Our eighth update from the LDV Fantasy Football League. Double congratulations to Alain Desmier, not only our Manager of the Month for March, but a runaway leader in the overall league.
His Mountgrove Maulers scored an impressive 218 points, a nose ahead of Lynda Reid’s Paris Saint Yer’ma (213) and Lucy Keating’s FC Insert Name Here (210).
Here’s the overall league table:
The Candidate & Diversity Team will be hosting a series of webinars on the candidate process; covering aspects of approval, selection and candidacy.
The sessions will be led by some of the party’s most experienced candidates and trainers. Full details below:
Becoming an Approved Candidate |Thursday 13 April, 6.30pm| Trainer TBC
Covering:
Successful Selection |Monday 24 April, 6.30pm| Trainer: Lisa Smart, PPC for Hazel Grove
Well. We knew that the Lib Dem Press Office could raise a smile with its constant sass. Last year the Huffington Post cited 17 occasions when it was the most entertaining thing in British politics.
But last night, something extraordinary happened. Serious journalists heaped praise on our little press operation.
It started with a tweet from Sam Coates of the Times:
This. Every Lab MP should read this & be embarrassed. The Lib Dems do vg rebuttal, quotes and opposition research… pic.twitter.com/Ts9OiXewPY
— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) March 30, 2017
… while Labour aren't on the pitch. They aren't pitching opposition stories, bothered about getting into papers, or pushing message
— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) March 30, 2017
Lib Dems provide material at speed, they are creative, know their way around government, and work hard. From where I sit Lab minimal effort
— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) March 30, 2017
Not only that, but a whole five serious, reputable journalists then pitched in to agree!
I would like to tell you about the Conference Access Fund which Liberal Democrat members have provided. It helps members on low incomes or those who have a disability by providing financial assistance so that they can take part at conference. I used the fund to assist with the costs of having a support worker to enable me at conference. May I firstly say how helpful the stewards and Lib Dem HQ conference staff were at conference.
The Conference Access Fund is unique to the Liberal Democrats as the other four parties with the exception of the Green party (who give their members up to £90 for travel and expenses) do not have such a fund. The Labour Party mentions disability access and having a women’s day at the start of their conference but they do not provide financial help with the associated costs of attending. The Conservatives and UKIP do not mention either disability access or a fund.
Having discovered this, I then googled how many MPs are disabled within the current parliament. Only 2 MPs out of 650 have a disability. Also from the Bridge Review of the Civil Service and its fast stream programme, disabled people are significantly underrepresented. Where is the voice of disabled people in Parliament and in the policy making teams within the civil service?
Theresa May’s letter stated that H.M. Government seeks “a deep and special partnership” with “a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement” that covers financial services, where we “have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part”, and “manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment”.
The closest model would seem to be the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs) that the EU has already negotiated with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and has offered to Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan. Since all these jurisdictions account for a smaller share of EU exports than the UK, (e.g. Ukraine’s share is 0.8% against the UK’s 8%), it is realistic to expect similar terms to be readily offered to the UK.
A “no deal” scenario on Brexit was never taken seriously by the EU institutions, and is not on the agenda. Exiting with no agreement on terms of departure or successor trade deal at all would harm the UK’s prospects of securing favourable future trading arrangements not only with the EU, but also with other countries. It would probably result in British GDP falling by something like £1,700 per household, thereby risking tainting the Conservative Party with economic mismanagement. Had Mrs May seriously sought or expected a “no deal’ scenario, she would not have wasted political capital and risked her credibility seeking to negotiate a new trade agreement alongside an exit deal; it would rather have been to her advantage to leave more quickly and suffer an economic shock in 2017, in the hope that the economy was reviving by the time of the next election.
The Lib Dem Press Office has had its Weetabix this morning. Not only did it get its punchy analysis of the EU’s statement about the Brexit negotiations out quickly, but it came up with a pretty eye-catching headline.
Here’s what Tim Farron had to say about the EU statement – and it does not reflect well on Theresa May and her Brexiteers:
These guidelines show the strength of the EU in these negotiations, and the carelessness of the UK government in isolating themselves from our European allies.
