European election”
This was the bit I was querying, actually. It’s not obvious from any of the pictures on your post that these leaflets are in connection with the European election – did they come in an envelope marked like that? That’s why I’m saying it’s only our contextual knowledge that allows us to see what’s wrong with them.
That’s why a hard and fast rule per se wouldn’t work – it wouldn’t catch leaflets like this unless you just issued a blanket ban on all leaflets in the run-up to an election, just on the offchance that they might disingenuously misrepresent the voting patterns.
I think that the only thing missing from some of the leaflets that Adrian dislikes and which I think should be there is a note saying which election the figures are from.
The messages about Labour can’t win here etc clearly refer to the parliamentary constituency (the clue is in the name) and not the Euro constituency.
To use an analogy if I were buying a car I wouldn’t just look at the manufacturers brochure I would do some research and read independent reviews and make a judgment based on all the evidence.
A quick google will soon tell anyone who is interested far more than any leaflet can. At the end of the day political leaflets are marketing / advertising and need to be treated as such.
Some information about Adrian Short:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/09/free-our-data-councils-rss
“European elections are to be declared on a Westminster parliamentary constituency basis rather than on the Euro constituencies”
They are actually declared on a council area basis (though in a few cases that is coterminous with constitunency boundaries)
@KL, I see no reason not to believe Adrian. He wrote this on LibCon a while ago, coming from a similar unaffiliated “critical friend” direction (and in a liberal cause, too):
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/author/adrians/
Adrian, some honestly meant advice: if you really want to do something about borderline dishonest political leafleting, and if you really do hope (as you state in your comment at 1.58am) that there might be a reasonable element in the Lib Dems that’s ready to back you up, maybe you shouldn’t have written an arch, hostile post as your first act?
And having done that, maybe you shouldn’t have tried to make a moral superiority point about the fact that no LDV reader had responded with equal outrage between – gulp – the hours of 10.30pm and 2am?
I think it’s become obvious, both here and on your post’s thread, that there are indeed Lib Dem members and supporters (including me) who are deeply uncomfortable with some of the leaflets our local parties put out. In other words, our attitude is just as you’d hoped. That’s something you can harness to work with, right? Now, if the first we hear of you and your campaign is a hostile post in which you say you’re reporting us to the Electoral Commission or whoever, maybe that’s not the best way forward for your goals? As I see from KL’s last comment, I’m not the only one to have assumed you’re a political opponent – your language and tone sound exactly like that.
If you’d like to respond to our substantive points, we can probably find a way forward. The question is, I suppose, do you really want to do something about this or do you just want to have a go at us?
Alix,
Your suggestion of a voluntary code of conduct for political parties is a credible one. If such a thing could be a useful restraint on some of the worst excesses of dirty campaigning then I’d be open to supporting such a thing. The aim is to get all parties to commit to a clean fight rather than to use the expensive and cumbersome process of law to pursue “baddies” where that’s not necessary.
KL,
I thought that each party got “one free mailshot” in the election. They have to pay to produce the leaflets themselves but the delivery is free. Anyway, it’s a tangential point; I’m not suggesting that such a thing would be wrong if it were true.
What you seem to be saying about the local counts is that various parties might declare themselves to be “winners” in their local constituencies even if it has no bearing on the actual election result in terms of MEPs elected. Yes, that would be silly whoever did it.
Alix again,
The images in my blogpost are extracted from those leaflets. If you want to see the whole leaflets, click through the links to the Straight Choice website where you can see them in full. All the leaflets are marked “Election Communication”, have been sent within the last week and refer to the European Parliament election on 4 June.
This answers much of my last post.
Um, can we get back to the topic at hand?
The suggestion that the Speaker may be forced from office is closely related to the status of the Government.
A motion of no confidence in the Speaker is effectively a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, so even that there will be debate on Government time is an indication that a snap General Election is possible.
In which case I’m less surprised that more of our PPCs than MPs have been signing this letter, but I’m almost astonished at the lily-livered attitude of almost all tories except the proposer, Douglas Carswell.
Cameron is clearly so scared of rocking the boat that he won’t even bail any water out as the ship is threatened with sinking!
Yes, these are typically silly Lib Dem leaflets, which scream at the voter “I AM A TWISTER”, and will annoy far more people than they convince.
Meanwhile, our opponents have read their Hitler. Lie big, lie confidently, lie often, lie totally, and so, sound credible. Put out the big lies a day or two before the poll, so that the Lib Dems have no time to get the truth into print. Their approach wins votes. Ours loses votes.
Faced with Alix’s proposed voluntary code, I’m sure they would all sign like a shot, then carry on undeflected.
National exposure and humiliation would work better. Interested in picking on someone else, as well as the Lib Dems, Adrian?
Adrian Short wrote:
“Yes, that would be silly whoever did it.”
Not so silly once you realise that it works.
In 1997, Labour won St Albans from third place because they were able to point to the poor Lib Dem performance at the preceding Euro election. I believe that several Labour surges in 1997 were attributable to that tactic.
Adrian, I see this sort of thing from Labour and Conservatives all the time where I live (not too far from you in Merton). Labour regularly print leaflets on yellow paper with big headlines with the words “Lib Dem” in them to make a casual observer wonder if they’re from us (the local Labour party then criticised the local Lib Dems for using blue paper for leaflets in the Ealing Southall by-election – not that the choice of paper was ours!).
The Tories ran a bar chart showing the GLA results in Merton at the 2006 local elections – with the intention of arguing that we couldn’t win council seats in our target ward.
As long as something is clearly marked as to what it is and accurate, then who are we to say what should be on leaflets. If someone wanted to put out a concise history of Britain on an election leaflet, interpreting certain facts certain ways, and drawing what they thought was sound political positions from it, what would be wrong with that?
Oh, thought of another one – our local Tory MP put out a survey with a question about people’s political affiliations. This was apparently to “ensure a representative sample”. There were no other questions on age, gender, race etc. I asked how this question related to ensuring a representative sample. I got a very snide response but no explanation of how this question ensured a representative sample.
You see, I don’t mind him asking people how they vote (they can leave it blank) but I do mind him misleading people about the reasons to fill that question in. And as a constituent, if this is genuinely about representative samples, then fair enough. But as a constituent, even a party activist, I deserve a polite response answering my question (my questions were polite).
sorry, I missed a comma in the above: “not too far from you, in Merton”. :o)