For Your Consideration.

Picture the scene:

It’s 2020 and Oscar season is upon us. Film studios, directors and producers are busy touting their wares to the members of the Academy, offering up their prize films to the electorate and soliciting interest – and votes – with adverts, direct mail and parties.

Campaigning is in full swing, and you’re flattered to be invited to an exclusive screening of the highly rated “The Hat”, hosted by the studio chief and followed by a private party with some of Hollywood’s finest actors and directors.

As costume designer, your part in the making of “The Hat” was small, but crucial. As a member of the Academy, though, your vote is worth as much as Spielberg’s or Streeps’. Naturally, you were going to vote for the film in all of the relevant categories – but the invitation was still flattering, and you’re going to make the most of it.

As you get ready, you reflect on how much you had enjoyed working on the film, and what a contrast you feel in your career now to when you were starting out. Having climbed the ladder as far as you have has given you a unique viewpoint as you observe the industry, and your place in it. You shudder at the memory of some of the people you have encountered along the way – the power-games and manipulation you had to deal with, not to mention the “favours” expected and unwanted advances rebuffed.

The evening progresses and, after seeing the film, you move on to the function. And then it happens. As you enter the gilded function room you see him: Harvey Weinstein. He’s schmoozing academy members, working on behalf of the studio chief, the director, you(?), to get votes for the film. You can’t believe it; after everything that emerged in 2017, it beggars belief that he should be here, pressing the flesh, and continuing to wield influence.

Sound unlikely? I hope so. But it wouldn’t be without precedent, or application as an analogy.

Earlier today, Guido Fawkes published a story about a certain peer of this parish attending an event in Brussels with our Acting Chief Executive, various of our MPs, our MEP and others. Like all good Lib Dem photos, all the women were at the front, promoting diversity and an (almost) gender balanced group – and at the back was Lord Rennard. A further photo showed him campaigning for Vince in Twickenham in June.

Laying aside Guido’s agenda, the inference is clear: Rennard wishes to exert any and all the influence he can. Vince should resist any moves in this direction, and seek to suppress the Baron’s ambition. As I noted when our Lords elected him as their representative on the Federal Executive: “It's time Lord Rennard … realised that if - and for as long as - he is seen to hold influence, he holds back the ambitions of the party.”

Just as Harvey Weinstein’s continued presence as a manipulator of Oscar voters seems unconscionable, so should the reinstatement of Lord Rennard to any positions of influence and power within the party.

Dr Who? On a Lib Dem Blog? Whoever heard of such a thing?..

As most of my Lib Dem friends know, I am that rare thing: a Lib Dem who isn't into Doctor Who. Sharing a house with someone who is, though, means you learn a huge amount by osmosis - only to find your knowledge shot down in flames when you try and impress someone...

...an example: Doctor Who is the name of the programme, not the Doctor. Right? I thought so... but apparently in some series the character is actually credited as Doctor Who. Quite by accident, I found I had stumbled into the middle of one of (many) debates between fans within the DW universe. Ho-hum...

Anyway, my housemate has lately been engaged in an exercise to edit some of the longer, classic stories down so that they are in a format more similar to current stories - and reckons this is something the Beeb should do when they run out of classic episodes to release on DVD.

Here are his opening and closing titles to The Five Doctors, which was the 20th Anniversary Special, from 30 years ago:

Short Form Titles (Start & End) from Agent Purple on Vimeo.

And, here is the whole, hour long version:

Five Doctors Short Form - Full 1hr Version (Probably Final) from Agent Purple on Vimeo.

You can find more, including details of a 40 minute edit of the The Awakening, on Agent Purple's blog, here.

Andrew

What *does* "a Stronger Economy and Fairer Society" mean?

If you're a Lib Dem reading this - and there's a fair chance you are - then you would have to have been hiding under a rock for some time not to know that our we want "a stronger economy and a fairer society, allowing everyone to get on in life".

But then, who doesn't want that? It's fairly meaningless unless we relate these aims to policy - things achieved through the coalition, party policy and local policies. Not only that, but we need to relate those policies to people's everyday lives where we can (although the messaging medium may restrict the scope of what can be said!)

Not only that but when spreading the word - we need to be "on message, in volume, over time" - there are no quick fixes and no magic bullet. It's going to be down, in large part, to activists to do it: whether it's by sticking leaflets through doors, through local campaigns, through the media or online.

For online messaging of course, one tool that can be used is Twitter. It's not the be all and end all but it is good for the dissemination of information and shouting about our achievements, repeatedly.

Over the past few days, I've been trying to do this using a couple of hashtags that link back to our slogan: #AStrongerEconomyMeans and #AFairerSocietyMeans. Here's some I made earlier - why not have a go at sharing some of your own?:


Andrew

Saturday Six 29 - Secret Courts and Lib Dem Conference

I'm preparing this on Friday morning, en-route to Brighton for Lib Dem Spring Conference. One issue dominates this week - the votes in the Commons on Secret Courts (or Closed Material Procedures).

Like most people travelling to conference, I consider Secret Courts top be an affront to Liberalism and Natural Justice. But I've written enough on the subject over the past few weeks and months for the regular reader to know my views, so here's a selection of other blogs, and consideration of where we go from he.

Caron provided some initial reaction from Monday night's votes on Lib Dem Voice - the comments section is quite entertaining (although not particularly constructive...)

The Liberator is right in identifying Secret Courts as being different to many of the proceeding issues in which Lib Dem parliamentarians have defied Party policy. I think this may have ramifications for years to come - particularly post 2015. Tim Farron's decision to vote against the Whip may well have increased his chances of securing the leadership should he decide to stand...

On A View From Ham Common, Richard Morris identifies some of the questions the issue raises. Including "Is There Much Hope?"

Mark Thompson wonders whether it's worth attending Lib Dem Conference at all...

...whilst a more drastic response is suggested by George Potter - and I'm not sure it's all that tongue in cheek either...

It isn't all about Secret Courts though - Caron Lindsay on Lib Dem Voice seeks to put Conference in a wider perspective.

And that's it for another week!

Andrew

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