Sunday 30 May 2010

Money, sex and power

Back in the early 1980s, a book called Money, Sex and Power was doing the rounds in evangelical church communities. It took as its starting point the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and argued that these were a response to the three greatest temptations of life in the secular world. It also (and bear in mind I read this about thirty years ago, and don't intend to obtain and re-read it now) argued that the most difficult temptation of the three to overcome was power.

I'm still very, very angry at the treatment meted out to David Laws over the last few days. I'm not part of the Orange Book tendency within the Liberal Democrats that is exemplified by Laws, one of the book's editors. But as his performance at the dispatch box (hat tip Pretendy Liberal) last week showed, he's a talented performer with a first class mind, and a strong member of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary team.

The Laws 'scandal' as reported in the media centres around the first two of the three temptations - money and sex. It's been argued by enemies of the Liberal Democrats that Laws, the MP for Yeovil in Somerset, was 'ripping off' the taxpayer by claiming rental expenses for accommodation in London with someone he wasn't prepared to acknowledge as his partner. At the time of writing, the extent to which any rules were broken by this arrangement are subject to a ruling by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to whom Laws referred himself.

Ironically, the sums involved - £700-950 a month - were small in the context of London property rental prices. Aggregated over nine years they amount to the much more shocking-sounding "tens of thousands of pounds" quoted by the Daily Telegraph (no, I'm not going to link to them, on principle) - but then so would most people's housing costs. And the owners of the Telegraph, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers, wouldn't notice tens of thousands of pounds if it fell on their heads.

And it's a strange sort of 'ripping off' that results in the perpetrator claiming less money than he was entitled to claim quite legitimately and above board.

An entirely spurious argument is being put about by some of Laws' opponents that, as a wealthy man (which he is), he shouldn't have been claiming any housing costs in London at all, despite being an MP for a constituency from which it's unrealistic to expect him to commute daily. This argument is spurious because the House of Commons expenses system is not a means tested one. I suppose it's possible to argue that it should be, in which case it's legitimate to have that argument out in public in a theoretical way. But so long as it's not means-tested, no-one has the right to set some arbitrary threshold for claims and condemn those claimants they think fall beyond it. It's simply not up to individuals to set themselves up as guerilla freelance regulators of MPs' expenses according to rules of their own invention.

One of the worst aspects of the whole business, however, is the salacious way in which the 'gay lover' references are worked into press headlines, as journalists comb through the details of Laws' (now no longer) private life. The whole thing feels like a throwback to the 1950s. It is a sad truth that, despite modern advances, there are still people like Laws who feel they cannot be open about their sexuality with family or friends - a situation, it's worth noting, which would be even worse if some of the social conservatives on the Tory benches had their way. Tony Grew reminds us here what life was like for gay men before society became, for the most part, more liberal in its outlook on such matters. In effectively forcing David Laws to 'out' himself, the Telegraph has behaved utterly disgracefully.

So much for money and sex. What about power? As a Channel Islander by origin, I followed with interest the actions of the Telegraph's owners - the above mentioned Barclay brothers - in Sark in 2008, and the poisonous interplay of money and political power there. Are we prepared to tolerate the same toxic relationship here, where the billionaire owners of a newspaper, answerable to nobody, can effectively choose who will or will not hold one of the most significant offices of government?

The role of the press (the 'fourth estate') in public life is important, and must be able to be fulfilled without fear or favour - but is the balance right? A great deal of coverage is given to 'scandals' of money and sex; but arguably, as I said in my opening paragraph, abuse of power is the most difficult scandal of all to deal with. Interestingly, it's power that Laws has had to lay down because of the accusations around the other two temptations.

One final point. Many (though, to their credit, not all) Labour politicians, commentators and sympathisers have been licking their lips and rubbing their hands with glee at the coverage given to Laws in the last forty-eight hours. So long as people like Hazel Blears remain on the Labour benches, they have no right - repeat, no right - to pass any comment at all. Indeed, you can read a story about the expense claims of one of the current contenders for the Labour leadership here (and no, once again I'm not going to link to the Telegraph version of the story).

David Laws' response to the coverage of this story has been swift and incredibly dignified. I wish him well for the future and hope that he will soon return to make the contribution to public life of which he is so very capable.

Tuesday 18 May 2010

Special conference

Our special conference in Birmingham was a really amazing event, not least because it demonstrated the capacity of the party to summon nearly 2,000 Liberal Democrats to Birmingham on a Sunday at four days' notice and administer an event of that scale without a (visible) hitch. All credit to Lucy Billingsley and the Liberal Democrat conference team for that.

There are plenty of reports of the debate - including by Mark Pack here, by Mark Thompson here, and of course the collected thoughts of participants via Twitter. (In which I briefly participated until the battery in my new BlackBerry gave out).

