Liberal Democrat Spring Conference 2014 reflections, York Barbican

For this blog post, I thought I’d write my reflections and experiences of the Spring Conference in a slightly different format, more like a diary. Below are the events and talks that I attended.


Friday

-Social Liberal Forum: Responsible Capitalism: a New Social Partnership between Labour and Capital.

Speakers: Rt Hon Vince Cable MP; Catherine Howarth, Chief Executive, ShareAction; Frances O’Grady, General Secretary, TUC. Chair: Janice Turner, Member, SLF Council. Co-hosted with ShareAction.

This was an interesting talk, especially in the light of the recent ‘one member, one vote’ trade union reforms of the Labour Party (which, curiously, did not get a mention here). The emphasis of the talk was on the positive role that trade unions can play within the party, and Frances O’Grady was polite towards the party despite her different political affiliations (although that didn’t stop a TUC march during the Conference). As expected, Vince Cable stole the show. Having not made many notes, he nevertheless display his economic wisdom with common sense and purpose, and I don’t recall a time during his speech when he had to refer to his notes for memory. The SLF event was also a key example of how the fringe events at the party engage stimulating discussion, and have the ability to attract senior figures in the party to talk.

-Liberal Youth: Looking Forward – Drinks Reception.

Speakers: Sarah Harding, Layla Moran and Julian Huppert MP.

This event was led by the Chair of Liberal Youth Sarah Harding, who I know from being a fellow University of Manchester student. Sarah was also a diligent Chair of Liberal Youth in Manchester. The impressive PPC for Oxford West and Abingdon Layla Moran also spoke, outlining her priorities for the seat (which we are very close to winning back in 2015). Julian Huppert MP also spoke, giving credit to Sarah’s achievement of getting new Liberal Youth members from across the country. It was refreshing to see numerous (relative) youngsters at the event, proving that the entire student population has not deserted the party.

Saturday

-Training session: Now you’re a PPC; a session on the best first steps for any

newly selected PPC – useful for any candidate hoping to be selected in this

electoral cycle. Candidates’ Office.

This very useful training session was led by the experienced Ed Fordham, who has stood numerous times as a PPC for the Liberal Democrats, and came very close to ousting experienced Labour MP Glenda Jackson in 2010 (Hampstead and Kilburn constituency). He had a series of interesting anecdotes, and I in particular liked one of his mottos for both campaigning and planning strategies with fellow members; “make it fun”.


-Question and answer session. Chair: Andrew Wiseman (Chair, Federal Conference Committee). Aide: Liz Lynne. Question and Answer Session with Rt Hon Nick Clegg.

Nick Clegg displayed his confident public speaking skills in this Q+A. As we are set to reach the £10,000 personal allowance threshold a year early this Spring, Clegg outlined his plans to implement a £10,500 threshold in the next Budget as a “worker’s bonus”, delivering another £100 tax cut for low and middle income earners. I thought that Clegg displayed a good personal touch when asked a question on student debt by a lady in the audience. Clegg responded by listing the progressive elements of the new tuition fee system, as well as pointing out that more students are at University than ever before. The lady wished to come back on that point, but whilst a steward told her that she couldn’t speak back, Clegg insisted that she could answer his point (which she duly did).

-CentreForum: What is the constitutional reform priority in any coalition negotiations in 2015? 
Is it party funding, House of Lords, PR or none of the above? 

Speakers: Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP; Nick Tyrone, Head of Partnerships and Public Affairs, Electoral Reform Society; Lord William Wallace of Saltaire.

This was a fascinating discussion. The members of the panel were blunt about the constraints of implementing our constitutional goals. AV was soundly rejected in the 2011 referendum, whilst an elected House of Lords proposal (despite having a clear majority in principle for the reforms) was defeated by a combination of Tory and Labour blocking and time-wasting strategies. However, after compelling reports by the Electoral Reform Society into Labour woes in the South and Tory woes in the North, it appears that a realistic goal for 2015 will be to demand PR for local government as a policy for any coalition agreement. Not only would PR offer a far better representation of local votes across the country, but it is a good long term strategy to bringing electoral reform back onto the agenda; the banal accusation that the PR system is “too complicated” could be swiftly rebuffed if the system was in place over a number of years at a local level (nevermind that PR is also used for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Parliament and for European Elections). The ERS reports are so compelling that even Peter Oborne is convinced of PR at a local level!

