Sky Sources: Liberal Democrat MPs will back airstrikes in #Syria
— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) December 1, 2015
We will keep you updated.
Sky Sources: Liberal Democrat MPs will back airstrikes in #Syria
— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) December 1, 2015
We will keep you updated.
Dear Tim and colleagues,
Have our five tests for bombing Syria been met ?
You have set out 5 conditions for Liberal Democrats to support action by the UK to bomb Syria. When you meet at 5pm today you will decide if those conditions have been satisfied ? Let’s take them one-by-one.
1) LEGAL
UN Resolution 2249 – OK, so we may go ahead and bomb Syria but what about the rest ?
2) WIDER DIPLOMATIC FRAMEWORK INCLUDING NO-BOMB ZONE TO PROTECT CIVILIANS
What, if any, evidence of plans for a no-bomb zone ? None that I have seen. Anyway how can you have a no-bomb zone in Raqqa when innocent, terrorised and enslaved civilians provide a human shield for ISIL ?
3) UK LED PRESSURE ON GULF STATES FOR INCREASED SUPPORT IN THE REGION
What, if any, evidence of such pressure ? As a country we have promoted arms sales to Saudi Arabia and we avoid any chance of offending its rulers, who will easily dismiss any so-called pressure.
If I told you there was a pill that you could take every day that stops HIV in its tracks for those whom are HIV negative what would you think? What if I told you that recently you’d have to move heaven and earth to access information? That there were only one or two sexual health clinics in the UK that would provide the information? Astonished I’d imagine.
Well there IS such a drug. It’s available quite legally for anyone for those that want it – the patented drug (Truvada) for £400 a month – or the generic (Tenvir-EM) for £40. And I’m using the latter!
We have all heard about the European Union Referendum Bill but I suspect most do not realise how close we are to it becoming law. Whether you are a Europhile or Europhobe, you may be interested to know that the Bill will be getting its 3rd reading in the Lords today (1 Dec), after which there will be no more opportunity for the introduction of any new amendments.
I have to confess that I live in a household of Europhiles. My husband spent the early part of his life between aged 2 and 11 living in France, then Netherlands, as his late father was the English Head of the AFCENT International School for families of NATO. My in-laws subsequently retired in France and my step mother-in-law still lives there. She will sadly be barred from voting in the EU Referendum even though it could affect her right to continue to live in France. Brits who have lived abroad for more than 15 years do not currently have the right to vote in any UK elections, let alone in the EU Referendum.
Courtesy of the National AIDS Trust
I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2002, like so many people politicised by the build up to an illegal and wholly unjustified war in Iraq.
That misguided military intervention has loomed large over every subsequent discourse on the Middle East and our engagement in it. It’s a particularly salient point of reference for us as Liberal Democrats, as those of us involved at the time will remember, opposing Iraq was not a popular position. We were called appeasers, and worse, by people who had swallowed whole the dodgy dossiers and their phantom 45-minute claims.
Almost everyone, except Blair himself, now acknowledges that the war was a huge and costly mistake, and in turn that the Liberal Democrats, led by Charles Kennedy, were right to oppose it. It was and still is a defining position for our party.
However, I fear that this one position, taken over thirteen years ago, has come to exert a disproportionate influence over our view of the world in 2015. I’ve read with interest the various pieces that have been written over the last few days regarding our potential intervention in Syria, and whether the Lib Dems should support it. There are strong arguments on both sides made by honest and principled people, however it is clear that some of the arguments made against military action don’t stand up to even the mildest scrutiny, and are based more on a sense that as Liberal Democrats we should be “against this sort of thing” rather than any understanding of how this situation may differ from the past.
We wanted to test feeling in the party about whether and in what circumstances members would back airstrikes in Syria. Over two thirds said that they would oppose them in current circumstances, with less than a quarter in favour. However, when we looked at a Syria where there was a real post war plan, or a more coherent army of ground forces to support, that changed radically, with most members who expressed a preference supporting using UK air power to defeat Daesh. Only 10.7% of people agreed that we should never back airstrikes, with 75% answering “no” to that question.
There is very strong backing for Tim Farron’s Five Tests, with two thirds of members saying that they were “about right.”
Here are the answers in full:
Yes 24.31%
No 67.18%
Don’t know 8.51%
Yes 56.51%
No 31.28%
Don’t know 12.21%
Yes 46.46%
No 35.28%
Don’t know 18.26%
There are three threats arising from the conflagration in Syria and the surrounding region.
