#WeCan build a Liberal Britain - Clegg's Spring Conference Speech

My now traditional Storify of the Leader's Conference Speech:

My Live Tweets from Clegg's Speech yesterday

Here's a collection of my tweets from the hall during Nick Clegg's speech to Liberal Democrat Conference yesterday.

Andrew

Belated #ldconf reflections

Eagle-eyed readers will have noted that my posts from Lib Dem Conference petered out after day two. There were two reasons for that - general busy-ness, and alcohol/late nights. Following conference, I spent a couple of days at home with my folks and seeing my nephew.

And now I'm home. Enthused, upbeat and ready for a fight.

So, what did I make of it? All in all, I had a great conference, mixing time in the hall with training, some very good fringes and various social events and receptions. I learnt new things and re-visited old issues. And I got a lot of photos of the back of Nick Clegg's head. Here a few random observations from my week.

Nick was fantastically relaxed: I saw him on five occasions, not counting all the times he ended up two rows in front of me in the hall, and every time he seemed to be relaxed and comfortable. Whether it was acting as Paddy's glamorous assistant at the Lib Dem Voice Awards, engaging in banter at the ALDC reception, summating in the Economy debate, conducting a Q&A in a packed auditorium, or in his keynote speech; he was a man at ease in his own skin, and at ease with spending time with his party.

Twitter can be a blessing: I got a tweet towards the end of conference heralding my position (then 4th) in this chart of "influencers leading the conversation at Lib Dem Conference". Very flattering, even if it didn't mean very much in the grander scheme of things.

...and a curse: Whatever the merits of my tweeting, however, any pompousity it may have prompted was pricked by a friend spotting that the BBC had chosen to report a tweet (on this page, at 10.33am)relating how I had skipped a couple of hours of conference to get a bit more kip!

The SECC may not be the best conference venue: Whilst the Clyde Auditorium (or Armadillo) is a lovely hall, with nice comfy seats, the decision to use it (together with a suite of rooms within the old SECC and the Crowne Plazza) rather than the main conference centre led to delegates having to negotiate a bewildering labyrinth of corridors. In addition, the SECC is slightly from local attractions when compared with centres by conferences elsewhere.

There was an obvious (and welcome) Scottish dimension: Being in Scotland must have enabled more Scottish delegates than normal (witness the stage invasion for "Flower of Scotland" at Glee club) and this was reflected on the floor of conference. Next year's referendum cast a long shadow on many of the debates.

...and the Rally was truly Federal: It was good to see Kirsty Williams and Katy Gordon giving the Welsh and Scottish perspectives rather than just the Westminster/England/UK view.

Even the key "leadership v the party" debates weren't acrimonious: This must have really annoyed the press who, undoubtedly, written lots of advance copy on how the party had torn itself apart in the key debates. In the end this hasn't happened - even if not everyone is necessarily happy with the results. Additionally, as far as I can tell only two members (Matthew Oakeshott and Mathew Hulbert*) have publicly called on Clegg to go.

Clegg's speech was a good 'un: At least it was from my perspective, setting out the basis of our election pitch for 2015. As ever with leaders' speeches, there are those who would like to see more substance - and I do hope that follows in the months ahead. For now, though, I think it hugely better than at spring conference and stronger than the previous approach to the "Stronger Economy, Fairer Society" slogan.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals need some serious examination: Our conference lanyards were sponsored by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling - and I had a good conversation with the organisers at their exhibition stand. The concentration of betting shops in, predominantly, impoverished areas (along with pawn brokers and pay-day lenders) is largely down to FOBTs. It is worth noting that conference backed a policy to put betting shops in their own licensing class.

Andrew

* Mathew Hulbert has now retracted this call: here.

Too Little, Too Late as Clegg comments on Miranda case

Nick Clegg's office has released a statement regarding the recent detention of David Miranda, which you can find on Lib Dem Voice. Whatever, this post was pre-planned and the statement doesn't go anyway near far enough as to cover the point I planned to make. I have changed the title though, so here is the piece as conceived:

 

 

It Doesn't Matter

• It doesn't matter that the Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced by Labour (the clue is in the year).
 
• It doesn't matter that Liberal Democrats did not support the bill, opposed it being pushed through parliament at speed and supported a number of amendments to temper its power (Hansard, 15 March 2000).
 
• It doesn't matter that use of the power has reduced in recent years (see page 48 of this document).
 
• It doesn't matter that the power is already being reformed.

It doesn't matter because, as Mark Pack and Jonathan Calder have pointed out, the high level Lib Dem response has been deafening in its silence. So it doesn't matter that there is outrage amongst the rank and file, when sanctimonious Labour activists start kicking us we have no response.

 

Nick, Jeremy Browne, and other prominent figures should have been vocal from the start. Even if their statements would have had to be more nuanced than a pure Liberal may have liked, at least we could have had something to hang our response on. As it is, we have nothing.