Simon Hughes had frank and honest views on the party’s failure to have better female representation (just 7 out of the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs are women). He emphasised strongly that cautious views on women-only shortlists, however principled, would simply not do.


-President’s Reception; Tim Farron.

I felt very fortunate to have been invited to this event. Nick Clegg introduced Tim Farron to speak, who delivered a rallying call to fundraise and donate for the hugely important European Elections in May. I was able to mingle afterwards, and spent time talking to Bill Newton Dunn MEP (East Midlands), who gave me valuable advice as well as important information on the EU set up. It’s telling that Bill Newton Dunn was once a Conservative, but left to join the Liberal Democrats in 2000 due to the Tories tearing themselves apart over Europe (what’s changed?). I also spoke with Brian Paddick, who was the Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate for London in 2012. There are only two unequivocal parties over Europe this May; the Lib Dems and UKIP. Labour don’t have the courage to speak up for Europe, whilst the Tories are as divided as ever on the issue.


Sunday

Policy motion debate: A Digital Bill of Rights

Mover: Tim Farron MP

Summation: Dr Julian Huppert MP (Co-Chair, Parliamentary Party Committee

on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities)

I won’t list all of the sections of the motion (please download the Conference agenda to see the full list), but here are the key areas:

Conference believes:

i) Monitoring or surveilling people without suspicion is alien to our

traditional British values.

ii) That systematic surveillance of people’s communications and

online activities undermines a number of fundamental human rights,

including the right to respect of private life and correspondence,

freedom of expression, of association, of conscience and of religion;

that these rights are essential in safeguarding the democratic

principles of our society; and that any interference with these rights

must be necessary and proportionate.

Conference endorses:


A) The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to

Communications Surveillance, which emphasise that any surveillance

of citizens by the state must be necessary and proportionate


E) The Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to veto the unworkable and

disproportionate Communications Data Bill.



Conference therefore calls for:


1. The annual release of Government Transparency Reports which

publish, as a minimum, the annual number of user data requests

made by law enforcement, the intelligence agencies, and other

authorities, broken down by requesting authority, success rates, types

of data requested and category of crime or event being investigated.



3. The Government to define and enshrine the digital rights of the citizen

to protect from overreach by the state, through:
a) Ensuring that powers of surveillance, accessing data, and accessing new technologies are not extended without Parliamentary approval.

All of the speakers on this debate, from MPs to delegates, were pretty much on the same page with this one. The debate emphasised just how important civil liberties are to the party, and how key a decision Nick Clegg’s vetoing of the ‘snooper’s charter’ was. Only 2 people opposed the motion in a packed out Conference hall.

-Speech

Chair: Tim Farron (President of the Liberal Democrats)

Aide: Andrew Wiseman (Chair, Federal Conference Committee)

Speech by the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister.

After introductions from Tim Farron, Lord Ian Wrigglesworth and Lorely Burt MP (who curiously wore a Nigel Farage face-mask for part of her talk!), Nick Clegg gave a very good speech. He’s always been an impressive orator, and the focus of the speech was of course as the “Party of IN” Europe. However, he also highlighted our plans to raise the income tax threshold to £12,500 in the next Parliament (the minimum wage level). This is a fantastic idea, one which I put to Clegg at a Q+A in 2012 at the Gateshead Spring Conference, whilst the policy was still under development.


Overall, a very enjoyable weekend. It was my first proper visit to York, a beautiful city and a great setting for the conference.

Funding reform: over to you, David

Credit where credit is due. Ed Miliband has shown bravery over reforming the trade unions, the very demographic that was so influential in electing him as leader of the Labour Party in 2010. The electoral college and bloc vote has been abolished, and ‘one member one vote’ is now in place, something which SDP “gang of four” member David Owen called for back in 1981. In my own party, I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are neither puppets of trade unions nor big business, but this raises a new question; will David Cameron now be serious on party funding reform?




Firstly, a brief word on the sensible trade unions reforms. As David Owen put it back in 1981 at the Labour Party conference, “to allow the bloc vote to choose the future Prime Minister of this country is an outrage”. The stifling effect of the militancy tendency and cognate groups over the Labour Party in the 1980s was obvious, but even after reforms under John Smith and Tony Blair, Miliband’s recent quote highlights the pragmatism of the current reforms and the unfairness of the previous system; “nobody should be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so”. Even Len McCluskey, the leader of the largest union Unite, agrees; “If I am asked on the television ‘how come you affiliate one million of your members when you know 400,000 of them don’t vote Labour?’ I would not be able to look the interviewer in the eye”. The reforms are long overdue.




