Why I voted to remain in the EU and other stories...

This was to have been a Facebook post until the length of it mitigated against that.

With only a week to go until polling, I've finally got round to outlining some of the reasons that I've voted to REMAIN in the EU - and why I hope you, and the country, will too.

Before I do, though, I'm going to share a few words on the campaign itself and my feelings as the ballot - and the result - approaches. (Note, this turns out to be more than a few words - so please feel free to jump to the second section below.)

Neither side has covered themselves in glory. It strikes me that there has been a great deal of negative campaigning on both sides - although sadly, such tactics have been proven to be successful in the past.

I had hoped that lessons would be learnt from the Scottish Referendum - and in particular the way the "Yes" camp energised and enthused large swathes of the electorate there, particularly the young.

Sadly, that was not to be.

Instead, this has, in some respects, been a retread of the AV debate - with the Leave side repeating some of the anti-AV arguments ("we could spend this money on the NHS") and the Remain side being poorly organised and co-ordinated with Labour not pulling their weight.

Of course, for the AV referendum they had some excuses: that was on the same day as local elections (which isn't a recipe for cross-party working) and they weren't inclined to give succour to Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories despite AV having been in their own 2010 manifesto.

This time a heavyweight blue on blue battle has meant the media has had an irresistable narrative, which coupled with a Labour leader whose support can charitably be described as half-hearted and who won't share a platform with the Tories has created a perfect storm. (I also fear that too many sat back and enjoyed the Tory fight with scant attention to the impact on traditional Labour voters, the body politic or, indeed, the prospects for the government after the poll, whatever way it goes.)

Not only has a Labour narrative been missing, but the Remain campaign - at the political level at least - has lacked real authoritative voices. This is, I fear, a sad reflection on the current state of the Labour party - and, indeed, the dire straits of my own party.

Sadly, the Lib Dems are considered an irrelevance as far as the media is concerned. Our 8 MPs could strip naked and run across Westminster Bridge and it would merit barely a mention in the news. Our apparent (though not actual) silence is ironic, given that we united on our EU membership in a way that the big two parties aren't and that we have one of the biggest beasts in the debate: Paddy Ashdown.

I've seen Paddy on the stump a couple of times in this campaign. He is head and shoulders above most people in modern politics. I can think of no-one else who brings his wealth of experience - military, political and diplomatic - to the table. In different times, he would be reaching millions on the telly, rather than dozens and hundreds at rallies across the country.

Whilst on the subject of heavyweights, I must make mention of Charles Kennedy who is still hugely missed - and whose contribution would have been invaluable to the debate. Here's a flavour of what he may have said.

Which, tenuously, brings us back to Scotland... rather than learning the lessons of the Yes campaign, Stronger IN seems destined to ape Better Together: right down to similar arguments re pensions and prices, and late contributions from Gordon Brown (whose political capital is worth less in Bank of England notes than those of the Scottish banks).

In the weeks leading up to the Scottish vote, people remarked on how keyed-up I was. I simultaneously felt helpless, wishing I was part of the campaign, and thankful I wasn't involved in the whole sorry mess. In the latter weeks, I was genuinely worried: I want a Federal UK - and, to my mind, independence isn't a route to that.

This time, I have been involved. Not, granted, as much as I would like. Whilst the timing is better than with the AV referendum, I and many others were engaged in election campaigns - and the natural inclination after the 5th of May was to, well, relax and attempt and get their lives back (or to adapt to their new roles, for those who were successful).

The bulk of the work, in those places which had May elections, was picked up by non party political people, which is great. Despite popular perceptions about "political elites", in my experience political people genuinely welcome the involvement of others; many hands make lighter work and/or get more done. What this has meant, however, is that the integration of activists into the campaign has been difficult and the co-ordination and co-operation hasn't quite been as slick as it could have been.

Am I as worried as I was in 2014? I'm not sure, although the chances of a remain vote look more doubtful now than they have done at any point in the campaign. I fear I am resigned to an outcome that means that, whatever happens, Britain is in for a long period of political uncertainty: to the detriment of us all.

So, why have I voted for Remain? After all, that's what this piece is supposed to be about.