The terms are clear: no sector by sector deals, no bilateral negotiations and no new trade deal until the withdrawal terms are agreed. This leaves no doubt that Davis’ comments about special arrangements for the car industry or financial sector are worthless.
It is still possible for the British people to stop a Hard Brexit and keep us in the Single Market. And if they want, it is still possible for the British people to choose to remain in the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are the only party opposing this hard, destructive Brexit.
She’s done it. Mrs May has gone and linked Britain’s nuclear deterrent to Brexit trade negotiations.
I can honestly stick out my chest, jut out my chin and proclaim: “I told you so. And I told you exclusively.”
Alright, Mrs. May didn’t actually use the n-word in her letter to the European Commission which triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the start of Brexit negotiations. But in just one document she explicitly linked economic concessions with security issues nine times.
It requires only the smallest leap of imagination to realise that the British Prime Minister was talking about more than exchanges of DNA databases with continental police.
But be warned, the consequences of this link will be dire. Messing with the balance of strategic weapons capable of incinerating the world several times over is a dangerous policy.
Mrs May knows that, but the problem is that nuclear missiles are just about the only weapon the British have in their negotiating armoury. Their backs are against the wall.
There is, of course, a question mark, over whether or not the UK will be allowed to play the security card. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it crystal clear that she opposes negotiations on any future relationship until the terms of the divorce are settled. That means Britain has to cough up $60 billion, allow EU citizens to remain in Britain and accept that it will no longer be part of the European Single Market. All this before any talks on a future relationship which may or may not involve security. This is a direct contradiction of Mrs May’s tandem approach.
The virtual ink was barely dry on Geoff Crocker’s harrowing piece about his son’s PIP interview when a comment from Sarah Olney on the damning report by the Independent Reviewer of the PIP implementation, Paul Gary, popped into my inbox.
The report is highly critical and outlines that the fundamentals are just not working.
A key conclusion of the Review is that public trust in the fairness and consistency of PIP decisions is not currently being achieved, with high levels of disputed award decisions, many of them overturned at appeal
My findings point to the need to build very considerably on current action to improve the way PIP is administered, continuing the direction of travel proposed in the first Review. They include recommendations to improve the way the right type of evidence is obtained, used and tested in assessments; to strengthen transparency; and to broaden audit and quality assurance in assessment and decision-making.
In other words, there’s not a lot that’s going right.
Imagine, for a moment, that you’ve gone through the stress that Geoff describes just going for the interview. Then you find that you have been denied PIP. Then you have to endure the further stress of an appeal just to get the help that you desperately need to get on with your life, to work. PIP is not a luxury. It’s there to help people with long term conditions with the extra costs that these pile on.
There is a certain arrogance about naming a piece of legislation “great” before it is even enacted. The Government has today revealed how it will legislate to get rid of those pesky bits of European law that the Tories hate so much. You’ll hear a lot about “Henry VIII powers.” This is what the Parliament website says about them:
The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny.
Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.
A couple of days before Theresa May’s ill-judged ultimatum in her Article 50 letter over trade and security, Brian Paddick wrote for the Guardian about how hard Brexit could damage our security. That’s right. If Theresa May gets her way, we will be less safe.
He started off by talking about last week’s attack at Westminster in which 4 people, PC Keith Palmer, Aysha Frade, Leslie Rhodes and Kurt Cochran were murdered. How do we balance the need to keep Parliament accessible with the safety of those in and around it?
That security must be balanced with an obligation to keep parliament open to the people. We shouldn’t turn Westminster into Fort Knox, even if such a thing were possible. But we can improve security, for politicians, staff and, crucially, police on the frontline.
Those officers are not armed. Armed support is a distance away. No one wants an ostentatious display of force, which would only increase that sense of alienation many feel about “Westminster”. But this attack shows, alas, that armed officers should be directly behind that frontline. Otherwise lives will be lost that could be saved. In this attack, I gather, it was only because a minister’s armed close protection officer happened to be close by that the assailant was stopped.
