Is coalition a dirty word?

2010 saw the first formal coalition in the UK since the Second World War, if you exclude the brief ‘Lib-Lab’ pact of 1977-78. Despite unpopular elements within the current Coalition, certain pundits are predicting a hung parliament in 2015. However, the prospect of another coalition has been met with negativity from senior politicians, with Douglas Alexander calling the idea a “nonsense”, and David Cameron, eager to placate his many right wing MPs, appears to be similarly cool on the prospect. The general public haven’t exactly given the current Coalition a ringing endorsement, so is ‘coalition’ really a dirty word?


Under First Past the Post (FPTP), the concept of coalition has been an alien one in Britain. Coalitions in the 20th century were mainly in times of urgency; the First and Second World Wars had national governments, as did the 1931 administration in the wake of the Great Depression. 1974 saw a Hung Parliament, but a second election later in that year saw Harold Wilson’s Labour Party claim a wafer-thin majority. In contrast, European countries frequently have power-sharing deals, a key exponent being Germany. Angel Merkel is seen as a strong and determined leader (see her comparisons with Mrs Thatcher) but to my knowledge she isn’t labelled a ‘sell-out’ for having coalitions with the SPD (Social Democratic Party). The latest election in Germany has seen a very fair compromise between the two largest parties in Germany; the SPD got a minimum wage and a lower retirement age, whilst Merkel’s Christian Democrats got an agreement not to raise taxes. This coalition was despite the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) making a deal with their prefered partners, the FDP (Free Democratic Party), in the 2009 election. Is coalition really such a bad thing?


The national government during the Second World War can certainly be seen as a success, not only for Allied victory but for the post-war consensus which followed. However, Ramsay MacDonald’s popularity and standing certainly suffered as a result of his 1931 coalition, and the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-78 dissipated relatively quickly. I admit that as a Liberal Democrat it is easier for me than for someone from a historically majoritarian party (Labour/Conservative) to present the virtues of coalition, but who is to say that coalitions in the recent past wouldn’t have been beneficial? Had the 1980s seen a PR voting system or the absence of a Tory-boosting Falklands victory, coalitions could have tempered the worst excesses of Thatcherism. An SDP-Liberal Alliance coalition with the Conservatives could have seen the positive aspects of Mrs Thatcher’s governments retained (trade union reform, reduction in top rate from 80%, ability to buy council houses) whilst reining in or diluting certain negative aspects (poll tax, top rate at 40%, inflation prioritised over unemployment, Euroscepticism, erosion of local democracy). Similarly, a progressive alliance with the Labour Party could have ousted Thatcher whilst removing the militant tendency and the ‘longest suicide note in history’ that is the 1983 Labour manifesto. This, of course, paints a rather rose-tinted view; Mrs Thatcher was anything but a consensus politician, and compromise was a dirty word for the trade unionists of the era (perhaps it still is). However, had the mathematics of seats in Parliament dictated a hung parliament, what leverage would Thatcher and Kinnock have had to disregard outright a coalition?

A nasty problem in politics is that compromise is seen as a weakness; just look at the Republican Party’s intransigence during budget negotiations with the Democrats in the US. This absolutist position may well boost morale and solidarity, but it can have disastrous consequences for the country as a whole; just see the previous example and the ‘fiscal cliff’. I would of course love a Liberal Democrat majority in 2015, but pragmatism, along with the natural constraints of electoral power and performance, mean that it won’t happen. Compromise is, as John Cleese put it in a 1980s political broadcast for the SDP, when two sides who had previously disagreed come to an agreement. David Cameron put it as two parties with differences coming together “in the national interest” in 2010. Let’s look at the merits of the current Coalition, which all too often are ignored amidst tribal cries of ‘betrayal’ and ‘selling out’; a £10,500 income tax threshold, a multi-billion pound pupil premium for the poorest primary school students, the biggest increase in the state pension and free school meals for all infant school pupils to name a few Lib Dem achievements. In addition to this, the Lib Dems have blocked the snooper’s charter, an inheritance tax cut for the rich and the ability to sack workers at will to name a few Tory policies blocked.