Mainly, it's because I'm an internationalist. I believe that, as human beings, we can achieve more together than apart. Quite aside from the benefits to trade of being part of a single market, the economies of scale achieved when competing on the world stage and the greater bargaining power when negotiating treaties with other countries and blocs, there are a number of challenges and issues we face that transcend borders and are better tackled together.

From combating organised crime (including terrorist activity), to managing migrations from war-zones and other troubled areas around the world, to tackling climate change: coordination across borders is required, and better achieved within the existing structure we have - as a bloc - than in more discrete units.

Is the EU perfect at dealing with these issues? Of course not. In particular, its management of the current Syrian refugee crisis is failing - and potentially storing up greater problems for the future. But the current administration in Britain hasn't covered itself in glory on that issue either - and you know what they say about glass houses and stones...

Does the EU involve compromise? Yes, of course. The c-word is verboten in politics, although its about the only walk of life in which it is. In our personal and working lives, the ability to compromise is a positive, not a negative. Negotiating solutions to problems so as to achieve outcomes acceptable to all parties involved is part and parcel of our everyday lives. Heaven forfend, though, that anyone should seek to apply this in the absolutest world of politics.

(As a Lib Dem, it is impossible to write the above paragraph without alluding to our experience in coalition. Not only did we face constant criticism from many on the "progressive" left who nominally belief in pluralist politics, as believers in PR must, but we got crucified at the polls by our coalition "allies" with whom we had made many compromises. Such, of course, is politics.

It's all too obvious now, though, as the Tories roll back on Lib Dem achievements and roll out the things we blocked (such as the Snoopers' Charter, aided and abetted by Labour) that we did make a difference in the last Government. It begs the question: what lies in store if Leave prevails and Boris, Gove and Grayling ascend to the great offices of state?)

The standard argument against this concept of a club of nations co-operating is that it involves giving up sovereignty. But that is the case with all relationships. When someone sets up home with someone, they give up some personal autonomy. Why? Because they get benefits from doing so.

When we co-operate with our allies in Europe, we get benefits too. We gain from investment in our poorest regions not just here, but abroad. We gain from security that is greater as a result of the easier sharing of information - not weaker as a result of free movement. We gain from the elimination of tariffs within the single market. We gain from the peace that the EU has cemented in the north and west of the continent, and nurtured in the south east. And we've gained from the fostering of democracies in the south, and more recently in the east.

Viewers of Dragons Den will be familiar with the part of the negotiations between the eponymous dragons (most of whom, incidentally, back staying in the EU) seek to maximise their equity share of a potential investment. They drive a hard bargain, as well they might, and you will often hear one of them say something like "Would you rather have 60% of £1m or 80% of nothing?"

So it is with sovereignty. By surrendering some of our sovereignty we make an investment in the creation of a better world for ourselves. In times past, we invested this sovereignty by seeking to dominate the world. The sun never set on our empire and you could traverse Africa from north to south without leaving British soil.

Leaving aside the lasting implications of the colonial approach - which we live with to this day - this view that being sovereign means being a behemoth straddling the world stage is outmoded. In the modern world sovereignty is best exercised not by imposition of will but by judicial use of influence.

There are those who would argue that this isn't true of all countries. And it's not - but the only countries with the scale that gives them the ability to over-ride this principle are China, Russia and America.

Has Britain maximised what it can get out of the EU? Have we driven a bargain as hard as Deborah Meaden or Theo Paphetus might have? Are we making the best use of the influence we could exert? No. Is that an argument for withdrawing - or is it an argument for getting stuck and making things work better for us - and for people throughout the continent? In my book it's the latter.

There are, of course, lots of other reasons: the EU has daily impacts on our lives, has established common standards for goods, services and employment conditions. It has sought to end restrictive and anti-competitive practices. It has brought us an influx of new Britons to fill jobs in our service industries and enrich the cultural mix of our country.

When I first envisaged this piece, I suppose I imagined I would write a list - probably including some of the points in that last paragraph. It took a different tack but it sums up the key reasons why I'm a believer in the EU as an institution, warts and all.

I'll leave the other arguments in favour for others to make - as well as those counter-arguments to those made by the Leave campaign. Instead, I'll finish this piece with a couple of extracts from the Preamble to the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats. As always, it reaffirms that I am in the right party, fighting for what I believe - whatever the ups and downs, and whatever transpires next:

"Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world’s peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources.