While millions are spent on surveillance powers and the security services, over the past six years £1bn has been cut from the Metropolitan police budget. That’s huge.
He went on to talk about how a hard Brexit could compromise our security effort both in cost and co-operation.
Elaine Ford and Willie Rennie
Good news from party HQ. It’s barely 3 weeks since our membership reached 85,002, double our low point during the coalition years. Now, it’s shot up again and has just gone over 87,000. While we have had 5000 new member since the beginning of February, Labour’s membership, according to LabourList, is falling at the rate of almost 3000 members every week at the moment.
Party President Sal Brinton welcomed the news.
The clear message to this Government is we have not given up the fight against a hard Brexit, and thousands of people across the country agree with us.
This is not the time for despair, it’s the time for action.
Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour may have given Theresa May a blank cheque to pursue her divisive Hard Brexit.
But the Liberal Democrats will not stand by and watch as this country is torn out of the Single Market and young people are left with a future they did not vote for.
We are the natural home for all those who oppose a hard Brexit and believe the people must be given the final over what comes next.
In an earlier post, I wrote about the process of withdrawal of Disability Living Allowance and the requirement for disabled people to apply for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), as I experienced it in caring for my adult son Paul who has a condition known as Williams Syndrome. Several respondents shared similar stories, and urged our party to adopt a much stronger care policy for disabled people, so far to no avail. (I was by the way mistaken in my claim that all PIP application notices had been sent out over Christmas and New Year – it appears that a rolling programme is in place and this was just when Paul happened to receive his notice).
As other respondents also warned, the PIP application form and subsequent interview deepen the hostile challenging nature of the process. The application form is indeed 40 pages long. Brutally, DWP specifically refuses to allow a PIP applicant to state a well-known, well-documented medical condition with known symptoms as a statement of need. So for example you’re not allowed to state conditions such as Downs Syndrome or in Paul’s case Williams Syndrome and then allow this to refer to all its known symptoms and detailed conditions. Instead DWP insists that the applicant sets out in detail all the distressing elements of that condition, from intellectual lack of capacity, physical impairment, to hygiene and continence issues. I completed the form, ending up choked with distress at having to specify this detail.
Lib Dem Lords Leader Dick Newby threw some serious shade at the Government yesterday in his response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Article 50 being triggered. He went through it and pointed out the many inconsistencies and false promises it contained. It’s a cracker.
Today is for me and my colleagues an extremely sad day. It marks the point at which the UK seeks to distance itself from its nearest neighbours at a time when, in every area of public policy, logic suggests that we should be working more closely together rather than less.
But sadness is a passive emotion, and it is not the only thing that we feel. We feel a sense of anger that the Government are pursuing a brutal Brexit, which will rip us out of the single market and many other European networks from which we benefit so much. We believe that the country will be poorer, less secure and less influential as a result, and we feel that at every point, whether it be the calling of the referendum itself or the choices made on how to put its result into effect, the principal motivation in the minds of Ministers has been not what is best for the long-term interests of the country but what is best for the short-term interests of the Conservative Party.
We do not believe that the Government have the faintest clue about how they are going to achieve the goals that they set out in their White Paper last month or the Prime Minister’s Statement today, and we have no confidence in their willingness to give Parliament a proper say either as the negotiations proceed or at their conclusion. We therefore believe that, at the end of the process, only the people should have the final say on whether any deal negotiated by the Government —or no deal—is preferable to ongoing EU membership. We will strain every sinew to ensure that outcome.
Lib Dem MEP Catherine Bearder has been providing some advice to the prime minister over on the Huffington Post:
Dear Prime Minister,
This weekend I had the pleasure of joining the tens of thousands of people marching in London against your vision of a Britain after Brexit.
A sun-soaked Parliament Square provided a brilliant back drop to what was also a celebration. As you know, this weekend marked the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, and while we marched in London your European contemporaries met in Rome to mark 60 years of peace in the EU.