 

I'm disinclined to take lessons on Civil Liberties from Labour activists. But if I'm going into the breach, I need to be armed. And that starts at the top. I can't trumpet the Lib Dem position if there is no apparent Lib Dem position.

 

But, I fear the problem goes wider than this one case.

 

A Fairer Society means a free society where individuals aren't subject to harassment. It means the rule of law - and a law that is proportionate. It means treating suspected terrorists broadly as we would other criminals.

 

And if Liberal Democrats in government aren't - and/or aren't being seen to be - fighting for these things, then who the heck will?

 

It is issues like this that severely test my support for the coalition. After Secret Courts and Racist Vans (to name but two examples where the leadership have let the party down), it appears the leadership still haven't got it: we're LIBERAL Democrats and we should be fighting the ground on Civil Liberties. Even if you think there's limited electoral advantage in taking that territory, you can ill-afford to alienate the people who are out in the field campaigning for Liberal Democrats in local, regional, national and supranational elections.

 

I hope lessons will be learned for the next such test of our approach to Civil Liberties. I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

Andrew 

Riding it out - Some reflections on #ldconf

On paper, this should have been a great Spring Conference for the Liberal Democrats. Having won in Eastleigh, and getting to grips with the allegations against Lord Rennard, the party should have been in good spirits throughout and come away enthused for more campaigning, and more success. With County Councils elections in England just a few weeks away, this would have been a very desirable outcome.

Instead, I came away feeling somewhat bruised and (slightly) downbeat.*

Now, I don't want to overplay this. It is always good to spend lots of quality time with fellow Liberals. Whether it be in the conference hall listening to debates, in fringe meetings on any of a whole host of topics, in keynote speeches or just catching up with friends, it is just good not to have to constantly justify where you're coming from.

And there were some highlights on the floor of conference: Paddy's rallying call, Steve Webb's speech, Chris Jeffries' excellent contribution to the emergency debate on the Leveson report. And away from the conference floor: seeing friends from Autumn conference and Twitter, Glee Club, and my fanboy moment when Lynne Featherstone mouthed "good morning" when I passed her.

But there was trouble in paradise... the leadership's position on the Security and Justice Bill - at complete odds with the motion passed overwhelmingly at Autumn Conference - was very much on the minds of delegates. It wasn't just that the position taken was so completely out of kilter with the party -  it was the almost complete lack of engagement with the activists that stuck in the craw.

And then there were the shenanigans which led the Federal Conference Committee to decide that the Social Liberal Forum motion on the economy would require an hour to discuss. The effect of this decision - instigated, I am led to believe, by the leader's office - was to ensure that the motion wasn't debated. (There were nine motions in the ballot, and the FCC had decided there would be two half-hour slots. Had the economy motion came top it would have had both slot. But the motion on Secret Courts was always going to win so the economic motion, which came second, was bumped and the third placed motion, on Leveson, was debated instead.)

Due to a schedule clash, I missed Nick's Question and Answer session in which he angered the hall by failing to answer the questions he was asked. I also missed the attempt to have Standing Orders suspended so that the SLF's Economy motion could be taken on Sunday. The latter move failed, on a card count, to achieve the require two-thirds of votes in the hall. So the scene was set for the finale of this 3 act play.

The Secret Courts debate has been well reported elsewhere in the Lib Dem Blogosphere... Jo Shaw who, with Martin Tod and Charlotte Henry, had been leading the Lib Dems Against Secret Courts campaign, moved the motion and resigned from the party. The leadership, having clearly decided some time ago to ride the issue out, didn't even put up a defence. The debate was carried with just ten votes against - with more minds having changed in the course of proceedings.

The hall was subdued for much of the rest of the morning, although Tim Farron's stint as warm up for the Leader's speech did raise the mood somewhat. But Nick's speech, when it came, was disappointing. Yes, it hammered home our slogan for the next two years. Yes, it had some good attack lines against both the Tories and Labour.

But on its central tenet of defending our economic record, it was weak. It lacked any acknowledgement that the current policies were not delivering the results anticipates at the pace desired. To do so would need not necessarily be an admission of error - it is perfectly reasonable to argue that following Labour's opposition strategy (as compared with what they had proposed) would have led to a different but also difficult position: spiralling deficit and debt, much earlier loss of AAA status at a time of Euro crisis, greater currency flight and consequently increased borrowing costs, a vicious circle of spending and borrowing - and all this without a guarantee of increased growth unless it was sustained by the increased public spending.

Clegg's behaviour in scuppering the SLF motion (which would have been embarrassing, calling as it did for much higher levels of capital spending) along with lashing himself to the Government's economic mast, merely emphasised how out of touch he is with many of the activists. The sustained applause that greeted his defence of the European Convention on Human Rights must have been tinged with irony against the backdrop of Secret Courts.

His insistence that we won Eastleigh because of being in national government as well as local government rung hollow (although I still think there are national messages worth communicating.) In the confluence of the circumstances and the rise in the UKIP vote, it clearly was the local record that won through in Eastleigh, though.