Firstly there is the indirect threat of ISIS’ operations in the Middle East and other parts of North Africa. Indirect because they are not about to invade Europe. The implications of its activities are the local destabilisation and destruction and the translocal movement of vast numbers of refugees. Aerial bombardments are having limited effect and, even if eventually effective, will result in a political vacuum which will be filled – as many commentators have already outlined – with ISIS mark 2 or further instability as the other warring factions compete for territory and power.
Such is the scale of our political failure concerning the Syrian conflict that the only options left open to us are terrible ones. Though I think much of the opposition to the air strikes is mistaken, it is with a heavy heart that I speak out in opposition to air strikes on ISIS in Syria too.
ISIS will clearly only be defeated militarily, and I’m happy that the UK should be part of that. Air strikes were almost certainly essential in enabling the Kurds in Syria and Iraq to survive ISIS’ sudden onslaught in August 2014.
The North and East Liberal Democrat AGM was held last Friday. We had a good turnout, enjoyed the wine and mince pies (thank you!) and had a really interesting and brilliant talk from Baron Jeremy Purvis of Tweed.
Jeremy posed some real issues for us Liberal Democrats in terms of identity. After all, in a liberal society where everybody claims to be small ‘l’ liberal, what is the use of a liberal party? Especially in a system where everybody from both left and right have to converge upon the centre ground in order to gain power. The SNP and Conservative “love-in” has changed things though. Each present themselves as the only alternative to the other This situation led to the SNP almost sweeping the board in Scotland (50% vote share) and to the Tory majority government on 37% of the vote. There is nothing as useful in politics as having a good enemy. This viewpoint, however, leads only to insularity, acrimony and bitterness.
This week, it is likely that the Commons will be asked to approve RAF strike missions against ISIL/Daesh targets inside Syria. LDV readers will be familiar with Tim Farron’s five tests but here I’m going to focus only on the first: would such strikes be legal?
(NB. If it is, each target would be subject to the normal targeting rules of proportionality – ie, the use of force must be proportionate to the military advantage to be gained, and discrimination, – ie, that you may only attack military and not civilian targets.)
I made it clear over the summer and in my conference speech that housing and homelessness would be a top priority for me as leader. I said we would oppose the Right to Buy extension to Housing Associations and fight the Government tooth and nail in the Lords.
The fight is now well underway. I have been speaking in Parliament and will continue to lead our campaign in the House of Commons. After Christmas the legislation will be debated in the Lords, where our Lib Dem team will aim to cause the Government serious problems – which they have shown us in the last few weeks that they can do!
This week the Chancellor unveiled a petty attack on our democracy.
There were just three good parts to the Spending Review. First, there was the long-overdue boost to mental health funding as championed by Norman Lamb. Then there was the welcome U-turn over tax credits, and finally the absence of significant police cuts.
However, there were swathes of ideological, unnecessary cuts: cuts to the pupil premium in real terms, cuts to green energy which will harm our environment and our economy, cuts to universal credit orders for councils to sell off much-needed property to stay afloat financially and a whole lot more.
Hidden beneath this bad news though was something a lot more sinister. Osborne proposed a seventeen percent cut to opposition party funding because – wait for it – opposition parties have done nothing to cut the deficit so they should take the hit! Has the Chancellor forgotten the last five years? Even if the Chancellor somehow thinks opposition parties routinely voted against every bill proposing spending reductions, we Lib Dems spent five years sacrificing our party for the good of the country.
Today is St Andrew’s Day. Here is Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie’s message to the people of Scotland:
Our Patron Saint was born in the village of Bethsaida, a short distance from the troubles in today’s Syria. As we celebrate St Andrew’s day this year, millions of people across Syria and the Middle East need our help.
Last week I visited an Edinburgh charity which has been collecting clothes for refugees who have made the perilous journey from Syria to Europe.
In many respects they embody the values that St Andrew taught. Tolerance. Generosity. Openness. We need Scotland’s two governments to follow their example.
The new LDV members’ survey is now live. So if you are one of the 2100+ registered members of the Liberal Democrat Voice forum, and any paid-up party member is welcome to join, then you now have the opportunity to make your views known.
The survey asks a series of questions related to the situation in Syria and the forthcoming parliamentary vote on whether the UK should be involved in airstrikes against Daesh.
Many thanks to the 12,000 visitors who dropped by Lib Dem Voice this week. Here’s our 7 most-read posts…
We must reclaim our social democrat heritage (49 comments) by George Kendall
Banning the Lord’s Prayer – how outrageous (if it were true) (39 comments) by Caron Lindsay
Farron’s five tests to secure Lib Dem support for UK action in Syria (24 comments) by Caron Lindsay
Welcome to the Golden Dozen, and our 441st weekly round-up from the Lib Dem blogosphere … Featuring the seven most popular stories beyond Lib Dem Voice according to click-throughs from the Aggregator (22-28 November, 2015), together with a hand-picked quintet, you might otherwise have missed.
