Jesus wasn't 'just a good guy'

For believers and non-believers alike, there are many labels associated with Jesus Christ. The Messiah, The Anointed One, the Son of God. Sadly for many, we have the label "he was a good guy", or "just a good guy". This is a great shame and a disservice, whether you're a believer or not.

A crude comparison that can be made with Jesus (especially and obviously at Christmas time) is with Santa Claus. Many say with equal measure that "it would be nice to believe in God, but..." as "it would be nice to believe that Santa exists". This analogy also comes up when believers say that you can't disprove God, as the retort is "well, you can't disprove Santa, either". This brings me neatly on to a point that Paul Williams, the Vicar of Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield, made at one of the Carol concerts recently. As the song goes, Santa "is making a list, he's checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice...he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake". Paul made the point that Santa Claus is for good people, and you better not be on the 'naughty' list. This isn't the case with Jesus. Put simply, "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

If we say that Jesus was 'just a good guy', then we water down hope. We reduce him to quotes and soundbites, used only to admonish people without looking at ourselves. People could quote "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" to their heart's content, but if Jesus was 'just a good guy' then why quote him with authority? Why not simply quote similar sayings from celebrities and other historical figures? We could say 'Jesus was a good guy', but we could say the same of anyone. Think of the individuals that are revered around the world. We like to give them acclaim and highlight their success. Adele gets regular accolades as a musician; few people say "she's just a good singer". Even fewer people would say "Adele's a good singer, Joe down at the pub is a good singer; they're all good singers".

I don't intend this to be a put down of non-believers and a platform for believers, as I would be missing the point myself. The refusal to look at our own faults is a failure that can affect everyone and anyone. We are not justified by being on a 'good list', as we can't be justified that way. We are not saved by what we do ourselves. This is bread and butter theology to most Christians, but do we make others aware of this enough? There are still lingering stereotypes about trying to achieve a set standard, of being 'good enough'; this is not at all the point of the Christian faith, but if non-believers continue to have this preconception then I believe that as Christians we're not doing our job.

We (and especially I) can be too timid and accept the 'Jesus is a nice guy' line when we're with others. We can be too timid and accept a watering down of the gospel, so that we really do end up with the 'nice guy' reduction. If as Christians we don't really accept Jesus for who he was, and for who he said he was, then we are wasting our time. The line "he was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Romans 4:25) must have meaning. John 3:16 must be a source of hope and not embarrassment and doubt: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life".

Are Christians ever hypocrites? Absolutely! There's no point in denying it. Jesus slammed the Pharisees when he said "you have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7: 9). Jesus was far more than 'just a good guy', and he had the authority and knowledge to say this. How often can we be guilty of doing much the same thing as is listed here in Mark? Again, we are not good witnesses if we do these things. We can't put ourselves on a pedestal above others. John 8:7: "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone".

Jesus had an enormous impact on human history, whether you're a believer or not. He was not simply 'just a good guy'. As a Christian, it is the source of immense hope and faith to reject this label, but it is also a challenge. Discussion and great care is needed. People may well claim that belief in Jesus is akin to belief in Santa, but only one of those individuals accepts you for who you are; that's more than 'just good'.

Fairytale of New York is considered one of the classics. I loathe it with a passion.

I love Christmas every single year, but what I don’t love is the overplayed aforementioned song. I have to go through the same process annually; hear the depressing tones of The Pogues and Kirsty McColl in a shop somewhere, be that guy by mentioning my disdain for it in a group, and then finally get the “what?! I love it!” retort.

Why do I hate it? My reason is the most simple one: it’s so depressing. I concede my point to any Scrooges and Christmas sceptics who like this song, but I can never get past fellow Christmas lovers who cheerfully sing “You're a bum, you're a punk, you're an old slut on junk. Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed”. Where’s the Christmas cheer in that? Furthermore, in the politically correct world that we live in, are we really comfortable to belt out the lyrics “You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot”? Whenever I hear that incredibly annoying opening drawl from the song, I desperately want to teleport somewhere else, Castiel-style from Supernatural. Not many songs make me want to do that, but having Fairytale of New York in my own personal bracket of Let it Go, Christmas Wrapping and Chasing Cars (to name a few random selections) isn't to be held in esteemed company.

For the record, I’m not intending to cast aspersions on the musical capabilities of The Pogues and Kirsty McColl. I’m also not a constant Christmas happy clapper who only likes cheery songs. I’ve no problem with Greg Lake’s I believe in Father Christmas, and I still like Do they know it’s Christmas? (the original 1984 version, of course). On the religious side, some of my favourite Christmas hymns are In the bleak midwinter, O Holy Night and O Come O Come Emmanuel, which are by no means cheerful and upbeat songs. There’s nothing wrong at all with having sombre and hard hitting reflections at Christmas time; quite the contrary.

I also don’t pretend to have an expert opinion on all things musical, and this is purely my own humble opinion on the song. As with some other songs (and indeed films), overplaying something can ultimately lead to it being overrated or irritating, and that could well apply to Fairytale of New York. I can understand people hating the Christmas songs that I like, as they too are prone to being overplayed. That’s enough of my concessions. If you don’t like Christmas and you like this song, I get it. However, I don’t understand people calling me a Scrooge for not liking Fairytale of New York; it’s a bit like accusing David Attenborough of being too uncaring towards wildlife whilst lighting a bonfire in the woods.

I don’t expect to make many friends from writing this article, and I’m unlikely to gain many converts to the anti-Fairytale of New York brigade. In a light hearted break from my usual political ramblings, maybe I’ve convinced one person to think “maybe he has a point”.

The tax credit cuts don’t work for fairness or electoral gain

It’s often worth following the opinions of those who don’t share yours. Listening to other points of view can be useful as sounding boards, and for testing your own principles. It’s for these reasons that I follow “CapX” on Facebook, a Right-leaning organisation. They can often cheerlead for the Conservative Party, so when they say something in opposition to the Tories, we should look up and listen. On tax credits, CapX are particularly astute: “It does look, from a distance, as though the Tory leadership misread what happened in May. It was a famous victory, certainly, but it produced a small majority and it was not delivered on a wave of enthusiasm”. For the sake of fairness and One Nation credentials, the Tories should think again.


A point that I and many of my fellow Lib Dems made over the course of the election was that the Tories would not spell out in any detail where their planned £12bn of welfare cuts would fall. It wouldn’t be possible to simply chip away at the edges and trim when committing yourself to such a large figure.Despite this, you can find many quotes from prominent Tories, including the Prime Minister himself, insisting pre-election that tax credits wouldn’t be cut. The policy wasn't in the 2015 manifesto. As CapX have alluded to, the 2015 victory for the Tories was certainly significant, but it was largely as a result of moderates sticking with the devil you know, as opposed to an economically unreliable Labour Party. There is no widespread appetite across the country for these tax credit changes, and the 2015 election win, whilst admittedly impressive, does not vindicate the policy.


The adverse effects cannot be understated. The threshold for Working Tax Credits will reduce from £6,420 to £3,850 a year by next April. The losers of this change are those on low and middle incomes. Despite what the Tories say, the National Living Wage and personal allowance increase won’t offset the losses. As well as the fairness deficit, this doesn’t make sense politically. The Tories were on to a winner. The National Living Wage isn’t high enough, and the personal allowance increase is a policy that was nicked from the Lib Dems (check the 2010 manifestos and the first 2010 TV debate if you don’t believe me), but these two platforms were ideal for the new “party of the workers” mantra. With an unelectable opposition tearing itself apart, the honeymoon period could have been extended. Instead, there is mounting political pressure on the Conservatives, and the One Nation mantle looks hollow.

Jeremy Corbyn’s left wing stances are obvious, but as it stands we have a strange set up where the Labour Party is calling for the tax credit changes to be delayed and reformed in the House of Lords, whilst it is the Lib Dems who have tabled the “fatal motion” designed to shelve the plans altogether. I of course would welcome any move by George Osborne to scrap the plans, but realistically it is not going to happen. Instead, the best we can hope for is a more gradual approach, perhaps with the threshold reduced more gradually, with faster increases in the personal allowance to compensate more effectively.

It is still very likely that the Tories will win in 2020. If they really are serious about being the party of workers, they should think again with their tax credit policy. They have an ineffectual and unelectable opposition in front of them; why throw them a lifeline?

