Lindylooz Muze

Cameron, Debt and why we MUST Teach our Children about Money

2011-10-07T16:59:00.001+01:00

This week we hear that David Cameron changed his speech from “The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households – all of us – paying off the credit card and store card bills,” to, “The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That’s why households are paying down their credit card and store card bills." An interestingly subtle change as a result of pressure from retailers, with political implications I will return to in another blog!

Joanna Elson from the Money Advice Trust has rightly pointed out, paying off debt too quickly can lead to people getting themselves into deeper financial trouble in the long run. However, as Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert is constantly pointing out - we have educated our children into debt but not about debt. And with UK personal debt levels now topping £1.6 trillion - that lack of understanding and education is surely something that should concern us all.

In all my years of blogging I've never really said much about my work as Youth Policy Adviser at the Money Advice Service and what follows is written in a personal capacity and as a result of a recent debate on Twitter I have been having with Andrew Smith.

I am a strong supporter of Martin Lewis's campaign to get financial education on a statutory footing and he deserves much respect for the way he has mobilised cross party support - an object lesson to us all in how to campaign! The APPG he helped found is now the best supported in parliament, not least because of the equally passionate support for financial education from the APPG's chair, Justin Tomlinson (MP for North Swindon) and financial education charity pfeg. At its launch, it wasn't even standing room only, some MPs, our own Stephen Williams among them, couldn't even get in!

But some people, Andrew Smith among them, clearly don't support Martin's campaign. Andrew and I both left comments on a recent Love Money blog and while I don't like their choice of words (young people should be forced to learn about money) the argument is valid.

It is 7 years now since I took up the role of Youth Policy Adviser at the FSA as part of the Financial Capability Strategy - and it has been a real privilege to work with youth organisations, the financial services industry and government across the UK to work to ensure that young people are supported to manage their money effectively. Now we are the Money Advice Service with a statutory responsibility to help people make sense of their money, helping them not only to make the most of their money, but also to help to prevent them get into situations of unmanageable debt.

We know as a nation that debt is a huge problem - only recently we heard that families are being forced into debt because of the cost of childcare, others are borrowing just to stay on top of their mortgage repayments or rent. So while some of this debt may be seen as inevitable, for some, an inability to manage their money effectively can make matters far worse.

Education is a hot topic at the moment, particularly for those of us as Lib Dems who find ourselves in bed with a coalition partner who has a very different view of what education should be about, Nick Gibb and Michael Gove in particular, pushing for a focus on academic subjects and the English Baccalaureate, unconvinced about subjects like PHSE. But thankfully, there are some enlightened Tory MPs like Justin Tomlinson who understand the importance of schools not only equipping our children with academic skills and knowledge but also the life skills and attitudes to enable them to succeed.

So where I disagree with Andrew Smith? Well I absolutely agree with him that numeracy and literary are essential and it is scandalous that so many of our young people are coming out of school functionally illiterate - it has to be the first priority of any education system to ensure our children can read, write and add up. But, it surely it also has to be part of a rounded education that our children leave school socially functional too? Many employers as well as complaining about young people's illiteracy, complain about their lack of soft skills too. Now Andrew isn't arguing school should just be about the 3 Rs so presumably accepts the curriculum needs to be wider. And actually, the numeracy aspects of Financial Education sit well in Maths - learning how to calculate percentages, add, divide etc becomes much more alive if it is related to the real circumstances in which those skills are needed. But the most important thing a young person needs to know in relation to APR is not how to work it out (almost impossible!) but more importantly that a loan with a HIGH APR costs more than a loan with a LOW APR and that taking out a loan in the first place isn't always the best solution!

And actually, relating learning to real life is proven to increase engagement. At the FSA we did some work on functional skills with some FE colleges and found that where Maths included financial education elements the young people were more successful, more engaged and there was a lower drop out rate. It's not rocket science. Young people, especially those Andrew is concerned about with low levels of literacy, learn best when they can relate that learning to their own experiences. Yes, the curriculum is crowded but frankly if school is not about preparing our children and young people to be effective, engaged and productive citizens I wonder what it is for? You may well learn about the Magna Carta, be able to explain what tectonic plates are, calculate the square root of 9, dissect a mouse, quote Shakespeare.............but all this will fade into insignificance if your lack of ability to manage your money leads you to experience a serious mental health condition, lose your home, causes the break up of your family, or ultimately, in the most extreme circumstances, take your own life.

As is clear - I could bang on about this issue for ever (!) but I just want to leave you with a story and a small task.

A couple of weeks ago I was visiting a supported housing project in Northern Ireland where we have trained the staff to work with young people around money issues. They introduced me to a young man who had joined them with serious debt problems a few months ago. They worked with him to help him understand his attitudes to money that had lead him to get into debt and helped him draw up and manage a budget. He proudly told me that he had cleared his debts, was saving to visit Scotland for a family party - and had £500 in an ISA! The staff also commented on how much better his mental health was. Now tell me this isn't an important life skill?

And finally, if Cameron is serious about getting the country and individuals out of debt - let's demonstrate to him that we as a nation care more about the financial wellbeing of our children than whether or not we should remove benefits from rioters..........please join the 80,658 of us who support Martin Lewis's epetion calling for compulsory financial education - and please do it now!

Tulisa Contostavlos or Nadine Dorries - who would be your choice of Role Model?

2011-08-29T12:31:00.000+01:00

Last week I watched "My Mum and Me" the inspirational documentary featuring Tulisa Contostavlos and exploring the challenges faced by young carers. She not only traced her own experience of growing up caring for a mother with schizoaffective disorder but introduced us to other young people in similar circumstances. It certainly struck a chord with me, having grown up with a bi-polar father and having a sister with schizoaffective/bi-polar disorder, I am only too aware of the impact living with someone with a mental health condition has on the whole family. For me, even at 14, it was terrifying when my father had his first "episode", but it only really hit me how terrible it was for my mum when at 18, stationed in Germany, I was sent home to care for the family since my mum had also had a breakdown, having been totally stressed out by watching for the signs of my dad becoming ill. She was always a buffer for all of us children, but even then, I know it had a negative impact on our schooling and sense of security. How can you concentrate on your studies when your father is seriously ill, behaving in a way that is at best unsettling and at worst terrifying? So how much more unsettling and terryfing must if have been for Tulisa, on her own, no father or brothers and sisters for support, being the only one having to deal with her mother's terrifying illness from 11 years old? No wonder it impacted on more than just her schooling!

So re-reading Nadine Dorries' self-righteous hypocritical rant against Tulisa becoming an X Factor judge has, I am afraid, initiated a right royal rant of my own! If Nadine was in any position whatsoever to pass judgement on anyone else, even then, what she says is cruel, self serving and ignorant. Her basic, flawed logic is apparently based on her view that no one deserves as second chance........oh, unless your name is Cameron or Coulson of course. So to take her argument to its logical conclusion, Cameron, who in his youth, despite coming from a privileged background, allegedly took drugs and smashed up places, really should never have been allowed to become an MP, let alone Prime Minister?

So this apparent paragon of virtue who pontificates on everyone else without allowing them the right to reply, thinks she can stand in judgement on a young woman who has taken on huge caring responsibilities at an early age, has had mental health issues to deal with herself and still managed to turn her life around? The most ridiculous comment in her blog claims "And for anyone who is even getting near to thinking it's ok, because she has turned her life around and what she is doing is showing teenagers that it's ok to behave badly, because they can turn it around too, let's get real shall we?" Who on earth would make that argument? No-one would argue it's OK to behave badly - but surely those who have been able to turn their lives around should be applauded? Where I do agree with Nadine is that not every young person can become a superstar, but whether we like it or not, many do look to the stars for their role models. What they also need are role models closer to home - sadly with the cuts to the voluntary and local authority youth provision many of those opportunities are being lost. And I haven't seen Nadine argue once against the swingeing cuts Central Beds have made to their Youth and Connexions services who for many young people would have offered just the kind of role models they need.

So, my message to Nadine is please, for once, start putting your money where your mouth is. If you really care about young people, demonstrate it by recognising the support they need and deserve. You clearly care deeply for children before they are born, if only that care and concern extended beyond the womb! I hope you will watch Tulisa's story with just a little compassion and perhaps think twice before judging her, or calling others "nutters" (something you also called me) without a modicum of understanding about the challenges many of our young people face. And I trust having watched it you may have the good grace to apologise.

And to Tulisa I would say thank you. Thank you for being so honest, for admitting to not only what you have done wrong in your life but also for speaking openly about what it is like to grow up caring for a parent with a mental health condition. Thank you for the genuine care and understanding you showed for other young carers and for drawing our attention to a group of young people who so often get ignored because they are not on the streets causing a problem, but dealing with fear, anxiety and isolation on their own. I think you are a fantastic role model and I am delighted that you are using that position to make a real difference to the lives of other young people.

Will Nick Clegg lead the fight for Liberal Values?

2011-08-19T16:43:00.002+01:00

The last couple of weeks have strained many of the fault lines in the Coalition that up to now have been more or less papered over. As a party we signed up to a Coalition Agreement that presumably most members could live with (myself excluded of course!) - but a Coalition Agreement in retrospect which was more at fault for what it didn't say than what it did.

So we have had the unedifying spectacle for the last 15 months of our much loved parliamentarians tying themselves in knots to be able to justify their support for Tory policies that stick in the gullet of any self respecting Liberal Democrat - most notably the suicidal support for tuition fees. But up to now most of the issues which have resulted in Lib Dems voting against their consciences, could be seen as of more concern to social liberals and while we may make up the majority of the wider party, as David Laws has pointed out, it is the Orange Bookers who are by far the majority amongst our ministers.

However, now the political ground is shifting - in the wake of the riots our Tory partners are hitting at the heart of what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. Yes, we may have different opinions on economic and social issues, but what absolutely binds us together as a party is our commitment to those liberal values of freedom, civil liberties, equality, human rights, fairness and justice. And it is those values that are under attack as we speak.

So the next few months I guess will be dominated by the political fallout from the riots, Cameron's promise that if it moves he will review it, politicians of all hues competing for the title of "Tough Cookie". Never before has it been more important to stand up for our shared values, however difficult that may be.

There has been a debate recently in the party about which of our policies we should shout about and which we should whisper. Strange as it may seem (:-)) I am in the shout about everything school of thought! When we whisper about the issues we care passionately about but we know don't play well with the likes of the Daily Mail, for example immigration and knee jerk reactions to rioting, all we do is cede the ground to our opponents. When we let the likes of Melanie Phillips blame the "liberal intelligentsia" without pointing her to the facts, we cede the ground. When we try to frame our narrative in the language that talks rough and tough, illiberal, authoritarian counter productive nonsense, we cede the ground.

So I find myself in total agreement with Chris Bowers on Dale & Co arguing that Nick Clegg now has a golden opportunity to promote a truly liberal response to the riots through, amongst other things, using restorative justice to confront the rioters with the consequences of their behaviour. We know that it works, for example in Northern Ireland the combined reoffending rate for youth conferencing in 2006 was 37.7% compared to 70.7% for custodial sentences (see the Prison Reform Trust's excellent report "Making Amends - Restorative Justice in Northern Ireland"). And alongside that, as Chris Bowers has argued, Nick's genuine concern for children and families I trust will mean he takes a far more considered long term view about what needs to happen.

Last year when I raised with Nick my concern about the impact of the cuts on young people during The Conference Question Time, he invited me to hold his feet to the fire if he didn't deliver. Well, he now has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is - I have everything crossed in optimistic expectation that he will - with the hot coals in reserve if he doesn't!

Bring Back National Service............and the Birch........and Zero Tolerance..........and David Blunkett?....and Jack Straw?

2011-08-14T12:03:00.003+01:00

The past week has seen a cornucopia of opinion and counter opinion in relation to the shocking events that swept so many cities in this country. From Melanie Phillips blaming the "liberal intelligentsia" (Melanie darling you are SO last season!) or the delightful Nadine Dorries citing the "moral vacuum"....ah yes dear, so that's what you are blaming for your own lack of moral fortitude is it? Now let's check out your alleged behaviour - hmmmm, adultery, lying and stealing? Not bad to be going on with. But of course, you haven't been caught looting Louboutins from Selfridges, no you were able to loot the public purse without breaking a single window! Rather like your millionaire pal George "we're all in this together" Osborne - you just don't get irony! This is in marked contrast it has to be said to the brave and perceptive Peter Oborne, whose analysis in his Telegraph piece this week was characteristically spot on. Ah, now there's a man the right could do well to look to for their moral compass.

Up and down the country, sorry England, sentences are being dished out like smarties. Sentences that on the face of it appear to betray a knee jerk response to a phenomenon that has at least unsettled and at worst shocked us all.

As a party we are committed to evidence based practice, now, more than ever, we need to demonstrate that this is what distinguishes us from our Tory partners. The likes of Phillips and Dorries may, rather like Cameron and May, want to absolve their class from any responsibility by dumping it in part on those immoral nasty liberals, but let's consider the facts. We have had decades of totally illiberal political leadership! Thatcher - liberal? Major - liberal? Blair - liberal? Brown - liberal? Cameron.........ah yes, claimed to be a liberal once, but prick him and does he not bleed pure illiberality?!

So this morning, as the dust of the last turbulent week (is it only a week?) settles - we have the unedifying spectacle of a prime minister, clearly out of his depth, calling for.......you've guessed it ZERO TOLERANCE. Oh and then we have that novel idea, being touted in the Express that the real answer is NATIONAL SERVICE (that'll sort them out, give'em some discipline in their lives........er......I joined voluntarily and look at me!). So let's look at what happens after people come out of the armed services - disproportionately homeless, disproportionately street drinkers, disproportionately suffering from mental health conditions. Now if our prime minister's argument is to be extended to its logical conclusion, given that our "feral youth" are the products of dysfunctional parents and a sick society, presumably there are some of our service personnel who are the product of our dysfunctional and sick armed forces??? But, maybe they're right, much better to train our "feral youths" to beat up and kill foreigners in Afghanistan Iraq or Libya than let them loose over here.

Having spent the best part of my life working with and for young people (and scarily that is now a very long time!) I have lived through many moral panics. The last week is no different. And frankly isn't that different from moral panics about youth throughout the ages. Even Socrates described the youth of his day as having contempt for authority, being disrespectful to their elders, tyrannising their teachers. But, what is different in every case is the environment in which such behaviour takes place - the values which people accept or reject - the messages our young people are getting from the society in which they either participate or feel disaffected from. And given this government's belief in "nudge" theory and behavioural economics, it seems extraordinary if they do not consider this as part of what must be a proper inquiry into what happened.

So it seems to me that what this country desperately needs is a truly liberal response to what are clearly complex problems. I may have been a little reticent in expressing my anxieties about the coalition, but surely this is a golden opportunity for us to stand up and challenge so much of this knee-jerk rhetoric? Most of us agree that short sentences don't work, and many Liberal Democrats (including myself) are ambassadors for Make Justice Work, the campaign which highlights the wastefulness of short term sentences and promotes more intensive community sentencing. We also agree with using restorative justice as an alternative to custodial sentences, surely given what as happened and the evidence of how effective this approach is, our leadership should be making this point? Being faced with the consequences of your criminal behaviour can be not only far more difficult for a young person to cope with, but also is far more likely to get them to reform their ways.

At the moment there is talk of some 3000 arrests and no doubt there will be many more, like Cameron and Johnson in their youth, who will escape justice. Do we honestly believe ALL of these rioters were criminals? Or is it more logical to conclude that there was a hardened criminal element but that many more, particularly young people, were drawn in by the mob mentality? Those young people more than any will be far more likely to respond positively with being confronted with the enormity of the consequences of their behaviour. What's that saying about acting in haste and repenting at leisure? (both young people and politicians). Don't we know that our prisons are universities of crime?

What we need now is true political leadership, a recognition that if we truly are "all in this together" we all have to take some blame for what has happened as well as some responsibility for finding solutions. There are a good few things I disagree with Nick Clegg on (!) and we have had many arguments about, however, my primary reason for supporting his leadership was that I knew him to be a true liberal, I knew that on youth issues in general and youth justice in particular, he absolutely got the need to have a liberal approach. Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes, Lynne Featherstone (another two who absolutely gets it!) and our parliamentary team have never had a better opportunity to show that leadership, to take that opportunity we allegedly joined the coalition to promote - an opportunity to ensure we try that which has never been tried in living memory - that truly liberal response.

Doing Politics Differently? Let's see................

2011-07-03T13:11:00.005+01:00

Well - I hadn't realised just how long it is since I blogged! However, this is such an important issue that I have torn myself away from a beautiful white sandy beach in order to mount a last minute attempt to garner support from our MPs for an amendment to tomorrow's Finance Bill - the text of my email below :-

Dear All

I am sure you will remember the emergency banking motion that was passed at conference, in particular calling for:

F) Measures to tackle financial exclusion for individuals and small business, with a Basic Banking Guarantee; a public bank administered through Post Offices; a commitment from high street banks to provide fee-free ATMs within walking distance of all deprived communities; as well as reducing unfair bank, credit card and loan charges.

G) Greater support for local credit unions and mutuals.

(my emphasis)

So you can imagine my dismay when it came to my attention that our party may not support an opposition amendment to the finance bill on Monday which offers an eminently sensible way forward without making any firm commitments - as you will see from the text below:

The Government shall lay before Parliament a review of all taxation measures contained in this Act that are applicable to those judged by the financial services authority (or its successor body) to engage in high cost credit lending. This review shall consider the following matters:
a) The nature of the high cost credit market and the proliferation of lending practices which are detrimental to consumers and or competition in the provision of credit to consumers;
b) The impact that taxation could have on the provision of high cost credit in the UK which is detrimental to consumers and or competition in the provision of credit to consumers;
c) Whether changes to taxation could discourage lending in a manner which is detrimental to consumers and or undermines competition in the provision of credit to consumers;
d) Other measures relevant to the high-cost credit lending sector that may prevent consumer detriment.

There are two clear issues for me - firstly - the preamble to our constitution which clearly states that “no-one should be enslaved by poverty”. As a party we seem to be continually flying in the face of that aspiration and getting to grips with legal loan sharks seems to me the least we could do. In fact not only would there be no cost to the public purse in doing so, ultimately it could cost the state less as fewer people would be dealing with the consequences of unmanageable debt - in particular the impact it has on both mental health and relationships (and as I understand it the Tories are very keen on preventing family breakdown - debt being one of the key issues). There is surely a clear and present need, given the disproportionate impact of the recession and “austerity measures” on the poorest in our society - to do what we can through regulation, to protect them. As some of you will know my day job is working for the Money Advice Service (formerly part of the FSA) so I am acutely aware of the need for preventative measures, such as education and advice as well as access to free ATMs, Basic Bank Accounts and reasonable credit as provided by credit unions. However, these are not the whole answer, the fact is that most people only seek advice once they have a problem. I understand the arguments about regulation forcing people into the arms of illegal loan sharks, however, there is no evidence for or against this and surely this is not an argument against the above amendment which calls only for a review.

Secondly, I have a real concern that to reject this amendment flies in the face of all we have been saying about a new kind of politics, why is consensus such a problem? Surely we agree with the sentiments of this amendment, it is in line with party policy, so to reject it merely because it is an opposition amendment risks us being portrayed as mealy mouthed opportunists - caring more about party politics than the people I know we all got into politics to speak up for, those people whose lives are constantly blighted by these ruthless money lenders.

I am presuming there is a strong whip on Monday - but I fear that rejecting this amendment will prove to be yet another indication of just how disconnected the parliamentary party is becoming from the grass roots of the party, who will not understand why we can’t support amendments that are in line with party policy and are not ruled out or in by the Coalition Agreement. In my humble opinion, if we lose our integrity we risk losing our soul.

Anyways, I have said my piece for what it’s worth! I appreciate how difficult it is for all of you at the moment, in particular being continually faced with having to choose between holding your collective noses and voting for things you don’t believe in, or risking upsetting valued colleagues by defying the Coalition position - but I hope on this issue you will feel able to take a stand.

With best wishes

Linda

Is Nick Clegg a Lib Dem?

2011-03-25T12:51:00.000Z

That's the difficult question I asked myself this morning on reading of Nick's overheard comments to David Cameron yesterday. "If we keep doing this we won't find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody leadership debates" It may have been said in jest, but like many jokes it perhaps comes closer to the truth than we would like to believe.

Despite my feelings about the Coalition I have not changed my personal regard for Nick, just as I have Tory and Labour pals I am really fond of, I still regard him as a good, brave and liberal person, with whom I still agree on many things...........however............(how did you know there would be a however?!) his overheard comments yesterday disturbed me more than anything that has happened since the Coalition was formed. If he honestly cannot think of any differences with Cameron it gives the lie to the leadership argument that what we have landed up with in terms of Coalition policy is a compromise and the inevitable consequence of not being in power on our own - yeah right!

I understand from someone who was there at the time, that Nick allegedly decided to join the Lib Dems only because he didn't like the Tory position on Europe and LGBT issues. OK, there are many in our party who may quite comfortable in a more liberal Tory party, but they are not the majority. The preample to our constitution which sets out our values clearly, the fact that 2/3rds of our party see themselves as on the left, just a cursory glance at our manifesto and our reams of policy papers - demonstrates that we are not a right wing party. Do we really believe that had Paddy or Charles or Simon Hughes been leader at the moment they could have made such a comment - even in jest? I don't think so.

So, my question is a genuine one, yes Nick is a liberal to his fingertips - that's why I supported him - but is he a liberal democrat one?

Gill Dye - A Personal Tribute to a Remarkable Woman

2011-02-27T19:04:00.002Z

In my life I have had the privilege of knowing some amazing and inspirational people. On 14^th February we lost one of the most amazing, my friend Gill Dye. It has taken me this long to feel able to write something, partly because it has been so painful to do so, but also because I so want what I say to do her justice. Most people will never have heard of her, she got on with her mission quietly but with the kind of determination that moves mountains. Despite her failing health, she convinced us all that she would get better, having battled against cancer the damage to her lungs was limiting her life, but not, we believed wrongly, cutting it short. When just before Christmas she was told she wouldn't be able to fly again she was devastated but then began working out alternative routes to get to her beloved Israel/Palestine. As someone at her funeral on Thursday remarked, if pure will power could keep someone alive Gill would have lived forever! Not just because she loved life, but more importantly because she had so much more to do and who else was there who would do it?

Simon Hughes, Patrick Hall, Elias Chacour, Gill Dye, Alistair Burt - Elijah Trust Westminster 2007

As a friend Gill was someone who would never judge you, would be that listening ear regardless of her suffering. You always felt that she put your pain before hers. The only time she ever chastised me was over the height of my heels - reminding me that a time would come when I would have to settle for sensible shoes - although I had to remind her that on the three occasions I went flying while we were on a trip to Israel - I was wearing flats at the time!

Gill was a remarkable woman on so many levels, her faith had a depth that I have never encountered in anyone else. Her suffering both emotionally - losing her husband Peter and her son Jon over the past 7 years - and physically, battling cancer herself, was dwarfed only by the depth of suffering she felt for the Palestinian people. And yet that suffering which would have shaken the faith of many, just made her stronger and more of a witness to the love of God. Gill was Director of Elijah Trust and as such was an advocate not just for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, but for their brothers and sisters in the occupied territories. While I was preparing what I wanted to say on behalf of the trustees of Elijah Trust at her funeral - I came across an email exchange which for me summed her up. She had written in some detail to the members of Labour Friends of Israel about the attack on Gaza, urging them to be true friends of Israel and tell their friend that what they were doing was not only wrong but counter productive. One response, from Eric Joyce MP suggested "In truth, I suspect that your intention in all of this is simply to feel good about yourself. Can I suggest you take up carpet bowls instead." Clearly she rattled his cage! What he had failed to understand was that Gill, like many of us, had come from a Christian Zionist background, along with her husband Peter, a Baptist Minister, she had travelled a long painful road to a realisation that there could be no peace without justice and that a system which oppressed others and denied them justice and equality was totally at odds with her faith.

Peter and Gill founded Elijah Trust as a result of reading "Blood Brothers" and meeting with "Abuna" Elias Chacour . Abuna, now Melkite Archbishop of Akko, Haifa, Nazareth and Galilee, says in his tribute to Gill -

"She was very special to me, close to my heart and devoted to our projects of
education. You know in the past years the Elijah Trust which she headed
efficiently till she became physically weak. This trust has been very
helpful in building the Miriam Bawardi Elementary School for 985 children.

She used to come to the school as if she were coming to her own family. We
always felt that she is so far from the Holy land; we wanted her to be
closer. Now she is very close to our memory, to our heart."

And Elijah Trust also supports the work of Mossawa and the Committee for Educational Guidance for Arab Students

Jafar Farah, Director of Mossawa said of Gill -

"From the moment we met with Gill, we knew she was a special woman. Her interest and commitment to us as both an organisation and as the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel was always strong and evident in her concern for us. Even during her difficult times in the past 2 years, she still maintained contact and tried to find ways for our issues to be heard.

On the professional level, Gill and the Elijah Trust are not just friends, but allies for justice and peace in our region. Over the years they presented our issues to church communities as well as political leaders and NGOs in the UK.

As friends and family, we will find a way to commemorate Gill here in Haifa. Her love for us was never faltering, and we will miss her visits and the care we felt while she was with us."

And Sofi Dalal from SEGAS -

"Gill, when no-one believed in us, you helped revitalize our work. Thanks you and to your efforts as the Director of the Elijah Trust, you supported our dormitories, and today we have 30 Arab students safely living in our dorms which you helped to renovate or these students and generations to come. We saw in you a giving soul that gave love to all those around you. You took us into your heart and we took you into our hearts."