In my view, the Tory response has seemed a little desperate. Grant Shapps rather bizarrely states that the reforms are "a big victory for the unions, increasing their powerbase and ensuring they remain the dominant players in Labour politics for years to come”. The trade union influence has been a potent stick to beat Labour with over the years; the Conservatives may yet have lost that weapon. The focus is now on the Tories and the influence of individual wealthy backers; are they prepared to tackle their own vested interests? Nick Clegg said that seven meetings were held between 2012 and 2013 over party funding reform, but these broke down due to Labour not moving on trade union funding, while the Conservatives would not make concessions on big donations. Labour are ticked off the list now; what about the Tories?




There’s an opportunity now to paint the Conservatives as increasingly out of touch. I’ve observed over the years the see-saw motion of the two main parties sledging it out over funding, and I’ve agreed with both; Labour were far too reliant on union funding, whilst the Conservatives were too dependent on the influence of individual wealthy backers and big business. The albatrosses around the necks of the big two meant that funding reform couldn’t be productive; the Tories could always deflect criticism of their funding practices by turning the fire back on the unions of Labour, and vice-versa. However, the Conservatives cannot play this game anymore. Nevertheless, (many) questions must still be asked of Miliband; will he support electoral reform? He supported the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign, yet he could not carry over the majority of his party on the issue. PR is, of course, the ideal target, but Miliband can’t ignore that AV (along with union backing) was crucial in him winning the Labour leadership in 2010; if the results of that campaign were based on First Past the Post and the first round of voting, then David Miliband would be leader of the opposition. It would be cynical for Miliband to defend the status quo after this beneficial movement (although David Cameron does the same thing despite owing his election as Tory leader in 2005 to a variant of AV). Carrying the Labour Party over electoral reform would also show bravery.




Now is the time to cap political donations at £5,000. The obstacle of trade union funding has been overcome, and crucially it’s time to tackle big money in politics. One of the reasons why people feel that the political system is out of touch is because the voters feel so far removed from the unfair influence of a few wealthy individuals. Let’s tackle party funding reform once and for all. Over to you, David.

My political hero: David Lloyd George

It’s hard not to admire individuals who fought against entrenched privilege, and who took huge risks in the process. The goal of displaying conviction throughout a career is an admirable one to obtain. David Lloyd George achieved this goal, and more. Clement Attlee rightly gains plaudits for his role in shaping the welfare state, but it was Lloyd George who laid down the foundations.


Born in Manchester to Welsh parents and raised (with Welsh as a first language) in Caernarfonshire, Lloyd George was the first (and to date only) Welsh politician to become Prime Minister. Having developed a successful law career in his younger days, Lloyd George nevertheless was politically active for the Liberals, and was duly elected to Parliament in 1890 for Caernarfon in a by-election, with a wafer-thin majority of 18. Over time he built up a reputation nationwide by opposing the Second Boer War and through displaying strong leadership over attacks on the government’s Education Act. Lloyd George entered the Cabinet in 1906 as President of the Board of Trade after the Liberal’s landslide victory, and succeeded Henry Asquith (who became Prime Minister) as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1908.


What followed next was truly remarkable. The 1906 Liberal manifesto had no commitment to the sort of social legislation that would become known as the ‘Liberal reforms’, yet full in the knowledge that fierce opposition would occur, Lloyd George and Asquith enacted a series of progressive measures. Free school meals were provided for children in 1906 (made compulsory in 1914), and in 1908 pensions were introduced for those over 70. National Insurance was introduced with the 1911 National Insurance Act, which gave the working classes a contributory system of security against unemployment and illness. These measures were met with considerable resistance from the Conservative Party, especially as they were financed by taxes on the rich by the provocatively named ‘People’s Budget’ in 1909. A fantastic orator, Lloyd George as Chancellor defended the budget designed for “for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness”. The budget passed the House of Commons, but was voted down by a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. Rather than back down, the Liberals called two elections in 1910 to assert their mandate.