Those few who spoke against the coalition did so in sorrow rather than anger, and were listened to with respect. Highlight speeches from Simon Hughes and Tony Greaves were among the best I've ever heard, and conference gave a deeply affectionate welcome to the wonderful Evan Harris who was so cruelly deprived of his Oxford West & Abingdon parliamentary seat on 6 May. The final vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the agreement, with only ten or so out of nearly 2,000 participants voting against. The decision that Nick Clegg should speak after the debate was over, rather than seeking to persuade the membership in the debate itself, was absolutely right.

In some ways it's a pity that it was decided that the press should be excluded, as the debate showed the party at its absolute best. However, it's perhaps arguable that if the press had been there, we wouldn't have had the kind of event we had - but that's something we'll never know, as it's a bit like the question about opening the fridge door to see if the light's on. There's anecdotal evidence from several colleagues about the national press only wanting to talk to people opposed to the agreement, which saddens but doesn't surprise me - so goodness knows what they would have done to coverage of our conference to make it fit the story they want to write.

I voted for the agreement, and for all nine amendments which were put forward to the main motion - and which were accepted by the movers of the motion. An historic day indeed.

Volunteer Centre Fenland

Congratulations to Volunteer Centre Fenland, who have just emailed me a copy of the feature about them in the latest Volunteering England magazine. The whole article is only accessible online to members of Volunteering England, but I'm happy to forward what Volunteer Centre Fenland have sent me to anyone who would like a copy.

Sunday 16 May 2010

Birmingham special conference

Getting ready to go to Birmingham this morning, for the Liberal Democrats' special conference to discuss the coalition agreement with the Conservatives. The agenda has just one item, a motion on the agreement.

Nine amendments have been accepted for debate, including one from my former local party in Harlow, where I used to live. They cover
  • the lack of will of the Labour Party to take part in a coalition

  • the fact that the Liberal Democrats remain an independent party free to develop its own policy

  • the need for the new government to ensure the gap between rich and poor is narrowed over the course of this parliament

  • a re-affirmation of the Liberal Democrats' objective of scrapping tuition fees

  • a call to repeal parts of the Digital Economy Act

  • a commitment to seek to protect the Human Rights Act 1998

  • a re-statement of Liberal Democrat commitment to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans equality

  • a call to move towards a proportional voting system for local government, and

  • a re-commitment to the party's policy of PR for elections to the House of Commons.
It'll be an historic event, and I'm really looking forward to being part of it.

Friday 14 May 2010

The 55 per cent solution

I'd started to write a story about the (deliberate?) misinformation being spread about the proposal that Parliament should be able to be dissolved by a 55 per cent majority of MPs, and found that Cllr Iain Roberts of Stockport had beaten me to it and said everything that needed to be said. A useful and informative article.

Wednesday 12 May 2010

The rainbow progressive coalition of the losers that never was

Five days after Labour lost its majority in the House of Commons, Lord Mandelson was still spinning faster than my washing machine when he was interviewed on television last night. The Labour Party had offered a wonderful opportunity to share government with the Liberal Democrats, he was telling us, but instead the Lib Dems had chosen - yes, chosen - to do a deal with the Conservatives, which was what they had really wanted.

Much breath, ink and pixels have been wasted since last Thursday discussing the potential for a 'progressive coalition' to unite the best of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. There were only three problems with this: firstly, Labour weren't up for it; secondly, the maths just made it impossible; and thirdly, it wouldn't have been progressive.

When Liberal Democrat negotiators met the Labour team, it was abundantly clear that even the Labour negotiators were far from keen on the business under discussion. As Allegra Stratton reports for the Guardian:
"Every one of the Lib Dem negotiators gave an individual report back of their meeting with Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Adonis, and they each reached the same conclusion: that the Labour team were uninterested, with no movement on ID cards, the third runway at Heathrow, or increasing the proportion of renewable energy from 15% to 40%.

All reported back that the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, was the "greatest disappointment" since they had regarded him as a fresh broom, unencumbered by the kind of instinctive dislike of electoral reform that some of his colleagues held. Others were angry that the Brown team had put up Ed Balls. "I mean, Ed Balls in there? For goodness sake. That's not very serious," said one."
And even while the talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats were taking place, Labour MPs and even the odd minister were queuing up to say they wanted no part of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats. David Blunkett, John Reid, Jack Straw, Diane Abbott, Tom Harris, Andy Burnham, falling over each other to argue against any sort of arrangement with the Lib Dems. In some cases, the case was argued from a basis of blatant self-interest, that it would be easier to take votes from other parties by sitting on the sidelines while attacking other parties for working together. Even perennial Labour cheerleader Polly Toynbee confessed it wasn't looking good.