[...]

"Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles."

It's a Sin

Tonight on Channel 4 News, Cathy Newman laid into our new leader with questions over whether he considered homosexuality a sin.

The answer to this question is... not relevant.

As an evangelical Christian, his private position is almost certainly that the act is sinful, not the inclination. Christ hates the sin, but loves the sinner. I know this, as it used to be what I believed.

But whatever, he can't say that - it sounds trite and patronising.

And it's not relevant.

Tim Farron's personal views on sin are - and should remain - his own. Sin is not a concept recognised in law, nor should it play a part in political debate. Sadly, Cathy Newman chose to concentrate on this, rather than issues such as Welfare changes, Greece, Syria (on which she spent 40 seconds) or any one of a number of issues that could have yielded more information on the tone our new leader will set.

And if you're going to fixate on someone's personal views on sexuality, the question should be "If you believe that homosexuality is sinful, how will this affect your policy positions."

It's true that there have been concerns over Tim's voting record - and it's obvious that his desire to ensure some protections for those religious organisations that oppose Same-Sex Marriage did cause him to be less enthusiastic than I would have liked our (then) Party President to have been.

But a quick look at They Work For You reveals that as well voting for the second reading of the Marriage Bill, he has also separately (subsequent to having been absent at the third reading) voted to allow same-sex marriage for armed forces personal.

So his own view on whether or not gay sex is sinful has not actually stopped him voting in favour of same-sex marriage.

He has, of course, expressed concern over whether Christians and other religions were adequately protected by the Same-Sex Marriage act. This is his stated reason for absenting himself from the third reading - which he says he now regrets.

It was similar concerns that led him to vote against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2008. 

Now, we may take different views on these things - but how to balance the competing needs for protection of minorities in our society are legitimate areas of debate; and legitimate areas of concern for Liberals. We must always ensure that in correcting one wrong, we do not create another. Judgements on these things will vary, of course, but the principle is sound.

The fixation on his views on sexuality are a side-show, just as much as the sexual preferences of an unmarried public figure would be, or whether a female politician has had a family.

We cry out for politicians from every walk of life, with differing backgrounds and interests - and then we decry them when they step outside of the model that suits the intellectual, small-l liberal elites. Sometimes with good reason (David Tredinnick) and sometimes not.

Tim has been elevated to be leader, not vicar; to the platform, not the pulpit. I expect him to motivate, not moralise and deliver speeches not sermons.

I expect the press and media to continue to fixate on this issue for a while  and there's a sense in which there is no good answer - a "yes" would cause furore, a "no" would seem inconsistent with his professed faith. I hope Tim gets better at answering - perhaps not by calling us all sinners. Beyond that, I look forward to a gradual return to focusing on substantive issues such as the EU, Housing and rebuiliding our party as a Liberal voice for a liberal country.

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

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

Desperately Seeking A Spouse

Well, I've finally decided, I'm going to seek a spouse. At the age of 38 & three quarters & a bit, it's time.

But I don't want just any spouse. I want one who doesn't earn more than, say, £9,000 a year. Or, perhaps, one who earns substantially more whilst I stay at home - just as long as they're not a Higher Rate taxpayer (for now)...

Let's go with the latter option.

Perhaps that sounds a bit mercenary?  Hmmm... Apologies if you think it does, but money is, as they say, what makes the world go round.

Anyway, I've decided. You're just got to have to like it or lump it. As are they (whoever/wherever they are).

But I'm not asking them to marry me for nothing. No, that would be selfish. I'm going to make sure they gain out of the enterprise.

You see the average cost of a wedding is said to be around £20,000. And that's OK, I'll settle for average - I'm not the gold-digger you may imagine I am. It's going to have to be bought and paid for upfront, of course - but that's what their Gold Card is for, right?

Once we've got through all that "till death us do part stuff" and if I sacrifice my job and stay at home - or even if I just work for less than £9,000 p.a., the Government is going to give us some money. £200 p.a. to be precise. After 100 years, the wedding will be paid off and it'll be pure profit...

Of course, it's small beer - but I'm sure future Conservative governments will raise the bar and let us transfer more of my allowance to my spouse. They'll hopefully let him earn more too - after all, why should Higher Rate taxpayers note benefit too?

