What a difference a week makes. From the almost unbridled joy of a Liberal Democrat Conference where we celebrated a huge infusion of new MPs and a sense that, after more than a decade of pain and struggle to be seen as relevant, we’re bystanders at a Labour Conference where, rather than celebrated a glorious victory, there’s a sense of defensiveness already.
Caron has already covered the rather bizarre mess that Keir Starmer has gotten into over the £100,000 worth of gifts that he has received and declared in recent years. And I entirely understand that there is a perceived political advantage to getting the bad news out of the way early – most keen observers of the last year of the Sunak administration will have already concluded that the sheer scale of unfunded commitments they made would make the task of an incoming administration a difficult one.
But instead of one hundred days of action, it all gives an impression of a leadership rather spinning their wheels even if they are, in reality, possibly doing quite a lot. The media won’t help that – their unfriendliness towards a Labour government can be taken as read. We’ll see if they can do something about changing the narrative over the next couple of days…
Ours was a rather more triumphant affair. I don’t always make a habit of taking in the Leader’s speech but, this year, thought that it would be a historic moment for Liberal Democrats. It was, if not because of the speech itself, which was fine, but the sight of seventy-one Liberal Democrat MPs flooding onto the stage and beyond really brought home the sense that we’re back. And, as you’ll note today, there’s more coverage of what liberals are thinking than there has been for some time. One can only hope that this will last.
There was one point of controversy at Conference though, the decision to overturn Federal Conference Committee’s choice to deny Liberal Voice for Women a stall in the Exhibition. There are a range of opinions on their presence, and Federal Council will be scrutinising what happened later this week. I tend to the view that hard cases make bad law, and wouldn’t condemn the decision in isolation – the recent Plaid Cymru discrimination lawsuit demonstrates the potential legal risk to the party. I would, however, like to know what rights the Party has to exclude organisations whose values clash with ours if they applied to have a stall in the future. It seems absurd that the Party cannot choose to exclude such organisations, regardless of any wild conflict in values, but I’m not a lawyer so I’ll hear the evidence, paying close attention to it.
So, what do we have for you today? John Medway asks some big questions about global issues, whilst Caroline Voaden has been writing about steps to undo some of the most egregious failings of Brexit. Darryl Smalley is urging you all to campaign in the housing estates and Bobby Dean is urging Labour to reject austerity – perhaps austerity isn’t a left-wing or right-wing economic policy after all. We’ll have the usual press releases for you to comment on – I’m guessing that there might be a few responses to Labour’s pronouncements.
And, if you’re inspired to write something for us, or you know someone who has something to say but isn’t a regular here, why not tip a toe in the water? We’re keen to expand both our range of authors and our readership, so come one, come all, to the rising Liberal Democrats!
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Please note that, consistent with general Liberal Democrat Voice policy, comments on this piece will be pre-moderated. Please be patient with us if your comment is not published immediately.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
North London's expanse
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Big brother state
Jago Hazzard rides on London's cable car and no one else does
Roland
Paul Reynolds
Jonathan Brown
Simon R
Peter Martin
6 Comments
Labour’s problem is that it is still a corporate socialist entity, it has not changed and the party only changed under “New Labour” but after Brown lost power, it resorted to its socialist core. The Trade Unions are the party’s paymaster and will demand greater striking rights which will cripple business and make them uncompetitive. I recall the Labour Government of 1974-9 which made us the sick person of Europe. Labour’s record is not a good one based on punitive tax rates and class envy. Voters were promised that Labour would be different but they are no better than the Conservatives at being arrogant either.
Voters expected different from Labour with it’s junkets. Sad thing is Starmer didn’t see any wrong in accepting those kind of freebies – to the amount that someone on the minimum wage would take nearly 8 years to earn. Also £14k for a birthday bash for a shadow ministers 40th , fairly shameful if you ask me especially coming on the back of that ‘difficult’ decision to impoverish pensioners – a political choice by labour. As for LDVM, and the other groups in Labour , & the Greens etc…The law is well and truly on their side – with further upcoming court cases – let’s see if the those parties are prepared to put their position in front of the courts yet again ….
This was a more measured comment about LVW than most, thanks Mark. When members come to speak to us they find that our values are the same as theirs: respect for free debate; a sense that the party has been stifling discussion of important topics; and a desire for us to follow John Stuart Mill in ensuring that our arguments are exposed to opposing views in order that our policies be strong and able to withstand opposition in public. All our views are ones which have been judged as “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that they are coherent and do not oppose the rights of others. The party can’t prevent members who, for example, oppose nuclear weapons from taking part in Conference. Our opinions are shared by most in the party and society and our silencing at Conference must cease.
The decision to allow the stand and advert relied on the Equality Act and in particular Section 101, which says in effect all members of an association (such as a political party) must have equal access to the benefits of that association (such as conference facilities). The specific wording is in Sub-section 2a here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/101
@ Alison,
To be honest, I do object to your assertion that LVfW’s values are shared by most members, and that their opinions are shared by most people in the Party and in wider society.
That, I would suggest, is at best unproven, and reflects an apparent desire to “other” those on the opposite side of the debate.
And whilst the core belief and campaigning thrust of LVfW might be “worthy of respect”, I, and many others, aren’t obliged to like it or those campaigning for it.
Mark wasn’t the decision to allow a stall because there are many party groups that disagree with party policy positions at various times including young liberals and that excluding liberal voice would also mean potentially excluding them in the future?