Crucially, Lloyd George and the Liberals challenged the supremacy of the Lords over the Commons. Before the 1911 Parliament Act, the Lords had a right of veto over financial and public bills. The 1911 Parliament Act removed these vetoes, and established thereafter the dominance of the Commons over the Lords. The triumvirate of Lloyd George, Asquith and Winston Churchill was vital in these reforms over the years. That an unelected House of Lords (which was often opposite in political persuasion to the Commons) should veto legislation from the elected Commons was an affront to democracy. Lloyd George succeeded in his challenge against such disgraceful privilege; “who ordained that a few should have the land of Britain as a perquisite; who made ten thousand people owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth?”



Lloyd-George emerged from World War 1 (where he had served as Secretary of State for War and then Prime Minister) with his reputation at its highest. However, it is particularly the social and political reforms that make him my political hero. Asquith and Churchill were also key players during the Liberal achievements, but it was Lloyd George’s enduring charisma and oratory which was crucial. His policies entailed a crucial (and necessary) step away from the laissez-faire ‘classic liberalism’ of the past, therefore seeing the state as a positive force for good. It’s no coincidence that Lloyd George’s Keynesian economic plan for recovery during the Great Depression was entitled ‘Lloyd George’s New Deal’, echoing the work of another political hero of mine, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Lloyd George’s wisdom and influence was such that he was offered a place in Churchill’s 1940 cabinet, but refused. Fittingly, Lloyd George’s last Parliamentary vote was to condemn the government for not adopting the Beveridge proposals (another Liberal reformer), which were to significantly expand the very welfare state which Lloyd George helped to create. I urge anyone, if possible, to visit the David Lloyd George museum in Criccieth, which has a fitting tribute to the great man. Perhaps a quote from the man himself will help; this one in particular sums up the productive rhetoric he possessed against the vested interests of the House of Lords: “The finest eloquence is that which gets things done; the worst is that which delays them”.

Parliamentary Candidate for the Derbyshire Dales

On Friday 10th January, a long and patient process finally bore fruit. I feel honoured and privileged to have been selected to represent the constituency that I have lived in my whole life (with University the only interregnum) by members who have put so much time and effort in over the years. The hard work begins now, but I’m looking forward to the challenge ahead.


It’s crazy to think that the journey to selection started all the way back in late 2011, when the opportunity was first put to me. The assessment day took place in the summer of 2012 on a Saturday, meaning that I must have given one of the most bizarre answers ever to a fellow work colleague’s question of “what are you up to this weekend?” during my time as an administrative assistant at Derbyshire County Council in the summer holidays. I passed the assessment, and from then on it was a case of playing the waiting game as the due processes and democratic wheels rolled on. When the time finally came this month, I felt a strange sense of calm, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t prepare rigorously for my speech.

I listed three specific groups as key influences in my journey with the Liberal Democrats towards selection, and it’s only fair to give them due credit here:
1) My grandparents. My grandfather, John Leslie Fearn, was a Councillor for the Liberals in the local area during the 1970s, and having never known him (he died a year before I was born) it’s been incredibly heartwarming to hear kind stories and words about him from Lib Dems and others alike. My grandmother, who sadly died far too young in 2011, was an inspiration in terms of her stoicism and values, not to mention her humorous anecdote of remembering when you could fit all of the Liberal MPs into a taxi! However, despite this background I made my own mind up with the Lib Dems, which brings me to…

2) Sue Burfoot. Something must have clicked in 2009, but feeling that Labour were making a hash of the economy, and finding my values incompatible with the Conservatives, I asked Councillor Burfoot for literature on the Lib Dems. I soon discovered that the Lib Dems shared my values, and were almost instantly identifiable. I remember thinking at the time that it was a crying shame that their policies couldn’t be realised in Government, which is one of the reasons why I was so proud (even if the decision was difficult) to see the party enter Government in 2010 for the first time in generations. Sue started the path for me.

3) Sandra and David Fearn (no relation). Like Sue and many others, they’ve put huge amounts of time and effort into the Liberals/Lib Dems over the years. Added to that, they’ve been incredibly supportive of me throughout my application and selection. If anyone had reason to be impatient from 2011 onwards, it was them, because they put so much into the selection. Instead, they were kind and calm about the situation.

These aren’t the only people I’m grateful for. My family and friends have been hugely supportive, but this group of three have been particularly helpful over the last few years.