Stop the intransigence; the UK government must help in the migrant crisis

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Matthew 25: 35-36

The image of the poor boy that drowned in Turkey should be a massive wakeup call, if the horrible events prior weren’t sobering enough. I, like many others, find it incomprehensible that our nation can stand by on the side lines and watch. This isn’t because of any lack of willpower and compassion from the British people, but rather the intransigence of the UK Government. In leading a drive for people to donate basic supplies that will be taken to Calais, my friend Rebecca Goodall in Ashbourne helps to exemplify the compassionate attitude towards the migrant crisis, an attitude shared by so many who are frustrated at our relative isolation in helping. Germany has allowed for 800,000 refugees to find shelter there, yet Yvette Cooper’s figure of 10,000 seems too far for David Cameron and company. 

This isn’t a debate over old immigrant stereotypes. It’s a call for a humanitarian intervention. The political spectrum is irrelevant in this. Most people know the parable of the Good Samaritan, but it’s still of vital importance for knowing about how we should treat one another, and how we should fight for basic human dignity. We can all be selfish in our daily lives, but it is human instinct to feel repulsed and upset at the current situation; we don’t want to walk on by. Our intuitions call for us to help and to want others to help, and old instructions still apply:

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy

Proverbs 31: 8-9

I don’t intend this blog entry to be a vitriolic attack on David Cameron and the Conservatives. It’s a call for them to act. We can still play our part as a country, as so many already are. People need to join together, those with faith and those with none, and help those who are suffering. It’s a very easy choice for the UK Government; fight for decency and justice.


Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

Matthew 25:40

What vision does the Centre-Left have for the 21st Century?

There can be countless seminars, focus groups, reports and intellectual discussions on how the Left can ‘win again’, but they are futile if they don’t come up with a coherent answer. Discussions of this sort can be fascinating, and I do miss the tutorials I had for a politics module I took at University (an ‘outside’ option from my degree in English Language). However, such discussions and potential solutions need to translate to the electorate. I’m more than happy to talk political ideologies and philosophies, but the man/woman on the street has every right to say “who cares about that?” The question I pose is therefore a difficult one.

Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, is the madness cliché which does ring true for political theory. How can Jeremy Corbyn’s 1980s Labour model possibly ‘get it right this time’? The Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard experiment didn’t work for the Tories, hence the so called ‘compassionate Conservatism’ agenda of David Cameron. Left wing populism has its attractions, but even if there is a brief electoral reward it often comes back to bite you; look at Alexis Tspiras and Syriza, or Francois Hollande in France. The original doomsday prediction was that whoever was set to win the 2010 UK General Election would be out of power for a generation thereafter, due to the unpopular measures that would need to be taken; the fact that the Conservatives still won in 2015 should have the Left seriously concerned. Now is not the time for Michael Foot redux.

I don’t profess to have the answer, merely my own suggestions and predictions, although I am very confident that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be doomed in 2020. There needs to be a coherent and structured approach. The Centre-Left should provide aims for the next ten, fifteen and twenty years, not just for 2020. The balance needs to be right. Let’s not have broad slogans like “we’re for the common good, for fairness etc” without specific policies, nor can there be minutiae in policy documents. The first port of call for dealing with inequality and unemployment can no longer be to simply increase spending and taxes. The Centre-Left needs to show how money is spent, which is why looking at how spending in the early years is vital. Show centrists and people who lean right that you are pro-tax cutting, but tax cutting progressively (low and middle incomes). People need to trust you on running the nation’s finances, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t be radical. By radical, show that you’d cut down on waste and bloated spending in all areas, meaning that you’d clamp down on subsidies for the rich as much as you’d trim welfare. On the latter point, show that you’re for people in work, but mean it. I mean this in a progressive sense; the whole “make work pay” mantra has to have meaning, so don’t take the Tory approach and hurt those who are working but at the lower income scale. Trump the Conservatives on taking “difficult decisions”. Financial behemoths like Trident shouldn’t be exempt (whether that means scaling down or abolishing, but that’s another topic), and strive for more ambitious debt elimination targets.

There’s a twofold challenge for the Centre-Left: How do you put forward a positive and progressive message when deficits need to be dealt with, and what vision will you fight for once the deficit has been cleared? The composition is what truly counts. It’s great to say that you’re against inequality, that you’re pro-fairness and that you want to strive to reduce unemployment, but who honestly wouldn’t say these things? The solutions can’t be based on old ideas, and the spin from the Right means that conservatives can try and claim the ‘compassionate’ mantle even if it’s not justified. Stereotypes need to be shed (e.g. tax and spend); the Centre-Left needs to convince people that it’s more competent in areas that people would assume (think economics), whilst having new ideas for dealing in areas where it apparently has a monopoly (fighting for the underdog, ‘fairness’).

Assumptions need to be challenged and (if applicable) addressed. The Centre-Left does not have a monopoly electorally or idealistically. Leave the self-indulgent seminars and textbooks. It’s time to get out there and talk to everyday people, and to be bold and pragmatic.

Holier than thou: can the far Left ever reflect and acknowledge?

General Election defeats are a time for introspection. After the hurt and pain of polling day, the losers need to look at themselves and think why they lost, and what they need to do to rectify the problem. 2015 should have been the election to make Labour realise that they weren’t trusted enough on economic credibility, and that they should adjust and adapt accordingly. Instead, we’re back to the post-1979 view that Labour lost because they weren’t left wing enough, and that’s a very serious misunderstanding.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that it’s common sense to take a method and try it, and “if it fails, admit it frankly and try another”. The problem with the far left is that they don’t admit to failure, but rather they cling to a kind of unattainable purity that’s never ‘truly’ been given a fair shot. The ‘logic’ goes that Ed Miliband was too right wing, and that a Corbyn approach would have carried Labour to victory in May. As I have argued in recent blog posts, it’s a very insular thought process as it clings to outdated methods from tribal loyalties, rather than putting the country first. This was tested in the 1980s and it failed miserably, yet I’ve been told that his views should be “given a go” to see what happens in 2020. However, when the inevitable election hammering takes place, I cannot see the far left and the militants holding their hands up to say “fair enough, the country didn’t want our manifesto. We need to listen and change”. The media would be blamed (rightly so, in some quarters), but Corbyn would also be portrayed as a sell-out; only a truly left wing candidate would get it right in 2025, someone to nationalise all of industry, and so on.

A failure to heed lessons from the electorate is a recipe for disaster, and it’s not an exclusive trait of the left. William Hague failed in 2001, along with Michael Howard in 2005, and it took David Cameron’s pitch of moving to the centre ground to get back in to government (whether you think he’s a centrist is another matter). However, the Right appear to have been more efficient in adapting to election defeats. Winston Churchill’s Conservatives lost in the 1945 Labour landslide, but they were back in power by 1951, and Labour didn’t get back in to office until 1964. A Thatcherite approach in 1951 from the Tories would have been a refusal to adapt and to listen to the electorate, so they stuck to the post-war consensus script. The Tories may not be liked, but they know how to win elections, and are ruthless in doing so. 2020 poses a serious concern, as a Corbyn-led Labour Party could make the Tories look like a moderate, decent, sensible outfit, even if they continue to revel in harsh welfare changes and Euroscepticism.

I made reference to 1945, and Clement Attlee can help to illustrate my point clearly. He is heralded as a great Prime Minister (with justification; he’s in my personal top three), but also as a shining example to the Left. Attlee did indeed initiate a radical programme for government, but he was also very pragmatic. The social structures of society did not change, there was no egalitarian approach to education and much of industry was left in private hands. Should we label Attlee a ‘sell-out’ for introducing prescription charges to the NHS (something which Nye Bevan resigned over)? It would be treasonous to label Attlee in that way to someone on the far left, but by their own purist standards he would technically merit the tag. Perhaps Nye Bevan should be lumped in to the same sell-out category for coercing private doctors by “stuffing their mouths with gold”? Attlee and Bevan clearly weren’t sell-outs, but even they can’t win when judged against the unattainable standards of many on the far left.

There’s nothing wrong with idealism, but you can’t enact your ideals without listening and adapting. You don’t have to be left wing to care about poverty, inequality and justice, nor are you a raging Thatcherite for having concerns about the budget deficit. David Steel sums up my views on this: “I’m not interested in power without principles, but I am only faintly attracted by principles without power”.

David Cameron: Tempted to stay on?