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, any half decent opposition leader would have lined up his most ferocious MPs to go to town on the PM over Brexit. We’ll gloss over the fact that any decent Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t have let the Article 50 Bill pass unamended in the first place.
But we don’t have a decent Leader of the Opposition. We have Jeremy Corbyn. You just get the feeling that if PMQs had been extended by a couple of hours, he wouldn’t have got round to asking a question on Brexit. No doubt he’d have asked about the weather and who the PM thought had done in Ken Barlow on Corrie. He should have taken May apart on Brexit. He should have had half a dozen MPs lined up with killer questions. But Labour MPs asked about anything but – until Tulip Siddiq came along. The MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, a passionate and effective opponent of Brexit, asked about the £350 million a week for the NHS.
Later, in his reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, rather than deliver a feisty riposte, he sounded like he was discussing the relative merits of different kinds of broad bean. There was no passion, no fire. “If she meets our tests, we’ll back her,” he said. Labour’s tests are meaningless anyway as they have failed them themselves. They had every opportunity to ensure that the Government’s strategy was changed to include membership of the single market, to stand up for the rights of EU nationals, and to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the deal.
From today, Britain becomes an outsider to the EU. We start to negotiate our exit with the other 27 member states. What emerges cannot possibly be as good as we have now. The cost of leaving and its effect on our children’s future is going to be substantial. How much that is remains to be seen. Much will depend on how the Government approaches the negotiations and the Article 50 letter doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence. If you want to inspire goodwill, you have to throw some into the mix. Instead, the letter, if you read between the lines, is a bit of an ultimatum on security.
That is not going to go down very well in Brussels and nor should it, really.
Catherine Bearder has written an open letter to the Prime Minister. She knows exactly what she’s talking about because she knows Brussels. Doing the ultimatum stuff and throwing your weight around isn’t going to work.
Prime Minister, please reconsider your hard line – you have failed to answer some of the most pertinent of questions about this process and that fills so many of us with dread.
As one of the UK’s directly elected members of the European Parliament I can tell you that your approach has been met with incredulity by our partners across the Union. My friends and colleagues cannot understand the stance you have taken and your hard-nosed approach before the negotiations have even begun.
They are not only saddened at losing a friend but they are worried about Brexit hitting them and their countries in their pockets, and concerned about nationalist elements in their own countries.
But their main priority is keeping the EU together, stopping the tide of nationalism and preventing Brexit from stealing the next two years on the EU’s agenda.
Tim Farron has made a video on the triggering of Article 50.
How dare the Government enforce a hard brexit on us without giving the people a say, he asks.
So, the deed is done, but the Liberal Democrats aren’t giving up the fight.
Here’s how senior Liberal Democrats have reacted:
The world needs liberal democratic values – this is something Churchill, Thatcher and others rightly decided that Britain could deliver from our place at the heart of Europe.
I believe the Prime Minister is twisting the will of the people, leaping into the abyss without any idea of where our country will end up. In her statement the Prime Minister admitted we would lose influence as a result.
Theresa May has chosen the hardest and most divisive form of Brexit, choosing to take us out of the Single Market before she has even tried to negotiate.
Membership of the Single Market was not on the ballot paper last June, yet without a mandate she has chosen to rip Britain, our businesses and our people out of the world’s biggest market.
It is still possible for the British people to stop a hard Brexit and keep us in the Single Market. And if they want, it is still possible for the British people to choose to remain in the European Union. Democracy didn’t end on 23rd of June – and it hasn’t ended today either. The people can have their say over what comes next.
It is a tragedy that Labour are helping the Conservatives in doing this damage to our country. They no longer deserve to be called the Official Opposition. Britain deserves better than this.
In today’s Guardian, Tim Farron sets out the case for the people to decide in a referendum whether they wish to accept the terms of Brexit or remain in the EU after all.
He sets out what Theresa May is up to:
Theresa May’s tactic is clear: to accuse anyone who dares question her headlong, blindfold charge towards hard Brexit of being democracy deniers. This despite it looking increasingly likely that the result of her reckless, divisive Brexit will be to leave the single market and not reduce immigration – the very opposite of what Brexiteers pitched to the people.