There is no doubt Gill has left a lasting legacy, both physically and spiritually. For those of us left behind our challenge is to seek to take on her mantle. To ensure that her work continues and that in seeking to build peace in Israel/Palestine the important role the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel can play is fully utilized. That will surely be the most fitting memorial for such an exceptional woman.

Labour and me....sitting on the bed not clambering into it!

2011-02-11T10:30:00.001Z

I have already had a little flak on Twitter following the Guardian article this morning. Being unable to explain myself in less than 140 characters..........(why use 1 character when 100 will do??!) I decided to resort to my blog. I have made no secret of my despair about the coalition, despair that has only deepened and widened as each day it seems another Liberal Democrat value is demolished and replaced with a realignment of our values to be more Toryesque. Yesterday being a case in point, the suggestion that the wonderful Matthew Oakeshott had to go because he had spoken against Lib Dem policy - er no - it was COALITION policy he had spoken against not Lib Dem policy and I am deeply concerned that this will happen more and more.

We know that talks are already underway with the Tories about Coalition 2 - and to be honest, when our two parties are working so closely together, it is inevitable. Those whose political instincts sit more comfortably with the Tories and are quite comfortable snuggling up in their bed, of course will want the Coalition to continue beyond the next election...........but it may not...........and some of us hope and pray it won't! The chances are we will be in the reverse situation of last year's election - and even if it isn't, we can't preach the politics of pluralism while choosing only to engage with one party. Thankfully I think Nick Clegg gets this, he is after all a pragmatist. He has been meeting with Ed Milliband and rightly so. If we win the AV referendum and move towards the possibility of PR it becomes even more important.

It seems to me that one of the problems of the current arrangement is that coalition politics sits more comfortably with a proportional electoral system. With more parties across a wider spectrum, coalitions become more comfortable - for example in the Netherlands with VVD more at ease with the right wing parties and D66 with the left. I don't think, with 68% of our party seeing themselves as on the left, it would be unjustified to suggest that as a party we would have been more comfortable with Labour, particularly under Ed Milliband who seems to get the need to liberalise his party. Be that as it may, I honestly believe that it will be political suicide if we are seen to be hitching our wagon to the Tories with no notion that we would ever get "unhitched"! And a "talk to the hand cos the face aint listening" approach to Labour is not only infantile it is stupid.

So my reasons for getting involved in this are clear. Firstly, because I love my party (and all of those of you in it, even if we don't agree on everything!) and I want to preserve it and all it stands for. Secondly because I love my fellow citizens (well most of them!) and the whole reason for me ever getting involved in politics was to change things - particularly for young people. So if I can influence ANYONE who has the potential to change things for the better and improve the life chances of our children and young people I WILL DO SO - end of!!!!! And to demonstrate the truth of that I have been speaking to one of the Tory youth advisers this very morning. I am sure there will still be some of you tut tutting - I guess my reaction has to be *whatever* you continue to do what you believe is right and I will continue to do what I believe is right. Let's never lose sight however, of our ultimate declared objective - namely to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society.......where no one should be enslaved by poverty ignorance or conformity. Yep.......that's exactly what I am seeking to do!

Dear Nick, The Lib Dems are more than the sum of their Front Bench

2011-02-10T08:12:00.000Z

Overnight there have been two stories which have had some of us rather exercised. When an issue has me on the same page as Lord Bonkers, the party leadership really ought to be worried! I have never made any secret of my opposition to the coalition, Jonathan is a supporter, but now even he finds himself questioning the dismissal of Matthew Oakeshott. For me, I think the most disturbing part of this story is the quote Jonathan cites from a party spokesperson "Both Lord Oakeshott and the party leadership agreed he could not speak for the party when he did not support the party's policy"..............ah, so now we get the measure of what is happening, Lib Dem policy is being conflated with coalition policy. It's all a bit Animal Farmish for me, before we know it we will all have morphed into pigs, I mean Tories.........and any of us who won't will find ourselves off to the knackers yard with Boxer! Actually Matthew Oakeshott, did support party policy, like Vince Cable used to, like Danny Alexander used to. I have some sympathy for frontbenchers who can't really come out against their government, but Matthew was not a minister, if he can't speak out who can? As a member of FPC I sit on two of the "Parliamentary Policy" committees - my understanding of the rationale for those committees was that those committees in general and their co-chairs in particular, were there to ensure party policy remained distinctive within parliament and that they were the standard bearers for our policy. Last night's events should really put the wind up the lot of us.

And then there is the letter, headlining the news this morning, from the 91 leading Lib Dem councillors, raising legitimate concerns but then being warned by Andrew Stunnell to effectively put up or shut up. Sadly he demonstrates his disconnect from the party by arguing that these councillors should "stop fighting amongst themselves"...........er.................I DON'T think they are fighting among themselves, quite the opposite, they appear to be agreeing with each other! And therein lies my point......it is the FRONT BENCH who appear to have lost touch with the grassroots. It reminds me of my army days when pals got promoted and suddenly "went native" and forgot where they had come from. Or the brilliant colleagues I have known who got into management and suddenly saw their erstwhile co workers as the problem and started implementing the very policies they had argued against as practitioners. Andrew Stunnell would do well to listen to these front line councillors - an Egyptian "you can make bricks without straw" mentality is unfair and unwise and frankly counter-productive. One wonders for example whether in Norfolk the cost of getting rid of their youth service will end up costing them far more in the long run.

Yes coalition involves compromise but not subjugation - a lesson that our front bench would be well advised to learn, and learn quickly.

Equidistancing Ourselves

2011-02-04T14:33:00.000Z

Throughout my - more years than I care to remember - in the Lib Dems, there has been a lot of chat about "Equidistance" - the need to ensure that we are neatly deposited somewhere between Labour and Tory in order to squeeze votes from both and, presumably, to be available to both if needed.

There is a legitimate argument that we should not allow ourselves to be defined by others…….I would agree, but in this brave new world the position surely has to be that we must be seen to be able to work as part of a Labour as well as a Tory coalition. To be perfectly frank, as Tim Montgomerie has pointed out on his blog, 68% of the party see themselves as centre left, social as opposed to economic liberals, so for two thirds of us the current sleeping arrangements are a tad uncomfortable!

Be that as it may, the reality is that we are where we are, a place where our leadership seem relatively comfortable, but a place where many of us are all to conscious of the lumps and bumps in the bed and wondering if we would be far happier in our own deliciously comfortable bed, or in someone else's?! And because our current sleeping arrangements allow for a certain amount of pillow talk with our new partner…….the consequent reality is that discussion about future policy direction inevitably involves them. And therein lies the rub. While we are snuggled up with the Tories, how can we truly be seen to be equidistant? While we rubbish Labour at every opportunity and seem to be meekly submitting to the Tories' every whim, how can we any longer make a case for being equidistant? It seems to me that the only way we can do that is to ensure that we keep the lines of communication well and truly open to the other parties. If we are committed to ushering in a new kind of politics, however much the current arrangements make me want to throw up, we surely have to be prepared to talk to everyone? If coalition politics is about the art of the possible, about finding common ground and pushing forward together on it, the fact is that as a party we do now, and I trust always will have, more in common with Labour.

For that reason I totally support the work Richard Grayson has been doing in bridge building. Frankly I don't see a problem in talking to anyone, including the Tories, if there is a possibility to make life better for the people we aspire to represent. Anyone who has served in local government knows that to be the case. If we have an opportunity to challenge and influence the policy of others it can only be for the good. So I think the criticisms of Richard are unfounded, illiberal and frankly counter productive – coming mainly from people who actually would be a lot happier it we morphed into a centre right party.

I, like Richard, am staying because this is my party too, because, the PARTY hasn't changed, because eventually we will get our party back. At the moment we may be a centre left party lead by the centre right, but that doesn't mean we don't continue to fight for those things we believe are important, those values enshrined in the preamble to our constitution. And I, like Richard, am more than happy to keep the communication channels open to Labour, to shut those channels down is, frankly, to risk our ultimate absorption into the Tory Party and the virtual extinction of all we hold dear.

What I still love about Nick Clegg!

2011-02-04T13:42:00.003Z

Oh...........the highs and lows of being a political anorak! From despair to hope to.............?

I feel a bit like someone who has been given a big bowl of beastly bugs to eat, washed down with a glass of the finest champagne! What do you do?

So, in the midst of serious concerns about the lumps and bumps of the coalition futon...........Nick Clegg delivers - and big time - on a real commitment to improve mental health services for young people.

Long suffering readers will know that the issue of mental health services is one that is close to my heart, having grown up with a bi-polar father and having been to hell and back with my sister over the past few years. It has been bad enough for her, but for young people the service has been patchy at best and non existent at worst. A young man I worked with some years ago and am still in touch with, a young man who turned up at my office one day with rope marks on his neck where he had tried to hang himself, recently told me about his experience in prison. Having been bullied and threatened inside he told me he would rather still be there as "at least they were helping me with my mental health issues".

I know this is an issue that is close to Nick's heart and he gets how important it is to identify problems early, he has been justifiably angry at the way the last government were happy to send our service men and women into illegal wars, but far less willing to ensure they had the right mental health care on their return. So full marks to him and Paul Burstow for what is a brilliant achievement!

However (you knew there would be a however?!) I must urge Nick to recognise how important it is to have an holistic approach. It's the "ambulance at the bottom or fence at the top of the cliff" scenario. For example - as the Princes' Trust Macquarie Index demonstrates, being NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training) has a devastating impact on our young people's mental health with 48% reporting problems. We know that being in debt has an impact on people's mental health. My genuine fear is that the £400m will be swallowed up by increased demand as a direct result of the government's lack of ability to carry out robust impact assessments of their decisions as well as failing to consider any cost benefit analysis.

So my message to Nick is this. I know your heart is in the right place, I'd just like to see more evidence of it connecting to your head! Let's please use this opportunity in government to question knee-jerk decisions that pull the rug from under our young people's feet. What is the point of trumpeting this additional funding if other decisions you are party to increase our young people's poor mental health? Why increase tuition fees, abolish EMA, cut the Future Jobs Fund, slash benefits, abolish the Financial Inclusion Fund, decimate the Youth Service, cut funding to vital youth information advice and counselling services............etc., without any prior consideration of what you put in their place? And how does any of this reflect our declared values that "......no one should be enslaved by poverty (or) ignorance...."?

As a party we allegedly chose to enter this coalition "in the national interest". Sadly, my fear is, that what is happening is driven not by the national interest, but by the short term political interests of the Tory party and their buddies. If this government REALLY cared about the long term interests of this nation they would be prepared to consider the long term needs of our most vulnerable children and young people and protect both the services and the income they rely on.

The Sharks are circling - but is it the Lib Dems they will ultimately devour?

2011-02-02T12:35:00.005Z

OK….I have good days and bad days…..today happens to be a bit of a bad day……to be a Lib Dem.

I understand that coalition is about compromise and the art of the possible – honest – I do. What I don't understand is when we sign up to stuff that is totally contrary to what we say are our values. Does the preamble to our constitution count for absolutely nothing now? Er……."no one should be enslaved by poverty" was the bit I was particularly thinking about. So can someone explain to me why we think it is OK, at a time when our coalition policies are pushing more and more people into debt – we are cutting the Financial Inclusion Fund that pays for debt advisers and access to affordable credit? Why oh why is our parliamentary party apparently not supporting Stella Creasy's Credit Regulation motion on Thursday morning when it is absolutely in line with both the Coalition Agreement and party policy?

I quote: "The Government believes that action is needed to protect consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, and to promote greater competition across the economy. We need to promote more responsible corporate and consumer behaviour through greater transparency and by harnessing the insights from behavioural economics and social psychology.

We will give regulators new powers to define and ban excessive interest rates on credit and store cards; "

and also

"We will introduce stronger consumer protections, including measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges."

Coalition Agreement 2010

And our own policy:

"....A statutory duty to be imposed on all lenders to lend responsibly, giving borrowers a statutory right of action in cases where there has been irresponsible lending.
Consumer protection to be strengthened with stronger penalties for those who mis-sell financial products using aggressive selling practices; with a statutory maximum interest rate to protect vulnerable groups from predatory loan sharks and doorstep lending."

Reforming the Financial Sector - Policy Motion Spring '10

And then there is our Consumer Manifesto:

"Credit and store cards can be similarly harmful with high interest rates and hidden fees. Average
credit card rates are currently at a high of 18.8% and for some people they are as high as 60% or
70%. Extortionate rates are charged to those who can least afford it, putting people already
struggling into a spiral of debt. While it is fair that card providers should be able to adjust their
rates to reflect who they are lending to, many credit cards go well beyond this.

The Liberal Democrats believe that these charges are unfair and would address the situation by:

• Putting a cap on interest rates credit and store card providers are able to charge. In
order to define what this rate should be we will consult with industry and consumer
groups"

And what does Stella's motion say?

"That this House notes with alarm recent evidence showing a fourfold increase in the use of payday lending since the beginning of the recession and that high cost credit lenders advanced approximately £7.5 billion to low and middle income consumers in 2008 alone; recognises the problems of financial exclusion, lack of financial and debt management education, lack of price competitiveness in the unsecured lending market and the near monopoly positions of many large lenders which contribute to the high costs of borrowing; considers that without action these factors could worsen family debt, poverty and financial difficulties to the detriment of the economic recovery; therefore calls upon the Government to introduce, alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice; and believes that such caps should take account of the desirability of maintaining access to affordable and responsible credit, the likely impact on the supply of credit and the cost of enforcement, that they should be regularly reviewed and that they should use the total cost of credit, calculated on a yearly basis, to ensure that lender avoidance and distortions in price are prevented."

Really.........what's not to like? What is out of kilter with our own and coalition policy? Who's playing games here? Or have we been got at by those in the industry who stand to lose out from this? Are we being lead by the nose to become a party of the haves rather than the have nots? Will our party election broadcast next year feature Nick Clegg walking through ripped up copies of the preamble to our constitution? Seriously, please my fellow Lib Dems, get a grip, continue to fight for what you say you believe in. Simon Hughes told the Fabian Society a couple of weeks ago that the progressives were "alive and kicking" in the party.........well some of us are feeling decidedly unwell at the moment and we need the medicine of seeing our parliamentary party fight for party policy, especially if it is in the Coalition Agreement, if we are to pull round!

Monday evening I attended a fantastic event – the launch of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education. It wasn't standing room only, there wasn't standing room - even Stephen Williams couldn't get in! And the attraction? One Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert. I've never seen so many MPs in such awe – all queuing up to have their pix taken with him . And the word is that this is the biggest APPG ever, with 141 parliamentarians already signed up. Martin Lewis was clear and unequivocal – debt is a killer. People commit suicide because of debt. We have to educate our children and young people to be able to understand and manage their money and as he said "It's a national disgrace that in the 20 years since student loans launched we've educated our youth into debt, but never about debt. Now as tuition fees are getting bigger and some will pay commercial rates of interest for them, we simply can't let students take this debt out unless they know how it works."

This genuinely cross party group has Justin Tomlinson, Stella Creasy and our own Duncan Hames as co-chairs. All have been rightly working together to support Stella's motion. Surely this is not a party political issue? Surely all of us baulk at the idea of people paying ridiculous rates of interest of 444% apr? And what about Wonga – at over 2000%apr????! Surely, in times of austerity, more than ever, we need to be doing all we can to prevent people getting into unmanageable debt? Am I being unreasonable? So WHY in the name of everything decent and true, can't our MPs support this sensible motion as is?

I trust like me you will be horrified. If you are and have one of our esteemed Lib Dems as your MP – please, please contact them now to ask them to support this motion. If we are to escape from this coalition with even a shred of credibility then this is one of the shreds I would hope to escape with.

.......PS, if you want a less ranty perspective? SLF supports the motion!

Guest Blog Post - Jeremy Ambache

2011-01-10T07:15:00.003Z

Following my posts last week about Jeremy's resignation he has written more about his reasons for leaving the party - concerned that we seem to be obsessed with tactics rather than policy issues -

Firstly thanks Linda for featuring my decision to leave the party on your 'Lindylooz Muze' blog. I do appreciate the kind things that you have written about my contribution to the party over the last 30-years!

I have just cancelled my accommodation booked for the March Sheffield conference. And I will miss the Lib Dem Conference particularly for two main reasons:

the excellent level of debate of the important political issues facing the country
and
the friendships made over many years.

I have read the comments on your earlier posts and I am disappointed that people writing in seem more interested in 'tactical issues' (like the positioning of the Lib Dems) rather than the more important (in my view) political issues. The most important is the way the cuts that are going to affect individuals and communities right across the country.

In my view many aspects of the cuts will particularly affect less well off people and those who are 'less able'- in their everyday lives. The cuts will affect those on benefit and those who are most vulnerable and rely on 'services'. The government is planning to cut some 25% of many services over the next 4 years. This will drastically reduce vital 'services' that include:

Benefits / schools / special education support services / early years childcare / job training / social housing / libraries / Care services (from birth to old age) / mental health services / drug services / alcohol services / police / youth services and Connexions / probation/ leisure and culture and the whole of the voluntary sector!

In my view these cuts will hit those who are poor and least able (and the most deprived communities) most severely. Also, I think that there will be a huge social cost from these cuts for individuals and local communities.

Many people will know that Nick Clegg has repeatedly said that he is concerned about the 'public health statistic' that some people live 7+years less long in the most deprived ward in Sheffield compared to the most affluent ward. Nick has said that he is committed to reversing this; but sadly the proposed cuts are likely to make the longevity / mortality differences even greater!

I think the other major social policy problem will be in the 'disorganisation' of the NHS - as a result of the radical shake up planned. I worked with others in the party to draft our policy on the NHS, which was agreed at the 2008 Conference. We agreed no major reorganisation; so did the Tories, and so did the coalition agreement! Yet Messrs Lansley and Burstow have decided otherwise. They have not listened to wider consultation with many of us (including the Doctors, Nurses, NHS confederation) who replied to the NHS White paper consultation this autumn. The planned reorganisation (to GP commissioning consortia and a national commissioning board) will waste many £millions and cause massive uncertainty within the NHS. On top of the impact of the cuts this will disadvantage those with long-term health conditions and those in the most deprived areas – including the ward in Sheffield where people have the shortest life expectancy.

Jeremy Ambache Resigns Update.............

2011-01-07T11:49:00.001Z

My original blog was hurried as I have also been enjoying the delights of the Bavarian winter! But since Jeremy has given me permission to reproduce his email to colleagues, I thought it was important to include this. I honestly believe that if our leadership do not listen to him and others, like Richard Huzzey, we are facing a bleak future. The sad thing is that people like Jeremy become so much part of our furniture that we take them for granted - can you imagine a conference without him? For me he has always been an encouraging smile or comment at conference, someone who I know absolutely sings from the same hymn sheet and he is hardly someone who would have the same accolade as me for being "that troublemaker" or worse!

Jeremy's email in full:

I am writing to you as one of my Lib Dem friends to explain why I am leaving the party. However, I do hope friendship will transcend party affiliation!

I am writing to let you know I have just cancelled my membership of the Liberal Democrats after 30 years (Lib Dems and formerly SDP). This has been a difficult decision for me not least because I have many good friends within the party – and I wish you all well.

I have come to the conclusion that the Social Democrat wing of the party (now more usually referred to as Social / Liberal) is not represented by the leadership of the party. I do not find the party's previous commitment to 'social justice' and greater equality is represented by our government Ministers - and I have written to Nick Clegg saying just that!

The key policies area that I do not accept are being promoted effectively by our Lib Dem Minister are:

Education – Ministers are not following the party line on 'free schools' and tuition fees
NHS re-organisation and consequent uncertainty and chaos (both the Lib Dems and Tory's promised no major top down reorganisation)
Benefits cuts - to Housing, Children and Disabled benefits (many experts predict more homelessness, hardship and rise in child poverty)
Budget and Local Government cuts - too rapid deficit reduction and consequent huge public service cuts (these are likely to hit the poorest hardest, including young and old)

I personally am committed to grass roots local community politics – so I consider all of the above is of key importance.

I do wish you well for the future,

All best wishes,

Jeremy

I am well aware that there are many in our party who are perfectly content with the current arrangement and I understand that, if I was on the right of the party I would also no doubt be delighted. But, we are first and foremost a social liberal party - our policy reflects that - and we neglect that position at our peril. To be perfectly frank I am beginning to wonder if a "two state" solution is the best option? As in the Netherlands, maybe a D66/VVD type split is the only answer to ensure that liberalism in one form or another survives. At the moment it feels like when a couple continually papers over the cracks in order to save a relationship when ultimately everyone knows their relationship is doomed. So am I being unduly pessimistic? Should I be buoyed up by Nick Clegg's enthusiasm for the project and Simon Hughes' insistence that without us in government things would be much worse? Well, like Jeremy, I am finding it increasingly difficult to deal with. As I said yesterday, I am not about to take flight (sorry!) I think our party is still worth fighting for, so frankly even if it's a fight to the death.........I'm still in it to win it and I hope Jeremy and others who feel like us may think the potential gain is worth the current pain.

Jeremy Ambache Resigns

2011-01-05T09:54:00.001Z

Last night I received a very sad email, it was from Jeremy Ambache to let me know that he has resigned from the party. Doubly sad I guess because he, unlike me, supported the coalition. As someone who has devoted 30 years to the party his decision has not been taken lightly and cannot be dismissed as a fit of pique. Whether those on the right who are extremely comfortable with the way things are going, like it or not, as others have pointed out 68% of the membership see themselves as on the left of the spectrum and yet we find ourselves with a right wing leadership, even contemplating it seems, pacts with the Tories.

While I fully appreciate all Jeremy's concerns about the kind of decisions we are now party to and the lack of political leadership from our cabinet members, I have to say my personal view remains that I have to stay and fight for the values which lead me to join the party in the first place - I haven´t changed - the party hasn´t changed, but it will beyond recognition if we lose our core activist base. The fact is however much we trumpet the very real successes we have achieved in government, they are a bit like the bunch of flowers the abusing partner brings when he has punched his "loved one" in the face! Its difficult to see the good because of the damage that has been done and until our leadership gets that no amount of shouting about what we have achieved will have any impact at all.

2011 is going to be a tough year - ít may all end in tears, but for the moment I trust, however unbearable some of what is being done in our name is, enough of us will hang in there and see us through what hopefully will turn out to be a blip in the party´s history.

In the meantime I thank Jeremy for all he has done for this party and his community, I know he will continue to work for the things he believes in and I trust maybe one day, our party will again be a home for him.

"Advocate for Access to Education" - An important new role for Simon Hughes

2010-12-29T00:01:00.003Z

Almost from the moment I became a youth worker there has been a political advocate for young people who has stood head and shoulders above the rest, who has been an inspiration, not only to me but to so many others in the field - that person is Simon Hughes.

So I am absolutely thrilled to hear this evening that he has been appointed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "Advocate for Access to Education" with a brief to engage with young people in secondary education about how to deliver the government's objective of increasing educational participation, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Now, of course, I would prefer a simple "Advocate for Young People" but this is a start and will give Simon an opportunity, I trust, to interpret the role as widely as possible. After all, access to education is about more than just dispelling myths or providing information, or extra support through the pupil premium - it is about a whole range of other issues that impact upon a young person's life.

Nick Clegg said "Simon Hughes record championing the concerns of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds make him ideally suited to lead this important work to ensure that an increasing number of young people with the talent to succeed at university have the chance to do so - regardless of their starting point in life.

"I know Simon will be tireless in seeking the best ways to communicate the opportunities open to young people, just as he will be a strong advocate for them to government."

On accepting the role, Simon Hughes said "It is a privilege to be asked to take on this role, and I will do so with urgency, enthusiasm and determination.

"Parliament has settled the maximum university fee level in England from 2012 and we now have a critically important task to ensure that every potential student has access to all the facts about the costs, benefits and opportunities of further and higher education.

"I will work with every person of goodwill to ensure that from 2011 we have the best system of educational advice, information and support in place, designed to benefit all potential students and to ensure that disadvantaged young people increasingly gain access to further and higher education."

Clearly, my view hasn't changed - and is still in line with party policy, namely that we should be phasing out tuition fees altogether. We all, as Liberal Democrats - Simon included - must continue to make that case. However, if the PM and Deputy PM are honestly interested in engaging young people and their ideas about what is best for their futures, I sincerely hope that his findings may lead to if not a rethink, at least a modification of what is on offer at the moment. Michael Gove may bleat that it is not the case that higher fees put off young people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, from applying to University, particularly the top Universities, but as the Sutton Trust research shows - this still is and will continue to be, a very real barrier.

It is also very encouraging that Simon is being asked to make recommendations on the successor to EMA - a hugely important issue if young people are not to face yet another financial barrier to participating in education. So, I wish him all the best in this crucial role - I know there is no one else with the skills, expertise and understanding to be able to ensure young people themselves really do begin to have a say in their futures.

And interesting to note that the Guardian is already interpreting this appointment as another government U turn......

3 Cheers for Nick.......

2010-12-16T12:46:00.001Z

......on this one! I am absolutely delighted that at last we have an end to the pernicious practice of locking up asylum seeker children. Children, many of whom will have already suffered terribly in their own countries and now find themselves in a "place of safety" where they are anything but safe. Having been involved with the campaign against arbitrary detention with the awesome Emma Ginn, I am only too aware of the impact keeping anyone locked up at Yarlswood, let alone children, has on their mental health and well being.