David Cameron’s “shredded wheat” talk with James Landale before Election Day has been well documented. When asked about seeking a third term, Cameron told Landale “terms are like shredded wheat-two are wonderful but three might just be too many”. He was slated at the time in certain quarters for saying this, but I thought it was a nice example of a politician giving a straight answer to a straight question, for a change. The family impact on Cameron is obvious; Cameron’s former speechwriter Ian Birrell noted that Samantha Cameron was in the room when the question was put to the Prime Minister, with Cameron giving a more ambiguous answer to a similar question when she was not present. Despite all of this, might the Prime Minister be tempted to stick around?

David Cameron may well have gone down in history as a pretty unremarkable Prime Minister, serving only one term with the help of the Liberal Democrats. That he defied the odds and gained an overall majority in May is impressive enough, but given the paucity of the Opposition he could extend his legacy. As John Rentoul pointed out, a Cameron ministry up until 2025 would numerically surpass not just Blair (10 years) and Thatcher (11 years), but also Gladstone (12 years) amongst others. Cameron has been plagued with difficulties ever since his leadership election in 2005 when trying to “detoxify” the Tory brand, but it’ll be far easier to present the Conservatives as a party of moderates if Jeremy Corbyn is his opponent. After a vote to stay in the EU, an optimist would like to believe that Cameron would be given an easier ride by his rebellious backbenchers. The party which appeared ready to draw out the knives for Cameron may well be tempted to persuade the Prime Minister to stick around, for fear of the alternatives putting off the electorate (George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Owen Paterson, Michael Gove). As I pointed out in my last post, speculation will be rife over his departure date, but if the economy keeps growing and the deficit keeps going down, why not stay?

There are obvious downsides, however. Whilst Cameron may well want to surpass the reign of Mrs Thatcher, the Iron Lady is also a lesson for knowing when not to cling on. A Prime Minister leaving on his own terms after a successful EU referendum is a far more harmonious epitaph than the fractured nature of Mrs Thatcher’s departure. Harold Wilson was the last Prime Minister to enjoy the luxury of departing on chosen terms, something which Cameron would do well to emulate. There’s also the risk of a Blair/Brown Granita repeat; imagine the awkward conversation between Cameron and Osborne if the former decides to stick around. The Chancellor will have hoped that his July Budget would be a springboard towards the Tory leadership, and it would make for an uncomfortable atmosphere if Cameron decides to renege on his “shredded wheat” promise. Furthermore, if the 2020 election is seen as significantly winnable, Cameron won’t need to view himself as indispensable to the Tories, and would be prepared to bequeath the role with minimal risk.

The phrase ‘Prime Ministerial’ can appear vacuous, but it is important. Cameron looked ‘Prime Ministerial’ where Ed Miliband did not, and this perception carried through to the electorate. It is a key skill to have, and one which has often made Cameron more popular with the country than with his own party. Trying to look at this as objectively as possible, I think Cameron’s best bet is to wait until after the EU referendum (ideally in 2016), and then to judge the public and party mood. If Britain votes to stay in by a small margin but the Conservative backbenchers continue to kick up a fuss, then it may be better for Cameron to depart gracefully rather than face more internal battles (Europe is the main weak spot for the Tories at the moment). However, in the unlikely event that the Eurosceptics respect the results of the referendum, then you can’t really blame Cameron for wanting to stay. If Cameron can lance the UKIP boil, keep his party united and sweep aside a bitterly divided Labour Party, he may well follow the lead of the Spitting Image puppet of Mrs Thatcher and “go on and on…”

How to beat the Tories in 2020?

The title does not have a typo. The question mark is there because, as things stand, it looks very likely that the Conservatives will win the 2020 UK General Election. Having successfully defied Mervyn King’s prediction (to be out of power for a generation), things are looking rosy for the Tories. As I speculated in my previous blog post, the Labour Party looks to be drifting leftwards away from electability. Labour needs to win 100 more seats in 2020 just to get a very thin overall majority. I’ll try and speculate below as to how the odds can be defied.

1) The economy

This battleground won’t be easy. The phrase “cutting too far, too fast” didn’t work in May, and although George Osborne missed his ambitious target of eliminating the deficit by 2015, the public still trust the Conservatives more with the nation’s finances. If we are to assume that the budget will be eliminated over the course of this Parliament, the Opposition needs to switch their argument on to how a budget surplus can be used progressively and fairly. Crucially, the Labour Party needs to convince voters that it isn’t going to go on a lavish spending spree. The economy is safe territory for the Tories, but by the end of this Parliament they’ll have had nearly the same amount of time in office as New Labour did, so the tactic of blaming “the mess left by the last Labour government” won’t endure; this presents a potential opportunity. Also, if the “northern powerhouse” doesn’t come off, then the Opposition needs to present strong proposals for devolution that benefit more than just the south of England.

2) The NHS 

A far more subtle tact is needed here. Scare stories of privatising the NHS didn’t work in 2015, so why would they work in 2020? No major party is seriously proposing to privatise the NHS, and the Tories have pledged to meet NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens’s £8bn extra a year funding target. Optimistically, I’ve no reason to doubt that this target won’t be met in theory, but the argument needs to focus on how this money is spent. Big questions need to be asked and addressed: How should a 21st century NHS operate? How will the NHS cope with a growing population and life expectancy? How do we cope with stigmas and mental health concerns? These aren’t new questions, but they need to be a primary focus, rather than unhelpful “3 days to save the NHS” soundbites.

3) Europe 

As things stand, this is a key weak spot to exploit. The Conservative Party has never been harmonious on this topic, and it could tear itself apart over the upcoming EU referendum. Conservatives (rightly) tell Scottish nationalists that the result of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum should be respected, but should the “In” campaign win (and I believe it will, but not by a huge margin) I seriously doubt that Eurosceptics will “put up, or shut up” (to quote John Major). Not only can infighting be capitalised on, but the argument can switch back round to key areas like the economy and the NHS; imagine the following attack on the government at PMQs: “whilst many Brits still aren’t feeling the effects of the recovery, and whilst our NHS is stretched, the Prime Minister is allowing his party to ‘bang on about Europe’ and lecture the British people instead of respecting how they voted in the EU referendum. As the Prime Minister prepares his retirement plans, it’s nice to know what the priorities of his party are…” and so on. A speechwriter could do a much better job of that rant, but it presents a potent image. If the public see an incumbent government disregarding the results of a democratic referendum, they may look elsewhere for casting a vote.

4) Who will be the Prime Minister after David Cameron? 

In a candid interview with James Landale during the 2015 election campaign, Cameron admitted that he wouldn’t seek a third term as Prime Minister. It is presumed that he’ll stand down some time after the EU referendum in 2016 or 2017. Cameron may well be tempted to cling on for a little while, a tactic which unsettled the Labour Party when Tony Blair was preparing to quit. If the EU referendum takes place in 2017, when will Cameron go? 2018? 2019? Perhaps right up until March 2020? The Opposition will need to be on their guard to prepare against Cameron’s successor (thought to be George Osborne at the moment). The longer Cameron clings on, the more uncomfortable it could get for the electorate, who will want a decisive leadership result as soon as possible. Now’s the time to do the homework on what an Osborne/May/Johnson/Gove premiership would look like, and how to respond. Oh, and the awkward question of whether to clap Cameron at his last PMQs (see Tony Blair in 2007).

5) Prepare as if you are the government

 Bear with me on this one. I’m not a fan of Tony Blair, but he was right to note in his autobiography that an Opposition should prepare to the extent that it could be seen as a credible government at any given time. This means viewing Labour as a credible government in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, not just in 2020. Opposition for opposition’s sake is a bad approach (it didn’t work for Ed Miliband), and it’s far easier to say what you’re against than what you are for. I quite like the idea (provided it’s feasible and realistic) of an Opposition presenting an alternative Budget each year, perhaps not necessarily straight after the Chancellor’s speech, but within the Budget week. If the government proposes unpopular/ineffectual reforms, say what reforms you would propose. This gives more confidence to the electorate in 2020 about how an alternative government would work. This approach takes time and consideration, but what’s wrong with forward planning? Labour did propose alternative measures in the last Parliament, but they were too often reactionary and populist (think energy price freezes). Furthermore, the hymn sheet seemed to change from month to month (remember predistribution Labour, anyone? One Nation Labour?). By nature, some Opposition tendencies have to be short term responses, but you should have a broad goal for the next five years, as opposed to simply saying how horrible everything is.