Then he sets out the case for a referendum on the deal:
It was May’s choice to plumb for the hardest and most divisive Brexit, taking us out of the single market before she has even tried to negotiate. That’s why we believe the people should have the final say. Someone will: it will either be politicians or the people. If the people decide they don’t like the deal on offer, they should have the option to remain in the European Union.
This is simply too big to trust to politicians. May wants to hijack David Cameron’s mandate from the general election to deliver hard Brexit. Meanwhile, the recent tough talk from Keir Starmer won’t hide Labour’s feeble deeds: voting for Brexit, failing to stick up for the right of EU nationals to remain, and even now only really threatening to abstain rather than vote against the final deal. I have heard of loyal opposition, but this is craven.
And he points out that the outcome is likely to be far from what people voted for – and that’s going to be the fault of blinkered ministers:
You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.
It’s not even been two years since you joined the party, and you are now sitting in the famous House of Commons. Has it sunk in yet?
Not really. One of the things I think is quite strange is how familiar it is when you enter because you see the House of Commons on tele so much. It doesn’t actually feel that strange in there. The weirdest thing I’ve experienced while there was when waiting for one of the votes, the Article 50 one I think, I was chatting with Caroline Lucas, and I got a text from my husband saying ‘You look really grumpy!’ It was just the weirdest thing. I was just sitting there having a chat, and my husband is watching me on the tele at home. When someone does something like that, it’s really weird.
In your short time as an MP, what are your likes and dislikes of the role so far?
The best bit is getting out and meeting people. I see people doing all sorts of different things. As an accountant, I was chained to my desk for eight hours a day while seeing the same old faces. Now I get to go into schools, workplaces and hospitals. I’m meeting different types of people, including staff, customers and patients. You get such a better idea of how the world works and how different people relate to each other. That is fabulous and a real privilege. It’s only MPs who get the opportunity to do that.
I like having the opportunity to contribute to the debates I feel passionate about. There was a schools funding one recently. It was brilliant to be able to stand up and talk about something I care about. I have kids at school, and my dad’s a teacher. To speak about that and, hopefully, to have some impact is great.
I dislike the way some people feel that they are entitled to have a go at you just because you are an MP. You might not have done anything in particular, but you are there to be shouted at.
So, the day has arrived. I’m wearing blue, as Roger Roberts suggested, for 3 reasons. As the Government carries out the worst assault on our children’s future I have seen in my lifetime, I’m doing this for three reasons. Out of sadness at what today means for our future, out of pride in the EU’s values of peace and collaboration – and out of defiance. I will not stand by why the Government destroys our country. I will take every opportunity for peaceful resistance as this incompetent and reckless government puts us all in harm’s way.
I will not stand by while the Government refuses to give us a say on the final outcome of the Brexit negotiations. What sort of democracy is that? People voted to take back control, not hand all power to ideological brexiteers who do all they can to avoid checks and scrutiny. Who would you rather had the final say on your future? You, or Theresa and her trio of Brexiteers?
That Theresa May has the nerve to suggest that the country should come together behind her shows how out of touch and comfortable with power her Government is. It’s that old saying about power corrupting. With a Labour Party missing in action, waving its demands as the Brexit horse bolts down the road, May thinks she can do what she likes. She has made no attempt to build any bridges whatever with the almost half of us who voted Remain.
Well, there it is. According to the TES, in the brave new world of Justine Greening’s Department for Education, a GCSE pass is now a grade 4. Except when it is a 5, because a 5 is also a pass. And just to remind you, the top grade is a 9, and the bottom grade a 1. Except maybe it’s a zero. Nobody really knows anymore, so don’t feel too left out.
And don’t panic, if you’re a student, a parent or a teacher. Because all will be well. Don’t listen to anyone who complains about the government not knowing what a GCSE pass actually means a mere 6 weeks before the exams. If we all stay united, Britain is unstoppable, remember. It’s just the moaners who bring us all down.