I made reference to tuition fees in my speech, and explained that we need to be frank and honest with the electorate with mistakes such as the increase. However, I also insisted that we should be unashamedly proud of the mark we’ve made on the Coalition, such as raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, a multi-billion pound pupil premium and the biggest ever increase in the state pension. Crucially, I also noted that we have to trumpet where we’ve blocked the Tories and stopped policies which would have been enacted without our presence; an inheritance tax cut benefiting millionaires, state schools being run for profit, the ability for employers to fire people at will, the Snooper’s Charter and regional pay. Whilst this serves as a defence of a record, I also called for a message of change, namely from the safe seat complacency that the Derbyshire Dales seat suffers from. Despite an affluent persona, the Derbyshire Dales has one of the lowest Government grants in the whole of the UK, and the lowest wages in the whole of Derbyshire. This in despite the fact that current Tory MP Patrick McLoughlin is a Cabinet member (Transport), and surely in a greater position of influence than most. This record must be attacked.

Finally, I also made an appeal to reinvigorate young people, namely the 16-25 demographic. Many young people feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with voting, and it’s my task to speak for them. Furthermore, I want to urge them to vote, even if it’s not for me; I don’t want apathy to be tackled with apathy. Hopefully my age will help with this, and conversely I feel my experience with the party and in employment can counter claims of inexperience.

In the coming months, I want to listen to the concerns of the constituency, and do my very best to help. I can’t wait to share with the Derbyshire Dales the values that I’ve espoused in this blog over the last few years, and to represent a beautiful part of the world which I call home.

Lib Dem review of the year

2013 hasn’t been an easy year for the Liberal Democrats, but then again neither were the preceding years of the Coalition. At best, they’ve just hit the double figure mark in the polls, often falling behind UKIP. However, scratch beneath the surface, and it hasn’t all been so bad. In certain areas, the Lib Dems are still winning.

For this review, I’ll do a simple list of positives and negatives during 2013 for the Lib Dems, before making a general conclusion.



Positives

-£10,000 income tax threshold


The Coalition is set to reach the £10,000 target early (2014), and Nick Clegg has outlined plans to push for a £10,500 threshold before 2015. This means that in 2014 a key manifesto pledge will have been fulfilled, something which David Cameron said was “a great idea; I’d love to do it” but “can’t be afforded” in the first TV election debate in 2010. Furthermore, a £10,500 threshold would set the party on the way to their next goal; raising the income tax threshold to the minimum wage level (around £12,500). It is vital, however, for the party to prevent the Tories from taking the credit for this (which George Osborne and company are already trying to do).



-Eastleigh by-election win

This summed up the Lib Dem bulldog spirit, and the virtues of building up strong local support over the years. As I have mentioned in a previous blog post, this by-election victory was all the more astounding given low poll numbers, Chris Huhne’s controversial exit, the sex scandal surrounding Lord Rennard and the surge of UKIP. There are still warning signs; the Lib Dems lost a 19% swing, and the strong UKIP presence no doubt helped to split the Tory vote. However, whilst UKIP’s second place performance grabbed the headlines, the pressure and heat was turned on David Cameron and away from his Coalition partners, something that can be beneficial to the Liberal Democrats and their differentiation strategy before the 2015 election.




-Free school meals


Every child in England between reception and year two will receive free lunches, an initiative worth around £437 per child to families. This was in exchange for a tax break for married couples, but if the Lib Dem leadership is wise enough it can present the trade off as an example of what each Coalition member is prioritising; the Lib Dems want to help out families with young children, the Tories want to focus on marital status and a piecemeal tax cut.



-Blocked Tory agendas


David Cameron has spoken of a “little black book” of Tory plans that have been blocked by the Liberal Democrats, but will form part of the next Tory manifesto. The Lib Dems have responded well, presenting their own version of the black book and what would have happened without a Coalition; a vital message to convey to the electorate if they are to disprove the myth that the Lib Dems are ‘Tory poodles’. The ‘Snooper’s Charter’ has been blocked, maintaining the civil liberties agenda that the Lib Dems cherish so much. Furthermore, further use of the crude ‘go home’ messages on vans aimed at illegal immigrants has been stopped.

This is a summary of Tory plans blocked this year alone; other prominent victories, such as preventing an inheritance tax cut for millionaires or preventing workers from being fired at will have been achieved by the Liberal Democrats across the Cameron ministry. Emphasising these victories, whilst preventing other unfair Tory plans where possible, is another important area that the Lib Dems need to hammer home to the country if they are to show that they really are a brake on the Tories.




