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

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

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

..........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.....?

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

"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

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!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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?

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

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!

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

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?

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

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.........

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????