Having decided to ride out the party's opposition to Secret Courts, Clegg may now be leading a party whose activists have decided to ride it out with him. Who will continue to fight, for what they believe to be Liberal Democracy. Who will continue to deliver leaflets, canvass, call, fund raise and attend conference. Who may well attend the leader's speech and applaude. But they may well be doing it with a bit less love for Nick than before.

My money would still be on Nick staying until the general election. But unless he makes serious attempts at rebuilding a conversation - a genuine two-way conversation- within the party, he may be the leader of a party fighting in spite, rather than because, of him.

Andrew

*I wasn't alone in this, as Mark Thompson outlines. 

** Alex has a good piece on this topic, including Nick's lack of arguments in favour, here

Nick Clegg's Conference Speech

I'm beginning my journey home from Brighton, but ahead of, hopefully, doing some commentary later, here's the link to the storify of my live tweeting of Nick Clegg's leadership speech.

Andrew

Letter to the Leader - A Response

Recently I wrote this letter to Nick Clegg with regard to the Security and Justice Bill. Today I have received a reponse.

 

Here it is, in full, with no comment (for now...) The only edit I've made is to omit the name of the staffer who sent it.

 

 

Dear Mr Brown,

 

Thank you for your email to Nick Clegg. I am replying on his behalf.

 

We fully understand that our members instinctively have concerns about the implications of the Justice & Security Bill for civil liberties and I hope to address these concerns in this email.

 

As you know, we are part of a coalition with the Conservatives, which naturally requires compromise. Where compromise has been necessary, the Parliamentary Party has strived to ensure that all proposals put forward by Coalition Government are as fair and sustainable as possible and I would like to assure you that Liberal Democrats in Government, as they are in local government, are working to secure the best possible deal for the British public, while building a stronger economy in a fairer society.

 

Under the current system, the only method available to protect very sensitive material such as the identity of informants from disclosure in open court is through Public Interest Immunity (PII). A successful PII application results in the complete exclusion of that material from the proceedings. Therefore, any judgment reached at the end of the case is not informed by that material, no matter how central or relevant it is to the proceedings. This system works well, but problems may arise when a case is so saturated in sensitive material that the PII procedure removes the evidence which one side requires if they are to make their case.

 

In these very limited circumstances, the Justice and Security Bill would allow sensitive national security evidence to be heard in closed material proceedings (CMP). CMPs are already used in other areas of law, including Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Orders (TPIMs), the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), and sensitive employment tribunals. This will ensure that civil cases which are currently not heard will be heard, and that allegations made against the Government are fully investigated and scrutinised by the courts. It also means that the Government would no longer be forced to settle cases which it believes have no merit.

 

Concerns have been raised about Part II of the Bill, which covers the disclosure of sensitive material and allows a court to make a declaration that a CMP may be used in certain civil cases. Indeed, as you are aware, Liberal Democrat conference voted in support of the removal of Part II. The deep concern expressed by conference has informed a tough approach to internal negations - while it has not been possible to secure the removal of Part II, we have secured a dramatic package of improvements which we feel meet the majority of the concerns. These include restricting the scope of the Bill to national security cases only, removing inquests from the scope of the Bill entirely, and ensuring that it is an application to a judge and not a decision by a Minister that triggers a CMP.

 

In November 2012, Liberal Democrats secured improvements to the Bill in the House of Lords by supporting a series of amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There are now further safeguards to make absolutely certain that every other avenue for dealing with sensitive material can be explored before a CMP can be used, and the amendments put beyond doubt the fact that CMPs cannot be extended to inquests, or in Scotland, Fatal Accident Inquiries. In addition, recent Government amendments make sure that the judge has the power to revoke the CMP if they deem that the procedure is not fair, even after it has already begun. This will ensure that if any material arises which is just embarrassing, but not sensitive, the judge can call a halt to proceedings.

 

I would like to clarify that the Government amendments do not remove the test of last resort for CMPs. The wording ensures that the judge has full discretion on whether or not to allow a CMP, preserving the balancing test as the judge will weigh the application against the interests of a fair trial for all involved.

 

All parties to the proceedings will be able to apply for a CMP rather than just the Government. While claimants won't be in a position to make the same kind of application as someone who holds national security material themselves, the Government's amendments allow claimants to ask the court to order a CMP of its own motion. If a party wants a CMP for information they do not hold themselves, they are unlikely to be in a position to fulfil the requirements of the application for a CMP that are set out in the Bill. They won't be able to provide detailed assessments of how relevant the material is to determining the issues in the case, or what the damage to the interests of national security would be if the material were to be disclosed. It would therefore clearly be wrong to require claimants to go through the same procedural steps that they would never be able to satisfy.

