The Derbyshire Dales has a right to see its candidates debate each other

In my view, the 2010 General Election TV debates were a big success. Whatever your political background, they were a great way of holding our party leaders to account in front of the nation. My challenge is this; why not have a similar format for the Derbyshire Dales?

In recent times, hustings between Parliamentary candidates in the Dales have occurred behind closed doors. There has been little or no media coverage of these hustings, and the only people in attendance have been the respective party members for each candidates. Not only is this a pointless exercise, as the debates will not sway the opinion of tribal loyalists, but it is undemocratic. Politicians need to be held to account with the electorate, and yet debates over local and national issues exclude the general public in this context.

In addition to this, we live in a world where social media is an increasingly important outlet for conveying messages and news, yet we still have an archaic and exclusive mechanism for debates between candidates in the Dales. Even if the debates were to include members of the public in a town hall-style format, the vast majority of households would be left out. There are very straightforward solutions. We of course can’t expect television studios to send their cameras down and televise the debate, but we can stream the debate live, or at least have an uninterrupted recording of the proceedings to publish on Youtube and other relevant websites soon after. There could also be the opportunity for interaction as the debates goes on, so that people watching could ask their own questions.

I’m laying down the gauntlet to my fellow candidates; let’s have the debate, but let’s have the debate inclusively in front of the people we are standing to represent. What is there to be scared of? We are standing for a very important cause, and it is our duty to convey our messages across to the Derbyshire Dales.

The Lib Dems aren’t sell-outs. The clue is in the name; Democrats

This will look like a review going over old ground, but it is a myth that needs tackling. Countless times since 2010, the party have been called sell-outs, Tory collaborators, spineless cowards. These labels are utter nonsense. I of course will bring bias to the table, but these populist mantras miss the point, whether you hate the Liberal Democrats or not.


First of all, let’s not shy away from recent gloomy events. The recent polling days saw the loss of over 300 councillors in the local elections and fifth place in the European elections, returning just one MEP on 6.87% of the vote. What is especially galling is that UKIP topped the European poll, but this blog entry won’t focus on their performance and policies, as we could be here all day. On a personal level, my region of the East Midlands now doesn’t have a Lib Dem MEP after losing the hard work and services of Bill Newton Dunn, whilst in my student home Manchester Council is now 100% in Labour control; my good friend Dominic Hardwick was unable to gain a seat for the Lib Dems despite giving up pretty much all of his spare time, whilst James Hennigan, the “only one who does anything around here” as one voter told me, lost his council seat in Levenshulme. These results have added fuel to the fire of discontent against the Lib Dems, not to mention glee from opponents.


Harriet Harman, in response to Clegg’s recent speech on being “the bravest and toughest party in British politics”, had this to say; “Nick Clegg should be in no doubt, people will not forget what the Lib Dems have done in government - his party has been an accomplice rather than a brake on this Tory-led government...it is not brave to make promises and break them, it is reckless with people's confidence in our democracy”. There’s that word; democracy. In the comfort of opposition, Harman has (probably intentionally) conveniently forgotten her own party’s record in Government. All parties should be held to account, but if breaking promises is the thrust of your argument, you are inevitably susceptible to counter-charges. This links in somewhat with those who choose not to vote, those who say things such as “politicians lie...they’re all the same”. I will bring up a mantra I often use of making “the best out of a bad situation”. Whilst it is a sad truth that politicians inevitably break promises and aren’t always trustworthy, it is surely better to be in the tent trying to get a net gain from it all than simply perpetuating the problem in the comfort of opposition, whether that opposition is the Labour Party or an abstention from voting.

The Lib Dems didn’t get all of their policies into Government, and they’ve had to agree to some unpopular Tory policies. That’s democracy. It may seem blunt, but there are natural constraints on power. It is inconceivable for a party who gets 23% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats to dictate everything to the party with the most seats. Someone who puts forward the smallest amount to shared ownership of a house cannot expect to demand the whole house to themselves, however much their financial input was needed. The items on a child’s Christmas list will not always (or indeed may never) be attained 100%, but unless you’re really stubborn you’d be a foolish child to choose no presents over some presents. Yes I feel sympathy with voters and members who saw their party join forces with a party opposed to much of what they stand for, but I’m baffled when people have written in papers such as The Guardian stating how long they’ve been a member for, only to boldly declare “never again” upon the formation of the Coalition. They supported cherished policies over the years that never came close to fruition, yet finally a chance came to realise some of them, and they turn their back on the party?

When I’ve explained the democratic processes and the uneasy nature of having to compromise, many people have said to me “well, why didn’t they prioritise things like tuition fees?” It’s a fair point, but it can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s say we did prioritise tuition fees; “well, why didn’t you prioritise abolishing trident?” “Why didn’t you prioritise abolishing council tax?” Soon you end up with a ‘Go-Compare’ of Lib Dem policies. What if voting against tuition fees (which we should have done) had meant no raising of the income tax threshold? What if bringing in a mansion tax (which I still of course want) had meant the top rate of tax going further down to 40p (this was George Osborne’s plan in 2012)? A snowball effect occurs; once the accusation is made that one policy wasn’t prioritised, soon both ends of the political spectrum can pick other policies that also weren’t given due protection. Eventually we’re back to the point I’ve been trying to make; you cannot have your manifesto fully delivered as a minority party. A coalition with Labour didn't have the numbers (or indeed the willpower from Labour bigwigs; check out Adam Boulton's "Hung Together: The 2010 Election and the Coalition Government" for a detailed account of events), whilst choosing to remain in Opposition may have attracted short-term praise, but ultimately it would have meant no policies in Government and the likelihood of an overall Tory majority in the event of a second election.