Don’t forget: you can sign up to receive the Golden Dozen direct to your email inbox — just click here — ensuring you never miss out on the best of Lib Dem blogging.
As ever, let’s start with the most popular post, and work our way down:
In the early hours of 21 August 2013, rockets began to land in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The civilian population of Syria had now become used to this, since Bashar al-Assad had decided over 2 years earlier that in response to a peaceful uprising against his totalitarian rule he would prosecute the most brutal military campaign by a ruler against his people that this century has seen. But this attack was different: the rockets were filled with sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent.
When the images of the hundreds of people killed and thousands injured began to circulate, there was international outrage of a level not so far seen in the Syrian Civil War. Momentum gathered for a military response. Obama’s red line had been crossed. Enough was enough.
Only it wasn’t. Obama dithered. Miliband played politics. Assad survived to kill another day.
George Osborne’s decision not to impose the cuts to tax credits may be welcome but in many cases is only putting off the agony. As research from the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, working families with children still stand to lose more than £1300 a year, more than £100 every month. Nick Clegg spelled this out when he was in Oldham campaigning for Jane Brophy this week:
He’s just delaying it by smuggling the cuts into Universal Credit. I think we played an important role and a leading role in firstly, identifying the problem and then opposing it unambiguously.
I wasn’t (surprised at the decision). But they’re doing half a beastly thing instead of a beastly thing.
Actually, it’s more of a beastly thing than that. The cap on the childcare element at 2 children remains and, with it, an issue which was first highlighted by SNP MP Alison Thewliss back in July. There is a rather sinister devil in the detail which has not been removed by the Autumn Statement, the so-called “rape clause.”
This says:
the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional circumstances
Someone sitting in an office in Whitehall has actually thought this, written it down and others have presumably thought it was practical enough to include. I actually despair.
So, how exactly is a woman supposed to prove that she has been raped, given that conviction rates are so low? Alison Thewliss has repeatedly questioned the Chancellor on how exactly this will be implemented, most recently after the Autumn Statement on Wednesday. Osborne replied:
Speaking to the Independent, Tim Farron has said that he’s disappointed that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference is not discussing the issue of LGBT rights.
But Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said last night that the issue should have received greater prominence in Malta. He said: “Sadly, a majority of Commonwealth nations criminalise LGBT people, and in some places homosexuality still faces the death penalty.
The Government should have used the meeting in Malta to press commonwealth countries to live up to our collective values. We must be a beacon of human rights, tolerance and the defence of minorities. The British government must use our strong position to press the case for better LGBT rights in other Commonwealth nations.
A bit of Sunday morning fun. Here are some quotes from a hustings in Oldham West and Royton. See if you can match them up to the candidates taking part who are:
John Bickley (UKIP)
Jane Brophy (Liberal Democrats)
James Daley (Conservative)
Simeon Hart (Green)
Jim McMahon (Labour)
Such a pity that Lord Oink-a-lot, the Monster Raving Loony Party couldn’t make it. He evokes memories of that delicious night in the Liberal Democrat Conference bar when that story about David Cameron rippled its way round. Groups of people convulsed with laughter as the news made its merry way round.
But back to serious business. Here are the series of quotes. Your job is to match them up with the candidates. Which one would you want as your MP based just on the following?
When it comes to knife crime there appears to be two default settings that most Westminster politicians adopt.
The first is to turn a blind eye to the issue for large periods of time.
For example in London during the six week General Election period, 26th March to 8th May, there were 789 victims of serious youth violence, 1,231 victims of knife crime and 441 victims of knife crime with injury. That’s 40 a day.
Yet despite these figures the issue was almost entirely ignored. Few politicians campaigned on the issue or wanted to talk about it.
The second position for Westminster politicians is to suddenly take a very short term interest, but to be totally obsessed with the idea that ‘fixed term’ sentences are the only solution.
In some ways, the decision on whether to back the Government’s proposals to bomb Syria is one of the hardest the party has ever had to take. I’ll be honest, I don’t think that the case has been properly made in either long term strategy for Syria or in protecting the innocent civilians, many of whom are women and children. That is not to say that I can’t be persuaded. This is no Iraq where for months beforehand I just instinctively felt that it was the wrong thing to do. It’s a very complex set of circumstances and it’s very much a case of making a judgement call on the least worst option.