 

Finally, it is important to note that the Bill will not move cases that are currently heard in the open into closed proceedings. The proposals extend civil justice so that cases which are currently not heard by the courts can be. A judge will decide which pieces of evidence should be heard in open court and which in closed. Only evidence which, if disclosed, would be damaging to national security will ever be heard in closed session - material that is currently not heard in open court at all and is excluded from proceedings altogether. In practice no evidence that's given in open court at the moment is going to be given in secret under the Government’s proposals. What we're talking about is evidence that might be given by spies about their sources, their technologies, what they know - none of which is ever given in open court in any country in the world, including Britain.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to share your concerns on this important issue. I hope this information assures you that with the changes Liberal Democrats have secured to the Bill, CMPs will only ever be used as a last resort in a limited number of cases of national security where secret evidence is so sensitive that under the current system of Public Interest Immunity the case could not otherwise be heard.

 

Best wishes,

 

Office of Nick Clegg MP

A Different Sort of Pupil Premium

Over on Lib Dem Voice, Nick Clegg has been writing about his visit to Mozambique with Lynne Featherstone, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for International Development (DFID).

He talks of his pride in delivering on the Liberal Democrat's manifesto commitment to meet our international commitments to fund Overseas Development to the tune of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI). He mentions how it is political controversial (amongst some at least; particularly when there is so much austerity at home), but believes it is right.

And he is to do so.

All three major parties committed to the target at the last general election, with Labour and the Lib Dems committing to additional spending in connection with Climate Change issues - the Tories merely saying they would make their aid "Climate Smart".

I'm not going to contend that had the Tories been in Government themselves that they would have reneged on this _ I don't think they would have, although progress may have been slower - but they would certainly have come under pressure from a vocal wing of their party to do so. And the overall budget for DFID has decreased as the economy remains week.

But, for all our own problems, we have retained our commitment and will, reportedly, be the first G8 country to meet the UN target.

And we should be proud of that.

International Aid - properly targeted - can bring huge benefits. Not just to the individuals and communities that benefit but to us too. Such aid should be seen as a long-term investment which will reap rewards in improved governance within the developing world, improved relations between the West and the "Rest", improved security through the reduction of political instability and opportunities for both business investment and trade.

The results may not always be tangible but they are none the less real for that. And, of course, by leading the way amongst the G8 country we can further enhance our reputation in the developing world and increase our chances of benefiting in more direct ways as aid leads, hopefully, to trade over the longer term.

But aid has to be targeted, and funded projects must have definable aims and strategies. And this is something that struck me about Nick's piece: he cites a specific example of a project that aims to get girls into education in Mozambique and Ethiopia.

There is a vast reservoir of untapped talent in the developing world: woman of all ages. Because women's priorities tend to be different from men - and more focused on the family - education and empowerment of woman can lead to huge improvements in conditions for families and communities. Of course, this is difficult to achieve in cultures and circumstances where woman end up at home and their talents go unseen and un-utilised.

Breaking this pattern is difficult (but not impossible) in adulthood but easier - where appropriate funding can be achieved - in childhood. So projects tackling the under-education of girls are exactly the sorts of project that should achieve longer term results and develop more sustainable communities. We Liberal Democrats are justly proud of the Pupil Premium in the UK: we should be equally proud of our Pupil Premium in Africa.

Yes, spending is tight - but we must always remember we are citizens of the world. Insularity in times of economic strain is tempting but folly. 

But what about the cost, you say? 

Well, someone earning the median wage (£26,500) with a standard tax code is contributing just £59.45 p.a. towards DFID. (Sources: ONS and HMRC App)

Andrew

Letter to the Leader

Every week, I get an e-mail from Nick Clegg giving his persepctive on some of the Liberal Democrat achievements in Government and an insight into what goes on behind the scenes. Encouraged by Caron Lindsay and also Jo Shaw from "Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts", this week's "Letter from the Leader" received the following reply from me.


Dear Nick,

First, can I say that I (mostly) enjoy these weekly e-mails especially when they give an insight into the way the coalition works behind the scenes, as this week's does.

Secondly, I'd like to say that I was, and remain, a supporter of the coalition.

That said, however, there is one current issue which I am deeply disturbed about: the Justice and Security Bill. Two things concern me: the bill itself and your failure to engage with the party on the issue.

I appreciate that your time is limited (if you even see this e-mail) so I will not rehearse the arguments regarding Closed Material Procedures here. These can be found in more detail on the website of Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts and on this open letter to you I wrote in January.

What I would like to know is how this bill was approved by you and Danny within the Quad, without the opposition of the party being anticipated and factored in - and why when the opposition became obvious you failed to engage and either seek to delay or amend the bill or to, alternatively, allay the very real fears we have.

This is all the more baffling, following the experience with the (Draft) Data Communication Bill - but with that you did spend some political capital in getting it published in draft and examined in detail: a move which effectively killed it in the anticipated form. Surely a similar procedure could have been adopted with the Justice and Security Bill.