Now - there are those who say that this is unfair. Unfair on single people, cohabitees, other types of family. Bollocks, I say, I'll be providing a vital, unpaid, civic service looking after Spencer, my beloved Chihuahua.

Andrew

Some thoughts on... Syria

I've been mulling over doing a piece on Syria for a few days but intended posting this (or something similar) last night but a combination of being out and being tired put paid to that.

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, here are a few thoughts. I daresay none of them are terribly original but if nothing else, it will help with my own thought processes on the subject.

 

 

Syria is not Iraq...

It's become a cliche to say this - but it's true. But whilst the situation in Syria is not analogous to that in Syria, Iraq is the prism through which this debate must be seen.

 

 

Labour have been shameless...

 

On Wednesday Labour managed to go from reportedly whipping an abstention, to being against an unpublished Government motion, to being hailed as having forced the Government into backing down and publishing a motion which would have required a further debate and vote in the commons once UN inspectors had reported and prior to UK involvement in any action.

 

Regardless of having obtained this concession, if such it was, Labour still proceeded to oppose the government and propose their own motion. In the end, both motions were, of course, defeated and Cameron - to his credit - has said he will abide by the result of parliamentary rejection of the Government's motion.

 

Miliband has played politics and won a short-term victory in Westminster, a longer term electoral gain (with former Labour voters disaffected after Iraq) but in the process he has diminished Britain's hand in the UN and in bilateral relations with our allies.

 

...and Lib Dem rhetoric on Iraq (almost) came home to roost

 

I wasn't a member of the party at the time of the Iraq war but I was very much opposed to it. For various reasons, though, I have always been uneasy about the use of the term "illegal" to describe it (and, by extension, the description of Blair as a war criminal). One of these it that the people who use the term are rarely schooled in international law but a more important one is that it precludes ever taking action not sanctioned by the UN.

 

If we had proceeded with Syrian action with the US and France but without (for whatever reasons) a UN resolution this would have been thrown back in our face no matter how deep the humanitarian crisis got or how justifiable the action.

 

 

The UN is NOT the be all and end all

 

Insisting that there should be a UN resolution before Britain is ever committed to military action seems to me to be deeply flawed given the structure of the UN Security Council and the intransigence and vested interests of the Permanent Members, not least China and Russia.

 

It strikes me that we must retain the discretion to use force outside of UN Security Council resolutions; both in the interests of UK national security and where humanitarian need dictates. I believed that this could have been - ultimately - required in Iraq and I believe it still. The UN should be respected, resolutions should be pursued, diplomatic and other approaches should be exhausted - but the Security Council should not be relied upon as the ultimate authority. 

 

 

Conflicted is probably the right place to be...

 

One word seems to have been most apt to describe the attitude of LibDems I follow across various social media: Conflicted. Torn between witnessing ongoing and escalating atrocities and a reluctance to get involved; after all, Syria is not Libya.

 

Like many, this is where I was prior to the vote yesterday - and still am. On balance, I'm not in favour of intervention but think that some form of limited action was beginning to become appropriate. Now, though, we will be spectators as the US and France decide what action is appropriate.

 

 

...and a knee-jerk anti-action stance is almost as bad as a knee-jerk pro-action stance

 

I am, by nature, a pacifist - but a blind belief that military action and intervention can never be justified seems so unrealistic and idealistic as to be unthinking. The world is not how we wish it to be, it is as it is: deeply flawed and containing many people doing bad things. Sometimes there will be no moving forward if we just sit on the sidelines.

 

We need to be pragmatic and realistic when faced with situations such as Syria: hard situations call for hard choices - not easy, idealistic opt-outs.

 

 

We can all do something

 

The politics of this pales into insignificance when you consider the real impact on the lives of millions of Syrians. You can read about the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and donate here.

Why a Large Retail Levy is not right for Bristol

Councillors on the Bristol's Overview and Scrutiny Management Board met yesterday to follow up a motion passed at Full Council in June that called for the council to explore the possibility of seeking the powers for an additional Business Rate Levy on large retail units.

The proposal was rejected by all of the committee bar the Green Councillor, and the report back to full council will be, it seems, a brief affair. No matter, here a few comments by way of history and analysis.