So today reminds me of all that is still great about Nick Clegg. I am still cross about a lot of things, but this is an area where I know he will fight and fight hard. As an FPC rep on our Justice Home Affairs and Equalities Parliamentary Policy Committee I have to say that this committee above all reminds me why I am a Liberal Democrat. I believe we have a fantastic opportunity, as witnessed in the tone of the Sentencing Green Paper, to have a big influence here - but in order to do that I believe there is another very big battle Nick has to win - that is the battle to keep Ken Clarke - I urge him to take up the cudgels on this one - on this issue too Nick, be assured, I am right behind you!

Where now on Tuition Fees?

2010-12-09T13:40:00.002Z

Those of us who were part of the 104 have been having a lively debate over the last couple of weeks. An email we received this morning from Martin Pierce really sums the situation up brilliantly - with his permission I reproduce it -

On the day of the vote some things seem clear to me:

* Nick and Vince and co will win the vote but have lost the argument

* I - and I think voters - understand that manifestos are statements of intent and particularly in a coalition, cannot be enacted in full. However, it's the breaking of the personal pledge that is the more serious - it was unambiguous and was freely and voluntarily entered into. To break it makes you either a knave or a fool

* The argument about the deficit doesn't hold up for anyone who thinks about it for a minute because this system (in fact one of the few good things about it) moves payment from upfront to after graduation. It is a choice that our leaders in government have made

* The repercussions for trust in our party - and its distinctiveness vis a vis the other parties - will i believe be serious and long lasting. We have abandoned the moral high ground we had - and in a street fight with the other two we'll never win. If the Norwich South activists on C4 News last night are representative, Lib Dems on the ground are bewildered and deflated

* What Craig did was brilliant - and brilliantly simple! That 1 out of 6 candidates should feel strongly enough to sign the petition showed how strongly held our position is, but it took someone to bring us together. This group HAS influenced the debate, and crucially, the backbenchers voting today know we're out here in numbers

* Where next? Some of us are old enough to remember the poll tax 20 years ago - it was enacted but had lost so much credibility that it was dead in the water as soon as Thatcher was gone. So the lesson is, keep up the arguments, stick to party policy, don't let them think it's over.

Tuition Fees and the Potential Damage to Social Mobility Now - A Mother’s Tale

2010-12-08T18:01:00.000Z

The tuition fee debate is far from over and one of the consistently loud and clear voices against tuition fees and for our party policy is Susan Gaszczak. Here is her personal view on what tomorrow's vote means for her and her family.

On the eve of the Tuition Fee debate in the House of Commons I start the day with a heavy heart. In my own household the discussion around degrees and aims, goals and dreams of my own children has caused much tension and worry.

My teenagers have not protested, but they have worried and stressed about the impact their goals in life will have on them in future years.

They have lived in recent years through a depression, seen banks collapsed and talked of debt and how dangerous it is. Talk of credit and credit cards – gambling on the stock market and high incomes have featured over the last few years.

Last night I read Nick Clegg's interview where he talked about social mobility and told us he has listened to us his party. Well maybe Nick has to listen again. These proposals will have an impact on social mobility now and here is how.

Teenagers of my children's age will be amongst the first to be landed with a debt of £18k, which they will have to repay when they reach the heady income of £21k, and that excludes the cost of actually living and eating while going to university. It will probably mean they live at home and go to University locally. Hurray I am supposed to say?

As a single mum I currently work part time, to enable me to care for them and bring them up with some stability. Hurray, they will possibly get free tuition and maybe even a bursary.

So, what is my incentive to get a full time job? Currently, I work part time on a self-employed basis for the party; seasoned party members know what that really means. I would love to find that perfect full time job, but the worry of landing my children with huge amounts of debt may stop me. So my income capacity is diminished so that I can give my children the best start in life.

At a party conference in years gone by I spoke of a young man who was affected so badly by the debt he incurred going to university it caused him mental health issues. He, at times, wanted to end his own life. That was the legacy for him of Labour bringing in Tuition Fees.

Now we face yet higher fees, yes, with a better system of repayment but still with the possibility of huge damage to the social mobility of the current generation.

I want my children to fulfil their dreams. I do not want them to worry about debt. The ironic thing is they have grown up in a family committed to public service: their dreams are to work in the public service and give something back, yet whatever way they go to university they will pay more than ever to achieve that goal.

Ministers, Junior Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and our back bench team, I urge you to think hard before you vote for these proposals. Social Mobility will be affected, but not in the way you hope if you are backing these proposals

The Problem with Faustian Pacts.............

2010-11-30T20:41:00.001Z

...........is that they have a habit of coming back to bite you in the bottom! The car crash that is happening before our eyes is exactly what happens when you dispense with integrity for the sake of expediency. And please less of the "putting the country first" - actually - that is why we are Lib Dems isn't it? That is why we have Lib Dem policies surely? If we thought Tory or Labour policies were better for the country we'd adopt them. Please, give me a break........or do I mean brake? Mind you, it's maybe too late for the brake - it's been snowing and we'll only go into a worse skid.

So.......now let's all abstain why don't we? It's a noble plan for the sake of party unity........if this was just about party unity. But it's not. It's about party credibility. It's about whether we will have a truly liberal alternative at the next election. It's about whether we are true to the fourth pledge of our manifesto - to "clean up politics". No amount of Febreze like spin is going to disguise the stench that is duplicity. And make no mistake, what is going on is truly duplicitous. We know that from the honest reflections of David Laws. The right in our party may not get their way on the conference floor, but they sure as hell have through the coalition! As Steve Richards in the Indy today so perceptively pointed out "An unexpectedly clear picture emerges from Laws's account. They wanted the outcome they got. They willed it. At the top they are now happy with the policies they are pursuing. But in working towards such an outcome they have ended up implementing some major policies that are so far removed from their pre-election pledges that they are heading towards the cliff's edge. They hurtle towards a precipice because of the broader context. Clegg made "trust" the key issue at the last election, especially in the first televised debate. If Clegg and Laws had been less ready to form a coalition with the Conservatives, they might have given some more thought to the deadly consequences for their reputation". A fair deal by cleaning up politics.

The fact is, that the Orange Bookers NEVER wanted our policy on tuition fees, just look at the battle we had to keep it! And so now we see the absurd spectacle of Vince (who deserves better than this) having to hint that he may abstain in order to keep the party together. NO Vince - abstaining should be the ONLY option if you are not going to keep your pledge. After all, a couple of thousand party members voted for you to abstain by backing the Coalition Agreement. And this because the amendments to hold MPs to the pledge to vote against were blocked. What's that about tangled webs and deception?

I am frankly ashamed of what is happening at the moment. OK, I never wanted this, but I would have thought someone may have had the gumption to see this coming. I'm sorry I didn't, but I was so fixated on the fact that I didn't want the Coalition Agreement to start with, I never did the forensic analysis of it that it deserved - I opposed the lot of it, why bother?

Our manifesto was clear and fully costed, don't you remember the recognition of that in the press? No bold uncosted promises, no pipe-dreams - all the figures there in technicolour. I have gone back to Nick's speech at the manifesto launch and I will leave it with you - my emphasis (my comments in brackets).

"A fair deal by cleaning up politics.

We will break up, once and for all, the rotten political system dominated by the two old parties and put power into people’s hands. (yes by rendering impotent the third party!)

You will have the right to sack your MP if they are proved corrupt.
You will have as much influence as everyone else over our government because we will stamp out big donations, clean up lobbying and change the voting system so that every voter’s choice matters.

And you will once again be able to look at our Parliament with pride, not contempt, because we will make sure every MP who avoided capital gains tax or flipped their home for personal gain is brought to book.

These are four steps to a fairer Britain.

They are promises you can trust. (so what part of trust don't I understand?)

Together they will change our country for good.
If we do things differently, for once.
If we learn from the mistakes of the past and try something new…
We can turn anger into hope.
Frustration into ambition.
Recession into opportunity for everyone.
There is one other major innovation in this manifesto.
There isn’t a line or policy in this book that will cost money that we haven’t accounted for with savings elsewhere.
We have scrutinised public spending line by line, and found the savings we need to pay for all of our priorities as Vince explained. "

104 PPCs Call for Integrity on Tuition Fees

2010-11-29T06:17:00.001Z

The following press release went out overnight - all credit to Craig Bichard for all the work he has done on this and to all the ex PPCs who signed. My personal response is here.

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF 104 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES

'No to tuition higher tuition fees, yes to Liberal Democrat integrity'

A petition, calling on all Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against the proposed rise in tuition fees when this is debated in Parliament before Christmas, has been sent to all the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs.

This petition has been established in opposition to the coalition government's current proposed policy on tuition fees and has been signed by 104 of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidates at the 2010 General Election (over 15% of the total Lib Dem candidates).

The petition was conceived and produced by Craig Bichard, with the support of Derek Deedman, the Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Arundel & South Downs at the 2010 General Election. Craig is a 19-year-old student and passionate member of the Arundel & South Downs Liberal Democrats, and it is his ambition to become a Liberal Democrat MP in the future.

Both Craig and Derek feel very strongly that unlike manifesto policies, which are aspirations to be delivered by an overall majority government or used as a basis for a compromise agreement in a coalition situation, the unconditional pledge made by Liberal Democrat Candidates to vote against any rise in tuition fees is a promise which must be kept – and 103 other Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidates at the 2010 General Election have expressed their agreement and signed the petition. All agree that this is a red line issue and the provision in the Coalition Agreement for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain is not sufficient.

Ends.

For more information contact Craig Bichard on telephone: 07730578410 or email: craigbichard@live.co.uk

Preamble to the petition: -

This petition has been established in opposition to the coalition government's current policy on tuition fees. We feel that better alternatives must be reached as this policy punishes the poorest and lower middle classes disproportionately. Although we have been told that concessions have been made for the poorest this refers to earnings made after graduation, not before and so this means that the poorest will be even more deterred from going to university than they already are as the prospect of even more debt before even getting a job will weigh most heavily on their minds.

This is not an attack on the Coalition Government's policy programme generally; nor is it some kind of "rebellion" and it should certainly not lead to the party splitting. However we feel that this is a pledge that cannot be broken due to the nature in which it was signed and publicised during the 2010 General Election. This separates it from manifesto promises that have had to be sacrificed due to the concessions that coalition government brings.

We are all Liberal Democrats whom want the best for students, our party that we care so much about and, of course the United Kingdom as a whole.

Higher education practically pays for itself through the returns graduates give back to the economy and we must not deter those with the most potential from attending university. A wider debate is needed on the issue of encouraging students to take other routes other than university. However this is a debate for another time; but if we fail to invest in our future now than what kind of future can we be expected to look forward to?

Formal petition signed by 104 Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidates: -

During the General Election campaign many of our MP's (and now government ministers) signed a pledge with the National Union of Students that they would vote against any tuition fee rises during the course of the next Parliament. The wording of this pledge clearly indicated that this would be unconditional; regardless of whether the party was in government or in opposition. The party has been very clear for many years about its view on tuition fees and that we feel they should be abolished.

However after the recent publication of the Browne review into university funding it now seems entirely likely that although tuition fees will be capped this will be done to an unacceptable level of somewhere between £9000-£9500 per year with almost all courses costing at least £6000 per year.

Stopping this from happening is vitally important. Not just for the benefit of students but also for the Liberal Democrats. There is one thing that sets the Liberal Democrats apart from other political parties; this is that when we say we will do something during election campaigns we then do it in government. This can be seen in how the income tax threshold will rise to £10,000 by the end of this Parliament, the AV referendum on 5th May 2011, the Pupil Premium and the delay over the replacement of Trident. We have achieved this and much more despite the compromises of being in a coalition.

Nick Clegg emphasised this best of all during the televised leadership debates when he said that the Labour and Conservative Parties have given us "Nothing but broken promises", he also emphasised that "The Liberal Democrats are different". Finally and crucially he announced how he wanted to create a "New politics" and part of this vision was for parties to do in government as they claim they will in opposition.

It is time for us to remind him of these important values. The rise in tuition fees is designed to fill in the £2.9 billion black hole that will be left in the teaching funds for universities after the announcement of cuts of 40% in the spending review. However in the context of reducing the deficit this is a drop in the ocean and these savings could surely be better achieved elsewhere. For example during much of Margaret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister the top rate of tax for the highest earners was 60% and yet today in harder financial times it is 50%. Yet it is students (hardly the richest people in our society) who will be paying for the last generations mistakes. This may be a hard time economically but this is a battle we must win.

We are different and must show that we are; especially now that we are in a position to do so. Otherwise this party will rightly face many more years back in the political wilderness having been labelled as 'just like the other lot'.

So are these savings of £2.9 billion worth it? Is this price worth the loss of our party's integrity and our values? If not then we must let the leadership know how we feel and stop these fees from rising while we still can. There must be better options and we must find the right one; or the else the party and the next generation of students will rightly feel let down for the next Parliament and beyond.

We, the undersigned Parliamentary Liberal Democrat Candidates at the 2010 General Election, call on Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and all the Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against any increase in tuition fees, as pledged to the National Union of Students and publicised as such during the 2010 General Election campaign.

Signed:

Candidate Constituency

Derek Deedman (Arundel and South Downs)

Godfrey Newman (Horsham)

Simon McDougall (Littlehampton and Bognor)

Martin Lury (Chichester)

5. Bernadette Millam (Brighton Pavilion)

Andrew Falconer (Runnymede and Weybridge)

Paul Elgood (Hove)

James Blanchard (Huddersfield)

Jon Underwood (Tiverton and Honiton)

10. Mark Chapman (Spelthorne)

Andrew Aalders (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Wendy Taylor (Newcastle upon Tyne East)

Nick Perry (Hastings and Rye)

Peter Carroll (Maidstone and the Weald)

15. Alan Bullion (Sevenoaks)

Roger Barlow (Macclesfield)

Richard Baum (Bury North)

Nigel Quinton (Hitchin and Harpenden)

Nigel Bennett (South Suffolk)

20. Chris Nelson (Kettering)

Chris Bramall (Stourbridge)

Sam Boote (Nottingham East)

Adam Carew (East Hampshire)

David Ord (North Tyneside)

25. Adrian Collet (Aldershot)

Gareth Epps (Reading East)

Chris Foote Wood (Middlesbrough)

John Dixon (Cardiff North)

Philip Eades (Poole)

30. Steven Lambert (Aylesbury)

Philip Latham (Stockton North)

Lynne Beaumont (Folkestone and Hythe)

Michael Mullaney (Bosworth)

Brendan D'Cruz (Castle Point)

35. Jamie Matthews (Pudsey)

Helen Flynn (Skipton and Ripon)

Edward Fordham (Hampstead and Kilburn)

Alex Berhanu (Ilford North)

Richard Grayson (Hemel Hempstead)

40. Howard Keal (Thirsk and Malton)

Iarla Kilbane-Dawe (Edmonton)

Paula Keaveney (Garston and Halewood)

Steve Guy (Wycombe)

Rob Hylands (Gosport)

45. Martin Pierce (West Ham)

Tim McKay (Edinburgh South West)

Elizabeth Jewkes (City of Chester)

Daniel Roper (Broadland)

Stephen Glenn (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

50. Chris Tucker (Slough)

Dave Raval (Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Margaret Rowley (Mid-Worcestershire)

Mike Willis (Loughborough)

Andrew Simpson (Northampton North)

55. Colin Ross (Wolverhampton North East)

Fiona Hornby (Devizes)

Paul Smith (Enfield North)

Tom Snowdon (Amber Valley)

Anna Pascoe (South West Devon)

60. Denis Healy (Hull North)

Tony Hill (Maidenhead)

Jane Lock (North Swindon)

Les Jones (Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Paul Brighton (Alyn and Deeside)

65. Ian Robertson (Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

David Harding-Price (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

David Rendel (Newbury)

John Loughton (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

David Hall Matthews (Bradford West)

70. David Smith (Wakefield)

Jerry Evans (Birmingham Hall Green)

Carol Woods (City of Durham)

Denise Hawksworth (Bolsover)

Mark Blackburn (Westminster North)

75. Jonathan Bramall (Dudley South)

Jane Brophy (Altrincham and Sale West)

Peter Reisdorf (Wirral West)

Jill Wareham (Isle of Wight)

Jane Kulka (Reigate)

80. Paul Dixon (Sunderland Central)

Susan Gaszczak (Rayleigh and Wickford)

Sally FitzHarris (Kingswood)

Simon Partridge (Great Yarmouth)

David Rundle (Banbury)

85. Mike Collins (The Cotswolds)

Margaret Phelps (Witham)

Stephen Martin (North Warwickshire)

Graham Oakes (Exeter)

Nigel Jones (Newcastle under Lyme)

90. Trevor Carbin (South West Wiltshire)

Farooq Qureshi (Leyton and Wanstead)

John McClintock (Chatham and Aylesford)

Nigel Rock (Kinelworth and Southam)

Christian Vassie (York Central)

95. Linda Jack (Mid Bedfordshire)

Kevin Ward (Glasgow East)

James Monaghan (Morley and Outwood)

David Goodall (Southampton Itchen)

Joe Naitta (Derbyshire Dales)

100. Robin Lawrence (Wolverhampton South West)

Lucy Care (Derby North)

Richard Nixon (Brigg and Goole)

Sally McIntosh (Mid Derbyshire)

Alan Beddow (Warwick and Leamington)

Forget Revolting Students - it's Revolting MPs we need!

2010-11-29T06:01:00.001Z

The next couple of weeks, when this period of the Liberal Democrat history is documented, could turn out to be pivotal for the future of our party. For Lib Dems there are few issues as totemic as our tuition fees policy - as recognised by Stephen Williams, who came up against the immovable object that is Federal Conference. But Stephen, like others, despite their misgivings, signed the pledge. I have to say I fully appreciated the difficult job he had trying to revise our policy and had a certain amount of sympathy - with limited resources is it right to cut, for example, Youth Services, to abolish student fees? However, as a party, despite the internal disputes, and opposition from some at a senior level, we were able to fully cost and fund our policy to abolish fees within six years.

Now, we are not in power, we cannot deliver on fee abolition - do the maths - we need a few more than 57 votes to get our policy through! However, on the commitment to vote AGAINST fee increases EVERY LAST ONE of our MPs CAN. In my view it is crass and disingenuous to suggest the coalition supersedes the PERSONAL promise they made. A promise frankly is a moral obligation, as such it is an issue of conscience and MPs should be allowed to vote with their consciences on this as they would on any other moral issue.

Getting back to the wretched Coalition Agreement. I have made no secret of my opposition to it, but others DID try to amend the section on fees but their amendments were apparently blocked. I am very fearful that in signing that agreement we now find our leaders have signed their own death warrant. Some may have seen my pink fluffy handcuffs at special conference as a bit of a joke - sadly they are proving to be all too prophetic. We not only find ourselves locked into a relationship that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable, we find our moral compass has been knocked completely off course and our integrity seems to be the price we have to pay to avoid being further humiliated. And as a party, if we lose our integrity, we surely lose our soul.

I know Simon Hughes is working his butt off to try and get agreement within the parliamentary party for collective abstention. But I think he would be far better employed bringing out his white steed, polishing up his spurs, and leading the charge to maintain at least a modicum of our party's integrity by voting against this absurd increase,. And this isn't just about the policy, it's also about our party. It's about whether or not we are prepared to sacrifice the birthright of the whole party for the mess of pottage that is a veneer of power. For me in policy terms there are far more important issues that will damage the life chances of all our children and young people - but if we get this wrong I fear we can forget being a force in British politics for a generation. And ultimately that is bad for democracy and bad for society, after all, if we didn't believe liberal democracy was what was best for our country, why would we be in this party?

Sadly I do not have a Lib Dem MP, but to those of you who do, to those of you on whose shoulders they stand to elected, to those of you who week in week out deliver the leaflets, knock on the doors, do the fundraising............now is the time for you to use every ounce of your energy to persuade him or her to recognise it is not just their integrity at stake it is yours and mine as well.

Nick Clegg may or may not have joked about being toast in a year, the danger is its not just him that will be toast, it will be the lot of us, and I for one never chose to jump into the toaster with him!

A MUST READ Speech from Simon Hughes

2010-11-26T09:59:00.001Z

For me - and I would say this wouldn't I - one of the most disturbing aspects of the current cuts is the impact on Youth Services. Even at the height of the Thatcher regime we never faced the Armageddon we now seem to be facing. Today I spoke to an old union colleague who said we are looking at melt down, the decimation of a service that so many of our most vulnerable young people rely on. If it were just about old pals of mine losing their jobs, that would be one thing, but it is the wider impact on the young people they work with in particular, and communities in general, I worry about. I have much more to say about this, but in the mean time I was thoroughly heartened by this speech by Simon Hughes this week in Parliament.

"I am ashamed to admit that I have been involved in the youth service for nearly 40 years, since I was a teenager, particularly in detached youth work, which is, for me, one of the most important areas of youth work in urban Britain and many other places, too. I want to say a few words and join other hon. Members in pleading for the Government to ensure that they understand the importance of Government and local authority support for the youth service.

I have always believed that there ought to be a statutory youth service. That is my party's policy, it is still my belief, and I hope that before long that can be the position. It has always been a Cinderella service, although it is the bit of support for young people that is needed to complement parental and family support, and school and educational support. Other role models who are not authority figures can often be far more influential in ensuring that young people have the development, security and safety they need.

I welcome the Education Committee's inquiry. The Government are looking forward to introducing comprehensive proposals in the new year. I welcome that. The Minister has often been well received since taking on his job. I thank him for that. I am keen for him to be bold and ambitious, both in his Department and across Government, because this is not only the responsibility of the Department for Education.

The national citizen service is a good idea, but as colleagues have said it is a time-limited, specific activity for some people at some time. It will grow slowly. The reality of the youth service is that it can be found by and is accessible to everybody in every community. That is the difference. The youth service is there now. We have to ensure that we do not lose any of its validity or accessibility.

May I make a special plea to ensure that the funding for people to be qualified and trained as youth workers is increased, not decreased? Some of the best, most talented people, who may not have a great academic background, come through the youth service as volunteers, then realise that it is their vocation. They have just the sort of skills that are needed. Often, they are women or people from black and minority ethnic communities. They are really good role models who have been where the youngsters are now. They understand the score, because they have been in the front line and have come through. We need to ensure that they are given the educational support to go on and do practice-based qualifications.

I have said that my engagement has mainly been with detached youth work, but that is not to underestimate club-based or specialist youth work. The benefit that the hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned in being out on the street, engaging with youngsters where they are, not expecting them to come to where the service is, is fundamentally important. If people are to gain the confidence of young people, they do not say, "Come and do it my way"; they say, "We're going to come alongside you and understand what you want."

We know that local government will have a hard time, as will central Government, because the settlement is difficult. But local government does not have to find all its savings by cutting grants to the voluntary sector and does not have to cut equally across the board. I plead with every council, no matter who runs it, to make sure that they do not think that the implication of a severe spending cut means cutting the voluntary sector rather than reducing the in-house services. Often, the latter needs to be done, because money for the voluntary sector can multiply in terms of its benefits in the community.

I am keen to ensure that evening and weekend work is supported. One of the problems with a lot of traditional youth services is that they were there-fantastically-on Monday to Thursday evenings, but not on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. That is exactly when young people need places to go to.

A good example of a youth service was a place I went to in south Wales a few years ago. The kids wanted somewhere to hang around safely. They were given support locally in the valleys and they were able to build a shelter. It was a very simple shelter, but they built it and it was their place. It was a sort of glorified bus shelter, but it meant they had somewhere they could go, supported by individuals. Often, simple things that cost small amounts of money can transform people's self worth and allow them to have a place they can call their own and build on.

Lastly, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) pointed out that there are often many unused buildings. In difficult financial circumstances there is an imperative for organisations to work together complementarily, to ensure that facilities are shared and that people do not just do their own thing. That is often a danger in the statutory youth sector if there are schools that do not stay open after school hours or youth clubs that open only in the evenings. Local authorities need to lead on that, and my plea is for the Minister to say to every council, "You lead with the voluntary and faith groups. Do the work on the ground."

The Minister must also ensure that we have funding for youth workers whom we need to do their job, and that we do not lose them; we need them now more than ever. We must not lose key services, which are often the glue that keeps communities together as well as keeping young people and their communities safe."

So if you share Simon's concerns, please sign the For Youth's Sake pledge.....that's if you haven't gone off the idea of signing pledges at the moment!!!

On Dorries, Harris, Cushion and Japanese Prisoners of War........

2010-10-04T12:13:00.001+01:00

I have to confess I laughed out loud when I read what my erstwhile opponent Nadine "I'm 5ft 3 and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye. If high heels were banned in Westminster, no one would be able to find me" Dorries, had said about me, apparently I am "behaving like a Japanese prisoner of war who doesn't realise the conflict is over" - well thanks first to Caron Lindsay for springing to my defence and secondly to Gareth Epps who sent me a nice message suggesting I should wear the comment as a badge of honour.

I suppose what I find hugely amusing and characteristically ironic in Ms Dorries' comment, is that it was made virtually in the same breath as her assertion that she would "rather die than enter into a pact with the Lib Dems!" er.........no truce there then missus! And I have to say on this occasion we are in total agreement - that makes two of us who would rather die than enter into a pact with each other, although my prediction is that in her case this will not be necessary as I doubt very much she will be the Tory candidate in Mid Beds at the next election.

What I also find odd, given the contest is over, is that she still takes such an interest in me. The only way she could have known of my concerns about the coalition is either through following my blog or Twitter.....

There is no doubt that Palinesque Ms D hates Lib Dems more than she hates Labour - unsurprising given her patently illiberal and uncaring attitude, the opinion of one person who contacted me during the election campaign sums it up nicely "she has a hanging brick where her heart should be". I can't imagine her signing up to our belief in a "fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and where no one should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity".