Still sceptical? As well you might be. It’s worth recalling how we ended up here, with the government announcing that a GCSE pass is both a grade 4 and a grade 5 rather like Boris Johnson when he announced he wanted to have his euro cake and eat it.
That’s the problem with nonsense. Like misbehaviour in schools, when one minister gets away with it, the others all start to copy. First it was Boris, then David Davis and Liam Fox with their pirouettes on the Single Market and immigration, and now it’s Justine Greening in education.
It was never going to be any other day, but the writ for the Manchester Gorton by-eleciton has now been moved and the poll will take place on 4th May.
Lib Dem candidate Jackie Pearcey had this to say on Twitter:
Not exactly a secret BUT Byelection will take place on Thursday, May 4th. We've been at it for weeks though and ready to beat Labour!
— Jackie4MP (@JackieP4MP) March 28, 2017
Tim Farron sent members an email asking them for money to boost Jackie’s campaign. He said:
We’ve already been hard at work for weeks, and we now have another 36 days to pull off something incredible.
In contrast, Labour has only just selected its candidate. George Galloway cancelled an event in Paisley last weekend due to “unforeseen circumstances.” Presumably that meant he was in the constituency over the weekend. I am sure we are all waiting to see Jackie take him on at hustings.
4th May is going to be a tad busy, shall we say. As well as the by-election, there is a council by-eelction in a ward in the constituency and the Greater Manchester mayoral election.
Want to get involved in the campaign?
Who’s Eve, I hear you ask? Well, for me, as an ardent pro EU supporter, tonight feels a bit like Christmas Eve when you know that somehow you have found your way on to the Naughty List and all that’s going to be in your stocking in the morning is a lump of coal.
For those Leave voters who were duped into thinking that everything was going to be hunky dory if we could just get rid of that pesky EU, the reality may well prove far worse than that.
One thing is for sure. The Brexiteers will be held rigorously to account by the one party which has opposed them from the start – us.
Labour’s six tests unveiled on Sunday were, to paraphrase the old Commodores song, too much, too little, too late to ever trust them again. Their best chance of success would have been to support the Liberal Democrats’ bid to add a parachute to the Article 50 Bill, but they chose not to do so. They will not be easily forgiven.
Tomorrow is a very big day. It’s much more than the delivery of a letter. It’s the first step on a perilous journey, driven by people who haven’t got a clue what they are doing. The Government approaches the negotiations in such a mean-spirited, graceless fug of self-righteousness. I have rarely had such little confidence in any group of people as I do in them.
Ahead of Article 50 being invoked tomorrow, Tim Farron had this to say:
Theresa May is about to take the plunge on the biggest decision to hit the UK in modern times.
She is pulling the trigger that will set in motion a chain of events which will change this country forever, and doing so without a proper plan, without a proper team of negotiators and without proper protections for millions of people who have been left in the lurch.
It is still possible for the British people to stop a Hard Brexit and keep us in the Single Market. And if they want, it is still possible for the British people to decide to remain in the European Union.
Democracy didn’t end on 23rd of June – and it hasn’t ended today either. Only the Liberal Democrats are fighting to make sure the people can have their say over what comes next.
There are some serious worries out there that the Government, rather than face up to its own shortcomings, will flounce off from the negotiations towards the end of this year, saying that the EU is being so intransigent that there’s no point sticking with it and we’re just leaving with no deal. Nick Clegg has set out why that is a bad idea on the Liberal Democrats’ website. Here’s a couple of examples:
Eight states of the USA have already legalised cannabis and Canada is set to follow suit in 2018. The Liberal government. elected in 2015, had a manifesto commitment to do so. Unlike the pledge to scrap first past the post and introduce a new electoral system, it is a promise that looks set to be kept.
There are various arguments for legal cannabis.
First, it has been shown to be an effective pain killer, for example for MS patients, and may ease symptoms of conditions like Parkinsons. It is cruel and unfair to deny patients access.
Second, it …
If you haven’t read Matt’s article about how the changes to Personal Independence Payments will affect him, then please do so.