Naturally, we wish we could have more policies realised. A Mansion Tax would be a great progressive policy, a PR electoral system would help, and the tuition fee policy has been talked to death. However, it’s better to get some policies through, and to block some Tory policies, rather than none at all. This is where the extreme left and right come unstuck. Too often they will refuse to compromise, to enter agreements or to cooperate; as I’ve mentioned before, this leads them to delusions of grandeur and a sense of ‘job done’. However, the irony is that physical achievements of their cherished convictions are at 0%. Look at the militant tendency of the 1980s; implicitly, many party members in that tendency prefered to see unrestrained Thatcherism than to get a centrist consolidation or a partial realisation of progressive ideals. The Lib Dems could have mirrored this in 2010 and declared “we won’t sell out”, and this may have resulted in a short term poll boost. However, had we done this, what would be the point of voting Lib Dem? Why vote for popular policies over decades, only to back out at the final hurdle when there’s a chance for some of them being finally achieved?


Not only is there intrinsic value in coalitions, but pragmatic ones too. As a sixth former, I remember how unpopular Labour were from 2008-2010. Many polls predicted a comfortable victory for the Conservatives; how could the opposition not prosper in the wake of financial ruin? Nevertheless, Cameron couldn’t win a majority; surely it is foolish for Cameron to assume that he will get that majority in 2015? On the Labour side, there are still doubts over Ed Miliband, especially on economic credibility, not to mention his weak response to the 2014 Budget. For all of Douglas Alexander’s tribalism (which is widely shared in the Labour Party), is shutting the door to the Lib Dems totally wise? UKIP will have to face these problems soon; it’s unlikely that they’ll gain any MPs in 2015, but if they gain a handful in a hung parliament do they really think that as potential kingmakers they’ll achieve 100% of their manifesto? They will face tough compromises should they enter a coalition, just as the Lib Dems did in 2010. However, as a party which currently has no MPs, surely it would be worth it to see some of their goals achieved, provided that the conditions are right?


Coalitions can have intrinsic and pragmatic value, and compromise can bring positive results. Political parties can make compromises and agreements whilst still shouting proudly about their individual identities. The post-war consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties took place during the so-called ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’, but you’d be brave to suggest that the two parties were indistinguishable. A 2015 coalition shouldn’t be feared, but embraced. Moderating negative policies where possible, even if it means altering some of your own goals, is not a totally bad thing. To put it more bluntly, I don’t trust Labour or the Conservatives on their own in government. Do you?

My Political Villain: Mitt Romney

This article was published in The Mancunion, and can also be found at this link: http://mancunion.com/2014/03/05/my-political-villain-mitt-romney/

The Republican Party do not fare well in my political opinions and values, so you’d think that any individual representing them would be a political villain for me. However, it is Mitt Romney in particular who stood out at the 2012 US Presidential Election as an incredibly frustrating and contradictory candidate. His habit of flip-flopping and voicing of extreme views makes him my political villain.

The Republican Party in general were notoriously stubborn with their attempts to derail Obamacare, a piece of legislation designed to insure those who can’t afford healthcare, and to lower costs for middle class families (how can that be a bad thing?). However, Romney was one of the most hypocritical opponents. Having signed a very similar piece of healthcare reform as Governor of Massachusetts, declaring “the President’s copying that idea, I’m glad to hear that”, Romney later declared Obamacare “bad news” and threatened to repeal it “on day one” if elected President. Not only did Romney oppose a landmark bill designed to help the most vulnerable in society, he “invented Obamacare before he was against it” as Jay Leno humorously summed up.

Healthcare wasn’t the only inconsistency. Leading up to 2012, Mitt Romney had flip-flopped on almost every major issue, highlighted by Romney contradicting himself at different points in time over issues such as healthcare, abortion, economic stimulus and women’s rights. It wasn’t a case of him simply changing his mind; he was willing to become the “Massachusetts moderate” to be Governor of a liberal state, yet “severely conservative” (both labels are attributed to Romney himself) to gain Tea Party support and the Republican nomination in 2012. If we are to take one side of his flip-flops, he has (at some point) held pro-choice views on abortion, supported economic stimulus and pledged to support the auto-industry (which he later wished to “go bankrupt”). However, Romney lurched towards the right and was secretly videotaped accusing 47% of Americans as government-dependants who will always vote Democrat. His choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, a darling of the Tea Party with an aggressively conservative budget plan, further underlined his determination to appeal to anyone whom he thought could propel him to the White House. It clinched the Republican nomination, but not the Presidency.