6) A broad coalition of voters 

Although the Labour Party denied it, the “35% strategy” pursued in the last Parliament was designed to pick up disaffected Lib Dem votes whilst retaining the core Labour vote, in the hope that it’d be enough to clinch an overall majority. This is a narrow approach, and an insular strategy of sweeping up the Left vote (Greens, SNP etc.) in 2020 will not win the election. Local government is being squeezed, and Labour must absolutely speak up for public sector workers who are feeling the pain of wage restraint and cutbacks. It’s absolutely right to stick up for the underdog, for those not benefitting in the recovery. However, Labour must also speak for those who are self-employed, who run a business, who want to buy their first house and so on. The country should always come first, and that means fighting for everyone, not just one demographic. To a large extent, moderates voted for the Tories in 2015 out of fear of the alternative.

These approaches are by no means easy solutions, nor are they guarantees of success. As noted above, I believe that the Opposition should play on the notion of not trusting the Tories to progressively use a budget surplus. However, if unemployment continues to fall (and I of course hope it will continue to drop) then the public may well trust the Tories for another five years. Many more issues need to be tackled. Losing the 2020 election is not a price worth paying for indulgence and heavy idealism.

Corbynmania: Be careful what you wish for

It would seem strange to be chirpy about being a Liberal Democrat this summer, given the nature of the party’s defeat in May. However, not only has a charismatic and talented leader been elected (Tim Farron), but the leadership contest took place without melodrama. The only other contender (Norman Lamb) would have also been an excellent choice, and there was a lack of unpleasantness during the campaign; questions over voting records and specific policy opinions was about as contentious as it got. Tim and Norman have differing approaches and backgrounds, but there is a broad acceptance between them and the party over where we went wrong, where we got things right and where to go next.

Contrast this with the Labour Party. Whilst the Lib Dem leadership campaign was wrapped up in mid-July, Labour’s contest will drag on until September; that’ll be a third of the year gone since the election in May. Harriet Harman, a politician who encapsulates the Labour tribalist “you’re in bed with the Tories” stance, decided to be “a new kind of Opposition” and ordered the party to abstain on the Conservative Party’s welfare changes (‘Labstain’, anyone?). This resulted in rebellions and bitter infighting, along with various subgroups trying to pull the party in different directions. The choices on offer are pretty uninspiring. The phrase ‘principled’ is trotted out too often, and is mainly used to describe politicians who’ve never had to deal with the realities and constraints of power; in that respect, Jeremy Corbyn is indeed principled. However, so is Liz Kendall. She has been as frank about her beliefs and what she feels is wrong with the party as Corbyn has, but obviously with drastically different viewpoints. You can be guaranteed a cheer at Labour Party hustings if you trot out the same old lines. It takes guts to say what people don’t want to hear, but need to hear.

Whilst I’m not a Labour Party member, I fail to see the appeal of Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper. Both feel too much like ‘continuity Miliband’, and the former in particular is a source of confusion. Burnham spoke about “weeping” when he saw the proposed NHS reforms during the Coalition, yet as Health Secretary in the previous government he oversaw the privatisation of Hinchinbrook Hospital. Burnham was also a keen advocate of the “x days to save the NHS” phrase, even saying “we mean it this time!” on Twitter, yet he also acknowledged on Newsnight earlier this year that “there is a role for the private sector” in the NHS. Cooper would face unfair comparisons to her husband Ed Balls if she becomes leader, but nothing during her time as shadow Home Secretary struck me as impressive or remarkable.

Labour could have taken the pragmatic approach after their defeat in May. We’ve had One Nation/Blue/Pre-distribution Labour proposed to the electorate, along with scare stories over the NHS and “these cuts aren’t necessary…oh wait they actually are, but we’ll be nicer with them”, and it didn’t work. It could have carefully examined why the electorate rejected them, and tried to engage with public opinion. Instead, the party is in danger of retreating to a familiar comfort zone. Anyone whose reasons for Labour’s defeat are the contradictory maxims of “the voters are stupid” and “it was an undemocratic result” clearly don’t want to win elections. This approach is out of touch with reality, and it means never acknowledging where you’ve gone wrong. Yes, our voting system is very unfair, but which party has helped to collude with the Tories over the years to block reform? I certainly disagree with the reflection of seats to vote share, but one party clearly got the largest share of the vote.

The lessons from history should be obvious. The Labour Party convinced itself after the 1979 defeat to Margaret Thatcher that the Jim Callaghan government had been too right wing, and as a result allowed the militant tendency and radical left to take over. The result was 18 years in Opposition. Similarly, Corbynism will tell you that Ed Miliband was too right wing, and will point to the SNP as evidence. The reality is that Labour can only win in 2020 if it convinces Tory voters from 2010 and 2015 to switch allegiances. Yes, sweeping up the Green Party vote would help a bit, but gambling on a strategy of having hegemony of ‘the left’ will not carry the party back to power. Even if Labour were to miraculously gain 50 seats off the SNP in Scotland (good luck with that), they would still need (roughly) another 50 seats in England, and where will those seats come from? The SNP surge was the result of a generational shift, but also of Labour having taken the seats there for granted. They cannot afford for the same thing to happen in England and Wales.

Jeremy Corbyn may well make Labour members feel good about themselves with talk of the spirit of Clause 4, but it will not lead the party back to power. In the UK, elections are won from the centre ground. This doesn’t mean that New Labour should be heralded as perfection (I’ve been very critical of Tony Blair in this blog), but it does mean that veering too far one way or another will consign you to Opposition, just as the Tories realised between 1997 and 2010. The Corbyn approach is actually a very insular one; he may argue that he’s standing up for Labour values, but what about the values and opinions of others? Shouldn’t the country “come first” (as Liz Kendall said)? There are moderates out there who hold strong convictions and are uncomfortable with having a Tory majority, but who don’t want a return to the politics of the 1980s. Does their opinion matter? To win an election you have to build up a broad coalition and show that you are not just appealing to special interest groups (this applies to the Conservatives as well as to Labour). I’m not making the argument that the Conservatives didn’t appeal to special interest groups, but when Labour continued to be confused about its economic record and didn’t explicitly rule out any deal with the SNP, why would moderates have voted for Labour?

There are opportunities. The Conservative Party is a well-oiled machine at the moment, but it could tear itself apart over the upcoming EU Referendum. The Conservatives never stop “banging on about Europe” (to take a David Cameron quote out of context), and that’s where a united and credible movement needs to capitalise. The country is entitled to a strong and effective Opposition However, if Corbyn becomes the new leader of the Labour Party, we will have to face up to a Tory majority in 2020.

My top 5 Liberals

One of my dear friends has a catchphrase of positively describing certain people to be in his “top 5”. Loosely following on from that, I thought that it’d be good to compile a list of my top 5 Liberals. I’m restricting my list to the UK, and I’m selecting my top 5 from the pre-1980s Liberal Party, rather than the modern day Liberal Democrats.

The modern day Lib Dems face many challenges, so it's important to not lose sight of our heritage, as well as the future direction of the party. Whilst certain Liberals in my list had approaches which were specific and right for a certain time/context, there are nevertheless key lessons to take from Liberal titans of the past.

In no particular order:

1) William Gladstone

The Grand Old Man of politics, William Gladstone became the first leader of the ‘modern’ Liberal Party. A former Conservative who refused to sacrifice his free trade principles, Gladstone also had firm religious convictions, and an oratory power which appealed to the working class. He gets on to my list due to his immense presence in Liberalism, and his views on free trade which are held to this day within the Liberal Democrats. Serving as Prime Minister four times in the 19th century, he had a legendary rivalry with Conservative Benjamin Disraeli. Although used in a negative sense, I still find this particular quote about Gladstone (from Disraeli) amusing: “If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone fished him out again, that would be a calamity”. Despite this, Gladstone's summary of the differences between Conservatism and Liberalism still holds today; "Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear".

2) David Lloyd George

Clement Attlee rightly gains plaudits for his role in shaping the welfare state, but it was Lloyd George who laid down the foundations. Whilst Gladstone is rightly considered a Liberal hero, it was a necessary move by the likes of Lloyd George and Asquith to move away from laissez faire to a ‘New Liberalism’ platform designed to use the state more as a vehicle for combating poverty. Free school meals were provided for children in 1906 (made compulsory in 1914), pensions were introduced in 1908 for those over 70, and National Insurance was created in 1911, which gave the working classes a contributory system of security against unemployment and illness. These measures were met with considerable resistance from the Tories, especially as they were financed by taxes on the rich by the provocatively titled ‘People’s Budget’ in 1909. A fantastic orator, Lloyd George as Chancellor defended the budget designed for “raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness”. Lloyd George also gets bonus points for emulating the rhetoric of another Liberal hero of mine in FDR; Lloyd George’s economic proposals for combating the Great Depression were entitled ‘Lloyd George’s New Deal’.