Negatives


-Sarah Teather exit

“Sarah Teather is desperately angry about all those policies she voted for. The alternative of course was not voting for them”. A tweet from Zac Goldsmith MP which sums up well the irony of Teather’s exit, but nevertheless it is an uncomfortable resignation. Teather is one of just 7 female MPs in the party, and her resignation summation had particularly hard hitting words; “I no longer feel that Nick Clegg’s party fights sufficiently for social justice and liberal values on immigration...something did break for me that was never, ever repaired”. Whilst Goldsmith highlighted Teather’s contradictions, her exit brings back memories of unpopular policies, namely the tuition fee increase and increasing VAT to 20%. Also, in not standing down immediately, she is essentially a lame duck MP, and the events sour somewhat her impressive achievement of overturning a Labour majority of over 13,000 in 2003 (Brent East).


-Low poll numbers

The General Election of 2015 isn’t too far away now, and even closer are the European Elections (2014). I won’t hammer out a list of polling figures, but various polling companies and the UK ‘poll of polls’ show the Lib Dems stubbornly just below double figures, a number which won’t translate well if maintained. There’s every chance of the Lib Dems getting hammered in the European Elections; the likely scenario is that UKIP finish first, Labour second, the Tories third and the Lib Dems fourth (or perhaps even lower). Whilst these types of elections aren’t necessarily indicators for national elections (UKIP finished second and Labour finished third in 2009), it can’t be good for morale if the Liberal Democrats do badly. Taking any potential Coalition popularity out of the question, as the most pro-European party in the UK the Lib Dems will do well to present a positive message in the light of growing Euroscepticism. The party needs to replicate Eastleigh in 2014 and 2015, and budge up those stubborn poll numbers.




-Chris Huhne exit

In the grand scheme of things, Huhne’s resignation demonstrated the Lib Dem’s fighting spirit, as they retained Eastleigh. However, the party still lost a member of the cabinet, and it made for a couple of weeks of uncomfortable viewing and reading. The Lib Dems lost a prominent MP and battler against the Tories, but Mike Thornton’s victory in Eastleigh and the passage of time has meant that Huhne’s exit hasn’t lived long in the memory.


Conclusion

Steady progress has been made, with some promising outlooks for the future. 2013 was certainly a far better year for the Lib Dems than preceding ones in the Coalition (it can’t get much worse than late 2010 or 2011), but more needs to be done. In the negatives section, the exits of Huhne and Teather can be shaken off (and to an extent already have been), but increasing the poll numbers will be a far more difficult task. The party have achieved some good policy initiatives as listed above, and on the national front unemployment is down to 7.4%, with a record number of people in work (over 30 million). However, more needs to be done on youth unemployment, along with the national shame of people resorting to food banks (some 350,000 people).


With regards to hopes for 2014, the party needs to keep on blocking unpopular measures that can’t be compromised on, and presenting this to the electorate as a sign that Coalitions can work (and indeed, that a Lib Dem presence is vital). Furthermore, the party must face the daunting task of the European Elections, with a UKIP victory and a Lib Dem slump the likely outcomes as it stands. Nevertheless, 2013 has show that slowly, but surely, the Liberal Democrats’ ‘muscular liberalism’ is starting to take effect.

Russell Brand got it wrong; we need to vote

I’ve never been a Russell Brand fan, but I can’t deny that he talks a good game. Despite his extrovert personality and celebrity background, there’s an underlying clarity and passion in the way he speaks. There’s no doubt that he jousted well with Jeremy Paxman, and there’s no doubt that he made some good points. However, I fundamentally disagree with his central argument; I believe people should vote.


I’ve noticed with socialists that they are often very good at identifying the problems, but when it comes to offering solutions, strong questions marks occur. Brand argues that we “shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people”, and notes that there is a “huge disparity between rich and poor, where 300 Americans have the same amount of wealth as the 85 million poorest Americans”. A clear picture is painted here, but the solution is altogether more sketchy. Brand suggests “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment”, and thinks a “centralised administrative system” could achieve this, but when Paxman counters that a Government would be needed to do this, Brand responds with “Yes, well maybe call it something else. Call them like the adminbots so they don’t get ahead of themselves”. This may well be taken as a humorous response, but it calls into question how seriously we can take the argument.