In your Letter from the Leader of the 15 December 2012, on the subject of the Draft Data Communication Bill, you said:

"It is no use standing up for civil liberties in opposition if you then forget all about them in power."

 and

"Liberalism for me is about protecting people from overmighty institutions while enabling people to get on in life. That’s not easy and we must always ensure that we ask ourselves tough questions, but I’m confident we are playing our part in getting the balance right. If you want to help the Liberal Democrats as we campaign for civil liberties you can support us here."

Coalition has given us lots of opportunities to implement some of our policies, moderate the extremes of the Tories and to put a Liberal stamp on the Government of Britain. This Saturday I will, along with many others including, I understand, yourself, be taking part in an Action Day trumpeting our achievements.

Sadly, this coalition government is in danger of putting a fundimental illiberal measure on the statute book: with little evidence of opposition from within the Quad or the Parliamentary party, no evidence of it being part of a deal for some other reform, little engagement with those outside and in more-or-less direct contradiction with the Coalition Agreement document.

It appears that you've boxed yourself into a corner - and there is little way out without a great deal of humilation and spending a huge splurge of political capital. Without it, though, I fear that you will have fundamentally damaged your reputation within the party and undermined our Liberal principles, as well as the principles which underpin our understanding of open justice and the rule of law.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Brown

Membership Number:


Update (14 February 2013): I've had a response.
 

In Which I Agree with the @Conservatives...

Well, kind of... The Government's plans for the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 were defeated today when Liberal Democrats voted against the Tories in favour of a motion to delay Boundary Reform to at least 2018. And when I say that the Liberal Democrats voted against - I mean every last one of them - all 57, according to the BBC. (if you want to check Hansard yourself, feel free...) - and I am very happy with this state of affairs.

But why am I so opposed when I agree with the equalisation of constituencies and the reduction of the overall number of MPs? Well, it's not just about the Tory failure to deliver on Lords Reform - although that comes into it...

For context let's revisit the manifestos. The Conservative's 2010 election manifesto promised this:

"[to] reduce the number of MPs by 10 per cent"

and, in a section entitled "A new agenda for a new politics" it said:

"The Conservative Party has led the way in sorting out the mess of MPs’ expenses. In government we will go further, by cutting the size of Parliament, cutting the scope of Whitehall, and cutting the cost of politics. We will make politics more local, more transparent and more accountable. We intend to build a new political system that serves people rather than politicians. Together, we can change our politics for the better."

Many (most? all?) of my readers will probably agree with me that the claim that the Tories led the way in reform of expenses is, ehm, dubious, at best. A further section takes the theme further:

"We will also cut Ministers’ pay and reduce the number of MPs in Parliament. Then we will go further, far further, since the expenses scandal was just the trigger for a deeper sense of frustration. We promise a total overhaul of our system of government, so that power is passed from the politicians at Westminster back to the people of Britain. But this is the very least that is needed to fix our broken political system."

What of the Lib Dems? Didn't we propose a cut in the number of MPs - an even bigger reduction in fact? Well, yes we did:

"Liberal Democrats will [c]hange politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties. Under the new system, we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150."

And what is more, it was proposed as part of a package of measures which included this one:

"Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House."

You can find the Tory Manifesto here and the Liberal Democrat one, complete with a full range of proposed constitutional reforms to support House of Commons reduction, here.*

Equalisation of constituencies whilst retaining First Past the Post would, of course, broadly favour the Tories - and this is the unspoken purpose of its inclusion in their manifesto. But the Liberal Democrats exist to promote fairness, so we cannot oppose them on this basis alone - although it would have been easier, politically, to have made the stand against the boundary reforms if the reduction in number of MPs hadn't be part of the same "bullet point" in the coalition agreement.

 

It is spurious to argue for constitutional changes on the basis of cost to the public purse. When it comes to public representation, I'm a bit of a Chartist: democracy costs, and we should not be ashamed of that. Yes, we should be against excess and profligacy but MPs should be properly rewarded for a (pretty much) 24/7 job and recognised for the employment they provide (an MP's office doesn't run itself).

It's also odd to argue that you will make politics "more local, more transparent, more accountable" when the net effect of the reduction of MPs (notwithstanding that some constituencies will shrink whilst others grow) is to increase the number of electors per representative and, therefore, reduce how local each MP would be. (Indeed, some of the odd constituencies proposed as a result of the various boundary reviews, Clackmannanshire and Dunfermline West & Bideford, Bude and Launceston ("Devonwall"), for example, illustrate this point).

 

This point about accountability becomes odder when you consider that a smaller Commons will lead to a stronger executive. Without other reforms: PR and an elected Lords, a smaller Commons weakens our parliamentary democracy - and does the opposite of  "passing power back to the people of Britain".

 

To truly pass power back to the people we need wholesale reform of the Commons and Lords. As things stand, the Lords is not only unchanged, but is ever-increasing in size (another batch of en-noblements is expected to be announced this week). Every new Peer reduces the democratic accountability of Parliament. Every new Peer concentrates more power with politicians at Westminster. Meanwhile, the Commons is unrepresentative of the electoral will of the people.