Last night, the amazing Liberal Democrat peers did their best to try and stop the Government’s plans in their tracks. They filed a fatal motion which, like the one that saw off the fatal changes to tax credits, would have forced the Government to think again.
What they needed was the support of the Labour Party. However, as we know from Brexit, Labour don’t seem to be up for providing any opposition that actually means anything. Did they vote for our motion? No. They did, however, put down their own motion which amounted to little more than “We don’t like this very much but we aren’t going to do anything about it.”
Be in no doubt that if Labour had supported our motion, these PIP cuts would not be happening.
Following the votes, Baroness Celia Thomas, Lords Spokesperson for Disability, said:
The Party conference may be over, but whether you got there or not, there is still a chance to make an input into policy. There are four policy consultation papers inviting your comments with a deadline of this Friday. These are each likely to come to a future conference as a full policy paper. Given that it is pretty hard for ordinary members to change much if anything in a policy paper from the floor of conference, this may be your best chance to influence policy. The papers can be found here.
I could have tried to offer neutral summaries …
Last month the Government announced that it was going to be tightening the criteria for claimants of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which would see those people with mental illnesses stuck without the vital support that they need. The Government has introduced these restrictions after losing two cases at tribunals.
The Tribunal ruled that someone who is unable to undertake a journey without assistance from another person due to psychological distress should be scored in the same way as a person who needs assistance because they have difficulty navigating. Rather than accepting the ruling of the courts, the Government decided to change the legislation and the descriptors to exclude people suffering from some mental health disabilities by inserting the following into the legislation and the descriptors, “for reasons other than psychological distress”.
The Government produced its own analysis of which claimants and conditions are likely to be affected by these changes,
You can read part 1 here.
You were up against a well-supported, well-known and well-funded opponent in Zac Goldsmith, how did you win?
I was very lucky. I won’t deny it. I had the full Lib Dem by-election machine behind me. Because we thought we could win, they decided to really go for it. I had a group of people who knew what they were doing. They built a fabulous team and mobilised all those volunteers. I was very fortunate to have that support.
We were also able to fundraise. This was important, as we managed to neutralise Zac Goldsmith’s advantage over us. You would think finances would be his huge advantage, but there is only a certain amount you are allowed to spend, and, through fundraising, we were able to spend as much as he was.
It was so important to have all those thousands of volunteers descend to Richmond Park. They pounded the pavements. They delivered leaflets and canvassed. There is no substitute for doing all the door-to-door work over many weeks. I was so so lucky that so many people came and helped.
I think Zac helped too by running his own not so good campaign. And having run that mayoral campaign, it did put a lot of people off.
Are you not missing something?
Am I? What?
We’ve raised over £7,000 of our £15,000 target to back an additional 50 wards we are fighting to win this May.
Thanks to the generosity of scores of ALDC and Liberal Democrat supporters, 20 seats are now receiving additional direct mail to help them win.
We’re now able to help:
I’m sure you’ll agree that on Friday May 5th we want to be seeing on the TV; hearing on the radio; and reading in the papers: that the Liberal Democrats are back. That the Liberal Democrats are again making significant strides in local government.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Making the most of the Government’s belated action on illegal Israeli settlements (Jonathan Brown)
Somerset’s farmers are on the front line of climate change (Sarah Dyke)
Mathew on Monday: Local Government Reorganisation review welcome (Mathew Hulbert)
Reform is winning because liberal Britain is not listening to its own society (Michal Simon)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
David Alton, Andy Burnham and telescopic radicalism
Will Burnham abandon neoliberalism by adopting a radical agenda?
Pennsylvania's Kids for Cash Scandal shows the danger of the profit motive in the juvenile justice system
Conservative councillor joins Lib Dems in Cannock Chase
The AI world and some fallacies about it
Yet another government makes a mess of local government reform
The Joy of Six 1574
Front Street looking great
Bryan Ferry: A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall
Should the Reform UK leadership take responsibility for violence at their conference?
Katharine Pindar Katharine Pindar Katharine Pindar 
Peter Martin 
Meg Thomas 