The original motion, which was proposed by Greens, was as follows:

Bristol City Council notes the campaign being run by 'Local Works' entitled 'Save our communities from large supermarkets'.

The campaign specifically asks councils to submit the following proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act:

'That government gives local authorities the power to levy a new local rate of 8.5% on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable value not less than £500,000 and the power to use the revenue collected to improve local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.'

Council notes that - within Bristol - such a levy could raise up to in the region of £1.6 million pa.

Bristol City Council welcomes this proposal and fully supports it and therefore calls on the Mayor also to support it, and to submit the proposal to government.

Prior to the meeting, however, this had been reworked to obtain cross-party support, so that the motion as passed read:

Bristol City Council notes the campaign being run by ‘Local Works’ entitled ‘Save our communities from large supermarkets’. The campaign specifically asks councils to submit the following proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act:

‘That Government gives local authorities the power to levy a new local rate of 8.5% on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable value not less than £500,000 and the power to use the revenue collected to improve local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.’

Council notes that within Bristol such a levy could raise up to £1.6 million from the city’s largest supermarkets alone and potentially a much larger figure from ‘all the large retail outlets’ referred to by the campaign (Council notes that supermarkets cannot legally be singled out for the purposes of the levy).

Council believes that the idea of seeking powers for a levy on retail outlets should be explored and requests that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee delegate this inquiry to the relevant scrutiny commission and report back to Council in September.

Although there was a hope amongst some that any money raised could, potentially, be used to persuade Supermarkets into areas crying out for such provision, some of the problems with the proposal were already obvious: not least that, although being touted as anti-supermarket, the proposal actually targeted all large retailers.

The issues became even clearer on perusal of the report prepared for today's meeting - and the notion of persuing such a policy became nuch less attractive. In particular, the following points jumped out at me:

1. Despite originally being proposed by the Greens as being anti-Supermarket (and still marketed as such), only 32% of the affected businesses are Supermarkets.
2. 44% of the businesses are in areas deemed to be in the 10% of most deprived areas in England - should we really be considering increasing costs on these?
3. Although not broken down in the report, I reckon 20% or so of the affected businesses are in Business Improvement Districts - as such, should these not be treated as anchor tenants whose presence should (in theory) attract rather than repel other retailers?

Given that we had mooted using funds to support Supermarkets moving into those areas in desperate need of them - but this would potentially increase the inbalance highlighted above in terms of numbers of affected businesses in poorer areas. 

Six of the affected properties - all non-supermarket - are in the Broadmead "Business Improvement District" area, which is due for a renewal. Implementing such a plan could jeopardise the continuation of BID status if those businesses were to vote against on the basis of potential additional charges from the Levy.

There is also an "after-the-stable door" element to this: the supermarkets have, by and large, got out of the routine of opening large stores, and moved to the local/metro/central/express/M formats instead. This motion does nothing on that front. And whilst the big companies may suck up any charge that is imposed - in the short term a least - it's not hard to imagine that future decisions on where to locate could be affected on the basis other places outside the city bounds but within the city's sphere of spending would not impose such a charge...

Although it could be possible to look at setting a higher threshold - e.g. charging a levy only those 14 businesses with Rateable Values in excess of £1m (which would make it more Supermarket focused) - and/or implementing a system (if legally possible) of rebates on the levy for businesses in the most deprived communities, I think the committee is right in recommending that this is not proceeded with.

Andrew

Fairer Taxes: My Article for Lib Dem Voice

Yesterday, I had an article published on Lib Dem Voice.

Here it is. This is the text as submitted, rather than as edited - so you can play spot the difference!:

Earlier this week I saw this tweet from Paul Lewis of BBC Radio 4's Moneybox programme:

The 2014 rise in personal tax allowance worth £112 a year for basic rate taxpayer but £39 if on U Credit, & £195 for higher rate taxpayers.
— Paul Lewis (@paullewismoney) April 2, 2013

This struck me as odd, so I asked Paul how he calculated the £195 figure (I do not know enough about benefits and Universal Credit to make a judgement on the £39 figure). He quickly answered:

@oneexwidow >> Correctly! Checked by accountants. Using these figures hmrc.gov.uk/budget2013/tii…
— Paul Lewis (@paullewismoney) April 2, 2013