If we had an elected second chamber, the additional representation that this provided would allow for the number of MPs to be reduced to compensate for reduced workloads. The weakening of the Commons which would be a problem with no other changes is rectified by presence of additional representation. A weaker Commons could be balanced by a democratic Lords.
 

So I whole-heartedly agree with the Conservatives that we should reduce the size of the House of Commons. I even agree with some of their (stated) reasons. But not without changes elsewhere in our parliamentary democracy. I want to see a House of Commons which is smaller - but not for reasons of cost. I want to see equal constituencies but not for (Conservative) Party Political gain. I want these things for reasons of fairness - and as part of a proper programme of reform not as a standalone measure that further skews the system in favour of the Government - any Government.

 

Boundary reform is now off the agenda until 2018. I've said before that I don't think that at the next election (and in any coalition negotiation that may follow), we should bang on about constitution reform. In the absence of any further moves in that direction, the most we should do is support equalisation without reduction.

 

The Tories broke the coalition agreement over Lords reform - not in the Lobby, granted, given that Cameron couldn't drag his MPs anywhere close. Clegg was right to lead his troops to, and through, the Lobby in opposition to a Tory manifesto policy. Tonight, I am proud of every single one of them. 

Andrew

* Just a gripe: it bugs me that this isn't more prominent on the "What do we stand for?" page of our website rather than the Coalition Agreement. We may (broadly) support the coalition agreement, but it isn't what we stand for. I've just visited the aforementioned page of the website and note it has had a revamp.

My Mid Term Review

I'm not normally a fan of arbitrary "stock-taking" exercises, especially when they mark random things like "the first 100 days." I grudgingly accept, though, that there is a bit more logic to the "mid-term review", particularly in the context of a coalition where the yardstick is the negotiated coalition agreement, rather than a single party's manifesto.

I had hoped to be able to blog in some detail about the review itself, but I've not had the chance to have more than the most cursory of glances at it so, for now, I'll review to Stephen Tall's piece on Lib Dem Voice. That has a somewhat depressing conclusion - and I fear that he may be right.

Anyway, here are some comments by way of my own Mid-term review:

It's the Economy, Stupid. 

Well, it always is, isn't it. And, of course, we came into power to "clear up Labour's mess" Since then, growth has failed to materialise, we went back into recession, and the deficit reduction plan has had to be extended. And the fault for this?: international events, the Euro Crisis and sluggish economies elsewhere.

I have a couple of problems with this narrative. I understand the politics of it but I think it's disingenuous to blame Labour entirely for the economic circumstances into which this government stepped. But they can be lamed for fiscal mismanagement prior to the events of 2008 and, in particular, of spending the surplus which had been accumulated in the early years of their tenure.

And whilst it's not fair to ignore the international aspects to the 2010 situation, it's not fair to only blame the international circumstances since. We should have done, and need to do more, to encourage growth: through limited capital expenditure (as well as the much-vaunted guarantee schemes) if necessary.

That said, there is no magic bullet to encourage growth - and Labour lie when they suggest as much. Continued public expenditure at the levels it was at would have led to market confidence (such as it was) evaporating and our costs of borrowing escalating, along with a deficit creating artificial growth: a vicious circle which would have left us only marginally better off than Ireland, Greece et al.

There are signs of stabilisation in the economy but there's no getting away from the fact that things will remain rocky here (and in most of the developed world) for a long time to come...

Wasn't it supposed to be about Freedom, Fairness and Responsibility?

I'm going to say no more on this, other than to link to this post in which I urged Nick Clegg to meet campaigners against Closed Material Procedures. I am, and will remain, a Lib Dem to my core but Secret Courts are not being enacted in my name and I will be supporting Lib Dems Against Secret Courts motion to Spring Conference and a Special Conference if necessary.

Let's not talk about Constitutional Reform.

Best not. And best not too much at the next election either. And best not make it feature of any coalition deal that follows (should that happen, should it even be desirable). No one believes in major constitutional reform more than I do but next time we have the chance, let's spend on political capital on other policy areas. I'm not suggesting giving it up, just giving it a break.

It could have been much, much worse.

I know things are far from perfect. 

I know that we have alienated the soft support from those who lean to the left. 

I know we have made enemies in the chattering classes, the Guardianistas and comedians and panellists on Radio and TV news review programmes.

I know there is going to be an electoral price to pay.

But I also know a Tory (or Labour) Government would have been worse in their own ways. It may feel worse at times, as we're seen as (and are) complicit in things that go against our grain but stop for a moment and imagine what the ideologues in the Conservatives would have done without a restraining hand. And what they wouldn't have done without a kick up the proverbial.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I think that many of the battles we've had with the Tories would have been fought with Labour, had a viable coalition been possible. Not least on Tuition fees but also on Civil Liberties  (ending ID cards, Data Communications, Secret Courts). They may have been more amenable to fiscal policy which taxed the rich and cut welfare less but we'd have still, for example, seen VAT rise. And don't forget, they laid the foundation stones of the NHS and Education reforms which the Tories have built on and awarding Atos a contract to do assessments for the DWP in 1998.

