Proud? I Wish!

Like most of you I guess an email headed “Proud” just popped into my inbox from Simon Hughes. I plucked up the courage to read said email and found myself closer and closer to the verge of vomiting. Sorry, but I’ve got to be honest and I wish I didn’t feel this way, if anyone can suggest a way to help me not to please email me asap. But somewhere along the line we have surely lost total touch with our declared values and aims? Yes, we have taken people out of tax, but no, they weren’t the poorest, the poorest weren’t paying tax in the first place and those who have had the additional cash will find it nowhere near compensates for the drop in living standards. Yes, the pupil premium is certainly a Lib Dem win, but frankly, if on the one hand we give the school (who may or may not choose to use the money to support disadvantaged children) money while on the other kicking the child’s family out of their home – what contributes most to their educational success? Yes, we are doing our best to help unemployed young people, but at the same time we are slashing the services that in the past helped them, Youth Service, Connexions – I don’t know about where you live but they are practically wiped out round here. 

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have virtually admitted that the Youth Contract isn’t working (see my CYP Now blog here) so we claim credit for getting 100,000 into work er no, work experience. Work experience?! Of course that may be an important step on the road to a job, but surely what we want is 1 million young people in work?

Having been involved with our last Manifesto process and as a candidate in the 2010 campaign, I was happy to campaign on our priorities. They were costed. They didn’t rely on taking money from the most vulnerable in order to deliver. They were “as well as” not “instead of”. Any Liberal Democrat would have been proud of that. But what we have now is as a result of massive cuts elsewhere. If we have the choice between Pupil Premium and homeless children - which would we choose? Raising the tax threshold - or cutting benefits to the most vulnerable? 

Of course there are some great initiatives; increased support for child care is wonderful. But I have to say my daughter has given up claiming it because it means equivalent cuts to her housing benefit. When I suggested we should resolve that anomaly in our party policy I was told it would be too expensive. So, yet again, the poorest in our communities miss out. 

I must applaud the increased investment in mental health talking therapies. Having lost my sister last year I am sure she would have benefited if those therapies had been around earlier. But…..you knew there was a but (!)…….the link between mental health and financial worries is well documented. We know that nearly half of unemployed young people have mental health conditions. More and more people are being pushed into debt, especially into the arms of unscrupulous lenders and loan sharks. Oh, and if you need support to get justice…..forget it, we just cut legal aid. So yet again, no evidence of joined up thinking, let’s try and stop people getting ill in the first place.

And of course, there are stand alone achievements that the party is rightly proud of, such as equal marriage and blocking some of the worst excesses of the Tories. But it reminds me of the ethics debates we used to have as students – at what point does what you get in return make  it OK to sell your soul to the devil?!

A Rose by any other Name.....

I spent Monday at home and yesterday in parliament, listening to the Same Sex Marriage debate. It was at times infuriating, moving and challenging. There is no doubt that this is an issue that divides opinion, often, but not always, along religious lines. To be honest it highlights, maybe like no other issue, the need to disestablish the church.

My view is that the most sensible way to have resolved the differences of opinion would have been to accept the amendments proposed by Greg Mulholland and Simon Hughes making the distinction between religious and civil marriage clear. It would have then been far easier to have made the case to faith groups that what they choose to do with regard to recognising same sex marriage, or second marriages or whatever else, is their business and what the state does is the state’s business. To quote my dear pal Colin Ross (who was also quoted by Greg in his speech):

“I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that – without any religion having their opinion on it – but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality – as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well. Mr Mulholland’s proposals would for the first time deliver equality for everyone who wanted to spend their life in a loving relationship recognised by the state and enjoy the rights that come with that.”

As someone who was christened a Catholic, baptised in a Pentecostal church, and at times a member of the Church of England, Baptists and Free churches – I spent much of my life in the same bubble that many Christians find themselves in now. The teaching on marriage was clear and until recently remained unchallenged. Through having the privilege of having many gay friends some with a strong faith, some without, I have been on my own journey in squaring the circle of church orthodoxy and my own experience. 

One of the biggest influences on my thinking has been Desmond Tutu whose position is beautifully summed up here. More recently the brave decision of Steve Chalke, a leading evangelical, to speak up in favour of same sex marriage has pushed the debate on in the church. But as the past couple of days demonstrate, and contrast Gerald Howarth’s outrageous “aggressive homosexuals” comment with the moving speech by Katherine McKinnell on Monday, it is clear that no uniform Christian understanding of the nature of marriage exists any longer.  Let’s be clear, marriage is an institution that predates the church, the mosque and the temple. And clearly is defined differently in countries where polygamy is permitted. So the idea that there is one, universally agreed definition, is ridiculous. 

But, having said that, I would expect my fellow Liberal Democrats to have more appreciation of just how difficult it is for those who have grown up with the church’s understanding of marriage to square their own circles. Simon Hughes is a good friend of mine and I know just how much he has wrestled with this. My advice to him throughout has been that he had to do what he believed was right, and because he couldn’t please both sides he had to make his priority hanging on to his own integrity. However hard many fellow Lib Dems may have found his decision yesterday, I would hope we could respect that, for him and others, their faith came first. 

Much has been made of the fact that we have party policy on equal marriage. Yes we do, we also have lots of party policy that has been ignored while we have been in coalition. Yesterday was a free vote because it was seen that this was a conscience issue. To be honest I actually think issues like the bedroom tax, attacks on welfare benefits and legal aid are conscience issues too (!), but there was not the same furore about the fact that our MPs were whipped against party policy in those and other cases. 

So as the dust settles, credit must go to Adrian Trett and Lynne Featherstone for all they have done to get us to this point. This is a reason to celebrate. But we must also respect the reality that for some people of faith balancing their religious and political values is often an excruciatingly painful process. 

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

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.

Is Nick Clegg a Lib Dem?

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

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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......

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

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!

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

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.

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

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...............