Russell Brand doesn’t want people to vote, and again he appeals to the intuitive side by saying “why vote? We know it’s not going to make any difference. We know that already”. This really frustrates me. It’s pedalled all too often in everyday life, and whilst safe seats are a sad fact of political life (I should know, I live in one), you can’t change anything by not voting. I accept that there are numerous cases in history where change has been brought about by uprisings and so on (think the October Revolution in Russia), but the focus here is on the UK, which wasn’t susceptible to a widespread revolution even during the Industrial Revolution. If large swathes of the population were to be caught up in Russell Brand’s populism, it would be an open goal for the Conservatives to appeal to an even more narrow group of the nation and win. Of course there are issues with the current political system, and problems in society, but I can’t accept Brand’s argument that “there’s gonna be a revolution, it’s totally going to happen. I ain’t got even a flicker of doubt. This is the end”. Not only is that not the right solution, I don’t think it can be taken seriously as an argument.


The 1945 UK Election is a benchmark for how it should be done. People wanted change, so they voted for it and got it. Not only that, they got one of the greatest UK Governments ever, one which tackled poverty and income disparities, maintained low levels of unemployment and created the NHS. We live in a different age, but I’d still argue that many of the issues that Brand highlights were problems just before Labour came to power in the forties. It may be tempting to see abstention from voting as a great two fingers up against the political class, but what would it solve? The types of politicians that many people despise are still going to get elected. There will always be people who are still going to vote. I’m generalising a lot here, but I’m pretty confident that many of the people who will always vote are likely to be Tory voters. Brand attacks the Conservative Party in his interview, but for people not to vote would only be beneficial to them. It’s not plausible to consider that everyone in the UK will stop voting, so the system under heavy criticism from Brand will stay right as it is by his logic.



Vote for change; that’s the answer. Not enough interests and needs are truly represented in our Parliament; I absolutely agree with Brand on that. I’m also utterly convinced that we need a change in the electoral system. The kind of revolution we need is an extension and improvement of our democracy, and better democratic models. I’ve made this argument many times, but I genuinely believe that First Past the Post encourages the current system, and discourages many people from voting. However, that’s not an argument to decide to stop voting altogether. If some good can come out of UKIP’s recent success, it’s that electoral reform will be put back on the agenda (this is under the assumption that a good polling rating nevertheless results in zero MPs for UKIP in 2015). Proportional Representation would shake up the current system and make it fairer, and would make people feel that their vote does count, and can change things.


I did a blog entry on policies that I believe can restore some faith in politics (people, rightly, will never be 100% satisfied in the political system), and I’ll briefly list my conclusions from that here:

-Electoral reform
-Party funding reform
-Statutory register of lobbyists
-Reform/abolish expenses
-Votes at 16 and 17/better political education


Although there are difficult obstacles, these can all be achieved, and through democratic means. I think it’s appropriate to bring up the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Brand says there is an alternative, and he’s right. However, that alternative can be shaped and achieved through voting, not through a vague utopian mantra riddled with contradictions. You don’t tackle apathy with apathy.

The daunting task of being a Liberal Democrat

Being a Liberal Democrat frequently entails (as I’m sure it did in the past) a good dosage of self-deprecation. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve said (probably to my shame) “someone’s got to do it” as a nervous adjunct to the declaration of my political allegiance. I’ve little doubt that being a Lib Dem has always attracted ridicule; think of Mrs Thatcher’s “this parrot is dead” ode to Monty Python in a party conference speech. However, the challenge now is quite different; as a party of government, they are on the back foot.

In times gone by, the Lib Dems may well have been disregarded by the political establishment, but as a party comfortably in third place, they had the opportunistic luxury of opposing anything and everything that was unpopular. This isn’t to question their integrity, quite the opposite; their opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 when Labour and the Conservatives were in full support (not to mention the substantial media pressure) was full of conviction. However, Tony Blair’s view of them in A Journey was that of an unwillingness to take tough decisions. Read his quote here, and take in the irony of it in the context of the Coalition now:


"The Lib Dems seemed to be happier as the ‘honest’ critics, prodding

and probing and pushing, but unwilling to take on the mantle of responsibility

for the hard choices and endure the rough passages”.


The tuition fee debate has been done to death, but it’s worth another referencing point. The Lib Dems of course believe (and believed) in free education and were against tuition fees, but could also oppose them in past manifestos due to not being a party of government. Now the tuition fee increase is a stick used to beat the party with. It’s far harder to defend a record than to attack one, but at the tender age of 21 I can’t moan too much; imagine what the transition from opposition to government was like for Liberal Democrats (and formerly Liberals) up and down the country who’ve seen generations pass.