Other parties may soon have to realise this truth if we are to enter an age of pluralistic politics. Let’s say the Greens gain 3-5 MPs in 2015. This would rightly be considered a very good result for them. There’s every chance that there could be another hung parliament, so let’s say the Labour Party are just short of a majority, but choose not to go with the Lib Dems. The Greens may enter a Coalition with Labour in this scenario; can anyone seriously tell me that the Green Party would not have to make uncomfortable choices and compromises in this context? We could echo that scenario with UKIP and the Tories. They may have a strong say in proceedings, but they’d have little mandate to demand their manifesto in full.

An aspect that is in danger of getting lost in translation is what we have achieved. It’s my sincere hope that the electorate don’t turn a deaf ear to the Lib Dems on, essentially, a single-issue basis (tuition fees). When I’ve mentioned the income tax threshold going up, quite a few people have said to me “ooh, that’s quite good actually”. The problem is that many people don’t want to listen once the Lib Dems start talking; they’ve made their minds up. It’s far easier to attack a plan than to defend a plan. However, let me bring up another mantra of mine; giving credit where credit is due. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,500 (above the original aim in 2010), a multi-billion pound pupil premium aimed at the most disadvantaged primary school students, the biggest ever increase in the state pension, scrapped ID cards, ended child detention for immigration purposes and cutting detention without trial to 14 days. These were all in the 2010 manifesto, with the tax reforms and pupil premium in particular on the front page.

Furthermore, we’ve stopped the following Tory proposals; raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, giving employers the power to fire workers at will, the illiberal ‘Snooper’s Charter’, running state schools for a profit, revival of O-levels, ditching the Human Rights Act, regional pay and boundary changes. Bunched together, a pretty grim outlook would have been prominent had these policies not been stopped. However, the prevention of these policies don’t appear to be bearing fruit for the Lib Dems because they are just that; blocked. The country hasn’t had to endure these ridiculous ideas, and so therefore certain sections of the electorate are relatively oblivious to what might have been. Marty McFly won’t be thanked by his Mum in 1985 for stopping Biff marry her, as he’s already prevented it from ever happening.

In summary, the Lib Dems haven’t sold out. They’ve made some bad and foolish decisions, but I firmly believe that the net result is a positive one. They’ve had to fight day and night to get policies into power, a position they haven’t been in for generations. I started University with as much of a dislike for the Tories as anyone. That’s why, rather than lampooning the party for joining them, I’m pleased that they’re in the tent fighting them.

David Cameron should be applauded for standing up for his faith

There has been a considerable storm over David Cameron’s labelling of Britain as a “Christian country”, with an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, signed by the likes of Peter Tatchell and Dan Snow, heavily criticising the move. Nevertheless, I believe that Cameron should be applauded for standing up for his faith, not derided.

First of all, let’s look at what Cameron said. I admit that calling Britain “a Christian country” is bound to attract controversy, and it raises various questions on how this conclusion is reached. However, there is surely nothing wrong with Cameron saying “the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none - and we should be confident in standing up to defend them”. Furthermore, by saying that this did not mean "doing down" other religions or "passing judgement" on those with no faith, Cameron was not being ignorant.

The open letter to the Daily Telegraph stipulated “we are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives, and we are a largely non-religious society. Constantly to claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society”. If by alienation they mean offence to other cultures, then this is not necessarily the case. The Hindu council of Britain has said that they are “very comfortable” with the label of ‘Christian country’, whilst the Muslim council of Britain have said that it cannot be denied that the UK remained a largely Christian country with "deep historical and structural links" to Christianity, adding that “a sense of the sacred is to be cherished". The Muslim council also noted that the UK would be stronger by "recognising and celebrating" people of multiple faiths and of no faith "living in harmony". These councils obviously don’t speak for every Hindu and Muslim in Britain, but they are telling comments, nevertheless. A YouGov poll found 65% of people questioned said they were “not religious” v 29% who said they were, but a 2011 census found that 59% of residents described themselves as Christian; naturally, statistics are subjective in this sense.

This brings us back to the label “Christian country”. Historically and traditionally, it cannot be denied, and much of our laws are based on Christian principles. There’s no doubt that Christian numbers have declined in this country over recent decades, but does that still mean that it is wrong to assert the Christian links of this country? It begs the question of whether this fuss would have been created had Cameron retained the majority of his speech but omitted the phrase “Christian country”. Personally, I am uneasy at using such a label, and would have omitted it had I made the speech, but I’m pleased that Cameron has been proud and unashamed of his religious convictions. To the credit of the open letter brigade, they did say “it is right to recognise the contribution made by many Christians to social action” (this quote wasn’t found on the BBC website), which echoes Cameron’s words that Christians “make a difference to people's lives". It’s my sincere hope that Cameron’s speech may encourage those both with faith and with no faith to recognise this contribution more.


I’m aware that I’m at risk of attracting criticism for writing this article, but I too feel that it is important to stand up for my faith. Why should Christians be characterised and pigeonholed as radicals (which they often are)? I had a lot of time for a recent article by Lauren Wills in The Mancunion (found here: http://mancunion.com/2014/02/04/long-live-the-audacious-church/), which highlighted the positive effects of Christianity which often go unnoticed in a media which instead frequently focuses on individuals who say and do unacceptable things. Is the label “Christian country” a dubious one? Perhaps. Is Cameron wrong to shout about his faith as Prime Minister? Absolutely not. Christians should feel encouraged to stand up for their faith, be they a Conservative Prime Minister or a centre-left and liberal student like myself.

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.