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

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

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

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

Equidistancing Ourselves

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

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

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

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

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

What I still love about Nick Clegg!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and also

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

Coalition Agreement 2010

And our own policy:

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

Reforming the Financial Sector - Policy Motion Spring '10

And then there is our Consumer Manifesto:

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

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

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

And what does Stella's motion say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Blog Post - Jeremy Ambache

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

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

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

1. the excellent level of debate of the important political issues facing the country
   

   and
   

2. the friendships made over many years.
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy's email in full:

I am writing to you as one of my Lib Dem friends to explain why I am leaving the party. However, I do hope friendship will transcend party affiliation! I am writing to let you know I have just cancelled my membership of the Liberal Democrats after 30 years (Lib Dems and formerly SDP). This has been a difficult decision for me not least because I have many good friends within the party – and I wish you all well. I have come to the conclusion that the Social Democrat wing of the party (now more usually referred to as Social / Liberal) is not represented by the leadership of the party. I do not find the party's previous commitment to 'social justice' and greater equality is represented by our government Ministers - and I have written to Nick Clegg saying just that! The key policies area that I do not accept are being promoted effectively by our Lib Dem Minister are: Education – Ministers are not following the party line on 'free schools' and tuition fees NHS re-organisation and consequent uncertainty and chaos (both the Lib Dems and Tory's promised no major top down reorganisation) Benefits cuts - to Housing, Children and Disabled benefits (many experts predict more homelessness, hardship and rise in child poverty) Budget and Local Government cuts - too rapid deficit reduction and consequent huge public service cuts (these are likely to hit the poorest hardest, including young and old) I personally am committed to grass roots local community politics – so I consider all of the above is of key importance. I do wish you well for the future, All best wishes, Jeremy

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

Jeremy Ambache Resigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Cheers for Nick.......

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

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

Where now on Tuition Fees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A fair deal by cleaning up politics.

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

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

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

These are four steps to a fairer Britain.

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

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

104 PPCs Call for Integrity on Tuition Fees

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

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF 104 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

Ends.

 
 

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

 
 

Preamble to the petition: -

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

Formal petition signed by 104 Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidates: -

 
 

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

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

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

Signed:

Candidate           Constituency

 
 

Derek Deedman (Arundel and South Downs)

Godfrey Newman (Horsham)

Simon McDougall (Littlehampton and Bognor)

Martin Lury (Chichester)

5. Bernadette Millam (Brighton Pavilion)

Andrew Falconer (Runnymede and Weybridge)

Paul Elgood (Hove)

James Blanchard (Huddersfield)

Jon Underwood (Tiverton and Honiton)

10. Mark Chapman (Spelthorne)

Andrew Aalders (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Wendy Taylor (Newcastle upon Tyne East)

Nick Perry (Hastings and Rye)

Peter Carroll (Maidstone and the Weald)

15. Alan Bullion (Sevenoaks)

Roger Barlow (Macclesfield)

Richard Baum (Bury North)

Nigel Quinton (Hitchin and Harpenden)

Nigel Bennett (South Suffolk)

20. Chris Nelson (Kettering)

Chris Bramall (Stourbridge)

Sam Boote (Nottingham East)

Adam Carew (East Hampshire)

David Ord (North Tyneside)

25. Adrian Collet (Aldershot)

Gareth Epps (Reading East)

Chris Foote Wood (Middlesbrough)

John Dixon (Cardiff North)

Philip Eades (Poole)

30. Steven Lambert (Aylesbury)

Philip Latham (Stockton North)

Lynne Beaumont (Folkestone and Hythe)

Michael Mullaney (Bosworth)

Brendan D'Cruz (Castle Point)

35. Jamie Matthews (Pudsey)

Helen Flynn (Skipton and Ripon)

Edward Fordham (Hampstead and Kilburn)

Alex Berhanu (Ilford North)

Richard Grayson (Hemel Hempstead)

40. Howard Keal (Thirsk and Malton)

Iarla Kilbane-Dawe (Edmonton)

Paula Keaveney (Garston and Halewood)

Steve Guy (Wycombe)

Rob Hylands (Gosport)

45. Martin Pierce (West Ham)

Tim McKay (Edinburgh South West)

Elizabeth Jewkes (City of Chester)

Daniel Roper (Broadland)

Stephen Glenn (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

50. Chris Tucker (Slough)

Dave Raval (Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Margaret Rowley (Mid-Worcestershire)

Mike Willis (Loughborough)

Andrew Simpson (Northampton North)

55. Colin Ross (Wolverhampton North East)

Fiona Hornby (Devizes)

Paul Smith (Enfield North)

Tom Snowdon (Amber Valley)                      

Anna Pascoe (South West Devon)

60. Denis Healy (Hull North)

Tony Hill (Maidenhead)

Jane Lock (North Swindon)

Les Jones (Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Paul Brighton (Alyn and Deeside)

65. Ian Robertson (Rutherglen and Hamilton West)   

David Harding-Price (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

David Rendel (Newbury)

John Loughton (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)

David Hall Matthews (Bradford West)

70. David Smith (Wakefield)

Jerry Evans (Birmingham Hall Green)

Carol Woods (City of Durham)

Denise Hawksworth (Bolsover)

Mark Blackburn (Westminster North)

75. Jonathan Bramall (Dudley South)

Jane Brophy (Altrincham and Sale West)       

Peter Reisdorf (Wirral West)

Jill Wareham (Isle of Wight)

Jane Kulka (Reigate)

80. Paul Dixon (Sunderland Central)

Susan Gaszczak (Rayleigh and Wickford)

Sally FitzHarris (Kingswood)

Simon Partridge (Great Yarmouth)

David Rundle (Banbury)

85. Mike Collins (The Cotswolds)

Margaret Phelps (Witham)

Stephen Martin (North Warwickshire)

Graham Oakes (Exeter)

Nigel Jones (Newcastle under Lyme)

90. Trevor Carbin (South West Wiltshire)

Farooq Qureshi (Leyton and Wanstead)

John McClintock (Chatham and Aylesford)

Nigel Rock (Kinelworth and Southam)

Christian Vassie (York Central)

95. Linda Jack (Mid Bedfordshire)

Kevin Ward (Glasgow East)

James Monaghan (Morley and Outwood)

David Goodall (Southampton Itchen)

Joe Naitta (Derbyshire Dales)

100. Robin Lawrence (Wolverhampton South West)

Lucy Care (Derby North)

Richard Nixon (Brigg and Goole)

Sally McIntosh (Mid Derbyshire)

Alan Beddow (Warwick and Leamington)

 
 

 
 

 
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A MUST READ Speech from Simon Hughes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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