As I was busy with other things at the time, I was only able to have a brief look at the document and, initially, slightly mis-interpretted the info:

 

@paullewismoney Thanks! Have had look as puzzled - down to interaction of Personal Allowance rise equating to 0.6% vs. 1% increase in HRT
— Andrew Brown (@oneexwidow) April 2, 2013

The glaring mis-calculation I made was the percentage increase in the Personal Allowance (PA) which is of course 5.9% rather than 0.6% as I wrote! The underlying analysis however was right - the discrepancy in figures is due to the interaction between the increase to the Personal Allowance and the increase in the Higher Rate Threshold.

 

It stuck in my mind as something worth looking into further - and worth questioning whether this met with our aims of Fairer Taxes.

 

By 2014, the Personal Allowance will have increased by over 54% from its level in 2010. It's something that we're justly proud of, and which we can be reasonably sure neither of the other two parties would have done alone (as I outlined here http://oneexwidow.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-free-ipad-mini-for-everyone.html).

 

Since 2010, the threshold at which Higher Rate Tax become payable has fallen to help offset the rise in the Personal Allowance. This has led to the Basic Rate Limit (earnings between the PA and the Higher Rate Threshold) being squeezed from both ends, and to the upper threshold being reduced from £43,875 to £41,450.

 

Next year, however, the Higher Rate Threshold will rise by 1%, and it is this rise which gives every taxpayer earning above the new limit (but less than £100,000) a tax cut of £195 as opposed to "just" £112.

 

So, the question: is this fair?

 

Now, it could be argued that £112 is worth much more to someone earning £10,000 than £195 is to someone on £41,865 or above - and this is certain to be true in the vast majority of cases. It can also be argued that reducing the Higher Rate Threshold is, effectively, a tax on aspiration - and I am not without sympathy to this view. But at a time of austerity when we are making a big spending commitment on increasing the Personal Allowance, should we be providing greater benefits to Higher Rate Taxpayers?

 

Although the numbers of Higher Rate Taxpayers have increased over the years, it should be noted that the threshold at which 40% becomes payable (£41,865) is still some way above the median gross income (£26,500).

 

It may not be the stuff of popular campaigning, but perhaps we should be pushing behind the scenes for the Higher Rate Threshold to be frozen. Going forward, we should consider how we manage tax bands so that they remain progressive whilst minimising such anomalies.

 

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

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

In Which My Name Appears in the Daily Mail

As you may know, the Justice and Security Bill returns to the Commons today in a move which appears to have been engineered to get it out of the way before the Liberal Democrats' Spring Conference.

 

My latest blogpost on the subject is here. Aside from blogging, I've also supported conference motions (both when debated at Autumn Conference and when proposed for Spring Conference), signed the petition to our parliamentarians, written an open letter to Nick Clegg, written an actual letter to Nick Clegg and signed a letter to The Times.

 

Over the weekend, I also signed a letter, organised by the Lib Dems Against Secret Courts campaign, which is in today's Daily Mail. My name appears 39th in the list of 116 activists who had signed by the time the letter was submitted.

 

Andrew

Secret Courts - #notinmyname

Over the weekend, there have been reports that the Tories want Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)*. It appears that Theresa May wishes to make this a manifesto commitment for the 2015 general election. This would go further than their 2010 commitment to replace the Human Rights Act (which enshrines the ECHR in British law) with a Bill of Rights. 

It is also at complete odds with the Coalition Programme which spoke of building on all our obligations under the ECHR, ensuring the rights it bestows continue to be enshrined in law and protecting and extending those liberties.

"We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

One would like to think that these last words were drafted and inserted by the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition. Given the recent rise of UKIP - and an emboldened Tory right - Liberals need to make a positive case for the ECHR (as well as the European Union which, whilst completely separate as an institution, is often deliberately confused with the ECHR.)

The Convention has earned its "hated" reputation as a result of a number of high profile cases, as well as the length of time that things can take in being settled at the Court in Strasbourg. As with any legal system, there will always be cases in which the outcome is at odds with what some (or many) of the populace want. But that is why we have a court system: to prevent mob justice.