Her attitude towards our own Evan Harris demonstrates this clearly, her glee when he lost his seat, referring to him as "Dr Death" and painting him as our party's answer to Lucifer. Actually, I may not agree with Evan Harris on some things, nor he me, but he is one of the most intelligent, gracious, thoughtful and impressive human beings I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Of course he takes a different view from those of us who have a belief in God he doesn't share, but that has never deflected him from working with all of us for our shared objectives of making this world a better place to live in, frankly if you asked me to choose between Evan and Nadine about who most closely reflects the compassion and humanity of Christ, there would be no contest! And yet she is the one who claims to be a "Christian"!!! I tell you what Nadine, give me a man whose whole motivation is care and compassion for his fellow men and women any day over someone whose whole motivation seems to be to look after herself and her children and let the rest of the world go hang. Who holds high office purely because, as Nick Clegg has accurately pointed out, you could put up a donkey with a red or blue rosette in some constituencies and they would get elected. Who gets "confused" about whether she produced an annual report or not and in a "confused" state publishes a leaflet on her blog that apparently cost nearly £10,000 to produce, but contains not a word about the work for her constituents but just a couple of pictures of foetuses and a report on what she had been doing on the anti-abortion campaign. Come off it Nadine, surely you couldn't have been so confused that you thought that tatty leaflet would have a) cost such a ridiculous amount of money or b) was something you would have put through every door in Mid Beds???

And then there is her attitude to those on benefits who commit the heinous crime of Tweeting. Her incoherent argument was that it was OK for those who were genuinely disabled - but then seemed to relish the opportunity to have a pop at one of her constituents, without knowing anything about her true circumstances. "Ms Humphrey Cushion" is a friend of mine; I met her at the infamous Flitwick hustings, where she, along with other Mid Beds constituents, challenged me about what I stood for as a candidate. Since then I have got to know her and I have to say, that while we have different political persuasions, on so many issues we totally agree, she is a caring, kind and humane person. And yes, shock horror; I have met her in the pub! But, because of that, I have seen firsthand just how much pain she is permanently in - having to sit holding her neck because of the pain. And let's not forget, that until she became too ill to continue, she did one of the most important and badly rewarded jobs as a carer - a job that no doubt exacerbated her condition and one she couldn't possibly continue to do at the moment.

The logical conclusion from Dorries' argument is that if you are living on benefits you have no right to a social life. Now in my day job we train those working with young people to help them manage their money more effectively. One of the exercises we do is "essential/non essential". Participants are asked to discuss and agree whether a range of things are essential or not, one of them being going down the pub. This usually evokes lively debate, but the conclusion is often, yes it is essential. For those who are on benefits or living with disabilities, the isolation can be soul destroying and can have a hugely damaging impact on their confidence and self esteem. Not to even be allowed to socialise because you are living on benefits is scandalous, especially coming from a woman who thinks spending 100 times as much on one pair of shoes as someone living on benefits may spend on the occasional night out! And while "National Insurance" may not be hypothecated, the clue is in the name - something most of us, including Ms Cushion, are willing pay to "insure" against a time when we may be unable to work.

Anyway Nadine, unlike you, I am happy to offer you the right of reply and to put the record straight here on my blog, where I do have comments enabled. And in the meantime, please don't you go worrying about those less fortunate than yourself now will you? You go off and buy yourself a nice little pair of Louboutins at our expense so you can make sure they can see you in Westminster.

Nick Clegg......Convincing me about the Coalition

2010-09-17T18:46:00.001+01:00

This morning, along with my fellow bloggers I wended my way along to Nick Clegg's new office (formerly occupied by Peter Mandelson). Given I was on my way to Liverpool I was accompanied by my case, causing Nick to quip that he thought I was opposed to the coalition, so why was I moving in? Hmmm, well, in my student days our preferred mode of protest was occupationJ. The quips about my love for the coalition continued throughout, can't think why - but time was short and far too short for us all to ask all the questions we had brimming over in our minds. Before the interview, as we all strategically positioned our iphones, Helen Duffett asked if Nick minded, his reply, of course not - it's just this one (gesturing towards mine) I may pour my coffee over. Well start as you mean to go on! But I don't know what he actually did, having recorded the whole thing, I have somehow deleted all except 7 minutes of it! So, as I am waiting to get a copy from Helen I will just give some initial thoughts.

Longsuffering readers will remember that I was one of Nick's most vociferous supporters in the blogosphere and for a very good reason. While I very much appreciated his liberal attitude, especially with regards to young people and the justice system, I clearly had differences with him on many other issues. But I supported him because I appreciated his honesty and compassion and I knew he was a pragmatist. So long as the party as a whole reflected our social liberal values, Nick would go along with it. And he has, time and again he may have lost the argument on FPC, but what I have admired him for is that he has then got behind the policy he may not have been totally sold on. I suppose what I admit I had not thought enough about, was what might happened if we ended up in coalition and those same characteristics were demonstrated in bed with the Tories.

So, unsurprisingly Nick was upbeat and chipper. He is comfortable in his skin. His ability to compromise and take a pragmatic approach to partnership with the Tories leaves him unruffled, though I guess what none of us really knows is just how much of that compromise he is actually quite happy with. He is determined to do politics differently, to demonstrate that coalition government can work. It would have been very easy to have left his sumptuous office feeling reassured, optimistic, passionate about the task ahead, however difficult. He made a point of saying that bubbly optimistic people like him and me saw the glass half full not half empty (oops another dig about my anxieties about the coalition!), he believes that the approach the coalition are taking will make a difference to that issue he cares so passionately about, social mobility. When he touched on housing in this context I had the opportunity to challenge him about the coalition's attitude to housing and housing benefit. He seemed genuinely not to know the full story on this and gave me a glimmer of hope that this is something he may be willing to take up. Although he repeated the Cameron mantra that it was all because the bill had mushroomed and was unaffordable, I took the opportunity to remind him that was down to Thatcher. Frankly it is a nonsense that private landlords can buy ex council houses and then the council ends up paying 4 times as much in housing benefit for them as they would have had they stayed in council ownership!

So, did he persuade me to support the coalition? You'll have to wait until I get some notes from Helen and write part two to find out J

Retro....grade? – Reflections on whether I was right to back Clegg

2010-08-23T10:43:00.001+01:00

Inspired by the retro reflections of the inimitable Paul Walter and this excellent article by Gaby Hinsliff – I decided to trawl through some of my numerous blogs supporting Nick Clegg's candidacy three years ago. Longsuffering readers will remember that I was unstinting in my support for Nick, despite much criticism from those who thought it was misplaced. The past few months have caused me to consider this question in a way I didn't feel I needed to back in 2007.

When it became clear that there would be an election for a new leader I remember having a conversation with Nick to say that if Steve Webb stood I would of course back him. In the event Steve chose not to and Nick let me know that he had Steve's support. My reasoning for supporting him was simple – I didn't trust Chris Huhne's "left" credentials, but I did trust Nick's liberal ones. While I didn't agree with him on quite a few issues, having worked with him on our crime policy I knew him to be a true liberal and someone who cared deeply about the life chances of those who were all to often ignored. I trusted him and I liked the way he was prepared to listen even when he vehemently disagreed with you. When I sent him an angry email about us not fielding a candidate against David Davies he took the trouble to call to explain his decision. While he jokingly referred to me as a "little lefty", I felt that we were agreed on outcomes if not process – and for that reason vociferously supported his campaign, to the extent that I was thanked by his campaign manager at his victory party, who rather kindly said he thought my blog could have made the difference in the narrow margin of his victory! So my support for Nick, despite our differences has been unquestionable and unwavering.

So what now? Those heady days of the leaders' debates seem long gone – rather as those hot days of July seem a million miles away as I sit here on a very damp and cool Exmoor. The man who I believed could truly inspire both our party and the country seems a shadow of his former self. He seems to be backing things that are anathema to me, can I possibly continue to support the man? It is a tough one. To be honest I feel rather as one does when a friend ends up in a relationship that you know is wrong for them. It may not be physically abusive, but it is emotionally abusive. The friend seems to stop being able to be themselves – they dress as their partner desires, they speak as he or she desires, they have less and less contact with their old pals. You know that old pal you know and love is in their somewhere, but their unequal relationship with their new partner is stifling their true identity. Now I understand all the chat about us being the "junior partner" but frankly no unequal partnership can work, regardless of the size of the partners! While I accept that our government ministers in general and our Deputy PM in particular have collective responsibility, this surely doesn't mean they are obliged to appear to sacrifice their integrity? I am extremely disappointed that what is coming across is that we are more than happy to go along with the Tories. There is no explanation or restatement of Lib Dem policy – no rationale for the compromises that were made in our name. It is this, I believe, more than anything, that has lead to our drop in the polls.

So, can I still support Nick? Despite my support for him I have always felt able to challenge him (hence the quote on the top of my blog!) and one of the things I admire about him is he is not someone to fall out with folk just because they have a different opinion. So the answer is yes personally, yes politically on some things, but no on some significant others. Yes, personally, I still admire him and believe he can, if he wants to, turn things around. I still rate him as an exceptional, compassionate and committed human being. I still think given the options, (Simon Hughes having also ruled himself out) he was the best person to lead our party. Yes, politically, I do believe he will play a significant role in making this a far more liberal country, and yes, I think he can play an equally significant role in improving social mobility . No, politically, I don't like the way he seems so comfortable in bed with the Tories and adopting their mantra. No, I can't go along with his rationale for supporting such savage and damaging cuts. No, I can't support the way he seems to have accepted being muzzled - how ironic that the man who was such a vociferous critic of the bombardment of Gaza last year was almost silent about the flotilla, leaving it to Mr Cameron to describe Gaza as a prison camp.

So, to return to Gaby Hinsliff's analysis. I agree Nick is a fox, though in some ways he may be more of a hedgehog at the moment! I trust he will rediscover his foxyness, stand up to his new partner and demonstrate what those of us who know and admire him recognise, that he does have what it takes to make this not only a more liberal country, but a fairer and more equal one too.

100 Daze...............

2010-08-18T23:41:00.001+01:00

..........or.............100 Nights of the Long Knives and Runcible Spoons......?

Hard to believe it is 100 days since that Tuesday evening in May when, for me, we as Lib Dems did the unthinkable. I had spent most of the previous few days intermittently chatting to a pal on FE who had consistently reassured me that there was no way we were going to do a deal with the Tories. And of course when Nick appeared to have achieved a coup in getting Gordon Brown to resign, I naively thought that the deal with Labour was done and dusted.

I was under this misapprehension until early on Tuesday morning. As the Labour dinosaurs (John Reid, Blunkett, Prescott et al) were wheeled out on the Today programme – and then throughout the day, it became clearer that a "rainbow coalition" was a non starter. My head said, well, if we have to have the Tories, at least we may be able to mitigate against their worst excesses......my heart said something quite different.

Early evening I was in Davey's in Canary Wharf with ex Lib Dem MP David Bellotti after a meeting at work. It was then that the news was coming in of Brown leaving Downing Street and Cameron trotting off to the palace. I certainly wasn't prepared for my emotional reaction. As pals from work were piling in and I was introducing them to David, the tears were pricking the back of my eyes. Fellow Lib Dem Lee saw what was happening and gave me a knowing hug. As I travelled back to Luton I confess I was fighting back the tears. Around 1.30 in the morning my pal from FE called to explain their decision to me. I was gutted – I guess I finally got to sleep around 3.30. Work the next day was a haze. Everyone could see what a state I was in. I watched the Clegg and Cameron nuptials in the rose garden as in a dream......was this really happening? Would I wake up and discover it was an all too realistic nightmare?

100 days later the dust has more or less settled, we have a "coalition agreement", we have a "deputy Prime Minister", we have a few Cabinet ministers, we are "Making a Difference". Er.........right. Since I was stuck on a poxy little freezing cold train for nearly 4 hours today without a plug for my failing laptop, or a cup of tea!!!! I had chance to reread both the Coalition Agreement and our manifesto. Frankly, as Ms Warsi let slip, that "Coalition Agreement" is the Tory manifesto augmented with a little "Lib Dem thinking". Not only that, but I have scoured that wretched agreement to see what it says about cutting housing benefit.....??? What is says about Academy schools.....(a little yes, but not what has ended up in the legislation), about the very real cuts to front line services that are already happening. Actually, what is says is "We will make modest cuts of £6billion to non front-line services" (my emphasis)............so why are we looking already at 30% - 50% cuts to services to young people? Vital front line drugs and alcohol services already gone? Youth Services and Connexions as we speak issuing redundancy notices?

Simon Hughes is right to be raising concerns. The Tory numbskulls who are laying into him at the moment should surely cause those of us who actually subscribe to the values enshrined in the preamble to our constitution, namely that "no one should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" to be a little unsettled. We have found ourselves in bed with a bunch of people, most of whom frankly don't give a shit about those who haven't had their advantages. Believe me, I have spent most of my life working with them, I know. So, with apologies to those of my fellow Lib Dems who are making a brave show of trying to defend the indefensible, it's time our party woke up and smelt the coffee. Frankly, if we don't, we may be spared the pain of waking up altogether and find ourselves 6 foot under.

OK......So Now I Love Theresa May.....?

2010-07-28T21:56:00.001+01:00

Working from home today I had the sadly rare opportunity to listen to WATO and the wonderful Martha Kearney over lunch. Imagine my delight (being in the middle of emailing our own Tom McNally about our Youth Justice policy) when I heard dear old Theresa May chatting about abolishing ASBO's - Lib Dem policy.......well almost! I wondered if Lynne Featherstone had been working her magic? Having worked with Lynne on our youth policy I do know we are totally on the same page about youth issues and her tenacity and inscrutability in seeking to ensure we are a far more liberal society, is for me one of the few bright sparks in this gloomy coalition.

I have to be honest, this was one of the issues where, given previous experience in our region, I thought we may have had a bit of a spat at conference, but hey, who will oppose it now when even the Tories get it?!

However, I am not holding my breath for too long. Already there are murmurings about what this may mean on the ground for the police - short sharp shocks? Clips round the ear? Summary justice? We will have to watch carefully - "reviews" can be little more than dipping of toes in water, retreating like lightening when the Daily Mail sharks start to bite!

So, for those of you who think this was one of Labour's flagship policies and I am a bleeding heart liberal - soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime..........this is WHY I am so vehemently opposed to this policy.

ASBO's, anyone know of anywhere else, anywhere in the world where they exist? - this is a British phenomenon - and one we should be ashamed of. It flies in the face of one of the most fundamental British values that we like to refer to as an example of our legislative superiority - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! We are criminalising a generation of young people without due process and then wondering why our prisons are full. And creating something that is more often than not breached, or else seen as a badge of honour. I am sorry, but this is one of the barmiest most damaging pieces of New Labour Stalinist legislation they ever thought of (and there were a lot!) if anyone doesn't understand why I am not a Labour member, this is the embodiment of the bits of New Labour (along with marketization) that I cannot stomach.

So, we will watch and wait. I hope Ms May will deliver (remind me to tell you the tale of her, Trevor Phillips and yours truly - but not here!), and I hope too, that she will recognise what our Youth Justice policy recognises that this is not just about repealing idiotic legislation, it is also about ensuring our young people have somewhere to go, something positive to do, investing in our youth services (currently under demolition) especially detached youth workers (a cause Simon Hughes has always championed), supporting inter-generational community projects, giving our young people something to believe in, hope for and aspire to. Only then can any of us have any right to talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime...............

Simon Hughes calls for Campaign to Scrap Trident

2010-07-20T08:38:00.002+01:00

"Expensive, dangerous and useless" the words of a senior military witnesss to describe Trident when giving evidence to the working group a few years ago. One of the things that persuaded my good pal Jo Hayes to vote against the fudge that became party policy and for the minority report. As a "risky radical" party, all too often we fall at the final hurdle of the Daily Mail filter when deciding policy, this was one such time.

So imagine how thrilled I was last night at the AGM of Liberal International British Group (and if you are not a member why not?) to hear newly elected President, Simon Hughes call for LI to reassert our party policy to scrap Trident. He made it clear that the coalition agreement gave us as a party licence to argue for scrapping – so that's surely what we have to do. With over 70% of the population against renewal and a massive budget deficit, it is incredulous that all but those who stand to gain financially or politically by carrying on supporting this nonsense, should continue to prop up a dead duck.

I have to confess that I did make the case for removing the words "like for like" (remember this was LIBG so they don't have to support party policy word for word) but was met with short shrift – Simon having two objections, one that it was not 3 words but 1 (hyphenated apparently!) the second that our policy was not unilateralist. He did concede however that whilst my arguments were usually incredibly persuasive and cogent (well something like that ;-)) on this occasion they were........hmmmm – less so (surely not I hear you murmur).

Someone else who took a view diametrically opposed to mine made the point that the argument would be easier to make if it was clearly not a unilateralist one. I have to say, that makes a lot of sense if your objection to Trident is the cost and the uselessness of the system, however, since my objection is a moral one while I will support this campaign it will have to be from a unilateralists position. Never the less, I of course applaud Simon and trust this will be a campaign we can all get behind.

Update - "Liberal Democrats fought the election as a party committed to multilateral nuclear disarmament. Above all at this time of spending cuts and financial austerity, the like for like replacement of Trident is illogical and unaffordable. Rather than continuing Trident as before, Britain's public finances should be spent on other areas of our national defence and priority public services" quote from Simon Hughes today. GO SIMON!

Coalition Budget – Real Life Consequences

2010-07-14T11:26:00.002+01:00

I am sure, like many of you, I got involved in politics in order to do my best to be a voice for those who had no voice, to challenge injustice, discrimination and oppression. I guess I can trace it back to speaking up on behalf a black friend when I was 5 and I didn't understand much about racism then, but understood a little about bullying. Since then that trait in me, among other things, has lead me to being threatened with a charge of mutiny in the army, become President of my SU, Unison Branch Secretary and chair of their national Youth and Community Workers Forum, a local councillor and parliamentary candidate.

So whenever I read the kind of comments that have been left on my recent blogs about the coalition budget, that sense of indignation is reignited in me and I would challenge anyone not to be moved by these stories.

Firstly there was this comment from Big Doug,

My wife has Schizophrenia, some days she's good, other days bad. Quite often its a case of not letting her illness manifest itself to such an extent she feels compelled to leave the house on some task or other. In the past she has gone missing and the police have taken her to hospital after being found miles away in a confused and distressed state. She has a fortnightly injection to keep her stable. She is shortly to have her DLA claim looked at again. I make no political point about this, I'm sure it would have happened under Labour. But I do wonder what will happen if she is assessed on one of her good days, and how many other people in a similar position will suffer as a result. I haven't told her about the medical test she has coming up as this will lead to stress ,anxiety and heaven knows what else. I have no real interest in politics, when you are at the bottom politicians rarely do more than pay you lip service, sometimes they'll kick you around like a tin can. To be honest my life is crap, limited and each day is as likley to bring horror as it is to bring a smile. And to cap it all my wife, and I as her carer, are now a burden on the system, scroungers no less. Well bring on the pain we all have to bear, down here no one hears us anyway. Sorry for the semi rant. At least you sound as if you realise there are real people out there somewhere.

then this one from Dan

Linda, I have become a follower of your blog recently, and I can't understand why people in Mid-Bedfordshire decided to vote for their MP on the back of her being a Tory, instead of voting for somebody who had their head screwed on. No offence to Nadine Dorries, of course. I personally think she did well on Tower Block of Commons, and she seems like a nice woman. But you make some really valid points and as a 21 year old care-leaver under the London Borough of Camden, all my friends who lived in care under my local authority (apart from two, who were girls and had babies) got dumped into hostels full of crackhead and were denied our right to a council flat. I've lived in over 20 placements in the care system and then to be put into hostals is like repeating the whole process all over again to the point where my education got affected and where as I once was labeled "gifted and talented," I was now labeled as "challenging behaviour." I left school with 2 poor gcse's, and 5 years later, not much has changed. Having a stable home is absolutly essential to ones upbringing. Unfortunatly, I don't know when I'm going to have a stable home, and as I'm currently unemployed, I don't know how I'm going to surive the 10% housing benefit cut as my hostal rent is pretty steep as it is. But I don't want to move out as it's my only hope if I wan't to eventually get a council flat. With no family around for support, things are only going to get harder... the tories have NO idea! I'm going back to college to do a 1 year access course in social work so hopefully I can go university next year. I am going to have to find a part time day job and a part time night job asap to make ends meet! Anyway, Linda, you write an excellent blog. Keep it up, I'll definatly continue to follow you :)

Cheers,
Dan

And finally this from the Queen of late night tweeting ;-) and one of my fellow Narnians, Humphrey Cushion

Thanks for writing this Linda, I blogged on this too: http://scatteredcushions.blogspot.com/2010/06/will-you-still-need-me-will-you-still.html

As I said in that post, I failed to qualify for ESA recently although I can only stand or sit for a few minutes at a time without pain and any movement of my neck increases the damage.. what sort of a job that qualifies me for I dont know..

These benefits should be Health Service generated, the specialists and GPs know their patients best. Currently, the Medical Examiners meets the claimants for 15 minutes and sees no health records at all. Hardly able to make an informed decision are they?

I defy anyone not to be moved by these stories, regardless of political persuasion. So, if anyone can't understand my opposition to the regressive, vindictive, short sighted Tory budget (please don't tell me this is the kind of budget we would have come up with on our own!!!) – you clearly don't get it. And please don't bleat on about this being necessary because the alternatives would be worse. In order to become part of the coalition our party was sold a pup. Hmmm, George Osborne or Vince Cable – who would I trust to have more economic nous? Cut now, cut later??? This is ideaologically driven and no mistake and unless our party grandees wake up to this fact I fear we are condemned to the footnote of history, but far worse than that, many of our fellow citizens are condemned to poverty, misery, hopelessness and in some cases, death.

Leaving the Party? PLEASE, DON'T DO IT!!!

2010-07-10T09:48:00.001+01:00

The news yesterday that Liverpool Lib Dem leader, Warren Bradley had spoken out about coalition cuts and his fear that the party would be wiped out, sent a shudder through my spine. His description of feeling physically sick when he heard about the cuts to the BSF budget reflects the way I have felt since that fateful day in May. More worrying for me was the news that many of his Lib Dem councillors were considering leaving the party - my huge plea to them is don't do it!!!!

Now, more than ever before, those of us who love this party, who have chosen it over others because it most reflects our values, surely must now stay and fight - the alternative is the wipeout Warren warns of. And then what? A return to less choice, to the "big boy" bullies who think they have the right to rule, be they on the left or right (although ironically we were always seen as to the left of Labour - hey those were the days!) and a far more disaffected electorate, particularly those who already feel marginalised and ignored.

OK, I know we have a wing of the party that is far more economically liberal and has a lot in common with the Tories, but at our heart we are a progressive party, we rightly champion our belief that "noone should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" and yet right now we are joining forces with those who will further impoverish those already struggling to survive financially. What is sticking in many folks gullet is, I believe, what looks like a lack of integrity on behalf of the party. Vince looks uncomfortable and squirms - he doesn't display the body language of someone who is saying what he truly believes. The wonderful Michael Moore, someone who I have always rated, looks similarly uncomfortable on Question Time trying to justify the unjustifiable. To hear our MPs defending what are Tory not Lib Dem values is excruciating. No wonder people are wondering what we stand for now!

A few short weeks ago, when Nick Clegg (rightly) was wowing the crowds, it seemed we really were going to break the mould of British politics, the vision of the "Gang of Four" all those years ago. Now we are left with what by any standards is the rump of an idea for electoral reform - of course I will join the campaign for AV, it's better than what we have, but frankly the whole point of it diminishes somewhat if the consequence of us getting it is the return to two party politics! And as someone pointed out recently, for those of us who really don't have a second choice it is totally meaningless.

As someone who has always been prepared to challenge when I think something is wrong I realise I will continue to upset some folk. I am truly sorry. It would be far better for my blood pressure if I could genuinely applaud what our party has signed up to, if I could find it in my heart to be happy about our role in government. Unfortunately, given the prospect of up to 40% cuts, over a million extra on the dole, the condemning in particular of so many of our young people to unemployment, poverty and misery, the prospect of families becoming homeless because of housing benefit cuts, forgive me if I don't sound too enamoured at the moment.The rationale that our presence in the coalition would somehow mitigate against the worst excesses of the Tories kinda rings hollow now, would they have been looking for 60% cuts without us then?

However, it is precisely because I care about the future of our party that I can't keep silent. If you saw your dearest friends, rushing like lemmings to the edge of the cliff - would you just stand by and let them get on with it?

Coalition Budget – “It’s not Fair!” part 2

2010-07-06T16:02:00.002+01:00

OK, we've dealt with housing benefit, now what about the rest? I have absolutely no problem with trying to get people off benefit, I have absolutely no problem with bringing to book those who are abusing the system, what I have a problem with is the catch all approach. So for those who are genuinely unable to work because of a disability or an illness (did anyone hear that poor desperate man with terminal lung cancer on the phone to Gordon Brown on 5 Live during the campaign, who kept getting forced to go for assessments?) to include them in our attempts to catch the rogues is totally unfair and unproductive. It's a bit like expecting us all to cough up for the tax dodgers, don't see quite the effort going into calling them to account.

The idea that there is enough slack in the system to cut benefits because after all, "we're all in this together" is a total nonsense. What this budget will cost me is a reasonable meal out once a month, what this budget will cost those on benefits will be choosing between eating and keeping warm. Apologies to those of you who have heard this story before, but I will never forget my meeting with the Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland last year, when we had had that exceptionally cold spell in February. She told the story of a young 17 year old who had come out of the care system and was living on her own. She had gone to her social worker to beg that instead of having £20 a week in food vouchers she could just have £10 in vouchers and the other £10 in cash – because she said "I'd rather be hungry than cold". This was a young woman who had not had the best start in life but was doing her best to try and get a job and make a future for herself despite everything being against her (and let's not forget care leavers are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population).

