For those who want more, and more regularly, you can find additional writings on my public Facebook page, including my "quick takes" following the speech.
Saturday, 7 September 2013
I'm Climbing Ben Nevis for Syria!
A week today, I'll be in Glasgow for the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference.
Prior to that, though, I'll be in Fort William on Friday. Well, I say in Fort William... I mean on Ben Nevis - the peak of which is highlighted in white* in the picture above, taken back in March.
The aim of the climb - dubbed "Lib Dem Nevis" and being undertaken by me and a number of other Lib Dems - was originally two-fold: to raise awareness of the issues surrounding paying interns and to raise funds towards a bursary that would help fund a paid intern for Head Office. The climb's organiser, Glyn Ley, discussed the issue on Lib Dem Voice.
These issues remain important but it has been decided that in the light of the situation in Syria, funds should be directed to the Disasters Emergency Committee's Syria Appeal. With millions of people displaced and Chemical Weapons being deployed, humanitarian aid and support is vitally needed. As a committee of many of the UK's leading charities, the DEC can raise and channel funds to those organisations best placed to help.
A new page has been established to raise funds for this new cause - please visit our Virgin Money Giving page and give what you can.
Andrew
*snow
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
F17 - Let's be Positive about Porn
Conference is drawing nearer and of all the motions on the agenda, F17: Protecting Children from Online Pornography (here, page 34) seems to be provoking the biggest debate, at least for now.
The motion is, I believe, deeply flawed. After the opening clauses, which comment on the power and importance of the internet, free speech and the rights of adults, it proposes that Liberal Democrats should support those in Government who wish to see the introduction of an "opt-in" system applied by Internet Service Providers for those who want to have access to porn.
This, of course, is a campaign that has in large part been led by The Daily Mail. Not normally fans of state intervention in people's lives, in this case they are fans of both the Nanny State and the Nanny ISP.
There are perfectly legitimate concerns about the level - and type - of exposure that kids can have to porn. But is the answer to that to impose a blanket opt-in? Is the answer to effectively subcontract children's online safety and security to a third party?
Should not the answer rather be to educate and inform parents on how to manage their children's online presence? Is the answer not that adolescents be taught about the role pornography can have in consensual relationships or in individual lives - but also that the context of porn is different from reality: that depictions of power relationships in porn can often differ from what is appropriate is personal experiences.
Surely if our children are to be well rounded adults, they need to be able to explore these issues in managed ways - not wrapped up in cotton wool and sheltered from the world as it is. If the concern is that some parents won't or can't manage this process - then surely we should work on ways of enabling them to do so.
So, lots to oppose. But what to do? I'm sure you can imagine the headlines if the motion is voted down point blank - no matter how reasoned the debate is and how reasonable the arguments against a general block on online porn.
I have, though, a bigger problem than potential headlines with just opposing the motion. Lib Dem conference (still) makes party policy. If the motion is voted down without anything in its place then the debate will have been a waste of an hour of conference time.
There is an amendment which makes some changes to the text and omits the call for the introduction of an "opt-in" but this sounds insubstantial. To me, it makes sense to take the opportunity (given the motion is in the agenda at all) to augment and enhance the party's approach to issues of sexuality and pornography and to put a positively Liberal stamp on this debate.
To that end I'm supporting the amendment that has been worked on by Alisdair Calder McGregor and James Shaddock (amongst others) and if you're a Voting Conference Rep I urge you to do the same.
Andrew
P.S. I've written before on this subject - when Labour got behind the Daily Mail's campaign - and I will again, especially as I'm marshaling thoughts for a contribution to the debate itself which I will share here in their final form irrespective of whether I'm called to speak on the motion!

Friday, 15 March 2013
Bristol Lib Dems at Spring Conference
Over on the Bristol Lib Dems website there's a piece by yours truly reporting back on Spring Conference.
Andrew
Andrew
Monday, 11 March 2013
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
Sunday, 10 March 2013
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
Corporate Tax Avoidance
I put a speaker's card in for Stephen Williams MP's Corporate Tax Avoidance motion today (page 44) but didn't get called. But this is what I would have said...
Conference,
Taxation is a vast and complex area but it is also one in which it is easy to be populist and to create scapegoats. Where perceived injustices are used to draw dividing lines between us and "them" as movements such as Occupy do.
When determining taxation policy we need to be clear about our aims, objectives and targets.
We should be seeking a taxation code that is fair and reasonable. Where individuals and companies can contribute to society but not be penalised for success.
Conference, it's easy to be populist - and it's easy to attack large earners. But we should resist doing this without a broader strategy for taxation policy: we should speak out against inequalities in our tax system but we should resist the damaging rhetoric of Occupy and others on the left.
We're not - or shouldn't be - out to get the 1%. We're not "for" the 99%. We're for - or should be for- the 100%. Where everyone but the poorest contributes, the richest contribute more, and where everyone benefits from an effective tax code.
And when it comes to Corporate taxation, we should likewise exercise care in our language and motivations. It is easy to attack multinationals but we shouldn't attack big successful companies just for being big and successful. We should attack them when and where they transgress - and we should recognise and seek change where our taxation system is no longer fit for purpose.
But Occupy have one thing right: this is a global issue.
This motion seeks to address the global nature of modern business. To work towards a world where profits are taxed where profits are made - where a latte made in Basildon isn't taxed in Basle.
A world where contrived and artificial corporate structures designed to reduce tax rates are called out for what they are.
It seeks a transparent world, a world where corporate tax receipts will benefit the employees who generated the company's profits - wherever they are.
It's a motion which seeks tax justice - addressing a culture of tax avoidance in less developed areas of the world. That seeks to shine a light on the movement of profit not just out of the UK, but also out of the developing world and to extend the principles we have historically applied in the west so that others can develop more robust regimes and generate revenue.
It's ostensibly about tax avoidance but ultimate it's about moving towards tax fairness internationally.
Conference, please support the motion.
(Note: the motion was carried unammended)
Andrew
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Paddy Rallies the Troops
Paddy Ashdown has just delivered a rallying speech as chairman of the Lib Dem's 2015 General Election campaign. Here are my live tweets from the speech.
Vince Cable at Social Liberal Forum
Unfortunately I can't embed this storify of my Tweets from the Vincent Cable fringe event at Lib Dem Conference, so here's the link.
He was entertaining and on good form... Enjoy!
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)