Whilst we may disagree with some of the judgements of the Court, the underlying principles of the ECHR are about a society in which people are entitled to liberty and justice without fear or favour. It contains such outlandish notions as the Right to Life, Prohibitions of Torture, Slavery and Forced Labour, Rights to Liberty and Security, Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association. And it contains a right to fair trial.

Withdrawing from the ECHR would be a retrograde step for Human Rights in this country - but that day (if it is coming) - is some way off. 

Civil Liberties in Britain face a more immediate attack. Today (Monday) the Justice and Security Bill will return to the Commons' for the Report Stage before completing that stage and receiving a Third Reading on Thursday. It appears the Government want to get the Bill out of the way before the Lib Dem Spring Conference, beginning on Friday.**

The bill's principles run contrary not only to the instincts of the Lib Dems at large but also to the Coalition Agreement - but it appears to have been agreed to wholeheartedly by Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander within the "Quad". Furthermore it appears not to have been agreed as part of a deal - so Liberal Democrats now appear to be supporting a piece of Draconian legislation with no Quid Pro Quo. Not only so, but the leadership have not been particularly forthcoming with a explanation or rationale for supporting the legislation.

Liberal Democrats are opposed to the provisions in Part Two of this bill, which provide for "Closed Material Procedures", dubbed Secret Courts. This has been demonstrated with a overwhelming vote in favour of a motion opposing them at Party Conference, numerous blogposts across the blogosphere (including a number of my own), a petition, and letters to The Times. The exception to this rule appears to be the leadership of the party, and our Parliamentarians (with a few honourable dissenters). 

An additional motion was proposed for Spring Conference but rejected by the Federal Conference Committee. An Emergency Motion has now been proposed which it is hoped will be discussed at conference - even if, by then, the die has been cast. If passed, the motion would reaffirm Liberal Democrat policy to repeal the legislation if in a position to do so.

Lib Dems in Government have achieved a number of notable successes - including in the area of Civil Liberties. The ending of Child Detention, abolition of ID cards and the associated database, the scrapping of the Draft Data and Communications Bill. But this bill, if passed would strike at the principles of fair access to courts which have underpinned our legal systems for centuries. This bill would be a stain on our reputation as a Country - and as a Party.

Defending Human Rights and Civil Liberties should be central to our politics. Whether that be supporting the ECHR against a reactionary press or fighting the erosion of basic legal principles against an authoritarian government machine. If the Security and Justice Bill is passed - and Closed Material Procedures become part of Civil Court proceedings - it will be a sad day for Liberal Democracy, and for Liberal Democrats.

Andrew

*For any Sun readers reading this, that's the "Hated European Convention on Human Rights"...

**This, in itself, is a kick in the teeth to all those who campaigned for the party in Eastleigh, securing a win which will have helped to shore up Clegg's position against the small number of those who wish to see a change in leader.

Jo Shaw has written an excellant summary of the current state of play, here.

Some Thoughts On... the Lord Rennard allegations

It's quite some time to be a Lib Dem: the ongoing Huhne/Pryce court case, the resultant Eastleigh by-election and, now, the allegations against Lord Rennard and the party*.

 

Last Friday, I was delighted to be able to get out delivering for Mike Thornton in Eastleigh: as a new(ish) activist it was my first taste of by-election campaigning - I only wish I had been in a position to go for longer. It has been a campaign that seems to have really galvanised the activists within the party. Record numbers have, reportedly, been flocking to Eastleigh to campaign and record donations made and the enthusiasm seems to have been matched by a high quality, efficient campaign organisation.

 

Morale has been high in defiance - as we so often are - of the prevailing media mood music and, in this case, the reason for the poll. Lib Dems are nothing if not stoical, independently minded and damned if they're going to dance to someone else's tune. Yes, we may be engaged in a pas de deux with the Tories - but we know that they are not picking all the music themselves.

 

On Thursday night, though, Channel 4 News broke a story which has great potential to not only damage morale but seriously damage the party - both centrally and throughout the country. Lord Rennard, it is alleged, sexually harassed a number of woman and, when concerns were raised sought to cover them up. Lord Rennard subsequently resigned as Chief Executive on health grounds.