And the moves on DLA are also distressing. Bad enough that you are suffering a disability or debilitating illness, now we will make you jump through all sorts of hoops, even though it will cost us more to do this than we will save! The fact is that for some illnesses (like ME) folk have good and bad days. For those with serious mental illness, they may have long periods of being well, punctuated by crises when they just can't work. Far better to find ways of supporting employment for these people when they are well surely? My sister is one such case. At the moment she is as well as she has been for several years – she is happily volunteering in the church coffee shop and is so appreciated they want to employ her to run it. This would be great and would help so much with her recovery, but we and she know she couldn't take the stress of actually being in charge. But if the church were able to have some back up support, to be adaptable enough to have contingency plans for the days/weeks when she may not be able to work, then this would be a real possibility. And of course, as we all know, work can be a real boost to someone's mental health and sense of well-being and self esteem. If we are serious about enabling people to work, then we have to be serious and far more creative in our thinking about how to support them. Sadly it seems this is not part of the package.

My one tiny spark of hope in all this is that having Steve Webb in DWP will perhaps help ultimately in securing a more humane approach to benefits in general and that having other ministers and MPs like our own brave Lynne Featherstone, who are also anxious about these proposals, may ultimately lead to some sensible amendments. It's a tiny spark, but maybe one that together, we can fan into a flame?

Coalition Budget - "It's not FAIR!" Part ONE

2010-07-05T08:55:00.001+01:00

During the many and lengthy debates about the manifesto on FPC I found myself disagreeing with the notion that the theme should be fairness alone. Not because I don't believe in fairness, but because the concept only has any meaning when more clearly defined. After all, can you imagine any party campaigning on a platform of unfairness? The reality is that what I may regard as fair is more than likely to be totally at odds with what a right wing head banging Tory regards as fair. So, I unsuccessfully argued that we should be talking about fairness, freedom and equality - interesting that one of those was picked up in the Coalition Agreement!

Fairness is hardwired into our thinking, from early childhood we meet every parental decision we don't agree with bleating "it's not fair", "It's not fair that I should have to share my sweets - you gave them to ME", "How come (older sister) can go to bed at 9 and I have to go to bed at 8? It's not fair!" No wonder it is such a popular concept for politicians. Everyone wants things to be fair, from their perspective. Therefore the banker with his 6 figure salary, supplemented by a 6 figure bonus, may well think fairness is not having to shell out so much in tax to keep the feckless poor on benefits - Georgie boy will be a hero not a villain to him.

So, I have to confess that from my perspective I find the coalition budget anything but fair. And I say that as someone who personally, will be nowhere near as badly hit as others, so this view is not based on self interest.

To start with I want to consider the proposed cuts to housing benefit. This for me is probably the most insidious of all the proposals. There is nothing as fundamental as the need for a home, in particular a stable, safe and secure home. To me one of the most disastrous policies of Thatcher was the right to buy, based not on a belief that people should have the right to own their own home, but rather that homeowners were more likely to vote Tory. Far better to have sponsored shared ownership or affordable home building, rather than to sow the seeds of the situation we now have. Not only did this policy reduce the housing stock, it also stopped councils spending the receipts on building new homes - and thus we find ourselves in 2010 with a horrendous housing shortage.

So, the coalition government were bleating about the horrendous cost of housing benefit - too right - but the irony is that this ill judged, ideologically driven Tory policy was what lead to these ridiculous costs! Local councils, selling off stock to private landlords who then charge 3 or 4 times more rent which then has to be met through housing benefit! This is the real reason housing benefit costs have soared. Not only that, but those who would have had the security of renting from the council or a housing association, now find themselves subject to the vagaries of private landlords, who despite the legislation, always have the upper hand. Security is a thing of the past. As someone who has privately rented for the last 6 years I have moved 7 times, twice having had an eviction notice because the landlord wanted to sell, or do something different with the property. I now have a year's tenancy, but no guarantee that this won't mean having to move again if the landlord changes his mind about renting at the end of that year. And its not just the monetary cost (deposits, removal vans etc) it is also the emotional cost of moving.

I recently attended a Barnardos seminar where they were stressing the importance for the development of children of a safe, secure and adequate home and yet so many have anything but. This is one of the reasons I cannot see the pupil premium in isolation. Great that we will be able to implement that policy through the coalition, but frankly meaningless if we are going to throw many of the children we seek to help out of their homes. What good additional resources in your school if you don't have a decent secure home?

So, of all the dreadful measures in this budget, this for me is the worst. To threaten someone's home, particularly those with children, is to undermine one of the most fundamental human needs. At first I was incensed at the decision to cut housing benefit by 10% if someone had been out of work for a year, particularly in the current climate when we are anticipating over a million additional folk in the dole queue, but now I am even more incensed by the decision to cap rents at the 30 percentile rather than 50. In many areas this will mean the poorest in our society having to find outrageous amounts of money to make up the shortfall. I would find it difficult to find an extra £3,000 a year to spend on rent, how much more difficult for those living for example in Bedford where this is the estimated cost for them? And where are all these low rent properties they will be expected to live in? Ah yes, what we used to call social housing - a rapidly diminishing resource.

I understand there will be an opportunity in the autumn for this legislation to be amended, I trust that those MPs who call themselves Liberal Democrats will be prepared to put the needs of those most vulnerable in our society before the need to protect their career - after all, I thought that was why most of them got involved in politics in the first place?

The AV Eggs and the Coalition Basket

2010-07-02T16:18:00.000+01:00

The commitment to a referendum on AV was the price the Tories allegedly paid for securing our support in the coalition. It wasn't quite what we were after - and the irony is, that if the prophets of doom are right and the Tory boa constrictor squeezes the life out of our party, it may be an irrelevance anyway. What would be the point of having a second choice when there were only two real choices anyway?

Much has been made of this apparent "climb down" by the Tories - but they, with their stranglehold in the press, and unimaginable financial backing, will do all in their power to secure a no vote. Simon Hughes on WATO was upbeat and optimistic about a win - I hope he is right - it at least will be a small step on the way to PR, which I still hope to see in my life time. However, if he is not, then we run the risk of shutting the door on PR for a generation at least. I can hear the argument now. Despite the fact that AV is no way comparable to PR (and of course there are many who would vote against AV while supporting PR), it would be taken as a demonstration that the people of this country were perfectly happy with FPTP.

This is why the battle to secure a proper referendum on PR has to intensify now. The coalition agreement, Section 24, states "We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament." Take Back Parliament already has over 56,000 signatures – can we get it up to 100,000 or 1 million? Surely there is scope to campaign now to get this petition to a point where we can force a debate? And if we could get that level of support behind the campaign, could any self respecting MP who allegedly believes in giving us back power, Cameron who claims we are now all in government with him, not even allow us to answer the grown up question about how we want to be governed? It would totally undermine and make a mockery of all the current drives to supposedly involve us in the decision making process.

But if we are to influence the referendum next year, time is short, let's all get behind this campaign now, let's show Mr C what the "Big Society" really looks like!

Nick Clegg - My idea of freedom

2010-07-01T14:10:00.000+01:00

I have to say I was delighted this morning to see the debate moving to more traditionally Lib Dem territory with Nick Clegg's invitation to us all to let the government know what our idea of freedom is. I will be responding to the invitation, although I would be interested to know what will happen with the suggestions. For example, what if 12 million of us said the legislation we wanted to abolish was raising VAT and cutting public services? How will they decide what to implement and what to keep? How much say will we really have? Do we need to start campaigns in order to ensure our voices are heard, or do we just accept that every suggestion will go through a coalition filter of whether or not it is in line with Tory/Lib Dem policy?

Anyway, I relish the opportunity - and rather than come up with a list, I thought I would come up with a few principles.

Firstly - freedom to me is being able to live my life without fear, and like most people I guess my biggest fears are around losing my loved ones, my health, my job. At the moment I think I am in quite a good place, I have a great job that I love and pays well, I don't have to worry about whether I can afford to heat my house or feed my family. I have my family close by, I am feeling OK. My health isn't being affected by worries or stress or living in poor housing.

Secondly - freedom to me is about being able to be myself, to shout the odds about what I want to shout the odds about (!) to protest on Parliament Square if I want to, to go where I want to, see who I want to, to wear what I want and believe what I want, in as far as that doesn't infringe upon anyone elses freedom (OK I promise not to come to conference in my bikini!).

Thirdly - freedom to me is about being able to learn and grow, to have access to information, knowledge, opportunities that enable me to develop my full potential as a human being.

Hmmmm, sounds a good bit like the preamble to our constitution that no-one should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

So my response to Nick, when he says “So be demanding about your liberty, be insistent about your rights. This is about your freedom, and this is your chance to have your say.” Is to do exactly as he says (he knows how obedient I am when it comes to obeying the diktats of my leader :-)).

My demand is quite simple - in every decision you make, whether that is in repealing, or creating new, legislation - remember the freedoms we say we stand for, remember that it is our party that calls for a society where everyone is valued, where no-one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance, conformity or fear. To subject every legislative measure to this simple test.........you may find you come up with a few different answers to the ones the new coalition insist will be good for all of us. You may find you have to challenge your senior partners about that facile notion that "we are all in this together."

Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Later

2010-06-27T13:25:00.001+01:00

You know when you eat something bad and feel like you want to throw up? For ages you think you couldn't feel any worse - then you actually do throw up and its horrendous. That more or less encapsulates how I have felt since the coalition was formed. That sick feeling in my stomach started on that infamous Tuesday evening when the coalition nuptials took place and has continued, getting worse with each new announcement - leaving me devastated this Tuesday with the budget - and culminating in the meeting of CHYPS (Confederation of Heads of Young People's Services) I went to last Thursday.

When I warned at the special conference that we would find ourselves locked into all sorts of things that would turn our stomach, I had no idea how prophetic my words would turn out to be, nor how quickly they would be fulfilled. I find myself surrounded by Lib Dem friends beaming with delight, constantly pointing out how much of our manifesto is included in the coalition agreement and the budget.........but to me its a bit like this. The doctor tells you what a wonderful job he has done in mending your broken leg while totally ignoring the fact that he has chopped the other one off! Oh yes, a modest increase in CGT is to be welcomed, but a devastating increase in VAT? Oh yes, great to give an additional £150 to poor families, or to take so many more out of paying tax, but what a joke when those same people will find themselves far worse off with benefit cuts and additional regressive taxes - and for so many, no job at all not to pay taxes on!!!!

Some of my dearest Lib Dem friends think I have made a mistake speaking out and should try to be a little more diplomatic, well frankly that is a bit like saying you should let your enemy overrun your country, raping and pillaging at will, with just the odd polite "would you mind stopping please?"

Of all the budget measures this week, for me the most worrying is something that has gone relatively uncommented on. That is a the promised 10% cut in housing benefit for those unemployed for over a year - so not only are we going to rub your nose in it, we are going to tip a load more shit over you while we do it. The massive cuts in the public services, particularly in some areas like the North East where 60% of all jobs are in the public sector, will not only take away people's livelihood, possibly for years to come, but they will also face the double whammy of either losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgage, or losing their homes because they can't pay their rent.

So, back to last Thursday. I had been invited, as chair of the Youth Policy Working Group, to go and speak to the heads of young people's services from across the country. Like me they were gobsmacked that there was virtually no mention of young people in the coalition agreement. Given we had some key commitments to young people in our manifesto, votes at 16, equalising minimum wage, additional educational, training and job opportunities for that lost generation of nearly a million "NEET" young people, statutory youth service, the fact that none of this appeared in the agreement is deeply worrying. Not only that, but sending the opposite signal by cutting the Future Jobs Fund. Nearly everyone there reported having to make massive cuts, usually around 30% and this is BEFORE the budget measures kick in. There is a very real fear that in many areas the Youth Service and Connexions will disappear altogether. The fact that youth services are non statutory means they are top of the hit list - and after all, young people can't vote until they are 18 and then they are less likely to vote anyway.

Following my input was a brilliant presentation predicting the future for the sector, central to which was a warning of the apocalypse to come. The fact that given the 25% cut in public sector and the fact that cuts would not be evenly spread, unprotected services like the youth service were very vulnerable - the predicted cuts in the long term being up to 50%. Equally as vulnerable will be the voluntary sector, for whom 50% of their funding comes from the public sector. Ironic really, given the Tory mantra of the "Big Society" which will rely so heavily on the voluntary sector.

The impact of these cuts cannot be underestimated. And this is where I am afraid I totally find myself parting company with Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. Nick rightly points out that we have a responsibility to our children to get out of this mess - but the irony is that by cutting services to the most vulnerable, by decimating youth services, the very children and young people he wants to protect will have their life chances blighted before they even start! Even more ironic is that we know all this is likely to cost more in the long run. We know crime rises when youth provision is cut. We know that if we don't provide adequate children's services more children are likely ultimately to end in care, or worse. We know that poor housing, poor nutrition, social exclusion, means worse health outcomes and a greater burden on the NHS. Only this week a report by David Stuckler warned the budget cuts would increase the death rate and today we hear that poorer families will be hit 6 times harder. Or Professor Joseph Stiglitz quoted in the Indy saying this strategy will ensure the recession is longer, slower and harder than it needs to be. Calling this a progressive budget is a bit like calling the Pope an atheist.

I for one am praying for our backbenchers, lead by Simon Hughes, to rebel - to at least push for amendments to the budget that make it fairer. To challenge the notion that it has to be like this, this is not the universal view of economists after all. Lets face it, this approach has far more to do with neo-liberal ideology than economic necessity. As someone who rejects the simplistic solutions of both left and right, I am frankly far more interested in what works. Yes, make cuts, there is slack, there are the trappings of a Big Brother state, the unnecessary targets and bureaucracy, the quangoes, the attempts at social engineering, the ASBOs, Trident.......oh forgot, we won't even consider Trident. But for goodness sake, don't cut the roots off the very measures that contain the prospect of recovery. Don't condemn another generation to the very thing you bleat about, namely a welfare dependent culture. Don't get hoodwinked by the ideology that cares more about monetary than human cost.

My worry is that the debate is being framed around the merit of cuts or tax rises, rather than the far more fundamental question about what sort of society we want to be part of, my worry is, that when the dust has settled and cleared, when we discover we have cut off our noses to spite our face, no amount of hand wringing and apologies from Osborne and Cameron will disguise the fact that it was us, the "progressive" Liberal Democrats, who held their hands while they destroyed our future. Broken society? We've seen nothing yet.

BP, Banks, Budgets.........and Pink Fluffy Handcuffs

2010-06-22T08:14:00.001+01:00

I don't know about you, but there is something that puzzles me. BP is enemy number one in the US, Hayward is vilified for taking a day off, while this disaster destroys the livelihoods of countless thousands. President Obama is clear – not only will BP pick up THE WHOLE TAB, the administration of this compensation scheme will be by an independent body, NOT BP.

Last evening, like many of you, I got an email from Nick Clegg, preparing me for bad news tomorrow, "why we have to do this" – hmmm, that's what tends to happen when you jump into bed with someone who whispers sweet nothings in your ear and then pulls out the handcuffs, however pink and fluffy they are! Tomorrow, let's face it, is the price our party is paying for having a seat at the table of power. Is it a price worth paying? Anyway, what jumped out at me from the email was Nick's description of the "reckless" banks. These "reckless" banks, who are universally blamed for the current financial crisis (allegedly aided and abetted of course by the Labour Party), these "reckless" banks, who have allowed this financial oil slick to render moribund, or to destroy, the hopes and dreams of so many. So my obvious question is this – if BP are being expected (rightl y of course) to compensate those whose lives have been destroyed by their negligence.........what is the difference when that destruction is perpetrated by the negligence of the banks?

So, given the billions that BP is being expected to shell out to compensate for its negligence, surely the answer tomorrow is to expect the banks to shell out the lion's share of the savings the government is insisting we need to make.

Ah, and there's another thing. Look, I'm no economist. I know some........and I know if you put 2 economists in a room you'll end up with 3 opinions. I also rather like the joke about how many economists it takes to change a light bulb? None, the market will take care of it. This weekend I heard an economist arguing that even if Boy George did nothing, the deficit would half by 2015. And this excellent interview with Robert Skidelsky in the New Statesman, takes the position our Vince did a few short weeks ago and offers a real warning about cuts now. Adam Ramsay in TMP takes a similar line "Tories love to talk about wasteful public services, but the truth is that the biggest waste in our economy is not public spending, it's unemployment – and their measures look likely to make things much worse. Cutting public spending in a recession is to pay off your debts like a fisherwoman selling her rod to pay off her debts, rather than waiting till she catches some fish"

The Birmingham Special Conference was not easy for me. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't actually find being the arsy one easy. Sadly challenging ones elders and betters is often equated with disloyalty. The "loyalists" will tie themselves into knots supporting and justifying the leadership – ending ultimately in the nonsense best expressed in the "Kings New Clothes", when actually, far from being loyal they have allowed their leader to make a fool of him/herself. They will begin the day believing the sky is blue, but by the end of the day, in order to support their leader they will have discovered it is yellow – they will find every kind of explanation of why what they have always believed was blue was really all the time yellow......and woe betide you if you question the logic. Frankly my first loyalty politically is to my fellow citizens, I am a Liberal Democrat because I believe liberal democracy – based on our values of liberty, equality, justice and fairness – rooted in a belief that "no one should be enslaved by poverty ignorance or conformity", offers the best hope for a better society where all have the freedom and opportunity to make the most of that precious gift of life we all have been given. I am not a Tory because I don't share their values – or beliefs, frankly, if I did what on earth would I be doing in the Lib Dems? And yet, I find myself being joined to them by proxy – and it makes me feel dirty.

OK, I understood all the arguments at the conference, Simon Hughes speech was probably the best I have ever heard him make – and if anyone has the capacity to convince me I am wrong, it is he. But I wasn't convinced, for the very reasons I gave in my speech – I think we have been seduced – and as every day goes by the more convinced I am that this is the case. In order to get a deal they hoodwinked us. They drew us in to their bed murming sweet nothings, but hey, once we are there – once there is no way out, we find ourselves "handcuffed" to deals we never ever would have agreed to had we known.

Today will be the first demonstration of the real objective of the Tories – to destroy the public sector, firstly to meet their overriding aim to cut taxes and secondly, so that if and when it ever gets rebuilt it will be their pals in the private sector who get the rich pickings. And what really sticks in my gullet is that we are helping them to do it.

Will I wonder, my visual aid at conference,(pink fluffy handcuffs for those who weren't there) turn out to be prophetic?

Simon Hughes election – reassuring the malcontents?

2010-06-10T00:01:00.006+01:00

Well, I realise this may come as a bit of a surprise to some...............but I am delighted at the election of Simon Hughes as deputy leader. It is a bit like finding the corner of a threadbare blanket on a cold night. A glimmer of light in a in a dark room. Oops turn off melodrama (reluctantly).

Seriously, this is certainly reassuring for me – and I trust for others too. Simon is nothing if not true to his roots, he is not one to stand idly by and watch while the party he loves and has committed so much of his life to, gets swallowed up by the carnivorous Tories. So, I for one will sleep easier in my bed tonight.

Nick Clegg rightly paid tribute to him as the most hard working MP he knows. Not only that, I know that commitment to serve his fellow human beings extends far beyond his constituency. You only have to hint to him you have a problem and he will be on the case, asking for the paperwork and doing all he can to help you.

Simon will, I know, work tirelessly to ensure that we continue to function as one party. That we don't find ourselves drifting apart – the government elite, far too busy to be accountable to the party, and the activists, watching from the sidelines and wondering whether liberal democracy was just a childish dream.

For those of us who are still incredibly uncomfortable with the coalition we know that in Simon we have someone who will never be afraid to speak his mind, which may make the Tories a tad uncomfortable and I trust will be the perfect counterbalance to the 1922 committee :-)

His ability to challenge in a way that is effective without alienating, will, I trust, ensure that the bright flame of Liberal Democracy will continue to offer at least a little warmth and light in what by all accounts is likely to be a pretty bleak and cold summer for so many. Oh and I am sure, Simon is someone who cannot and will not, buy all this "we're all in this together" nonsense.

He will be an incredible asset to Nick, being able to challenge him in private and support him in public, offering wise and considered counsel.

Why it Has to be Hughes

2010-06-04T10:26:00.003+01:00

Long suffering readers of my blog may remember that it was Simon's bid to become party leader that was the reason Looz Muze ever got going in the first place, so as you might suspect, despite the sad reality that members don't get a say in who becomes deputy leader (why not?) I am afraid I still feel compelled to lob in my own 2 penneth on the subject.

A while ago some droll soul commented on a blog post where I had mentioned that a fellow councillor referred to me as "the late Linda Jack, "oh that must be why you are a fan of Simon Hughes." Er.............well, it may help that I can fully appreciate just how hard it is to constantly try and fit a quart into a pint pot.......unbusy people are rarely late let's face it...but no that is not my reason for supporting him. Despite the fact that he made such an impassioned speech at the special conference, enough to solicit a hug from Nick, despite the fact that this was one of the reason I left Birmingham feeling even more marginalised and bereft than usual, I still, along with 60% of members it seems, really hope he becomes deputy leader. For me it will be a little reassurance as I try to steady my Liberal Democrat dingy on a sea of uncertain murky blue waters.

Recently I was chatting to a pal, who though not affiliated to any party, but who had been thinking about joining us, is now seriously considering becoming a Labour Party member because she feels so let down and betrayed by us. This is someone who is such a kindred spirit on so many levels, we laugh at the same things, we cry at the same things. We both feel desperate about a society where so many are still excluded because of poverty, or who they are, what they believe or feeling they "aren't clever enough" to have a right to have a say (sounds a bit like no one should be enslaved by poverty ignorance or conformity doesn't it?). It is because of her and people like her, who share our values, who can't understand why we have hopped into bed with a party that doesn't even understand our values, let alone share them that it is essential we keep the flame of Liberal Democracy burning brightly.

The advantage of having Simon as deputy leader will be that he will not be muzzled in the way Nick Clegg clearly is now. Already I am beginning to feel a bit of the "I used to know him before he was famous" – he seems to have slipped out of sight a bit, I am worried that he may well just get absorbed by some kind of osmosis and completely lose connection with the grassroots, the backbone of the party. So having Simon in what has suddenly become a far more significant role, I believe will help to counteract that. Bizarrely it will be the deputy leader who becomes the voice of the party, the guardian of our values, the figurehead. As I have said before I have a lot of time for Tim Farron, he is clearly a "one to watch" I don't believe he yet has the degree of gravitas, kudos or credibility both within the party and the media, to be able to ensure the voice of Liberal Democracy continues to be heard. The danger also would be he would be easier to ignore, Simon, as we know, is adept at making sure he isn't ignored!

So the election next week becomes hugely significant. The deputy leader, whoever he is, will have a hugely demanding task. Can he retain both the trust of the leader and the activists? Can he reassure those of us who are feeling extremely wobbly about where we find ourselves and who are concerned about the long term future of the party? Will he be able to successfully articulate what it is that defines us that distinguishes us from the Tories? Whoever wins, I wish them well, our collective future depends on it.

The Flotilla, Israel and Nick Clegg - an uncharacteristic rant!

2010-06-02T12:23:00.008+01:00

There are times when you think; surely something has to be done now? This must be the tipping point? Those terrible images of the father in Gaza trying to protect his 13 year old son who was shot to death. The last intifada when 13 citizens of Israel were killed for merely demonstrating against their government. The outrage of Lebanon and then last year Gaza. For me, as I suspect for many of us, the brutal attack on the flotilla this week was another such time. Surely the international community is not once again going to wash its hands, turn its back, walk by on the other side?

Instead, we have seen more of the same hypocrisy – one rule for you and another for me diplomacy. Of course I welcome William Hague's statement – but it is the verbal equivalent of a chocolate teacup! All the appearance of concern and mild outrage, but absolutely no substance. And that is why I am devastated at the way Nick Clegg has been muzzled on this. OK, I've read all the explanations about cabinet collective responsibility – and despite my misgivings about this coalition – I do have some understanding of why this is necessary. But, just as there are some issues which for some folk are of such moral importance that a free vote is given, surely the same should apply in the cabinet? Do we really think that if the cabinet took a line on abortion, or euthanasia that the same constraints would apply to those who took a different view? Now I know there are those who will argue this is not a moral issue for them. Fine – but it is for me and I believe it is for Nick – and frankly I don't want anyone else defining my morality for me! And this is why I am devastated that Nick has not been able to speak his mind. One of the things that endeared me to him in the first place was hearing him speak at a CAABU fringe some years ago. His frankness and commitment to hold Israel to account, was so refreshing. Also in the wake of phenomenal opposition from the Zionist lobby, he stuck to his guns on the issue of Gaza last year and was the only party leader to condemn the Israeli government and call for an end to arming Israel. I have no doubt his views have not changed.

If I was in Nick's shoes I can't imagine how I would feel. I hope as a fly on the wall in the cabinet I may hear him making a robust argument for taking a stronger line against the continuing illegal practices of the Israeli state. No doubt resignation is out of the question as it would destabilise the coalition and the country. But I am afraid if I was in his shoes I would be more concerned about the destabilisation of the world. Frankly we can do all we like to try and sort out the economy etc etc etc but it will be worth diddley squat if all we end up with is a totally destabilised polarised world. As a nation our credibility is already close to zilch after Iraq and Afghanistan – to continue to tacitly support Israel by failing to condemn her outrageous actions against innocent victims, be they on a ship carrying humanitarian aid, or in Gaza or against her own citizens, will further undermine any right we may feel we have to be a player on the world stage. The irony is that all this is counterproductive for Israel too. It's a bit like seeing an abused child abusing others and turning a blind eye, or tut tutting – the child will know it is quite OK to continue – there are no sanctions. What the child will not understand is just how damaging their behaviour is to themselves!