3) William Beveridge

Historically, the Labour Party is synonymous with the National Health Service. My Labour opponent at the 2015 General Election went as far as to say “we (Labour) created it; we own it”. Not only was he wrong about the Labour Party ‘owning’ the NHS (it belongs to the people), but it was the work of the Liberal William Beveridge who shaped the NHS. This isn’t a dig at the excellent work of the 1945-1951 Labour administration, but rather at those who are ignorant of history. Beveridge commissioned a report in 1942 on how a post-war Britain should look. Specifically, Beveridge highlighted “five giant evils” which had to be tackled; ‘Want’, ‘Disease’, ‘Ignorance’, ‘Squalor’ and ‘Idleness’. Beveridge’s call for a National Health Service, which was created and implemented in 1948 by Attlee’s administration, was part of the report’s “cradle to grave” approach which helped to shape the post-war consensus period. The NHS greatly expanded upon Lloyd George’s 1911 National Insurance Act, and the fact that it remains free at the point of use to this day is testament to its efficacy and popularity, as well as the enduring legacy of the 1942 Beveridge Report. More private elements have crept in over the years, but we are lucky in Britain not to be reliant on the US healthcare model, even after the good reforms of Obamacare. Beveridge was also an advocate of ‘full employment’, which he defined as 3% or less. George Osborne has also called for ‘full employment’, but refuses to define it, presumably because he doesn’t aim to be as ambitious as the great William Beveridge in this field. 

4) John Maynard Keynes

I have already made reference to the post-war consensus period, of which the economic architect was John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics helps to get to the core of my values; governments should be active and intervene where markets fail. When I studied A-Level History, we looked at the boom period in the USA during the 1920s, followed by the 1929 Wall Street Crash and subsequent Great Depression. Whilst these were fascinating topics to study, it was immensely frustrating to see how historical figures had been so complacent with regards to the overheated ‘bull’ market and laissez-faire attitudes.  I don’t believe in a ‘market knows best’ approach, nor am I for socialist statism; Keynesian economics strikes the right balance for me; a mixed economy which promotes markets but allows for government intervention. Keynes may well have negative “tax and spend” stereotypes from right wing critics, but he advocated building up a surplus in times of plenty, something which many governments have failed to do.

5) Jo Grimond

Now that the Liberal Democrats are down to single figures in terms of MPs, Liberal stalwarts like Jo Grimond should be emulated as we rebuild. Grimond inherited 6 MPs and 2.7% of the vote from his predecessor Clement Davies, and he kept the Liberal Party going as a force during the dark times. His quote on facing adversity in 1963 is just as relevant to the party now; “In bygone days, the commanders were taught that when in doubt they should march their troops towards the sound of gunfire. I intend to march my troops towards the sound of gunfire”. The Liberal Westminster representation doubled under Grimond’s leadership, and fittingly the seat he gained for the party in 1950, Orkney and Shetland, is held by the party to this day. Over 96% of the vote went to the Conservatives and Labour at the 1955 General Election, but Grimond helped to erode the seemingly permanent two party mould. A supporter of Scottish home rule, Grimond was also an advocate for entering the Common Market, the precursor to the European Union. The modern Liberal Democrats would do well to learn from the courage and determination of Jo Grimond’s Liberalism.


Honourable mentions: H.H Asquith, Paddy Ashdown


As you can see, this isn't particularly a list of Liberal ‘thinkers’ in the sense of theorists such as Hobbes, Paine, Smith and so on. I’m not at all suggesting that these are the best Liberals in UK history, simply that these are the top 5 to influence me personally. I'm tempted to do a top 5 of Conservative and Labour figures, but this list was easier to compile, for obvious reasons!

Tim Farron is best placed to rebuild the Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats are lucky to have two very talented leadership contenders out of their small pool of MPs. You only have to look at the uninspiring Labour leadership campaign to see the difference, despite the significant contrast in MP composition. I will argue very strongly for Tim Farron to be the next leader.

If you trawl through my blog archives, you’ll see that I’ve touted Tim Farron as a future leader in the past. I was always mindful of a backlash at the 2015 General Election (although not to the extent which we saw), and I viewed Tim as the best man to rebuild the party. The Coalition was always a difficult period for the party, and it’s been incredibly difficult for everyone associated with the party to keep plodding on; that’s why Tim shines for me. As the President of the Liberal Democrats for most of the Coalition, Tim struck the balance perfectly for me; he was proud of our achievements and prepared to shout about them from the rooftops, but he wasn’t afraid to be vocal or to vote against what he thought was wrong. When the public’s (and to an extent the party’s) perception was that Nick Clegg had ‘gone native’ with the Conservatives, it was crucial that Tim maintained our identity. That’s not meant at all as a dig at Nick Clegg, and you’ll know from a recent blog entry how much I admired him. However, the party needed someone during those tumultuous years to keep the party rooted in its principles, and Tim did just that. Whenever he gave a speech at Conference or appeared on Question Time, he was always incredibly engaging. He’s an eloquent speaker, but he’s relatable and good at using humour, too. Like the late Charles Kennedy, he has a knack for engaging people who either don’t vote for the party or who aren’t interested in politics; this cannot be understated.

Tim’s constituency work is another considerable strength. He turned a previously safe Conservative seat in the Lake District (Westmorland and Lonsdale) in to one of the few Lib Dem strongholds. On a personal level, I know a staunch Conservative who’d never vote for the Lib Dems nationally, but does so locally in the Lakes due to the casework done by Tim. Furthermore, Tim is ‘untainted’ with the kind of policies which were inevitably levelled against the party; tuition fees (“It was never about fees; it was about trust”), the bedroom tax and increasing VAT. This isn’t to say that Norman is unprincipled, but it does offer a quick rebuttal for Tim in the event of old arguments rearing their head again. Despite this, Tim hasn’t gone down the route of washing his hands of all responsibility. Many of the 2010 Labour contenders were quick to distance themselves from the winning formula of Blairism (rightly or wrongly), despite having been involved with the Blair project in most cases. Both Tim and Norman have reiterated the correct assertion that forming the Coalition in 2010 was the right decision, rather than going for a ‘pleasing everyone; pleasing no-one’ stance of “ok, you’re right; we shouldn’t have done it”. As Tim pointed out in the hustings debate hosted by Victoria Derbyshire, a party should be ashamed of itself if it doesn’t try to win and gain power.

In some leadership campaigns, there is a preference for a particular candidate simply because of the paucity of suitable alternatives. In my opinion, the only sensible choice for the Labour leadership is Liz Kendall, and that in part is due to the uninspiring candidates on offer (Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Jeremy Corbyn). However, should Tim sadly lose the contest (which is highly unlikely), I would still be delighted with the next choice; Norman Lamb. A lot of credit is due to Norman for his work on mental health as a minister during the Coalition, something which helped to significantly shape our NHS policy in the 2015 manifesto. I still want Norman to play a significant role under a prospective Tim Farron leadership platform, and would even go as far as to recommend that he should be the deputy leader of the party. Norman is clearly passionate about Liberalism, and I don’t want us to lose his talents.

On a personal level, a key thing for me is that Tim is a fellow Christian, and he’s not afraid of saying so. I must clarify that this isn’t a deal breaker in my choice of leader; I strongly supported Nick Clegg, who is an atheist (although he has since stressed that he leans more towards an agnostic viewpoint now, and he attends church with his wife Miriam). However, it is immensely encouraging to see another Christian in politics. Tim has written for the ‘Liberal Democrats Do God’ compilation of essays edited by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, and he is right in stressing that “we must never seek to legislate to force people who are not Christians to live as if they were”, despite the Bible saying many things that “society will feel uncomfortable about with regards to personal morality”. The Bible calls for Christians to engage with politics, and I find it reassuring that a prominent MP is doing likewise. There’s a common perception that Christianity and Liberalism don’t mix, but I think Tim makes a strong case for suggesting that the two are not incompatible.