 

Much has been said and written and many of these points will have been made elsewhere. Here, though, are some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

1. Nothing has been proved

 

As with any occasion in which one is dealing with allegations, and where they are being denied, we should remember that central tenet of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Even where the matter is extra-judicial, we shouldn't jump to conclusions...

 

2. Nothing has been disproved

 

...which is not to say that should dismiss the claims now being made. Sexual harassment - and unwanted bodily contact - cannot be condoned. Repeated harassment cannot be excused.

 

3. "We are not dealing with Savile here"

 

Despite the number of sexual scandals competing for media attention, this is not a game of Top Trumps. Suggesting as much belittles the complainants, trivialises their complaints and gives succour to those who think that this is about "just touching a woman's knee" as if that were acceptable behaviour.

 

Note: I have not, at time of writing heard the World at One interview with Jasper Gerrard. If his comments are as reported, I would hope he is de-selected as a PPC.

 

4. I detest this being used as a political football...

 

The fact that our opponents can seek to make political capital out of the issue - as many are seeking to do - is symptomatic of a society that struggles to take these issues seriously. There are those who would do well to remember that "there but for the grace of God, go I [or my party]...". When they do, we should seek to rise above the game that some now wish to play.

 

Perhaps I'm being naïve.

 

5. We should not question the timing of the allegations - and certainly not in public

 

Some have suggested that the report has been timed to disrupt our campaigning in the Eastleigh by election - other's that this is part of an elaborate campaign to unseat Clegg.

Whatever, even if you do believe there is an ulterior motive, what is gained from airing it publicly? Suggesting that the complainants are players - or pawns - in a wider political game is cheap, and belittling; and plays into the hands of our opponants.

 

Besides, there would never be a "good" time for such allegations; suggesting that the timing is fishy is playing politics with peoples’ lives. Which brings me on to my next point...

 

6. Not everything should be seen through the prism of politics...

 

The more involved in politics you are, the more refracted your world view becomes. Seeking the most favourable angle and best spin in everything becomes second nature. When something like this happens, those at the top need to step out of that mindset and take a fresh look. Not at how to present this for the best in the short-term but how best to deal with it for the long-term.

 

If the allegations of a cover-up are true, this should have been done a long time ago. It certainly needs done now. Those involved - on both sides - deserve for natural justice to be openly served.

 

7. ...there are belated signs of the party getting this

 

Last night's statement by Nick Clegg was strong. Whilst I agree it did raise additional questions - specifically what is meant by "indirect and non-specific concerns" and how such concerns were deemed serious enough to be put to (then) Chris Rennard but don't appear to have been followed up further - it goes some way to recognising that real action is needed rather than the somewhat anaemic statement originally made. That statement should been made on Thursday.

 

Humans fail. Institutions fail. But they can also learn from failure - we must make sure that the party does. What matters now is that we get to a) the bottom of the specific allegations made - both of harassment and of inaction/cover-up and b) policies are fully revised to ensure that there is a recognised procedure for reporting any future abuse of power, position through sexual (or any form) of harassment and abuse.

 

8. An independent inquiry is required

 

I understand that the inquiry chair is to be Alistair Webster whom I understand is a former chair of the Lib Dem Lawyers association. Taken at face value, one could question his independence, but without further knowledge I'm going to reserve judgement.

 

9. We can get through this

 

It's going to be stormy and it's going to be unpleasant.

 

But the party needs to face it's failings and effect real change.

 

It owes Lord Rennard and the various complainants a fair hearing.

 

It owes any other woman with grievances a chance to air them.

 

It owes the public the knowledge that the Liberal Democrats have the courage to examine ourselves and ensure our own house is in order when we're pronouncing on issues of equality, discrimination, harassment and abuse.

 

And it owes it to all those who have worked for the party as activists, supported the party in deliveries or financially and voted for the party in elections. In Eastleigh, we have a cause worth fighting for, morale is high and enthusiasm levels are through the roof. Hundreds and thousands of volunteers and activists fighting for their party, proud to be Liberal Democrats, happy to represent the party at Westminster, the party as an institution. Happy for that party to represent them.

 

If the party fails to satisfactorily address the recent allegations, it will have failed these people - as well as those directly concerned.

 

Andrew

 

*I've tried to use the phrase "the party" to refer to the party organisation and leadership, and "we" and "us" where I intend a wider meaning in terms of the membership.