At a UN conference in Brussels a few years ago I coined a metaphor that I believe sums up the situation in Israel/Palestine and the desperate need to end the occupation. If you are sitting on my head I may need to you to get off my head before I can be reconciled to you. If in the course of sitting on my head you broke my nose and blacked my eye, I may need you to apologise to me when you get off my head before I can be reconciled to you. If while you were sat on my head I kicked you where it hurts to try and remove you, you may want me to apologise to you too. There has to be an end to the occupation, nothing less. It's no good just calling for the end to the siege against Gaza (this was clearly what the Israeli government had in mind when they cleared the settlements to enable them to create this open prison), it's the end of the occupation that is the imperative.

Just before Christmas I was at a Palestinian event where the wonderful Bruce Kent was a speaker – he spoke eloquently about the need for a new anti-apartheid campaign against Israel. Even Desmond Tutu has declared that what we are witnessing in Israel/Palestine is worse than the South African apartheid regime. If ever there was a time for that campaign to find its feet it's now.

Every time the Israeli government commit an outrage the only response they get from their protectors is a slap on the wrist. Each time they push the envelope a little further – each time they get away with it. Is this the time they stop getting away with it? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Academies and “Free Schools” a view from Professor John Howson

2010-05-31T09:50:00.001+01:00

Professor John Howson, President of the Liberal Democrat Education Association, and a well known educationalist, is a good friend of mine and we have been comparing notes on our mutual concerns about the coalition's drive towards mass expansion of Academies and "free" schools. John is far more willing than me to give both a chance, given appropriate safeguards he outlines below. I trust these concerns will be taken into account by those driving these policies (at odds it should be said with current Lib Dem policies) forward -

I welcome the ideas for the Bills outlined in the Queen's Speech and the full statement of policy by the coalition with respect to schools, FE and higher education. There is much to commend in the foresight of the policies outlined. However, they remain to be fully costed.

I especially welcome a commitment to a pupil premium, although it is important to recognise that more work remains to be undertaken to turn an aspiration into a reality. I especially endorse the vision for the compensatory principle developed for the Liberal Democrats in my paper 'No child left behind' published in 2001, and endorsed in the motion to the Brighton conference of that year. The more recent pamphlet 'School Funding and Social Justice' published by the Policy Exchange think tank in 2008 provides an excellent basis for the implementation, at least in the secondary sector. Hopefully a methodology can be approved in time for the 2012 financial year.

However, the Secretary of State's moves on academies contains risks for the system as a whole. I would call for a cap on head teacher salaries to stop a bidding war breaking out and am concerned that the proposals will not produce a fairer school system that all Liberal Democrats want. I would urge Tory Councillors concerned about the effects of Michael Gove's proposals on academies to consider joining the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to protect their local school system from being broken up without thought of what will follow.

I remain less certain about the arrangements outlined by the coalition for the organisation of schools. Their plans are uncertain about the over-lapping interests of faith group, parent groups, for profit organisation and groups of professionals, all of whom are promised a stake in the running of schools. I would propose that any group wanting to open a new school, or take over an existing one, should be required to pass the following tests:

The economic test: opening a new school should not cost the taxpayer money, especially in an era of falling secondary school rolls.

The management test: schools should be required to demonstrate they will not pose an additional burden on the pool of leadership talent. Thus, schools in areas where recruitment of school leaders is difficult or types of schools where there is a shortage of leaders should be required to demonstrate how they will be able to attract sufficient leadership without breaching the first test. The same test should apply to teaching staff.

The need test: Groups seeking to operate schools with restricted admissions policies should be able to make it clear how their school will not cause another school or schools to fail the economic test.

The priority test: where there are competing organisations wanting to open schools, priority should first be given to education professionals, then to parents, followed by faith groups and charities, and finally to for profit organisations.

I believe there is an urgent need to understand who has the strategic oversight of education provision, and believe that for primary education the present local authority should retain responsibility for schools in its area including planning oversight for academies. For education between 11 and 18, it should be either the existing authority, if large enough, or a grouping of authorities in an education board formed along the lines of police or fire authorities. Without some strategic direction, it is not clear who will have oversight of the needs of the school system over the coming years.

I believe that piecemeal suggestions for teacher training outlined in the coalition document do not form a coherent plan, and that the present attraction of teaching as a career is in danger of being diminished: the seeds of the next teacher supply crisis are in danger of being planted. I call for a comprehensive overhaul of teacher supply and training to ensure the necessary flow of highly qualified teachers into the profession: without sufficient teachers, no progress towards a world-class education system will be possible.

I welcome the acceptable of the need to pay good teachers appropriately, but believes that no changes to national pay and conditions should be allowed ahead of the introduction of a pupil premium funding model lest the aims of the compensatory principle be frustrated by the unintended consequences of a free-market in salaries and conditions.

I welcome the coalition's determination to recognise the valuable contribution of 16-19 further education, and the associated work that the FE sector undertakes in adult education. This sector remains vital to the development of a successful industrial and commercial base within Britain and, along with modern apprenticeships, requires dedicated ministerial oversight. I call for a minister for post 16 to coordinate all aspects of education and training for this age group between the BIS and Education Departments.

There remain many other challenges to the development of a fairer and more successful education system within England and I call upon Liberal Democrats to strive for a fair system that provides for all learners despite the severe financial austerity of the present age.

Will David Laws go while Nadine Dorries stays?

2010-05-29T11:23:00.000+01:00

Over 20 years ago I was at a training course about work with young women organised by the NYA (National Youth Agency). It was in the days when "anti-oppressive practice" was high on the agenda - and a debate ensued about whether it was right for the two male members of the course to even be there. Inevitably the debate turned to who was most oppressed and the difference between sexism and racism. One of the participants turned to the colleague she had came with and said "but when you walk into the room I don't even notice that you are black" - her colleague's response has stayed with me ever since - "but I do" said she.

Those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably "right on" (sorry a blast from the past when my local newspaper used to refer to me as the most "right on" councillor!) when it comes to issues of discrimination can all to often forget that we firstly do not always really understand the discrimination and oppression others face, but also just how rich the seam of discrimination is, that despite legislation, still runs through our enlightened society.

This was brought home to me during the hustings for Mid Beds when all my opponents (Nadine Dorries I expected but the Labour candidate I was rather shocked at) appeared to be vying in playing to the gallery on the issue of whether or not it was right for Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane to have been sacked - the article by that bastion of liberal sensibilities Melanie Phillips more than sums up the attitudes expressed here. Some members of the audience were incandescent and saw all this as further evidence of Christianity being undermined. As I pointed out, there are some jobs that people cannot in all conscience do because of their faith - I personally wouldn't be able to work in a betting shop - so in my view, Gary McFarlane had chosen the wrong career path, it wasn't good enough to say it was OK for him to discriminate, so was he checking the marriage certificates of all the couples he counselled, would it have been OK for him to refuse to counsel a couple of different ethnic origin because he personally didn't believe in "mixed" marriage?

I only cite these examples because for some who are very quick to condemn David Laws are equally quick to forget that despite legislation, despite protestations that someone's sexuality in this day and age shouldn't be an issue, it clearly is. Just as the dismal lack of women and BME MPs in our modern parliament demonstrates, regardless of what we claim about equality in our country - in reality we don't live it out (or are we saying that women and BME candidates aren't as good as white middle class men and that is why they are underrepresented?).

I think Sarah Bedford has brilliantly summed up the issues here, so I just had a couple of other perspectives to add.

Let's look at the facts as we know them. It seems David rented a room from his partner before he was his partner. He didn't do what others have done and take out a mortgage in order to make a nice profit in the future, he rented (at what by any standards was a reasonable rent in central London and certainly a lot less than my MP is paying for her so called second home in rural Bedfordshire) a room. Now it is not unheard of for tenants to end up in relationships with their landlord - according to David this is what happened a couple of years later. So first question - when does a "relationship" become a "partnership"? 3 months? 6 months? A year? After all - lets not forget this was David's home when he was in Westminster - it wasn't nearly as straightforward as someone meeting, and ultimately deciding to move in together. And also it seems it is fair to say this relationship did not have the other hallmarks of a "partnership" - otherwise his partner would have been sharing the house in Somerset as well surely? But, I forget, the crucial ingredient, which is why I have banged on about it so much earlier - this was a relationship that David like so many before him and so many sadly in the future, felt unable to share with his friends and family. Having gone through the pain of losing half my family when I chose inconsiderately to marry someone I loved but who happened to have a different colour skin to me, I know how real the fear of losing those you love because of the one you love, is. I have a friend who, because he married someone of a different faith has never been able to tell his father. His father doesn't even know he has five grandchildren. So those of us who think the world is such an enlightened place because of our more enlightened legislation, should seriously think again.

So my second question is - for those who are simplistically looking at this as David Laws having wrongfully claimed money for rent - what are they saying should have happened? Clearly his landlord rented a room in his home in order to recoup some of the costs of his home - something many many people do. Should he have been expected then, having entered into a relationship with David, to foot the bill and lose out on the contribution to his costs? I know many of my friends who rent rooms have to in order to meet the cost of their mortgage. Should we have expected David to move out? The irony is that if they had entered into a more formal civil partnership, sharing everything they had, presumably David would have been able to claim for the whole cost of maintaining that home as his second home. And this is where for me the true absurdity lies and why it for me is SO linked to the underlying homophobia. When I got married I moved into my husband's home. He had a high mortgage and we split all the bills - I didn't pay him rent, I contributed to the costs. So at the very minimum, if David had felt able to declare his relationship he would have been quite within his rights to claim for half. But I doubt that Sam Cam has been paying half towards the cost of the Cameron second home? The hypocrisy is palpable.

But, the reality is that for all this, it doesn't look good - and I come back to what I said about David Laws yesterday - he has a brilliant mind but intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily co terminus. Given not only the expenses scandal, but also the way others of his colleagues have been mercilessly outed, did he not think this was something he should have taken advice about? Did he really think that when he took on such a high profile and controversial role, the press would not be digging around in his private life? Maybe he sadly confused cleverness for wisdom and thought he was clever enough to outwit them. I may not agree with his politics - the reason the Tories love him is the reason I always used to wish he would run along and join them - but over the years as I said yesterday, I have come to respect him as a man who is a true liberal and deeply committed to making our country fairer and more equal - even if I don't approve of his methodology in doing so. I can't help but compare David Laws' alleged sins with those alleged of my erstwhile opponent in Mid Beds, Nadine Dorries. She who can't decide where her second home is - is it the poky 1 bedroom jobby in Gloucestershire or is it her farmhouse mansion in Bedfordshire for which we are paying a fortune? Did she produce an annual report costing nearly £10,000 and which she published on her now defunct blog, or was she confused and didn't actually produce anything, paying the money back because of a mayoral election that took place months before? Did she take her Twitter and Blog down due to police advice and because of what happened to Stephen Timms a week afterwards? Will her daughter have time to work for her full time at a nice little income of £28,000, or may she be distracted studying for her degree? Bizarrely I think the allegations surrounding Ms Dorries are far more serious, potentially criminal, and yet she is still sitting pretty in the house of contradictions.

So, getting back to David Laws, I sadly fear he has no choice but to resign and allow the Standards Commissioner to adjudicate and on a personal level, I trust he will find that his family and friends still love him, just as Simon Hughes discovered a few short years ago.

Simon Hughes, the 1922 Committee and the Future of Lib Demmery

2010-05-28T11:04:00.000+01:00

As predicted, Simon Hughes has just launched his deputy leadership campaign. He unsurprisingly has the backing of Vince Cable.

Of course I am delighted he has thrown his hat into the ring and although I am a great fan of Tim Farron (I would see him as a future leader) at this time I think we need someone of Simon's stature and standing in the party to help provide the ballast and temper the undoubted euphoria felt by many on the right who seem a lot more comfortable cuddling up to the Tories.

Simon, I think unfairly, was the fall guy for the party on Question Time and Any Questions last week and did a sterling job of trying to justify some of the justifiable and frankly, in my view some of the unjustifiable outcomes of this coalition (55% and abstaining on nuclear power come to mind). As deputy leader I have no doubt he would be fiercely loyal in public and constructively critical in private. For those of us who are deeply troubled already by the way we seem to be rolling over to have our tummy tickled, Simon will be an honest broker - ensuring that those caught up in the excitement of being part of government don't forget that not all of us share their enthusiasm and are worried about our concerns not being taken into account. James Kirkup has a thoughtful (if possibly mischievous) piece in the Telegraph. He questions whether the election of Simon Hughes as deputy leader would spell 1922 type trouble for Nick Clegg, but then, rightly in my view, surmises that it is probably what Nick wants. Too right, it is not only what Nick wants, it is also what he needs, to help keep those of us on the left of the party a wee bit happier - although he should remember (as I texted Simon a couple of days ago to remind him ;-}), even his election will not be enough to keep some of us in line! For goodness sake, we are liberals for a reason aren't we? Dissent is part of our lifeblood, not only that, as I pointed out at Autumn Conference, dissent and scrutiny is vital if we are to avoid screwing up completely. As Nick Clegg rightly pointed out in Birmingham, we are in danger of becoming vaguely North Korean in our amorous uncritical embrace of the coalition. To continue in this mode is surely a tad unhealthy?

It seems to me that whatever happens in relation to the deputy elections, now would be the perfect time for our Lib Dem backbenchers to form their own '22 committee - 2010 committee? Frankly I think the future of our party depends on it - the activists are the backbone of this party and in my view those of us (and we are in the majority) who would see ourselves as social liberals, are the backbone of the party and the only hope of us not turning into a shapeless meaningless mush, easily digested by the carnivorous Tory party! If we are not careful, the question "what are the Liberal Democrats for?" is in danger of becoming a reality. And this is why I have argued so strongly that however devastated some of us are with what has happened, we have to stay and fight. And if we don't win this fight, I fear we may ultimately see a split in the party and possibly a realignment of the liberal left.

At the moment, those who were clearly so successful on our negotiation team, appear to think they can walk on water. Despite not agreeing with him politically I have a lot of time for David Laws - he is a principled liberal - I will never forget the way he stood up to Tory attempts to poach him (although arguably they got what they wanted in the end!). He is incredibly intelligent, competent, trustworthy and honest. But it should be remembered, intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily co terminus. His kneejerk decision to axe Future Job Funds apparently on the basis of some dodgy advice from a penpusher in DWP, is worrying. Our manifesto was clear in its commitment to tackle the outrageous level of youth unemployment and yet one of the first messages we send out to young people is that their future is not a priority for us (and I was with several leading representatives of the youth sector yesterday who were horrified). So I think it is even more important for David and others of our representatives in government to listen to the party without whom they wouldn't be there.

Which brings me to my next point. As a democratic party, we have clear lines of accountability and decision making in relation to policy making. The FPC is responsible for developing policy and Federal Conference is responsible for determining policy. It is essential that we retain our distinctiveness as a LIBERAL and DEMOCRATIC party - I am worried that these democratic systems we have in place are being undermined by what is happening, it is surely more important than ever that we continue to make policy that truly reflects our values, and not only that, expect our MPs to support and champion in in the chamber rather than being prepared to sit on their hands, pick and choose according to their own personal preferences, or worse totally ignore it. As Lynne Featherstone rightly pointed out, we had a negotiating team who were "male and pale" although the pale was more of a murky orange! This means they have TOTALLY ignored our manifesto pledges on families children and young people. I have lost count over the last couple of weeks the number of calls I have had from the children and young people's press and CEOs from the sector very worried about this glaring omission. But lets embrace with open arms the nonsense that is Academies - oh and "Technical Academies" ah........sounds a lot like a return to Grammar and Secondary Modern to me.

OK, rant over, happy to hear arguments about why I have no reason to worry about the future of the party I love, but more importantly, the future for the country that I love and those people in this country who I fear will continue to be marginalised, neglected and ignored. "We're all in this together"............yeah right.

When even Evan Harris and Tony Greaves desert you.........

2010-05-16T23:11:00.002+01:00

Well, all over bar the shouting - actually, no shouting whatsoever. Today's special conference, while spawning arguably one of the best conference speeches ever, delivered by Simon Hughes, proved to be more of a triumphalist rally rather than a serious examination of the potential pitfalls of sleeping with the enemy.

The nine amendments to the motion, all of which I supported, I hope will go some way towards dealing with some of the concerns of the activists. However, the very genuine concerns about our MPs abstaining on the issue of top up fees, were not dealt with satisfactorily either by Chris Huhne or Nick Clegg.

But, in all conscience, I was one of the 12-35 (numbers are disputed) who voted against the motion. OK, so my political heroes, Evan Harris and Simon Hughes lead the progressive charge to support it. Even Tony Greaves was persuaded. Maybe this is the point I should concede defeat? Seriously, I wish I could. I was one of the standard bearers for Nick in the leadership election. I had a look back at my "10 Reasons to Vote Nick Clegg" my last reason was that "I would trust him with my life so I know I can trust him with my party". Well, I would still trust him with my life, I now need him to prove I can trust him with my party. This is a high risk strategy, which could make our party irrelevant for a generation. And I am a Liberal Democrat because I honestly believe liberal democracy offers the best hope for us to renew our society, to make it fairer, freer, more equal and more just. Without us there is a vacuum.

So, called as the first speaker after the amendments were moved (I understand there was a bet on FCC about when I would be called!) it seemed the idea may have been to get the awkward squad out of the way. Despite my fear that this new marriage made in heaven may be the Hammer Horror version of Pride and Prejudice - the adorable Mr Darcey turning into Count Dracula, my fellow delegates were far too smitten to give a damn.

But I was gratified that one of my fellow delegates came up to me afterwards to say that my speech (also calling for those of us who I regard as the backbone of our party to stay) had persuaded him that he should not resign, but like me, stay and fight.

When Labour became New Labour I felt so much for my Trade Union pals who felt they had to leave with no home to go to. This week I have really come to understand how they felt. Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning felt like a bereavement. I watched the nuptials on Wednesday morning as if in a daze, surreal. This is the moment I should have been shouting from the rooftops, overcome with excitement, OUR Nick in No 10! But it passed me by, I was too devastated.

Yes I understand all the arguments (more than well rehearsed in 4 hours this afternoon), but however much I understand them, I can't at the moment change how I feel. I am angry with the Labour dinosaurs who blocked a truly progressive alliance, I understand we were backed into a corner, that this is more about damage limitation than a true meeting of minds and ideologies........but I can't change how I feel.

I am genuinely relieved that our involvement in government is already mitigating against the worst excesses of the Tories. I understand why Labour may uncomfortable......A Tory majority government would have been likely to be so unpopular they would have romped home next time, a Lib Dem coalition makes that less likely. It also, I hope, means less people will suffer and even die, because of a right wing Tory government.

Who knows what the coming months will bring. Vince Cable lifted the lift on Pandora's box, telling us that things were far worse than Labour had let on and that it was going to be "bloody awful", but that we could make it less so. That is the best I can hope for.

Oh, by the way, for those of you who were there - I have a pair of pink fluffy handcuffs, one careful owner, never used - free to the person who can demonstrate they will have some use for them :-) or maybe I should auction them on Lib Dem Act????

Be Careful What You Wish For

2010-05-09T22:20:00.000+01:00

Emerging from an interesting contest with the Tory Party's "pinup" (?) Nadine Dorries I am only just getting my thoughts together on what happened. In Mid Beds even Nadine was worried we would halve her majority (I heard this from two independent sources) and we really thought it was possible. I was even invited to meetings with ex Tory activists who were so disgusted with her they wanted to help me. Everyone was impressed with Nick's performance, everyone seemed up for something different, the polls, even at the last minute seemed to be in our favour. I fully expected to see Bridget Fox, Ed Fordham, Sal Brinton et al, easily elected on Friday morning. I certainly did not expect the shock of Evan Harris, Susan Kramer, Lembit Opik, losing their seats.

So, at some point there will be a post mortem, but not yet. Locally we did at least increase our share of the vote and open up the gap between us and Labour. Right now we have what we wished for, a hung parliament. Interestingly Cameron's dire warnings didn't work, we have what the public wished for, a hung parliament. But now, having had a very idealistic perspective until the early hours of Friday morning, I find myself feeling rather queasy. As others have commented, if we believe in PR we have to believe in coalition governments - so we have to be prepared to work with others.

In principle there are issues I think we could work with the Tories on, in practice I wonder how possible that would be. Cameron has exhibited his characteristic arrogance on the issue of a referendum on PR. He has a place for us all in government, so long as we do as we are told! He will listen to us, so long as we are saying what he wants to hear, as soon as we say we want to make the electoral system fairer - he puts his fingers in his ears and turns his back. He is the Daddy (sorry Richard and Alex!) and we will do as we are told - however much we whine, don't we know that STV cookie is not good for us and we can't have it! Cameron also displayed his approach to partnership working by pulling the eminently reasonable Andrew Lansley out of the cross party talks Norman Lamb instigated on tackling the huge problem of how we pay for care for the elderly. And there is the little matter of the commitment to clean up politics, interestingly he was quick to call for the whip to be taken away from Labour MPs accused of false accounting, but not a murmur about Nadine Dorries?

So do I think we can really do any kind of deal with the Tories? I absolutely accept that Nick has had to talk to them as they do have the biggest share of the vote, but lets not forget, more people voted against them than for them. I accept that there has to be compromise on both sides, but if we are genuinely putting the country first can we really sign up to an approach to tackling the deficit that flies in the face of our policy, that we believe will threaten the future security of the country, not secure it. And the problem, even if we get support on everything except electoral reform (which 62% of us want), we run the risk of being part of what can only be a decidedly insecure government.

So what of the alternative, the "Rainbow" alliance? Clearly with Brown in the loop this is likely to be strangled at birth, and even if he wasn't there it would still be a risky strategy, to be seen to be propping up a Labour government. And would Labour be prepared to curtail and row back their attack on civil liberties? Could we ever sign up to their unenlightened approach to tackling crime and dealing fairly with asylum seekers? What would it look like if we ignored the verdict of the country on this moribund and clapped out government?

Yes, indeed, be careful what you wish for!

So what would I do? You shouldn't have to ask :-)

The Power Pledge - Fixing it not Fiddling it!

2010-04-27T16:33:00.001+01:00

New post here

Shock Attack at Public Meeting by Sulking Tory MP - Updated

2010-04-27T16:32:00.000+01:00

See here

Updated today - an amusing postscript :-)

Taking on Nadine Dorries Obama style!

2010-04-13T13:21:00.000+01:00

My new fundraising advert has just gone live, you can see it here. Thanks to Message Space - who made it for me and Mark Pack, who suggested me, I hope to raise substantial funds to take on Nadine Dorries in Mid Beds. They have already launched for Anthony Calvert (standing against Ed Balls) who has so far raised over £10,000. Jag Singh from Message Space says:"YouFundMe is about opening up political funding to the ordinary public, because British politics is too dominated by a few big donors which skews politics and undermines the public's trust.YouFundMe provides the technology platform for candidates to advertise themselves and raise money for their campaigns outside their party structures and outside their constituencies. To donors it provides an easy, secure way of immediately supporting candidates.Public confidence in parliament and politicians is at a low, YouFundMe offers candidates the opportunity to engage far beyond their usual spheres, make their case and collect donations from people who trust and believe in them.We've already helped one candidate (Antony Calvert in Morley & Outwood) raise more money than any other candidate in the UK via small donations, and we're confident our platform will assist Linda in her campaign.YouFundMe is a project open to candidates from all registered UK parties (except the BNP)."If you want to support my campaign, please donate, how ever small your contribution it will all make a difference! Feedback from Nadine's first "Nadine Unscripted" event in Streatley last night, where only 7 people turned up, suggests she is already worried about the inroads the Lib Dems are making in Mid Beds. She has written off Labour as a paper candidate, but I am glad to see she recognises where her real opposition lies.On the doorstep even solid Tory voters are telling me they are fed up with having an MP who seems to care only about feathering her own nest, and Labour voters are telling me they are disillusioned with Labour - many will be voting Lib Dem for the first time!So - if you want to see REAL change on May 6th - and a clear out of all those MPs who are more concerned about furthering their own careers than representing their constituents - you know what to do - Click here!

The Queen Travelling on Easyjet?

2010-04-01T00:05:00.001+01:00

The Queen on Easyjet? Well, times is hard...............

Full story here

"Free to be Young" Lib Dem Youth Policy Launch

2010-03-10T12:45:00.001Z

Sadly today I am Edinburgh for a roundtable at the Scottish Parliament, so not at the Salmon Youth Centre in Southwark with Lynne Feathestone to launch our Youth policy paper "Free to be Young". I had the great privilege to take over from Laura Willoughby as chair of the working group that produced what I think has turned out to be a brilliant paper! OK, we didn't get everything we wanted .........basically anything that cost anything (!) like 10,000 extra youth workers, but the principles that underpin our policy give us a sound foundation, and in my view the strongest policy position of all the parties.

Our starting point is freedom - our young people need to be given the freedom to grow and thrive. Labour is just interested in trussing them up in a straight jacket to force them into a mould of their making, or to demonise and blame them for society's ills. The Tories offer a "ladder of opportunity" - but don't tell you that the bottom rugs are broken and only the few rather than the many will manage to get onto that ladder. I believe we offer a genuine alternative - a ladder with no broken rungs but also a safety net for those who for whatever reason may from time to time "fall off" the ladder.