From what I’ve seen of the debates between Norman and Tim, they have been pretty respectful. Whilst Tim has the upper hand on issues such as tuition fees, he hasn’t stuck the knife in or laboured on the point. Similarly, Norman has said that he respects Tim’s faith viewpoints. However, I find it sad when some members have criticised Tim for his faith standpoints. I don’t think Tim’s views on abortion or gay marriage should disbar him from the leadership, neither would those views in any way affect how competent he would be as a leader. For the sake of clarity, on gay marriage Tim did not vote for it on the third reading of the bill, but did so on the second reading. Tim and Norman’s differing views on assisted suicide also should not be deal breakers for either candidate.

I’m told that 20,000 people have joined the party since the General Election, which is remarkable. It’s vital that the new leader makes sure that these new members are engaged and kept on board, but also that the existing membership is maintained. After a crushing defeat in 2015, the party needs to rediscover its identity, rebuild and fight for liberal values. Tim is best placed to do just that.

The good, the bad and the ugly; what to expect from the Tories

The Conservatives won their first overall majority since 1992 (the year I was born!) on polling day, and in theory should be ‘freed’ from the shackles of coalition. However, as with John Major and the last majority Conservative government, I fear that David Cameron will be held hostage to the many rebellious Tory backbenchers in his ranks. I’ll briefly outline below the good and bad policies to expect from the Tories in the next Parliament.


Good:

• Tax free minimum wage. Raising the income tax threshold was deemed unaffordable by David Cameron in the first TV debate of 2010, but the policy was adopted after the Liberal Democrats made it a red line in coalition talks. The Tories have shamelessly tried to take the credit for it ever since, but I very much hope that Cameron delivers on his manifesto pledge to increase the threshold from £10,600 to £12,500 in the next Parliament, meaning that anyone earning the minimum wage won’t pay any income tax. If the National Insurance threshold can be aligned to this, low and middle income earners will receive a further tax boost. This policy is crucial if the Tories are to convince anyone that they’re on the side of workers.

• £8bn for the NHS. The NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens has said that the NHS will need an extra £8bn a year by 2020. Again, the Liberal Democrats were the first to meet this pledge, with the Conservatives following suit (although they didn’t say how they’d afford it). Extra NHS funding is a must, so I welcome this pledge. However, the government needs to look at how this extra money is spent, and I hope that mental health is seen as a top priority.

• Cutting the deficit. I don’t agree with the composition of the cuts that the Conservatives are proposing, but the deficit has to be addressed in order for public spending on key services such as the NHS and education to gradually increase again in line with a growing economy. The Tories have set 2018 as the target for eliminating the deficit (the same year as Liberal Democrat plans), and after missing their 2015 target it’s vital that the 2018 goal is achieved.

• 30 hours free childcare per week for 3 and 4 year olds. This policy builds upon the coalition’s 15 hours of free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds (and 40% of two year olds). A good move for helping families across the UK.

• Postgraduate loans. A coalition announcement from the last Autumn Statement, it has curiously slipped under the radar a little bit. This will entail government-backed loans of up to £10,000 from the 2016-17 academic year, benefitting 40,000 students. It’s crazy that students who get good grades are unable to continue their studies after undergraduate levels simply because of finances; I think this policy is a fantastic idea.

Bad:

• Scrapping the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act is often subjected to misrepresentation from the right wing press, who often (wrongly) associate it with the European Union. The Human Rights Act is a scapegoat for the likes of The Daily Mail, who often blame it as the reason terrorist subjects cannot be deported. The proposal to scrap the Human Rights Act was blocked by (you guessed it) the Liberal Democrats. I’m not an expert in law, but this proposal seems ham fisted at best.

• EU referendum. I question the motives for the EU referendum. Is it really with the best of intentions, for ‘giving people a say’, or is it simply a manoeuvre to silence UKIP and the Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party? Whilst there are still concerns over the economy and the NHS, I’m worried that Parliamentary business will mainly consist of trying to get a deal from the EU prior to a referendum in 2017. I can already predict vitriol from Eurosceptics when David Cameron (presumably) publically recommends a vote to stay in the EU. A tempting thought, however, is that the referendum could ‘lance the UKIP boil’, so to speak.

• £12bn of welfare cuts. One of the biggest misconceptions about the welfare bill is that the bulk of it is spent on the unemployed. In reality, pensions take up the vast majority of welfare spending. Not only is a further £12bn of cuts to welfare a significant amount (the Liberal Democrats wanted £3bn of welfare cuts), where will these cuts fall? The Tories plan to lower the benefit cap from £26,000 a year to £23,000, but there has been scant detail about any further plans for cutting welfare. It’s of great concern as to where the £12bn will come from, and who will be affected as a consequence.

• Civil liberties. With the authoritarian Theresa May no longer beholden to Liberal Democrat resistance, it looks like the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ could be revived. The Liberal Democrats blocked this intrusive piece of legislation during the coalition, but despite consensus on issues such as scrapping ID cards, it doesn’t look like civil liberties will be prioritised in the next Parliament. Expect fierce criticism from the likes of Shami Chakrabarti. 

• A law to prevent tax rises. Seriously, who thought up this idea? A law designed to prevent tax increases for income, VAT and National Insurance, it’s straight out of the US Tea Party book. It’s not only shortsighted, but it’s a window dressing policy designed to ensnare political opponents. It reminds me of George Bush senior’s “read my lips; no new taxes” pledge. Remind me of how that one worked out...

Ugly:

David Cameron: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'”. This is a worrying sign of things to come.



I’ll leave you with a quote from William Gladstone, one which is still very applicable today, and which sums up the current situation and approach:


“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear”.

I don’t care what the haters say; Nick Clegg was a brilliant leader

In March, I did a blog entry called “Yes, I agree with Nick (mostly)”. In it, I noted that Clegg had gone up in my estimations in recent times, due to him having the guts to take a stand despite his unpopularity. I finished the article by saying “I’m not ashamed to give credit where credit is due, and he is due a lot of it”. In light of this, I’ve little doubt that in the future (be it, 10, 20 or 30 years), history will look more kindly upon Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

I had the pleasure of meeting Nick (for the second time) in the week leading up to polling day. At an evening event in Sheffield brilliantly organised by the likes of Iain Gill and Laura Gillmore, you couldn’t tell that Nick had been up since 5am campaigning across the country. He was at ease, confident, engaging and personable. I still maintain that his oratory skills are superior to David Cameron’s, and jibes about him ageing over this Parliament are inaccurate as well as inconsiderate. You will see from my previous blog entry on Nick Clegg (and my public praise of his potential replacement Tim Farron) that I’ve not always been his biggest fan, and the European/local elections in 2014 certainly stretched my patience with him. However, Clegg had the bravery to not only enter in to a coalition with the Tories in 2010, but to see it through and allow for frequent public attacks (see his weekly radio phone in on LBC radio; did Cameron and Miliband ever have a similar arrangement?).

Clegg has always been lambasted. Not long after winning the Lib Dem leadership contest in 2007, Victoria Derbyshire grilled him in an interview over his lack of a public persona. A pop vox was taken around a seat in the country, with the interviewer showing the general public a picture of Clegg, before asking them if they knew who he was. Few did know him, although I did laugh when one person said “Is it Steve? I think I used to work with him”. This then went to the other extreme with Cleggmania in 2010; the media were out to get him as soon as he did the first TV debate, and they’ve done a hatchet job on him ever since. Let me stress that Clegg isn’t the only victim of this; Ed Miliband has had some cruel rubbish thrown at him, too. However, the media often seemed quite happy to go along with the tuition fee line, rarely (if ever) informing the public of both the benefits of the new fee system and the original culprits of tuition fees; the general public often weren’t aware of either aspect.

Tuition fees will always be the albatross around Clegg’s neck, which is quite frankly ludicrous. Many people, especially on the left, stick their fingers in their ears when you tell them these hugely relevant facts: more people are going to University than ever before, you only start paying back the fees when you earn over £21,000 and more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are attending University. Instead, they lament that Clegg “went back on his promise”. Yes, this was a bad thing, but which politician hasn’t gone back on a pledge? I’m not saying that this is right or should be tolerated cheerfully, but cast the first stone if you want to.

How about this jibe; “he sold out to the Tories and let them in”. Great, so the Lib Dems have been punished for going with the Tories…by losing most of their seats to the Tories and thereby giving them an overall majority. People will realise over the next five years just how much of an influence the Lib Dems had between 2010 and 2015, but sadly it’ll be for negative reasons, namely £12bn of welfare cuts, scrapping the Human Rights Act and an erosion of civil liberties. Clegg simply had no popular option in 2010, whichever way you look at it. If the firm rejection of the Labour Party last Thursday is anything to go by, a coalition with Labour in 2010 would not have been a stirring success either.