FTW

Ending Child Detention. Increasing the Personal Allowance. Canning the Draft Data Communications Bill. The Pupil Premium. Equal Marriage. Increasing Capital Gains Tax Rates. Green Investment Bank. Instigated a "triple-lock" on State Pension Increases. Stopped the Tories freezing benefits (although conceded a 1% cap). Fought to keep a 5.2% increase in benefits in 2011 Autumn Statement against Tory resistance. Scrapped ID cards. Ended compulsory annuititisation of pensions at Age 75. Introduced Shared Parental Leave. Fought Tory "fire at will" proposals.

In summary.

We've made political mistakes. The coalition's made policy mistakes. But two and a half years on, whatever way you cut, the alternatives in 2010 were worse than what we have. We could have done things better, but things are better - for the country - than if we had sat in opposition. And for the party - at least in Westminster - as we would not have been forgiven at the polls if a minority Tory administration had gone to the polls again the Autumn.

Andrew

Saturday Six - #Leveson Thursday Special

So the 1st Leveson report was published earlier and, aside from my own small contribution, the interwebs has been awash with differing takes on the subject. Here are just a few*:

Caron summarises Nick Clegg's statement using the power of Storify. And you can read his statement in full here, with David Cameron's here.

Of course, a free press is a core Liberal belief - and there were many in the party who felt that this cannot be guaranteed if there is any form of State involvement in the regulatory framework. Stephen Tall, for example, believes that Cameron was sticking up for Liberalism today, rather than Clegg.

Finally, contrasting responses from Index on Censorship and Liberty.

The party leaders are meeting tonight and much more debate will ensue - I've a feeling that we'll be coming back to this topic again several times before it's settled.

Andrew

*Well, six, obviously.

Time, Gentlemen, Please...

The press – the popular press – is drinking in the Last Chance Saloon.

- David Mellor, 1989

In just under half an hour, the Leveson Inquiry report into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press will be published. Subsequently David Cameron and Nick Clegg will give separate - and dissenting - statements on the Noble Lord's findings.

It is anticipated that the report will recommend replacing the existing self-regulation with a system of regulation with "state-underpinning". Cameron is said to be in favour of a tougher, independent regulator whilst Clegg (it appears) seems more minded to accept Lord Leveson's findings. Indeed, the Lib Dem leader is quoted as saying "I hope, when Lord Justice Leveson gives his statement later today, we will remember the reasons why this inquiry was set up." 

As a Liberal, I believe that the state shouldn't interfere in society beyond what is strictly necessary for the good of all. But I also believe that the state has a responsibility to society to prevent abuse of privilege where it occurs. 

I believe that we are at that moment with regard to the conduct of the press. Good journalists, acting legally and ethically within an agreed code of practice should have nothing to fear. Those who could previously transgress with impunity - or just opt out of the Press Complaints Commission altogether - need to know that they can and will be brought to book by a regulator with authority. 

The PCC (set up following the Calcutt Committee into press invasion of privacy - plus ça change...) has failed - it's time to have a regulatory system with real teeth and real sanctions. This isn't about giving the state the power the power to censor the press, as it has been caricatured, it's about the state standing behind a new regulator and giving it real powers to censure the press. 

A free press is essential to a free society - but when it can (and does) transgress - society needs to be free to respond. As it says on my Lib Dem membership card: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community..." 

As part of our community, our press must - or must be made to - act responsibly. The press has had it's fill of drinks in the Last Chance Saloon - it's time for a different approach, for the good of us all. 

Andrew

Conference Notes - 2

More notes from my experience at the 2012 Lib Dem Conference in Brighton.

The Meedja

There was a sense, at the start of the week, that the media had a pre-written narrative. Party activists would be unhappy with Clegg, a leadership challenge was in the offing and conference would be in a rebellious mood.

None of the above was particularly evident. Whilst it would be foolish to suggest that there aren't those with concerns - after all, if you get 2,000 politically active people together they are going to be a wide variety of views on how to deal with any given issue - there was not a groundswell of opinion against Nick Clegg who was warmly received at all his appearances on the floor of conference.

On the last day I got accosted by a cameraman and reporter who were clearly on a fishing exercise for party members unhappy with the current direction - particularly in regard to taxation policy and the pace of progress towards greater wealth taxes. Some sort of inner filter kicked in and I'm pretty sure all my answers will have ended up on a cutting room floor - whatever my own views were, I'd be damned if I were giving the press more fodder.

[As it happens, of course, my views on the subject and the awareness of the realities of coalition government meant that it wasn't too difficult to be a loyalist in this regard. I merely said that I was confident that the issues were being raised within Government, the extent to which Nick raised the issues in public was a matter for his judgement. On whether greater Wealth taxes would be delivered by 2015 and if Nick would have failed if not, I was (again) confident that the case was being argued by him.]