On the rare occasions that Romney started to develop more convictions, they were often of an uncaring nature. Not only did he want a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and a return to Bush’s trickle-down economics, but he cheerfully noted ”I like to fire people” and ”I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there”. To counter a question on pay equity, he crudely stated that he had had “binders full of women”, and the secret video tape of a fundraiser speech lead to this shocking outburst: “there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President [Obama] no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…My job is not to worry about those people”.

Mitt Romney is not my political villain just because he lurched to the right. I’m not a fan of Mrs Thatcher, but she was a conviction politician, and her stances were always unequivocal. Perhaps we can best sum up Mitt Romney with a quote from himself: “I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was.”

RIP Tony Benn

I was very sorry to hear about Tony Benn’s passing today. I’ve always admired him, despite his views being well to the left of mine. He was an incredibly articulate and powerful orator, and remained steadfast in his principles and convictions. This will not be a biographical account as such, but more of a general overview.


Born into a privileged family, Benn never sought to keep the status quo; he renounced his peerage after a series of struggles, and was readmitted to the Commons in 1963 in a by-election, having been denied the right to by his peerage. Benn was also extraordinary in that he moved leftwards whilst a member of the cabinet under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan. When you hear someone speak with viewpoints very different to your own, it’s often easy to be put off immediately (think Rick Santorum on the right or George Galloway on the left), but Tony Benn had a way of expressing his views with clarity and wit, so much so that you could end up agreeing with him more than you’d think. I disagreed with Benn over the trade unions and Arthur Scargill, and an unfortunate consequence of Benn’s split in the Labour Party meant that some very disreputable figures in the ‘militant tendency’ emerged. Losing narrowly to Denis Healey in the Deputy Leadership election of 1981, a Michael Foot-Tony Benn leadership would arguably have ended Labour’s power as an electoral force for longer. However, when it came to analysing Mrs Thatcher, Benn was capable of some devastating blows; see the Youtube clip below of his speech in the Commons on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqOvBKnKdk *


There were many views of his to admire. When he stood down as an MP in 2001 (in nearby Chesterfield), he said he was doing so to “give more time to politics”. Furthermore, Benn had very potent views on the military. Benn said that during a war, an army general would never say that his budget had been spent up and that he could do no more; he did what was required. However, this is not the case in peacetime in other areas such as unemployment; Benn summed it up nicely by saying “if you have the money to kill people, you have the money to help people”. He was also a fierce opponent of the Iraq War, and was President of the ‘Stop the War’ coalition. He was loyal to the Labour Party, but refused to be an apologist for them; “We as a party had suffered greatly from the influence of Mr Blair...Labour won the election in 1997, but New Labour was a Conservative idea”. His loyalty to the party was truly admirable; I very much agreed with the SDP breakaway and their subsequent alliance with the Liberals, but Benn was nevertheless prepared to fight for his views as the Labour Party became more and more Thatcherite. Benn even admitted in an interview with Jeremy Paxman and Medhi Hasan in 2010 that “the Labour Party has never been a socialist party, but it’s had socialists in it”.

As a Christian, I had a lot of respect for Tony Benn’s comments on Jesus despite his agnostic stance; “when I look at the world in which we live, and the dangers, and the problems we face, the most important thing of all is the teachings of Jesus about how we should treat each other”. Benn also showed that he was a good sport, appearing in this very humorous interview with Ali G below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YYroSudUs *

Tony Benn was a prolific diarist, his last diary poignantly titled “A Blaze of Autumn Sunshine: The Last Diaries”. I of course disagree with him in many areas, but he did raise legitimate questions when talking about power and democracy, in particular how a lot of power is concentrated in certain institutions. As polarised and radical as he was, I think it’s almost impossible to dislike a man of such integrity. If I was to choose my ideal public speaking team for a debate, I’d certainly want Tony Benn on my team. Rest in peace Mr Benn.



*I own none of the video rights; all the rights go to Youtube and the relevant accounts

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.