I feel that Clegg is in an unfortunate position now; he’ll feel duty bound to the party to not quit his seat (there’d be a strong risk of losing the subsequent by-election), yet he won’t have much appetite to soldier on as an MP for five more years. However, his resignation speech shows that he gives a damn. In theory, why should he be sad? He has a very wealthy background, a beautiful wife and kids, a multilingual pedigree which could easily land him a top job in Europe and the kudos of being the first Liberal leader in generations to enter government. Despite these caveats, Clegg does care, and it shows. Clegg’s oratory power and leadership skills certainly kept me going over the course of the coalition, and he encouraged me to think about a different kind of politics back when I was a sixth former.


The party needs to move on and rebuild. There’s no point agonising over whether we should have gone into coalition or not in 2010, because it was the right decision (mistakes were of course made during the last Parliament). It would also be very easy to distance ourselves from Clegg, as if to pretend that he was never a positive force for the party. This would be the wrong approach. We’ve had nearly 10,000 people join the party since polling day, and under a new leadership (my preference is for Tim Farron) we can bounce back, with time. However, let’s not forget the many positive contributions from Nick Clegg, and how great a leader he has been for the party. I want the party to move on and more forward, but I still agree with Nick.

My Derbyshire Dales reflections

3,965 votes. I look on that figure with mixed feelings; sadness because we couldn’t reduce Patrick’s majority (and we came behind UKIP and Labour), but pride that such a significant amount of people backed the ‘New Deal for the Dales’ message. On what has been a very sobering election, I feel a sense of privilege.


I’ve had time to reflect on our campaign in the Dales, and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t change anything about our approach if I was given a TARDIS. Prior to my selection in 2014, the Derbyshire Dales Liberal Democrats didn’t have any social media channels; we not only changed that by building up hundreds of followers on Facebook and Twitter pages, but we revamped the local party website. I was able to get across our (and my) values on a regular basis through various video interviews, whilst getting these values across in person through good old fashioned canvassing. I had great responses from constituents with regards to the election leaflet. Whilst I’ve no doubt that there are many critics of it, the only people to come to me to criticise it were two Labour activists and a Conservative; they were hardly likely to praise it! I was always keen to stand up for young people, but I also felt immensely encouraged by fellow Christians, who appreciated that I was prepared to put my faith above the parapet, so to speak.


I felt saddened by the loss of so many talented MPs, and watching the swing against so many Liberal Democrats standing for election was excruciating. There was more of a stunned silence rather than ranting when we saw the exit poll at home. Whilst this may sound rather hollow, I did well to hold on to my deposit when half of Lib Dem parliamentary candidates lost theirs, whilst the swing against me in the Dales was lower than the swing against the national party. These are small crumbs of comfort, but for myself and many others not much could have been done to prevent the landslide against the Liberal Democrats nationally. On the lighter side of things, me and my family had the novelty of ordering a ‘Ben Fearn burger’ in Matlock, as all of the candidates had burgers named after them. It was certainly strange to hear my brother say “could I order six Ben Fearn burgers, please?”

It hasn’t always been plain sailing, and one door knocking session in particular got me down. One person asked who I was before I’d even approached them, and when I said which party I was with, brushed me off. When I said “well as long as you vote for someone”, they retorted with “you do realise that approach will cost you votes?” I couldn’t believe such a cynical attitude. Another constituent told me they had voted Lib Dem twice but wouldn’t ever again due to the Coalition; after they had slammed a tax cut (the personal allowance increase) which has benefited me and my family, we had the following exchange:

“Very well, would you be prepared to vote for us at a local level? Councillor Burfoot has done some excellent work…”

“I shall be voting Labour”

“Oh ok, which Labour councillor will you be voting for? What do you like about them?”

“.....I shall be voting Labour”.

Clearly, such political passion did not extend to local matters or concerns. Another constituent gave me this response:

“Hello, I’m the Parliamentary Candidate for the Derbyshire Dales. Have you kept up to date with the election?”

“No, but I won’t be voting for you (shuts door)”.

I hadn’t even said which party I was with! This exchange frustrated me as the person in question was the wife of a former teacher that I know of, so I had at least hoped for some sort of conversation based upon a shared context, even if it didn't result in a vote of support. The 7am declaration time at the election count also wasn't fun (we had arrived at around 11.30pm with no sleep), not to mention refreshing the Twitter feed on my mobile to see the loss of MP after MP (losing Vince Cable and Charles Kennedy especially hurt).

The five debates between myself, Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative), Andy Botham (Labour), Ian Wood (Green) and Amila Y’Mech (Humanity) have been lively affairs, and I’m pleased that two of them (Wirksworth and Ashbourne) have been recorded; I had publically called for screened debates in 2014. I felt very nervous before each one, but they are great for democracy, and the exchanges were passionate. I only wish that everyone in the constituency could somehow view them; I’m sure that a lot of orthodoxies would be challenged. I’ve been happy with my performance at each one, and I’ve had people approach me after each debate to congratulate me and to urge me to carry on, whether they were going to vote for me or not.


The groundswell of support has been incredible, from family and friends. I genuinely couldn’t have done it without them. The local party have been immensely supportive, whilst my local church (Darley Dale Hillside) and fellow Methodists have been greatly encouraging. Support mechanisms like these are crucial for sustaining you throughout an election campaign, especially one which for me started in January 2014. People have asked if I’ll stand again in 2020, when I’ll be at the grand old age of 27. This’ll be a politician’s answer, but I honestly can’t commit either way; a lot can happen in five years on a personal and national level. The idea of having the same candidate for two elections certainly appeals to me, as you can build up a base of trust and familiarity in that time, but we’ll see. What I can tell you is that I feel emboldened again to fight for liberal values, especially as membership in the party has gone up by over 7,000 since polling day, giving the Liberal Democrats over 50,000 members.

There’s hope for the future. Many people have said that, whilst not voting for me, they wish me the best and want me to keep at it. This encourages me just as much as people who say that they’ll vote for me, and I mean that. I only get frustrated if people refuse to give me a hearing simply because of my party banner. I’ll leave you with the words of a constituent who didn’t vote for me, but who wants me to continue:

“Dear Ben,

Although I did not vote for you, I want you to know how impressed I, and a number of people I have spoken to, are with your performance in the hustings.

Your enthusiasm, clarity, integrity, as well as your grasp of issues, have impressed us, to the extent that we want to encourage you to continue! We see a great future for you in politics, especially if can refrain from becoming part of the 'machine'.....

More power to your elbow.

The struggle continues”.

Vote for a New Deal for the Derbyshire Dales

We’re now just a matter of hours away from polling day. With my dedicated team, we’ve canvassed Matlock, Bakewell, Ashbourne and Baslow amongst other places, whilst my debates with the other candidates have taken me to Wirksworth, Eyam, Ashbourne, Bakewell and finally Matlock. Whatever the result on Thursday, I have discovered from this campaign just how well you can get through to people when you are committed to a passionate message.

I have been eager to highlight two points in my campaign; firstly, that I want a ‘New Deal for the Dales, and secondly that I want to encourage and involve young people. On the first point, I have unashamedly mimicked a political device used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). FDR was a huge influence for me, and one of the historical figures that launched my interest in politics in the first place. However, the New Deal also represented strong and meaningful reform in the face of vested interests. I’m not demanding a ‘New Deal for the Dales’ purely for rhetorical devices; that New Deal means a better government grant for the Dales (we get one of the lowest grants in the UK), so that services aren’t cut back here so severely, and investment can be made in key areas (one area I highlighted at the debates is that of the much needed Ashbourne bypass). Furthermore, the New Deal that I want also entails better wages (the wages here are the lowest in all of Derbyshire). These statistics come from the Derbyshire Dales District Council Economic Plan, and who are we to doubt the Tory-run District Council, Mr McLoughlin?!


The second key point which I mentioned is young people. Less than half of 16-24 year olds voted at the last General Election, compared with over 70% of people aged 65 and over. Russell Brand urges people not to vote in order to change this, but you get change by voting for change. As long as there is this apathy, policies from the political parties will continue to be skewed towards the crudely named ‘grey vote’. Fortunately, I’ve had good responses both from our election leaflet which highlights this, and also young people from canvassing and email responses. It’s my strong hope that, by standing for Parliament at the tender age of 22, I can encourage other young people to get involved. From interactions with people, my age has been a positive, and has often been seen as a welcome departure from the status quo.