It’s not the case that there’s little to defend; on the contrary. Forgive the ‘Gordon Brown shopping list’ approach, but some of the Lib Dem achievements listed are potent; an increase in the income tax threshold to £10,000, halving detention without charge, triple lock on state pensions, the multi-billion pound pupil premium, a banking levy, ending child detention for immigration purposes, scrapping ID cards, commitment for overseas development at 0.8% GDP, fixed-term parliaments, shared parental leave and no like for like replacement of Trident (to name a few). As a Coalition, the deficit has been cut by a third, 1.2 million new apprenticeships have been added along with 1 million new jobs since 2010. The problem is that these achievements are often ignored and slapped with the reply of “you sold out” and “I’m never voting for you again”. It’s futile to hope for any positive Lib Dem message on the comments page of any article from The Guardian, and normative cries of “never trusting that weasel and his toast party” curiously gain credibility, at least on the Facebook 'like' level. As a Lib Dem, there’s sometimes a horrible sense of inevitably when trumping successes in government that a verbal backlash will follow in due course.



I recently represented the Lib Dems on a Question Time-style debating panel at the University of Manchester Debating Union. I’m not ashamed to say that I was bricking it prior to the debate. Public speaking wasn’t necessarily the problem; I have given talks before. However, the difference before was that, more than not, the audience were sympathetic and of the wish for me to do well. With no other Lib Dems in a room of around 100 people, I felt like I was bringing a knife to a gunfight. Joining me on the panel were representatives from the Conservatives, Labour (whose speaker was, it must be said, a doppelgänger for Damon Albarn), Greens, anti-capitalist students and the liberty league. I felt that I didn’t slip up, but I didn’t deliver any knock-out blows or raise applause from the audience. Briefly taking tribalism out of the issue, the other members of the panel spoke with great conviction. Whilst there was some political banter, the panel was relatively cordial, and there was little (if any) talking over each other or interrupting. As before, I did my best to highlight our achievements, and to the credit of (what seemed to be) a predominantly left wing audience and the panel, the tuition fee debacle wasn’t thrown back in my face. The questions were mercifully straightforward, and structured like this:




1) Question on proposed privatisation of the student loan book

2) Would you agree that the UK economy is back on track?

3) What should be done about rising energy prices?

4) If we were to leave the EU, would jobs suffer?

5) With so many cuts to vital services, should we really be wasting so much money on renewing Trident?




The debate highlighted the back-foot scenario; I was lucky not to be jeered and was able to list some of our achievements, but ultimately the opposition on the panel (i.e. the whole panel bar the Conservatives) had the potent retorts on the economy and gained the applause as a consequence. However, if we are to read back to the Tony Blair quote, this is the approach that the Lib Dems relished prior to 2010, and did they get policies into government in return?




This article may have painted a bleak and negative image. It highlights the tasks faced by Lib Dems around the country. However, as Lib Dems we are fighting for convictions and, for the first time in generations, policies in government. Uncomfortable compromises and decisions have had to be made, but it’s a sign of maturity. Surely if the Lib Dems had rejected government altogether in 2010 for the ‘pure’ approach, what would be the point in voting for them? Parties are unfortunately tainted by government, sometimes by selfish and foolish means, but often by necessity and pragmatism. UKIP are the populist ‘none of the above’ party today, and in the debate the Greens filled that platform (although unlike UKIP, they have some good policies); if they were to ever reach power in government, they too would have to make uncomfortable deals and drop cherished policies.




The Lib Dems can always find encouragement. I love the quote from an unnamed Tory after the Eastleigh by-election of our “sheer bloody resilience. They just won’t lie down and die”. James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph said “If UKIP is the hammer that has come crashing down on David Cameron, the Lib Dems are the anvil”. The joke is sometimes made that in the aftermath of nuclear destruction, the remaining survivors would be cockroaches and Lib Dem activists carrying focus newsletters. There are proud policies to fight for both from the 2010 manifesto and for the prospective 2015 manifesto; plans to raise the income tax threshold to the minimum wage level should be shouted from the rooftops.


It’s very daunting to be a Liberal Democrat, and it’s far from easy. However, if we can extract noble stoicism from this, the Liberal Democrats can leave their mark on British politics.