Random Ministers

Conference exists within a bubble, with most events taking place in the either the conference centre or the conference hotel. You're surrounded by other Liberal Democrats and a security cordon. And you never know who you'll see next with government ministers, party grandees and parliamentarians rushing around.

Those who are more enthusiastic (by which I mean Liberal Youth) are liable to buttonhole ministers and insist on photos. I merely contented myself with a photo of Nick in the exhibition centre, some on the floor of conference and a few conversations with the Bristol West MP Stephen Williams whom I already knew.

Twitter Friends

One of the best thing about conference was meeting lots and lots of people I've previously only known through Twitter. Many hugs were had.

Like Mindedness

I mentioned this above - but it is fantastic to be around lots of people with whom you share a political outlook and philosophy  Whilst you may still disagree on some issues, they are people  who share your instincts, beliefs and values. People who are (broadly) all pulling in the same direction.

Stand-out Moments

There were so many of these - but here are a couple.

The Medically Assisted Dying debate - it's a difficult and emotive issue but one that will not go away, particularly as medical science advances. The amendment proposed in this debate would have called for a Royal Commission to explore the issue further but conference voted for the party to be in favour of allowing it.

The round of applause that greeted Nick when he said during his Q&A session on the floor of conference:

"Were we right or not, in that agonising moment after that last General Election, to enter into Government at all, in a coalition; which by definition includes compromise. To my dying day, I firmly believe that we did the right thing by going into coalition."

Whilst there may be differences between the activists and the parliamentary party and leadership - the vast majority of conference-goers believe that coalition was the right thing to do in 2010. That's something the media should get their heads around.

Andrew

Conference Notes - 1

As many of you know, I spent Friday to Wednesday in Brighton at the Liberal Democrat Conference. It was a great experience which I loved from beginning to end. My phone died on the way home which gave me ample opportunity to write notes which form the basis of this post.

I've eschewed too much structure and gone for a disjointed, ad-hoc approach to recording my thoughts. I've included some notes on Nick Clegg's key speech - but intend re-reading and/or re-watching before elaborating. It appears my initial opinion at odds with some of my colleagues in the party.

They tried to make me go to Glee Club...

...and indeed I went. When I first heard about glee club (via Twitter at previous conferences), I was deeply sceptical as to whether it would appeal. Even before I headed off to conference, though, I had put it in my diary - and I'm glad I did. It was immense fun although difficult to describe to the uninitiated. After a week of debates, fringe meetings and receptions it is a chance to let your hair down.

The alcohol flows and songs are sung: Liberal Anthems, National (and Regional) Anthems and all sorts of self-parodic songs are performed. We are not afraid to take the mick out of ourselves - which is a healthy trait when you have to put up with some of the stuff our party has to.

Regular Motions

Whilst conference eating can play havoc with your body's processes, there are no shortage of motions being debated on the conference floor. Or maybe there were - depending on your interests. It was notable there were no motions on International matters or policy, for example.

But regardless, the ultimate purpose of conference is to make policy for the party - not to confirm or rubber-stamp policy but to make it.*

Any member can be a voting member (subject to election through their Local Party processes) and can then vote as the see fit on the floor of conference. Lib Dem conference attendees are Representatives, not Delegates.

The tone of debates is civilised with opposing opinions being respectfully heard and applauded - even when the mood of the floor is largely against. The debate I personally enjoyed most was on Medically Assisted Dying - an important issue on which I think it is important for their to be a truly Liberal voice. Conference voted to retain and strengthen our existing policy that Medically Assisted Dying should be provided for by the state.

Another key debate was on the Justice and Security Bill on which party activists voted against the leadership amendment and demonstrated a Liberal freedom of mind.

Lib Dems: Fiscally Responsible, Socially Responsible

This was my immediate summary of Nick Clegg's end of conference speech. He had started the speech by talking of the values of British people as illustrated over the Olympic and Paralympic games and also as evidenced following last summer's riots and identified with them as common to our values. Values which are required to see us through both the challenges facing the Government and the challenges facing the party.

It was, I thought, a positive speech: not defensive but affirmative. With the monkey which was the apology for the Tuition Fees debacle off hiss back, Clegg went back to basics on our Liberal values and the fundamental belief in freedom of opportunity which defines us as a party.

He contrasted us with both Labour and the Conservatives - decrying the Tory backsliding on green issues and insisted that Growth had to be Green Growth.

It was, as I said, positive and uplifting. True, it may not have been soaring oratory but it was measured,  concise and focused; clear and delivered with feeling. It was refreshingly short on bluster and party-political pointscoring. It was about us - as a party and as a party of government.

As I said above, I am going to re-read the speech and write a fuller post - but these were my first reactions.  

Andrew

*but see tomorrow's Saturday Six for more nuanced background on this...