The debates have been lively, especially the last debate in Matlock. They are great for democracy, and it’s good to see passion from the constituents. Two of the debates have been recorded (Wirksworth and Ashbourne), so I’m glad that my calls last year for screened debates have been heeded to a large extent. However, it’s a great shame that the debates couldn’t somehow be viewed by every household in the constituency; I think certain orthodoxies and assumptions would be challenged. The line-up for all but one of the debates has been as follows: me, Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, and running for re-election), Andy Botham (Labour), Ian Wood (Green) and Amila Y’Mech (Humanity); Irene Ratcliffe stepped in for Botham at Bakewell, whilst John Young (UKIP) also attended the Bakewell debate. The questions have certainly been varied; the Eyam debate had very specific local questions (one question asked what our party’s policies were on the lack of HGV drivers!), whilst the Ashbourne debate didn’t have any local questions at all (despite my reference to the bypass). The award for the most interesting question was definitely at Matlock; “if elected, which law would you repeal, and which law would you enact?” For the record, I said that I’d repeal the bedroom tax, whilst enshrining into law minimum spending (and appointment) requirements for mental health in the NHS.


I have felt hugely encouraged by responses from constituents (via phone calls, emails and face to face interactions) with regards to our election leaflet. The election leaflet is so crucial, as Royal Mail deliver it free of charge to every household in the constituency (some 41,500 homes). You can view it on my website (www.benfearn.com), but I was keen to outline the New Deal and youth message, along with our party’s record in government. With this leaflet, a strong social media presence and good old fashioned canvassing in the streets (all of these aspects are crucial), I think we as a local party have done ourselves proud to fight for our values.


To those undecided or otherwise, I leave you with this final message. I know this constituency is a safe seat, and I’m at the tender age of 22. However, it’s an absolute privilege to have this opportunity to represent the Derbyshire Dales. I want to challenge the status quo, and to not take votes for granted. I want to fight for the Derbyshire Dales; please fight for me.

Why I'm a Liberal Democrat

I became a Liberal Democrat in 2009, when I first took an interest in politics during my Sixth Form days. I knew about my own political heritage; my grandfather was a Liberal councillor in Matlock in the 1970s. However, I wanted to investigate for myself, and not just take my parent’s word for it. The Conservatives were miles away from my New Deal-influenced values, whilst the Labour Party seemed so incompetent and lacking in vision. When I saw a Lib Dem leaflet for the first time, I had mixed feelings; it was refreshing to see such progressive values, but I felt sad that these policies would never come to fruition.

That’s why I became a member in 2010; after the General Election. We had shaken up the old political duopoly, and we had the chance for the first time in generations to implement cherished policies, and I was determined to judge the party over 5 years, not 5 minutes. I’m proud of our links in Liberalism; the Gladstonian belief in free trade, the promotion of an active state to combat poverty by David Lloyd-George, the compassionate economics of John Maynard Keynes in challenging orthodoxies and a harsh ‘market knows best’ approach, and the building blocks for the NHS by William Beveridge. Of course the Liberal Democrats have slogans like any other party, such as “Stronger Economy, Fairer Society”. However, we have distinctive policies behind such slogans. “Fairer taxes” means paying no income tax on the first £10,000 that you earn (this has since gone up to £10,600, with a target of £12,500 by 2020); “a fair chance for every child” means a £2.5 billion a year pupil premium for the poorest primary school students, and “cleaning up politics” means having fixed term (5 year) Parliaments.

We have delivered on these policies; policies which I feel highlight the active role of Liberalism in helping those at the bottom. I am still a Liberal Democrat in 2015 because of this, but also because of the promise of more; prioritising mental health in our NHS, five green laws to protect the environment, an extension of free childcare and the raising of National Insurance thresholds in line with income tax thresholds.

I want to fight for this liberal and progressive vision. That’s why I attended an assessment centre in 2012 to become an approved parliamentary candidate, and I was officially selected as the parliamentary candidate in 2014 for my home constituency of the Derbyshire Dales. I know our party has made mistakes, and I know that we’re not hugely popular. However, I’m a Liberal Democrat because we have a promising vision for the future, backed up by concrete policies and not platitudes. We have a record of delivery and a promise of more. I couldn’t have imagined either of these things being possible in 2009, yet now it’s a reality. At the tender age of 22, that’s quite a vision to be inspired by, and to stand up for.


You can also view this blog entry on the "Why Join the Lib Dems" page: https://whyjointhelibdems.wordpress.com/

My reflections from the Wirksworth NHS debate

As I begin, I’d like to say that I was delighted with the turnout and reception at the NHS debate in Wirksworth on Friday 27th March. When we talk about engaging people in politics, such engagement was clearly on display on Friday night. I’m also not ashamed to say that I was very nervous prior to the debate! Nevertheless, a lot was at stake in the debate; a key battle for ideas.


I’ll briefly outline the format: The debate was hosted by Professor Andy Miller, and the panellists were as follows; myself, Patrick McLouglin (Conservative), Andy Botham (Labour) and Ian Wood (Green), with the UKIP candidate Jonathan Young not in attendance. None of the panellists knew the questions beforehand, and we were all permitted a response to each question from the chair, with points from the floor raised without responses or cross-examination allowed from the panelists (mostly!). Broadly speaking, the debate was in a two hour Question Time-style format, but with little cross-examination allowed between the panellists.


Based on questions both sent in and raised from the floor, the Health and Social Care of 2012 is very clearly a bone of contention for many people. I reiterated how I opposed it at the Gateshead Spring Conference in 2012, but that the amended bill had brought improvements. Crucially, the Health Secretary remains responsible, politically and legally, to providing a free at the point of use health service. I also emphasised how our party has committed ourselves to the £8bn a year of extra funding needed by 2020 (as outlined by NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens), but also that we need to focus on how that money is spent. I highlighted mental health as a crucial priority, noting how it affects us all in some way, and that it must be given parity with physical health.


As expected, the frustration of the night was the holier-than-thou approach from the Labour candidate, Andy Botham. For most of the night, he was playing to the crowd whilst trying to conjure up a Red Flag spirit to the evening. Incredibly, when I pressed him, he said “yes Ben, I do want to ignore the deficit…” As I said at the event, the 2012 Health and Social Care Act did not introduce competition to the health service, and the issues facing the NHS aren’t black and white; the argument cannot be reduced to the private sector question. Conveniently, Botham ignored his party’s record on PFI schemes and the privatisation of Hinchingbrooke hospital in 2009; hardly socialist policies!


The final straw was when Botham finished off another diatribe with “we (the Labour Party) own it (the NHS)”. He stands for a style which I think has poisoned politics (and I said so); a petty, insular tribalism which demonises alternative viewpoints. I insisted “the NHS belongs to the people; it does not belong to the Labour Party”, which he never really responded to. I was fortunate enough to have the final say in the debate, and I outlined how we don’t have to choose between a strong economy and a strong NHS; the NHS needs cash, but cash that isn’t plucked out of thin air. As well as increasing spending on the NHS in line with a growing economy, we would pay for it through the following means:

-Capping pensions tax relief for the richest pensioners (saving £500m)
-Aligning dividend tax with income tax for those earning more than £150,000 (saving £400m)
-Scrapping the Conservative shares for rights scheme (saving £100m)

My final line was this: “An NHS for consensus, not weaponry”.


Patrick McLoughlin didn’t really say anything controversial or ridiculous, but at that point he didn’t commit to the £8bn touted figure (the Conservatives have since pledged to meet this). Ian Wood is no doubt a very clever man, and I admire his intellect. He was a confident public speaker, but I felt that he too often went off on tangents, and the debate itself spent too long debating the issues of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), something which I firmly believe will have no impact on the NHS. Mr Wood’s approach would be brilliant for a lecture, but I got the impression that young people in the audience would have switched off.

I think the response from the audience was good in the end. The NHS is far too important to politicise, so it’s sad that Andy Botham was (and is) all too keen to do exactly that. I’d like to echo Nick Clegg’s words from the TV debate which followed this: “the NHS needs cash, not warm words...put your money where your heart is”.





You can watch the NHS debate in full on my website at www.benfearn.com