This piece is not about the rights and wrongs of the situation, though. It’s how we reach our position and how we conduct ourselves before, during and after. There have been things that have impressed me in the past few days, and things that have set off a few alarm bells. Tim Farron has not, I think, put a foot wrong. His reasoned approach with his five tests give credibility and authority and, unlike any other party, has given the government serious questions to answer. He has also been seriously engaging with people on Twitter and offline too.
From what I can see, the Liberal Democrat members seem to be pretty evenly split on whether to support airstrikes. There are sincerely held and well-argued points of view on both sides. So how do we get to a decision we can all live with? There are a couple of things that I think would help and a few things creeping in occasionally that certainly don’t.
On Thursday alone, 5 of the Lib Dems’ 8 MPs were in Oldham. Tim Farron had been there on Monday and Sal Brinton is there today. You never know who you might meet if you go there this weekend.
Nick spoke to the Oldham Evening Chronicle, saying he thought Jane was fantastic and talking about the #libdemfightback
As a party that took a real knock in the General Election this by-election gives us the opportunity to get out and speak to people again, explain who we are.
I think Jane’s getting a really positive response on the doorstep and I am very confident that she is going to do a lot better than we did in the General Election.
We have got to rebuild like any party, like any individual that takes a hard knock. You have got to lick your wounds a bit but move on and dust yourself down.
The party’s finding its zeal and fighting spirit again. In a constituency like this where we haven’t traditionally been competing at Westminster level we still have scores and scores of activists coming into our HQ and knocking on people’s doors.
It shows that, as much as our opponents might suggest that the Liberal Democrats have been put out of action, we’re mounting a fight back. We’ve had a massive influx of new members.
He also commented on the Autumn Statement and in particular the Chancellor’s u-turn on tax credits:
I’ve written this in response to Tim Farron’s article regarding domestic violence:
This is a subject very close to my heart, as I have been through this and come out of the other end. The problems started in 2008 when my now ex-husband lost his mother. He subsequently took this out on me, both verbally and physically. As a result I lost all confidence; I lost my career, my self-esteem and I was totally alone. Had I told anyone we still would have been alienated; we needed help as a family, not judgement from those around us.
Anyway, eventually I left. Not because it got worse, but because I could not forgive him for what he had done. Because I was perceived as not being in any immediate danger I found myself homeless. That’s ok. I understand that there are people who needed more immediate shelter. I had no access to funds. He had all the money. I had nowhere to go. I sofa-surfed; homeless. Living out of a holdall at the tolerance of others.
Eventually I scraped the money together for a deposit on a flat. I could rent a bedsit, which I am still renting. I was still contributing to the marital home and had little access to any money (my £1000 savings was barely cutting it, all my cash was tied up in the home). I spoke of the prospect of selling but he was never “ready” to sell. Then, after a year of polite negotiations, he told me I wasn’t entitled to half our flat (bearing in mind I wasn’t planning on looking at his savings and assets, just the home) and he told me to get a solicitor.
At this point my take-home earnings were about £1000 per month. Out of this came my rent (£550 per month), bills and council tax. I was also trying to pay off my credit card debt which I had accumulated as a result of needing to set up a home again (I was allowed 2 pieces of furniture and my clothes from the marital home). This left me with £200 disposable income; not including food. I had no car and never went out. I guessed my life was miserable enough for legal aid. I guessed wrong.
I have no idea who had the Lib Dem Press Office Twitter account tonight, but they need to have it more often. They had certainly had their Weetabix this morning and took on all-comers:
I think this might be why our canvassing data was so off. pic.twitter.com/nJpGJ3jNDl
— Phil Reilly (@phil_reilly) November 27, 2015
@PoliticoPhilf @timfarron @haveigotnews not many chances to do that at 9pm on BBC, but maybe a few will want to find out more about us now
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) November 27, 2015
@brianstokes92 I know. We should have done something normal, like gone for a pint or something.
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) November 27, 2015
It’s almost 9pm and time for this week’s hotly awaited Have I got News for You. Have you got your popcorn and glass of wine ready? We’re about to be off…
So Tim’s on Paul’s team..
If you are only just seeing this now and haven’t watched the programme, you can do so here on iPlayer.
And it looks like it’s going to be a good one. Laurabee was in the audience and this is what she had to say on Twitter:
You should watch Have I Got News For You tomorrow at 9pm on BBC1 because I'm in the audience and it was really funny #shamelessplug
— Laurabee (@justlaurabee) November 26, 2015
And there’s more:
I think my next political crush is gonna be @timfarron after that episode
— Laurabee (@justlaurabee) November 26, 2015