Our policy has already attracted attention from Children and Young People Now who were especially interested in our pledges to put Youth Service on a statutory footing and to create a cross departmental junior ministers committee to ensure a more joined up approach to youth issues. Also the response from my colleagues in the youth sector has been really positive - especially appreciating our theme of freedom. Please let me know what you think, you can read it here. I also hope you will join us for the debate at Spring Conference.

Special thanks must go to Laura, who did all the groundwork, to Debbie Enever, one of our many unsung heroes in the policy department, who did all the donkey work, pulled it all together and did the brilliant design, and to Lynne who has been amazing to work with, she is so supportive and encouraging and also such a fabulous advocate for young people . She also supported me to the end (along with Simon Hughes) in trying to get an agreement on the 10,000 extra youth workers, a battle I believe we will win in the end! But I am pleased about putting the Youth Service on to a statutory footing, this is something we in the sector have been calling for for decades (please note my old CYWU now Unite sparring partner Doug Nicholls - will you be advising your members to vote Lib Dem now?!). This won't produce the extra youth workers but it will go some way to arresting the hemorrhaging that is going on across the country as youth services are among the first to feel the cuts. Counter productive in the extreme and something that will end up costing us more in the long run, both financially and humanly.

Special thanks also to Faiza and the team at NCVYS who kindly provided many of the photos we were able to use in the document. Please visit their website to find out more about the residential opportunities they offer to young people.

Will there be an interesting "independent" standing in Lib Dem Bedford?

2010-03-01T18:42:00.000Z

Strong rumours reach me from different sources that an interesting candidate, with connections to persons unmentionable, intends to put their name forward as an independent parliamentary candidate in Bedford. I understand that this is in order to scupper the parliamentary ambitions of Tory candidate Richard Fuller. Poor Richard is already looking a tad beleaguered following the trouncing of the Tories in the Bedford Mayoral elections - with a local party publicly tearing bits out of each other, he certainly doesn't seem to have the solid committed team on the ground.

So, apparently said candidate will declare at the weekend.............I await with baited breath. All looking increasingly positive for our Henry Vann :-)

The true cost of locking up our children

2010-03-01T08:44:00.001Z

Today, as a Make Justic Work ambassador, I am off to watch the first screening of "The Fear Factory" in Leicester Square, followed by the launch off the latest NEF report "Punishing Costs". I havc no doubt I will emerge fired up and angry about a system that does nothing to reduce crime and everything to destroy young lives.

NEF Press Release below:

Locking up children and young people for non-violent offences is costing the
taxpayer millions, while doing little to reduce the amount of crime, says a new
report from leading independent think-tank nef (the new economics foundation).
The report, Punishing Costs, launched today Monday 1 March 2010, calls into question the
plans of both Labour and Conservative politicians to invest in new prisons. At a time when
almost all public services are facing drastic cuts, it is more vital than ever to scrutinise
spending on prisons. The report shows how the number of young people and children in
prison could be drastically reduced, and how a change in the pattern of public investment
can increase the safety of our streets.

The launch of the report is set to coincide with the first public screening of The Fear
Factory, a timely new documentary that exposes the history, mechanics and extent of fear
mongering that has led to the UK’s criminal justice crisis. The film has given rise to a
coalition of over 40 organisations, including nef, which calls for an end to the political arms
race on law and order.

The report found that:
! England and Wales imprison proportionally more under-aged children than
almost all other Western European countries. Relatively minor offences can result in
custodial sentences: research by Barnardo’s showed that 82% of 12-14 year-olds in
custody had never committed a violent offence.

! Serving a prison sentence makes it more likely for children to continue offending
after they have been released.

! Time spent in prison also makes it more likely for children to be unemployed in
the future, to have lower income, be disconnected from education and have unstable
living conditions

! Holding a child in prison costs about £100,000 a year. The report also shows that
the harmful consequences of imprisonment result in at least £40,000 of further indirect
costs to the state. These include continuing crime and higher unemployment after
release.

The authors make recommendations about how to change the situation, to deliver better
value for taxpayers, safer streets and a better deal for excluded young people:

! Devolve budgets for prison places to local authorities. At the moment, prison
places are paid for by central government. Transferring the costs to local governments
– together with more power over how they can arrange youth justice services locally –
would remove the perverse incentive to put young people in prison. The councils would
be allowed to keep some of the savings created from reducing custody, which could be
reinvested in the reduction of crime.

! Local authorities can reduce the use of imprisonment by 13% without need for
controversial legislative change or a large increase in public spending. The
policies considered include better co-operation between local agencies and courts, and
using interventions of restorative justice that allow offenders to repair the damage they
have caused in the community. These changes can result in over £60 million of
savings in England, and over £2 million for some local authority areas.

“Prison costs the public purse about six times more than sending a child to Eton,” said
Aleksi Knuutila, researcher at nef and author of the report. “What really makes our
obsessive use of prisons even more of a tragedy is that those resources could have been
used to tackle crime much more effectively. The resources we now waste on locking
children up could be spent on measures that would really keep our streets safer. All the
research shows that prison is failing to rehabilitate offenders and isn’t steering them away
from crime. At a time when public services are being cut everywhere, we need to ask
whether our spending is really delivering on safety in our neighbourhoods.”

"These important findings support the case for diverting vulnerable young people away
from prison whenever possible," said Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust.
"Currently many children who are not a threat to public safety are put behind bars. A policy
of budget devolvement would encourage local authorities to deal with minor offending
locally, instead of relying on a central prison system. Community measures have been
shown to reduce offending much more effectively than any length of prison sentence. We
urgently need to change the pattern of public investment. Currently we spend a lot dealing
with the consequences when social problems turn into crime. The suggestions in this report
would free up scarce resources which could then be directed towards the welfare of
children and their neighbourhoods - stopping crime before it starts and reducing the need
for prison.

Throwing newspapers........excusable due to pressures of being PM - throwing water bottles.......must be made an example of - 1 year in prison

2010-02-27T21:24:00.001Z

I received the following today -

Seventeen people - all Muslim - have already been given extremely harsh and disproportionate custodial sentences to the alleged offence of violent disorder. Last week, a 19 year old aspiring to be a dentist, was sentenced to a year in prison for throwing a water bottle in the direction of the Israeli embassy. Despite the judge's admission that the young man had an excellent character and the bottle thrown did not hurt anyone, he wanted ‘to send a message of deterrent to the rest of the community'.

The court has also failed to take into account any evidence of police brutality - including beating up protesters and refusing to allow them to leave - and had used the controversial "kettling" technique.

The sentences - primarily targeted towards the Muslim community - will only serve to alienate and criminalise British Muslims, deterring them from engaging in their democratic right to protest.

Tories in pre election meltdown..............

2010-02-26T22:44:00.001Z

Many thanks to my dear pal Paul Walter for drawing my attention to this via Twitter. OK, I admit it, my iphone has changed my life! I am discovering a cornucopia of "things you always wanted to know but never dare ask" - following not only my favourite Lib Dems, but the likes of "I am trying really hard not to morph into a Lib Dem" Kevin Maguire, "if you think you're hard enuf" Charlie Whelan, "honest guv" Andrew Rawnsley "I used to be Linda Jack's fave MYP" Richard Angell and "one day I'll get a life" Chris Paul. Actually Chris.....just teasing......you are doin good, for anyone not following him - he will do your donkey work for you - well worth following even if he does your head in with his anti Lib Dem rhetoric from time to time :-)

So. Burbler extraordinaire lead me to this unbelievable piece of Tory reeeeealpolitik on Conservative home. If anything ever exposed their shallow, value free, excuse for a serious response to the very real problems this nation faces......this is it. Seriously - we need to get this on our billboards toot sweet!

A little analysis - when you plaster this all over your flagship website.............er...........Mr Mannering - get over here fast!

(1) Don’t panic! The Tories are still 7% ahead in the ConHome Poll of Polls. We’re almost certainly further ahead – where it counts - in the marginals

Ok......."almost certainly" code for - we really don't know. The totally hilarious assertion in this bit is "all the right policies are in place" - er right............would the Tories know a policy if it jumped up and bit them on the bottom? Have a look at their website and play spot the policy - or more exciting - spot the policy that will still be the policy int morning...

(2) Clarify the economic message. In the vote of Tory members I tested four descriptions of the party’s economic message. The official description, supplied to me by George Osborne's office, came bottom in the voting.

Yes, Mr O, he who fades into insignificance against Mr C.........even your loyalist supporters despair that the media rates our Mr C higher than you :-(

3) Raise the dangers of a hung parliament..............er, flippin 'eck, don't let the Lib Dems get a sniff of power, people might realise they really are the "real alternative"!

(4) Deploy the party's very sensible immigration policies. We may have overplayed it at the 2005 General Election but we are in danger of underplaying it this time. Now here they refer to the "sensible" policies of Chris Grayling - linking to this - One of the other crucial ingredients in the Tory commitment to end Labour's uncontrolled immigration policy is the introduction of a cap on the inflow from outside the EU. It may be impossible to set the cap exactly because the party has rightly promised to consult with business and the key public services on their needs for specialist and seasonal workers. We could, however, announce an overall target for net immigration. A commitment, for example, to limit net immigration to an average of 50,000 per year - within an annual flexible rage of 30,000 to 70,000 would be indicative to voters while allowing employers flexibility to influence the inflow of economic migrants.
The announcement should be made soon - to avoid being made in the heat of an election campaign - and ideally after a couple of good opinion polls. The worst time would be after a bad opinion poll and the announcement would then risk being presented as a panic measure. - You couldn't make it up!

5) Stop announcing new policies (unless we have a pledge as potent as the 2007 inheritance tax policy up our sleeves!) and focus on the best ones we already have. The Tories have loads of policies but we can’t go into a campaign with two hundred bullet points. We need to highlight just a few key pledges. Doesn't this just say it all?! The "potent 2007 inheritance tax policy" - yeah right - let's take care of the rich and the poor will take care of themselves a reverse of the take care of the pennies mantra if ever I heard it. And loads of policies................where, please, are they hiding? Certainly not on the Tory website,

.

(6) Hague is a golden asset. No Comment.

(7) Remind voters on a daily basis of Labour's failures. Yep

(8) Put someone in 100% charge of campaign co-ordination. I’m hearing lots of stories of too many chiefs in the Tory campaign (all able) but no overall chief. We don’t (alas) have Lynton Crosby co-ordinating this campaign but we need someone in absolute charge and able to give the campaign 100% attention. Who is that? George Bridges? The question needs answering and kinda now. WOT?!

(9) Cameron can show that he's stronger than Brown by being the election's straight-talker.

Straight talker...............are you havin a laugh??????

(10) This election is a choice between decline and recovery. Well, not entirely sure about this, but if this is the case, it would be really interesting to stack up the Os-spawn solution with the Capable solution.........

Brown - the real problem is with the behaviour he admits.

2010-02-22T15:13:00.000Z

Unexpectedly stranded at home and unable to attend a trustee meeting of Re:generate in Derby, I have had more time to follow Twitter and listen to the unfolding story of Mr Brown. Interesting just how party political this has become - OK, I know there is an election coming, allegedly........but I would like to think if this kind of allegation was made against Nick Clegg we would welcome an investigation even if we regarded the allegation as ludicrous.

It seems to me Brown has a real problem though, all he and Mandelson have denied is him hitting anyone. He admits to throwing things when he gets angry - I work in a big, open plan office - I have never seen anyone throwing anything, however frustrated they are. I have worked with bullies (one of whom was sacked for her bullying), I have represented many union members who were being bullied, but in spite of their aggressive and intimidating behaviour, none of these people was ever accused of throwing anything. Mandelson, it seems to me, compounded the problem with his interview on Andrew Marr yesterday - he "took his medicine like a man" - er right. So he, as more or less an equal of Brown, thinks because he could take unspecified behaviour, which presumably was unpleasant (hold your nose and swallow hard), everyone else, whatever their position, should do the same. Bullying is invariably the abuse of power by someone more powerful than the recipient. It is not about intention it is about impact. Brown may not have intended to upset anyone when he shouted or threw things around, that's not the point.

I can only imagine how intimidating it may be to be in an office with someone who is getting so angry they have started throwing things, be they newspapers or brick bats. If it happened in my office, even if it were my Director, I would expect some sort of action to be taken. It seems to me that what this shows us about Brown is his total lack of self awareness and emotional intelligence. If he thought that he had the right to behave like that, if he never stopped to think about the impact his behaviour may be having on those around him, if he had no notion of the great responsibility of his office and the great privilege it affords him, then I for one completely understand why so many of his colleagues have lost their trust in him.

But I am equally appalled at the actions of the National Bullying Hotline. It takes a huge amount of courage for anyone to report workplace bullying. Let's not forget it is only in very recent years it has been taken seriously. I can remember being laughed at by councillors in Bedfordshire when I raised the issue, what I was describing only happened in schools! If anyone from Brown's office did call, they called because they didn't have the confidence to approach anyone internally and because they were presumably worried about anyone internally knowing what was going on. To have that trust betrayed by the people they turned to in their time of need is inexcusable.

This country faces unbelievable challenges, the most pressing of which, from my perspective, is the growing inequality and unfairness. I have no doubt that Gordon Brown is a man, despite the clear failure of his government, who is very exercised by this. I have no reason to doubt what he says about his concern to tackle poverty in this country and across the world. How tragic then, that it appears, having been given the opportunity to really make a difference that only a handful ever get, he seems to have become so arrogant as to think he can behave as he pleases, regardless of the impact on others. Fairness is about how we treat each other as individuals, as well as a society.

It is really not good enough for Mandelson and Brown to try and create a smokescreen and claim this is all a politically inspired operation to undermine the Prime Minister - it may well be, but surely, the adult thing to do would be to immediately promise an investigation. After all, as I have already intimated, most responsible adults, however frustrated, would throw little more than the odd inappropriate comment around the office.

More evidence that Tories are same old same old

2010-02-21T10:38:00.000Z

Full of fresh ideas "New Tories". Only this morning, just in time for the Sundays, time to consider over our tea and toast - a brand new investment opportunity for the hoy palloy - cheap shares in our nationalised banks.

I am old enough to remember the Ask Sid campaign. What I particularly remember is my socialist aunt, responding to the letter she received from British Gas asking if she wanted to buy any shares. She wrote back to tell them no thank you, she didn't want to buy shares in a company she already owned.

And therein lies the rub. These "fresh" Tory proposals demonstrate just how out of touch they are. Well yes, of course, for those with the spare cash to invest, they may benefit from cheap shares and a bit of a windfall. But for those who have been hit hardest by the credit crunch and the failure of the banks, there is nothing. They may have already lost their homes, their jobs, the little savings they had.

Now I may have a little more time for the Tory proposal if it was to sell the shares for the best possible price, in order to invest in making this a more equal society so that everyone who has suffered because of the greed and incompetence of the banks gets at least a little redress. But unfortunately that would betray what appears to be the only belief they have left, namely that "to he whom much is given, he shall have more" as opposed to "to he whom much is given, much is required".

In Praise of Jenny Tonge

2010-02-12T23:45:00.000Z

The news that Nick Clegg has today sacked Jenny Tonge is sad news indeed. It further clouds what is and always has been a desperately clouded issue. I have read what Jenny said to the Jewish Chronicle about allegations of the IDF organ harvesting in Haiti"To prevent allegations such as these - which have already been posted on You Tube - going any further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti." Frankly, in my view, Nick has totally over reacted, which is disappointing given his unblemished and brave record of standing up to the Israeli lobby. He says - I quote from the BBC article - "The comments were wrong, distasteful and provocative and I recognise the deep and understandable distress they have caused to the Jewish community," Nick thus plays into the hands of the Zionists - if Jenny caused distress it was surely to the Israeli community? The British are being accused of colluding with torture, do we worry about that causing distress to the Christian community? Oh yes, we also have a sizeable Muslim community, so does Israel, and numerous other faiths, so does Israel.

Jenny has not accepted the allegations, she has merely suggested they should be investigated. Of course they are outrageous allegations, but so was the suggestion that this country may have colluded with torturers. Of course it is beyond belief that human beings, sent to help a country in distress would do such a thing, but human beings do do terrible things to each other, be they Israeli, American, Iraqi or British, particularly when they have been able to dehumanize those they hurt. Now, of course, I am not suggesting I believe these allegations, just challenging the idea that we assume some people are automatically beyond reproach. If such allegations had been made against Iranian forces for example, would that have evoked the same reaction?

In all of this the danger is that we lose sight of the very real outrage that the world sits silently by and allows the Israeli state to behave with impunity in violating not just the human rights of the Palestinians but of its own citizens. That we do this and continue to support a state which even Desmond Tutu has said is worse than apartheid South Africa, shames us all.

Jenny has been a brave and courageous voice challenging this. I know her to be a woman of huge integrity and compassion - she speaks out of the agony of witnessing what is happening virtually unchallenged in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel itself. I for one admire and value her contribution. If her frustration sometimes results in her speaking out of turn - at least it is only her words that are causing offence.............unlike the bombs and bullets that have maimed and killed countless innocent Palestinians in their homeland that is STILL illegally occupied.

I am thankful that there are Israelis, many of whom happen to be Jewish, and Jews, many of whom happen to be Israelis, who are at the forefront of challenging Israeli policy towards Palestine. They give the lie to the notion that this has anything at all to do with anti-semitism, they give me hope that ultimately, just as the Berlin Wall came down, just as today we celebrate the release of Mandela and the end of apartheid, one day we will celebrate a meaningful and lasting peace in Israel Palestine - but that peace will continue to allude us until we recognise that there can be no peace without justice and until we recognise that the Israeli state and the Jewish religion are not synonymous.

Will Boris oust Dave?

2010-02-06T14:13:00.001Z

Having spent the last few weeks charging around all over the UK, I am now paying for it by enforced bedrest due to gammy leg/back. The only benefit being that I have been more able than usual to catch up with blogs and tweets. This tweet from Charlie Whelan caught my eye - My pal Graham Sharpe from William Hill contacts me again. Money piling on to Boris to replace 'vulnerable' Cam. Hague still favourite.

Nick Clegg and the Labour Death-Rattle

2010-01-25T08:09:00.000Z

And now a Tory prepared to heap praise on Nick Clegg. Matthew d'Ancona in yesterday's Torygraph predicts that the Chilcot inquiry will be Labour's death-rattle, in the course of which he refers to Gordon Brown's imminent appearance saying "Gordon, thanks to the nimble political footwork of the ever-more-confident Nick Clegg, is now committed to taking the stand before the general election."

Brendan Barber - in Praise of Nick Clegg?

2010-01-21T22:37:00.001Z

OOOOOOOOOHHHHH - and another one! The Labour apparatchiks are falling over themselves to praise our man. Could it be the penny is at last beginning to drop? I do hope so. As a great supporter of and believer in, the trade union movement, I am not a Lib Dem by accident. I look forward to the day when my old pals wake up and smell the coffee, "New Labour" has betrayed the movement - at every turn.

So Kevin Maguire is succeeded by none other than TUC general secretary Brendan Barber in heaping praise on Nick Clegg over the Cadbury take over. Now, as I have mentioned before, my only dealings with BB were when we spent a good few hours at Transport House in a roundtable trying to resolve an interunion dispute - this was around 7 years ago - the dispute is still unresolved (!). But one thing that struck me was that he was an incredibly fair man, a good listener and someone who wasn't going to be railroaded by anyone.

Apparently Nick met with him a couple of weeks ago and I have no doubt that will have prepared the ground for Mr B to be so publicly appreciative of his intervention in PMQs yesterday. I hope what he has realised is that he and Nick may not have a meeting of minds on many things, but in him we have a leader with great integrity who will not be guided by the latest focus group or vested interest, be that of union or big business. I hope that he will have realised that Nick is someone who will stand up against unfairness, injustice, oppression and downright greed and dishonesty. I hope he may, perhaps in an unguarded moment. recognise that the interests of those many of his members (myself included) he seeks to represent, may be better served if he hitched his wagon elsewhere.

Kevin Maguire - in Praise of Nick Clegg?

2010-01-21T21:34:00.000Z

One thing I like about Kevin Maguire is that he has a rare quality of being a Labour hack prepared to give praise where praise is due. Yesterday was one such day - a perceptive blog from yr man - my favourite bits - on Osborne "Shakespeare was still writing tragedies when Invisible Tory George Osborne last had the confidence to hold a press conference" on Nick Clegg "Labour tribalists sounded foolish mocking Nick Clegg's questions about why state-owned RBS is bankrolling Kraft's takeover of Cadbury. Many Labour MPs silently agreed with the Lib Dem leader. If today had been an election TV debate, Clegg would've won the public vote on this one"

Hungry and Scared.......

2010-01-20T01:07:00.000Z

.......the Indy has this story about 9 year old Haitian Wideline - when asked about how she felt, living in squalor in an orphanage, having lost her parents, her only possession the tartan dress on her back - she said - hungry and scared.

One of the frighteningly numbing effects of disaster is that we can lose sight of the human impact - the 70,000 - 200,000 - 1,000.000 lives lost are all nameless, faceless, remote, other. Coming face to face with the countless survivors, like Wideline, reminds of the humanity of all. If we feel powerless in the face of injustice, inequality and poverty in our own land, how much more when we hear of the unbearable tragedy unfolding on the other side of the globe...........

I have never been to Haiti - my connection has only been through Haitians who have emigrated here and friends who have visited - one friend narrowly surviving a gun attack in what was an unbelievably lawless society. A society where even near neighbours like America, have chosen to draw the curtains and turn their heads to avoid having to address the reality of a society in melt down.

If Haiti teaches us anything it surely has to be the awesome truth of the words of John Donne - that no - no man is an island.

Whilst we could do nothing about the earthquake - we could have done something about the poverty, we could have invested in the infra structure of the country that would have mitigated against the worst effects of this disaster. We could have surely done more to support the development of a healthy and effective society. We have a graphic demonstration of what happens when we walk by on the other side.

I have never ever before heard of a similar disaster, be that natural or man made, which has resulted in that unbelievable number of so many orphaned children. Be that Tsunami, Earthquake, Typhoon, Hurricane. These children who will determine whether Haiti rises from the ashes of this tragedy - or slips off our radar again and into a malaise of hopelessness and despair.

Shadow Cabinet, FPC and Virgin Trains!

2010-01-12T22:56:00.000Z

Ooops! Blank post courtesy of Virgin Trains - back in Bromsgrove now so let's hope this works.................

I’m just on my way back from FPC, on the train to Bromsgrove hoping that the train isn’t as late as it was last night, causing me to miss my connection with an hour wait for the next one! Anyway last night I was at Shadow Cabinet where, with Lynne Featherstone being the only woman, I was overwhelmed by the distinct white maleness of the brood. OK, a few women were missing, but it doesn’t take many to result in none.............Let’s hope this Speaker’s Conference really does do something to redress the balance...........but that really wasn’t my point – will return to this favourite theme in the future.

Now I may be accused of many things, but leaking isn’t one of them, so I will resist the temptation to dob Vince in about something quite amusing, or someone else about something not quite so amusing.

Last night and this evening Lynne and I were presenting the Youth Policy Paper – with many radical and fresh ideas, some of which will hopefully become policy, others which will fall victim to the fall out from “savage cuts”.

I turned up yesterday having just read an article in Children and Young People Now about the truly savage cuts that as ever, many youth services across the country are being faced with. In Nottingham it amounts to around £700,000, in Birmingham £1 million and in Oxfordshire they are consulting about a staggering £2.7 million in cuts. This is what truly does my head in. All the parties nationally make commitments about preserving frontline services – BUT – when it comes to the crunch it is the non statutory services that suffer, in particular youth service. I have lived with this for most of my youth service career – year after year of cuts –when we got rid of the Tory government I naively thought things might change. Did they? Did they heck! I used to manage a youth service where once I had paid all the fixed costs (salaries, buildings etc) I had £2,000 a year to spend on work with young people - £2,000 – that equated to about 10p per young person per year!!!

The Youth Policy Working Group has been united in the need to invest more in services for young people. So we have been arguing long and hard for additional youth workers – 10,000 to be precise. There is a reason for this.........a few years ago we had two expert witnesses to our Crime Policy Working Group who both said – what we need is not 10,000 more police on our streets but 10,000 youth workers. One of the arguments our party has for investing in police rather than youth workers is that this is what the people want. They want the police to cut crime. The fact is that young people are not only disproportionately the perpetrators of crime, they are also disproportionately the victims of crime. When I was in Bedford the crime people were most worried about was abduction.....this despite the fact that no one had been abducted for 20 years. There is a notion that more “bobbies on the beat” will help cut crime. But the truth is that a police officer actually comes across a crime once every 8 years!

Anyway, excepting a few notable parliamentary supporters, Lynne, Simon Hughes and Evan Harris – we have failed to convince the parliamentary party, or FPC of our case.

My frustration, whilst I appreciate the need to have some popularist policies, is that they must be evidence based. Also, while it may be true that people are worried about crime, if you look at the results of most citizens’ panels you will see that facilities for young people is also a hugely important issue, often topping the poll!

A few years ago my local authority commissioned a report into youth crime. An academic study was carried out by the local university. The study convincingly demonstrated that in one particular area (an area I managed) of high youth crime, the crime rates went down markedly on the evenings our youth club was open. The report was never formally published because it didn’t say what the politicians wanted it to say – I wonder how many other unread, unpublished reports would say the same thing? Actually, its not rocket science is it? “The Devil makes work for idle hands” hmmmm yes – innit?! If we actually listened to young people for a change we would hear this, again and again, but unfortunately it seems we have lost the ability to think long term or strategically, to recognise that we must invest to save. The real tragedy of this recession is that something that should have been seen as an opportunity will doubtless be squandered – and that squandering will result in yet another generation of young people who have been totally let down by our society. A society that bleats about “feral youth” but then is prepared to allow the environment to exist that reinforces their so called “feral” ways. A society that has not made the connection between effort and reward – that wants everything on a plate and doesn’t see why it should pay for it – a malaise that is being passed on to our children.

OK, I am in rant mode, but I want our party to tell the truth. Tell the truth about what the consequences are if we don’t invest in services now. Tell the truth about how the obscene inequality that exists now has resulted in our children being the unhappiest of all OECD countries, us having the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe, close to 1 million young people unemployed, us locking up more children than almost anyone else and the equally obscene human and financial cost of this.

Despite my rant, and my passionate belief that we really should be investing in our young people’s futures – I do think we have come up with a great policy paper. It will be launched soon and hopefully will get through conference without too much flak (especially since it ain’t gonna cost much!) It is head and shoulders above anything the other parties have come up with and is rooted in our core belief that "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 and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"

For love of Sam

2010-01-07T20:39:00.002Z

Last night I got an unexpected phone call from a young man I worked with a good few years ago - let's call him Sam. During the time I was working with him he turned up at my office with rope marks on his neck - he had tried to hang himself. I took him straight down to A&E and given there was no specialist unit for young people we were sent to the adult psychiatric unit. Last night he reminded me of what happened, an inpatient, an older woman, coming up and asking him for sex. The whole environment was difficult and very disturbing for him. He got some help, but never really enough. He ultimately ended up in prison on a short sentence. Since then he has been in and out of a number of relationships. He has three children by different mothers and another one on the way. He has no job and his criminal record doesn't help. But he is desperate to get himself a job and be able to support his partner and children. He is at heart a lovely lad, who has suffered terrible rejection in his childhood and just needs the right opportunity to get his life back on track.

I have to confess, I came off the phone a little tearful, as ever pondering, how many other Sam's are there out there? Young men who for what ever reason get themselves into trouble and then, even when they want to turn their lives around, find the support really isn't there to help them. One of the saddest things Sam told me was that one of the good things about being in prison was that he actually got some real help with his mental health issues. They got him on to cognitive behavioural therapy and he was able to come off his medication. But since he came out he hadn't had anything like the same support. And yet the rest of his description of his time inside was horrifying. As someone who had suffered bullying in the past, he was easy prey.

Sam told me that what he really wanted to do was to get involved with a project that helped divert other young people from ending up in prison, but he didn't really know where to start.

At the moment there are even more young Sams out there, nearly 1 million unemployed young people, a good proportion who have other challenges, such as having been in the criminal justice system, being homeless, being failed by school, having disabilities, all factors that will make it even more difficult for them to find a job. Young people whose dreams are not very different from the rest of us, to have a job, a family, security, to be happy.

At a time when we are all being told how difficult it is going to be, how "savage cuts" will have to be made in our public services, lets not forget those who are likely to suffer far more than the rest of us. Young people whose lives may not be blighted just for a few years, but for a generation.

Nick Clegg, Michael White.........True Confessions

2010-01-06T21:54:00.000Z

While atTory party conference I visited the Politics.co.uk stand and got them to look me up. Their assessment of my blog was that it was excellent, although declaring that the funniest thing about it was the way I swoon over my leader.....for me the funniest thing was that they also described me as the "eminence grise" of conference - yes I had to look up what it meant :-). Well...........I have a confession to make..........its not Nick Clegg I swoon over.......its Michael White. Scary but true! None is his equal. Has any other political commentator his wit or charm? Or dulcet tones? Or classic good looks? Oh yes, if anyone is to make me swoon it has to be Mr W. But I have to confess to having a mixed reaction to his latest missive about our dear leader. On the one hand he is generous in his acknowledgement of the validity of the principles underpinning our manifesto, having listed them he takes issue with our ability to clean up politics but goes on to say - "But overall it's wholesome enough. Fairness matters in healthy societies. Ours is out of balance again and needs a decent tweak. The Lib Dems are sincere in wanting to deliver improvement. It's the politics they may find tricky."

It is his assertion that Clegg is closer to the Tories "because he's a market man, not a social democrat at heart: it's the old Liberal-SDP split, Paddy Ashdown v Charles Kennedy, Menzies Campbell v Simon Hughes, Vincent Cable v Chris Huhne. Clegg's indignant denials are the "narcissism of small difference" that I take issue with. Whilst he acknowledges that he might be wrong and that "it won't matter much. Whatever Clegg's private inclinations (his Sheffield Hallam constituency is one of Britain's richest), his party is culturally anti-Tory at heart and will nip any temptation in the bud as it did when Jeremy Thorpe was tempted to sustain the defeated Ted Heath in office in February 1974." He has hit on a misrepresentation of Nick that feeds into an unjust perception, fed by the right wing media and hence prevalent amongst many of our potential supporters, that he is "Cameronlite". Yes, it may be reasonably fair to suggest he is a market man, and if that was the sum total of all that he is, I certainly would never have supported him. White, like many before him, has confused values and methodology. Nick, wrongly in my view of course, has a belief that the market can help deliver social objectives. But make no mistake, what drives him is not that blind belief in the market that characterises Tory philosophy, but a belief that we can and must have a fairer society. That we can and must redress the balance through fairer taxes and investment in improving the life chances of all our children. That we can and must fulfil the reason d'etre of our party - to build a fair, free and open society, balancing liberty, equality and community, in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

And that, dear Mr W, is light years away from being a mere "market man".

Nadine Dorries AWOL for PBR (but don't worry, she has a security guard)

2009-12-09T22:17:00.000Z

The observant among you will have noticed that Nadine Dorries revealed last week that she was going to take this week off to take part in a Channel 4 reality show. No expense spared she is being shipped off to a high rise in London - apparently being issued with her clothes when she gets there. To quote Nadine "Security will be with us the whole time, even when sleeping." Wow, I know MPs are a pretty unpopular bunch, but I had no idea they were quite that unpopular!

Apparently "One of the objectives is for me to experience the problems that the residents have to face on a daily basis and for residents to challenge and get to know an MP."

Er........now. That is odd. I would have thought the most important MP for residents to get to know would have been their own? And I am sure if she ends up in a Lib Dem constituency she will find that the residents probably do know their MP!

"The programme is being screened at prime time in February in four one hour programmes, one night after the other." Ah.......that explains why she has taken 6 days off from her parliamentary duties. I have to say I mentioned this to one of our London MPs, Lynne Featherstone this evening. Lynne demonstrated why she is in the running for "best MP" and Nadine is not. Lynne had also been asked to take part in this programme but had flatly refused - how could she possibly take 6 days out, particularly when the house was sitting? So my question, on behalf of the constituents of Mid Beds has to be - why was this more important than doing what she is paid to do - represent them? Now, had she wanted to take time out during the seemingly endless recesses - fair enough. But now? In the week of the PBR? In the week when parliament is debating the Energy Bill, Child Poverty, Disability Benefits for the Elderly, Local Government Financial Settlement and Council Tax...........?

"If I said I wasn't scared, I would be lying." Yes, very scary mixing with poor people.

"I will be swapping my ivory tower in Westminster for a tower block in London – the kind of accommodation that houses many thousands of people across the UK. These are people who may be in a constant state of being overwhelmed with the sheer scale of problems they face on a day-to-day basis." Yes Nadine, and even in leafy Mid Beds, there are people with the same problems. The problems of the inner city are well known and well documented. Less so the very real problems of rural deprivation and what can be even more stark social and physical exclusion. Having taught and been a youth worker in the constituency, I am well aware of what that can mean for communities. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to have carried out the same exercise in your constituency?

"My objective for the week is to survive. To learn as much as I can. To leave something behind, even if it's only friendship." Surviving - SURVIVING?!!!! Heavens dear, what on earth do you think you are going into? People who live in high rises in London are not an alien race. They are people just like you and me, with hopes, aspirations, fears. Some are nice and some are nasty. Some are loving and some are not so loving. Much like the rest of us. This is not "I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here" - now that would be scary and I for one would certainly not survive!

"I must not slip into the C4 trap of creating good TV. I'm only too aware that they will attempt to exhaust and challenge me in an attempt to provoke an adverse reaction which would look good on the telly." Hmmmmmm

"I've told my girls not to worry. The only violence likely to occur is if C4 try to prise my mascara wand out of my hand. Security will be necessary then! Big time." If ever someone betrayed their prejudices this was it.

Well, I do genuinely hope some good comes out of this "I'm a Celebrity get me in There" stunt. Maybe it will change Nadine, maybe, just maybe, she will see the consequences of decades of Tory indifference and Labour ineffectiveness. Maybe, just maybe, she will realise that the only hope for our country lies with the Liberal Democrats. Maybe, just maybe, she will decide to become a full-time campaigner for change. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Tickling the Hard Underbelly of the Tories

2009-12-03T21:55:00.001Z

Last week I was speaking at the Harpenden Branch AGM. They had given me 25-30 minutes (brave souls!) to talk about the current political landscape. I outlined my personal take on where all the "main" political parties are - noting that during the expenses scandal the media started chatting about the "3" main parties!

My starting point, it has to be said, is values. If you understand someone's values you are more likely to be able to predict how they will behave in any given circumstance. I often quote my old pal Raj Lehal - who would say "we need to be tight on values, then we can be loose on everything else, but all too often we are tight on everything else and loose on values". And it seems to me this is one of the dilemmas that plagues politics at the moment. When power at all costs becomes the driving force, values take a back seat aka Blair and now Cameron. The problem is, that the grassroots activists of most parties will likely be far more wedded to their values.

Blair brilliantly took advantage of the Labour movement's shared value of collective responsibility and was able to persuade his activists to suppress their values for the "greater good" - taking power (those who couldn't stomach this - and there were many of them - upt n left).

Cameron has clearly learned the lessons of Blair. To take power he has to persuade his party stalwarts to suppress their values - for "the greater good" of taking power. The problem he has, it seems to me, is the nature of the values so many grass roots Tories share. No collective responsibility for the Tories, oh no - these are the spawn of "there is no such thing as society" approach let's not forget.

Now I have to say I have been surprised and delighted to hear what some senior Tories are saying, for example on a more liberal approach to youth justice, (articulated again today by David Burrowes at a conference I attended) but I wonder if these proposed policies will ever see the light of day. And of course there are other senior Tories who are already beginning to attack their leader on what they see as thoroughly unconservative approaches to, for example, climate change (more about this later).

A couple of years ago I attended my first Tory party conference. It was one of those moments......(what's the opposite to an epiphany?), when all your prejudices are confirmed. Despite the sheep's clothing it was clear, at every fringe I attended, that the grass roots were still largely nasty party wolves.

This year it was no different - my only claim to fame was having a question I asked at the World at One debate broadcast on the programme (I guess I just have to do the same at the Labour Party conference to get a full house - or would it be a hat trick?). They were debating cuts and were getting on my proverbial.......so my question was about willy waiving (never imagined Radio 4 would broadcast that!) and how much was going on in relation to cuts - what - I wanted to know, would the panelists cut and why? Martha K bless her pushed the point with Louise Bagshaw who ended up confessing that she would have to cut rural bus services. I also ran into our erstwhile presidential candidate, Mr Fernandez, who is now an approved Tory candidate. He, you may remember, answered my question - if there was one thing about this country you would change, what would it be? - by saying he would abolish inheritance tax - why was he ever in our party in the first place????! But - let's not forget, for a long time, this was the only declared Tory policy there was.

So, make no mistake - when it comes to the point of actually having to put mouths where money is - the Tories will struggle. Not only the activists, or even the backbenchers......it is likely the frontbenchers who will publicly air their differences. Dave says he is a liberal, and who am I to doubt?

When I arrived at that Tory conference two years ago Brown was riding high. We were anticipating a snap election. The Tories were up for dumping Cameron. But then Brown screwed up - in Iraq - over the election - and Cameron found himself suddenly the darling of his party. The man they really didn't like suddenly became far more attractive.

So, they have had a season of success - but will it last? The fissures are already beginning to appear and some of them are fairly deep. Look at what happened in Bedford, in Norfolk. There is no doubt there is a hard underbelly of true conservatism - the leadership have done well to more or less suppress it for so long - my contention is that all we needed to do is tickle it over the next few months - and we may provoke them to display their true colours. That is our challenge - at a local and national level. Now surely is the time for Nick Clegg to change the focus of his fire. The weeds whose roots have already died can be left to expire of their own accord - the attack has to be on the new and vigorous growth - even at PMQ's. We have the best opportunity for a generation - how we play this could be the difference between heralding an era of real change and progress, or a return to the dark days of reactionary conservatism.

Reasons to join a Tory coalition

2009-11-27T13:05:00.000Z

(Nearly) 20 Questions to a Postie

2009-11-06T12:14:00.002Z

The news yesterday that the Postal strike has been postponed was indeed good news, I do hope this can be properly resolved, though I find it extraordinary that Adam Crozier will not go to arbitration - if he thought his case was that sound I would have expected him to jump at the chance. But it is important to remember this dispute is not just about the terms and conditions of postal workers it is about the whole future of Royal Mail and our postal services.

Some of you may remember my outburst at conference a few years ago during the debate on the privatisation of Royal Mail. I hadn’t intended to speak (no really!) but someone said something stupid about the public not really caring who delivered their services and that was it. I attached myself to the end of the queue for interventions and said my piece. I hadn’t realised just what impact I had had until pal Martin rang up late that evening to say he had been looking for me in the hall when the! 0 o’clock news went to Lib Dem conference and instead saw me waving my arms around, shouting about thinking there was clear blue water between us and the two Tory parties and that this had muddied the waters and turned it a murky shade of orange.......... my view hasn’t changed.

So, as you may imagine, I am firmly behind the battle of the great Postmen and Postwomen are fighting up and down this country as we speak. Now this is partly because I have had two siblings and my mum working for the Post Office over the years, but also because I have a fundamental, pragmatic belief, that public services are best kept in the public service. My brother has agonised over whether or not he should go on strike – as a Christian he believes in “turning the other cheek” so this hasn’t been an easy decision. My views are more along the lines of “the workman (or woman) is worthy of his/her hire” – and the Old Testament is full of prophets renting their clothes and railing against the exploitative bosses.

But my brother has been frustrated that the whole story hasn’t come out. I am a big fan of Billy Hayes, but I don’t think he has really explained to the public what the threat to them is. I am delighted that the rather adorable Brendan Barber has been able to get the mini breakthrough we have seen – my one experience of being involved in negotiations with him was when he chaired a meeting to try to resolve an inter union dispute I was involved in which ended in abject failure, but then of course inter union disputes are usually far tougher to resolve than the bog standard union v management fare.

So – what does Postman Pete think?! I sat down with him on Sunday (interesting to note that he lives in a forgotten backwater of the Mid Beds constituency on the edge of Luton, where he has never hears anything from his local MP Nadine Dorries - maybe she doesn't realise she has constituents in Luton though)

How long have you been a Postman?

Nearly 29 years, mostly in Stopsley (Luton)

So it can’t be that bad?

Actually I love the job, meeting the public feeling part of the community and building relationships. When I started I was very shy (may have had something to do with having 4 older loud sisters), but the job helped me become more confident. People say that it makes them feel they are still in a community when they see me every day. Also the majority of postman and women look out for people – for example, I had to break into house once, someone was stuck in his bathroom (actually a Tory Councillor!), he was shouting for help. I told him to move away from the door and ran into it; unfortunately he hadn’t listened to me and ended up with a few bruises! Another time I was delivering down Morthouse Green in Luton. It was when Calibras had just come in, and I saw one rolling down the hill, I asked the woman standing nearby “is that your car?” It was. She was so shocked she couldn’t move so I ran, jumped in and pulled up the handbrake before it ran into a wall! But a lot of that goes on, people looking out for people. Sometimes we are the only human contact isolated people have. I am often finding keys left in the door, I once found bottle of champagne in a garden, another time a wad of money – I knocked on the door and a man told me it was the savings of an elderly woman over the road he was supposed to be paying it into her account for her, the funniest thing was that the then came running after me to give a pound reward.

So what’s changed?

Firstly the hours. Going out later, which isn’t so bad. We now do one delivery not two, this has lead to us being asked to do others work – we’re not against absorbing extra on Mondays and Tuesdays when mail is lighter, but it’s more difficult later in the week. The biggest change is opening the market to private companies, which was Mr Blair’s leaving present to us, we were the first country in Europe to do it and all the other countries were supposed to follow suit, but saw what a mess we made of it and thought better of it.

So who do you blame for the current crisis?

I don’t blame private enterprise, I like to see little companies doing well, but you have global companies like TNT making profits off the postman’s back.

Why do say that?

Because TNT can pick up 100,000 items and charge 26p an item and just drive to one of our mail centres, offload it then we have to process it, deliver it and because of the regulator we can only charge them 13p per item.

So isn’t privatisation the answer?

Yes, if you are a big fat cat because they are the only ones who will benefit.

So won’t they be able to cut costs and benefit the public?

No, what the public doesn’t realise is that the cost of a letter could go up more than 400%.

What evidence do you have for that?

You only have to look at all the other services that have been privatised like gas and water, and I would expect that if you in rural areas you may only get one delivery a week, or be charged far higher rates.

So how do you think the present situation can be resolved?

There needs to be compromise on both sides and a real desire to get that compromise.

So what should the union do?

At the moment we are trapped by an antiquated them and us attitude between management and union, both seem to forget that this is a public service. The union needs to be a bit more diplomatic and be prepared to compromise.

What should management do?

Stop bullying people and pushing the workers around. Have a bit more respect and realise that they are also supposed to be serving the public as well as the postmen and women and should not just be a puppet for the government’s secret agenda.

What about the government?

Leave us alone and think about the public in all of this. And also they should repay our pensions after allowing Royal Mail to take 13 years garden leave. I have paid into my pension for 29 years and now the money may not be there to pay me when I retire.

So what do you want to say the public?

Firstly I’d like to apologise to the public for the inconvenience. Most of us really don’t want to go on strike because we end up losing money and we care about the service. Secondly if you really want to see the service improve, lobby your MP to allow us to compete without one hand tied behind our back and to stop privatisation.

You say that, but money is going down the drain to an unprofitable business?

That’s the whole point; this is a service not a business. You don’t hear people complaining about the police service being unprofitable!

So finally, anything else you want to say?

Well personally I fear we are becoming more like an inverted Robin Hood society where the rich get richer off the poor people’s backs.

Also, this is a community job, a public service; therefore it should always be in the public sector.

And if the government do go down the road of privatisation the public should not be surprised at the price of posting a letter going up 400%

Nadine Dorries and the Mystery of the First Home

2009-11-05T21:41:00.001Z

OK, I admit it - I am a bit of an Agatha Christie addict. When I broke my leg I amused myself by watching endless episodes of Poirot. I like nothing more than a good mystery, with just enough of a hint of the solution to keep you guessing. In Nadine Dorries' case - its not so much guessing, it's more - do you really think we are that stupid? Like the culprit with the smoking gun crying "it wasn't me guv" - the hole she has dug for herself just gets deeper.

Wednesday night I missed the News at 10 piece about her. Here is this poor unfortunate MP travelling home to her SECOND home and complaining about it! She travelled all the way to her constituency - arriving home at gone 1am. Yes, she gets on the train in the morning with her constituents but they don't have to come home at the same ungodly hour as she. I do have some sympathy, I also often find myself arriving home at gone 1am which isn't that pleasant, especially this time of year on cold and dirty First Capital Connect trains, but I don't have an alternative.

Now, maybe I am missing something. There are some MPs whose second homes are near Westminster - this is because their first home is in their constituency, so that when they have a late sitting they can hit the sack relatively quickly. There are other MPs whose first homes are near Westminster. This is because their second homes are in their constituencies and so that they can not only hit the sack relatively quickly, but have their families with them when they are carrying out their parliamentary duties. Frankly, I don't care which way they do it, but whichever way, there is a logic.

Not so with Ms Dorries. To hear her bleating about getting home so late, when the only reason she gets home so late is because she has (unless she has changed the arrangement since it all came out in May) chosen to designate her first home as being absolutely nowhere near either her constituency or Westminster, beggars belief. Does she take the good people of Mid Beds for complete fools? Does she think they will all just accept that it is OK for her to take advantage of an antiquated system that effectively allows her to have a holiday home? She has apologised, but what has changed? If she is so concerned about arriving home late at night she could do what others do. Jacqui Smith got rightly lambasted for designating her sister's home as her main home - but at least she could argue she spent more nights there (which I thought was the definition). Nadine Dorries firstly tried to keep secret where her first home was, even admitting that she only spent the odd weekend and holiday there. By no stretch of the imagination is that a first home. So, to coin a phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to get home at a Godly hour, then you need to use the second home allowance as it was surely intended. Otherwise as the saying goes - put up or shut up!.............Although, from the perspective of her prospective opponent maybe that is bad advice - carry on dear, carry on!!!

Turn on Parliament Channel Now!

2009-10-30T16:49:00.003Z

Firstly - isn't it great to see young people in the chamber? Secondly isn't it refreshing to see some colour rather than the grey suited monochromistic mush? Thirdly - interesting and well argued debate (on tution fees at the mo).

OK, so there are issues about just how representative UK Youth Parliament is - however, this opening up of the chamber is long overdue. Last week I was with the Youth MPs from Speaking Up - a pilot representing young people with learning disabilities - let's see them in there, there is another one for young offenders, let's see them in there. I hope this is just the beginning.

Update - it looks like the only Lib Dem MP there is David Heath - lots of Labour and Tory, yet we are the party with the best youth policies........where are they?

Battle of the Bloggers?

2009-10-29T23:02:00.002Z

I am just home from being selected as PPC for the 'safe' Tory seat of Mid Beds and the prospect of a fairly boring contest against Ms Nadine the blogging Queen :-) (Joke Nadine, joke!). As I pointed out to my fellow members, following the extraordinary events of this year, there is no longer any such thing as a safe seat - so from my perspective........game on girl, game on!

Chair of the selection committee Brian Golby began with a little anecdote about me when I was Unison Branch Secretary, a story I hadn't heard before. As a county councillor he had been on an appeals panel at which I had been representing members, apparently as I left the room one of the Tories muttered, "I'll be glad to see the back of that bloody woman" - in Brian's eyes that was an accolade! I reminded him that at that time the joke was that the union was the only effective opposition to the disastrous, worst performing county council in the country.

The Tories are peddling a myth of "real change" - er............when we have effectively had 30 years of Tory government. OK, the party may have changed, but the values never did. Frankly Tory "real change" should read same old same old. Not change, just a return to the dark days of Thatcher's Britain.

The people of Mid Beds deserve better, they deserve - and now have - a real choice. As Lib Dems we offer that choice. Real - same old same old - change...........or a genuine Fresh Start for Britain.

Watch this space :-)

Nick Robinson and the BBC - The Sound of Silence?

2009-10-16T23:17:00.005+01:00

Tonight I am back in Bedford with pals celebrating the election of Dave Hodgson as Mayor of Bedford - a momentus occasion by all accounts - but one that has apparently completely passed the BBC by. I was a little miffed by this, Cameron, riding high in the polls, on the cusp of a landslide victory in May, snubbed by the electorate of not one but THREE constituencies in traditionally Tory Bedfordshire - er..........story? I couldn't understand why this did not make national news and fall under the normally forensic analysis of the BBC's excellent political team - in particular the great Nick Robinson. I perused his blog expecting at least a passing reflection on today's results - but - ZILCH. Now, granted, I may be doing the man a diservice. He may be on holiday. But many many more political editors, correspondents, etc scurry around the BBC airways at a rate of knots - did none of them honestly find this result of any consequence? However, one of my pals gave me at least a hint of why Mr Robinson may be a little shy to comment on this story. Apparently he was vice chair of the Young Conservatives when Richard Fuller (Tory PPC for Bedford) was chair. This may explain why he considered David Cameron's visit to Bedford a few weeks ago worthy of reporting on News at Ten...........but also why the far more important mayoral result this evening did not command the same attention - tho of course if the Tories had won I have no doubt it would have featured long and loud! What's all this nonsense about the BBC being a hotbed of left wing dissent?!

Cameron - hope you have the kaolin and morphine in!

2009-10-16T01:10:00.001+01:00

This evening there is a story in Bedford's local paper telling the sorry tale that the Tories predict defeat in the Mayoral tomorrow. Earlier this evening, a source "close to the party" called to tell me the same - even before the polls closed the Tories were off to console themselves with Pizza.

Last week at Tory Party conference, any local activist I bumped into was far from buoyant about the prospect of a Tory mayor - despite the huge effort central office has clearly put in to support his campaign. I understand (though this will have to be confirmed) that there were 7 central office staff on permanent Bedford duty.

Sadly, this election is unlikely to command much national attention or analysis, but it must be remembered - Bedford Borough is more than a constituency, in fact it straddles three. It is clearly important to the Tories to win, otherwise why would we have seen such huge investment - and the rolling out of leading lights, including this week, Cameron himself?

What this has done, is expose the true underbelly of the party. Having a primary that sidelined local activists did nothing to engage them in the fight, but more importantly, it exposed the very real thread of racism that still blights the Cameron and Pickles unrealistic vision of a more "liberal" party.

Tomorrow I fully expect us to trumpet the election of Dave Hodgson as Bedford Mayor - Cameron should be afraid - very afraid. This is not just a little local difficulty, it is very real evidence of the reality of the hill Cameron has to climb. When the chips are down he has to deal with a party that has never understood the concept of collective responsibility and who, when push comes to shove are likely to show their true blue colours. Bedford is likely to be an emblem - one to spur us on to believe we can and must be the real alternative to Labour - and one to remind the Cameroonies that it is not just their Labour opponents they have to fight.