To be fair, the mathematics of Thursday's result made it a long shot. With 326 MPs the number required for a majority in the House of Commons, Labour's 258 and the Lib Dems' 57 only totalled 315, so other parties would have to be involved. A senior Labour figure was adamant he wanted no truck with the SNP. The new Green MP said she wouldn't take part in any alliance at all. Take away the Labour MPs already mentioned, and there just wasn't enough support - even with full Liberal Democrat support.

Finally, by what stretch of the imagination would such a coalition have been 'progressive' anyway? During its term in office, the Labour government gave us ID cards. Retention of innocent people's DNA on police databases. War on Iraq at the behest of George W Bush. A widening gap between rich and poor. The extention of detention without charge. Detention and appalling treatment of children at immigration centres such as Yarls Wood. Fingerprinting of primary school children, for heaven's sake. As Oliver Cromwell said when he dismissed the Rump Parliament in 1653:
"Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd; your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings, and which by God's help and the strength He has given me, I now come to do.

I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!"
There would have been nothing progressive about an alliance based on these policies. The jury may be out on whether the new coalition will deliver the goods, but it is a great relief to know that Mandelson and his ilk no longer run the show.

The agreements

The coalition agreements between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have been published this afternoon.

There's lots to welcome. A spending premium for disadvantaged children. Restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. An increase in the personal allowance for income tax, phasing in to a £10,000 allowance. A switch from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty for environmental reasons. A banking levy. Tackling tax avoidance. A commission on separating retail from investment banking. An end to the detention of children for immigration purposes. Fixed term parliaments. A referendum on electoral reform. A committee to propose a wholly or mainly elected second chamber chosen by PR. A register of lobbyists and reform of party funding. Phasing out the default retirement age. Greater school freedom over the curriculum. A Freedom Bill. Scrapping of ID cards. Changes to the rules for the retention of DNA. Reform of the libel laws. A green investment bank. High-speed rail. Cancellation or refusal of additional runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick.

Indeed, a Liberal Democrat majority government would have been able to include additional items from its manifesto, and some hugely talented Liberal Democrat MPs would have been given the roles they deserve. But partnership has to be about compromise, and I'm seriously impressed at what the Liberal Democrats have managed to get included in these agreements. There are genuinely exciting times ahead.

Liberal Democrats will be holding a special conference on Sunday in Birmingham to discuss the agreements and - I hope - give them our backing. I've booked my place. We Liberal Democrats can be a difficult bunch to please, but from what I've seen so far the mood is optimistic.

Tuesday 11 May 2010

What's going on?

Four days after last Thursday's election resulted in a 'hung parliament', and the talks continue. I'm being stopped in the street, asked by email, picking up comments on Facebook and elsewhere, by people wondering what the outcome will be.

In shock news: I don't know.

This is a difficult situation for the Liberal Democrats. As pundit Olly Grender put it pithily on Twitter: "It's official - we are now in formal conversations with a 'rock' and a 'hard place'".

Though not the only important discussion point on the table, a commitment to serious moves on electoral reform will be a sticking point for the vast majority of Liberal Democrats.

There are some in Labour and the media who are dangling the possibility of some 'progressive coalition' (Lib Dems plus Labour plus nationalists plus Green) that will deliver a fair voting system. They seem to have overlooked two facts: firstly, the numbers for such a coalition barely stack up and would be very vulnerable as a working government; and secondly and more importantly, many Labour MPs in safe seats - not to mention many of their defeated candidates - don't want a fair voting system anyway and would vote against it.

Whatever the outcome, two things are clear. Firstly, Thursday's 'hung parliament' result hasn't caused a run on the pound, the collapse of the economy, or anything else that Kenneth Clarke and other scaremongering Conservatives were shrieking about during the election campaign. Other countries around the world, including some of the most economically successful, have parliaments with no one party in charge, and have done for years. It's grown-up politics, and it's not a bad thing for politicians to talk to one another.

Secondly, I'm very pleased to know that - unlike in any other party - as a Liberal Democrat member and candidate, I could yet have a direct say in the outcome. It's not up to Nick Clegg, or even Liberal Democrat MPs, to come to a deal with one party or another. Under our constitution, 75 per cent of Liberal Democrat MPs and 75 per cent of our Federal Executive (the party's governing committee) have to agree to any outcome from these discussions. If that doesn't happen, there has to be a special conference, at which 75 per cent of our voting conference representatives would have to agree. And failing that, there would be a ballot of all Liberal Democrat members. Other parties envy us the extent of our internal party democracy, and that's yet another reason to be proud to be a Liberal Democrat.

Friday 7 May 2010

Everyone's a loser

At least in the cold light of morning the misery is fairly widely distributed.

For Labour, Gordon Brown has lost large numbers of seats, and is now in second place in votes and seats. For the Conservatives, although he has the most seats and the most votes, David Cameron has failed to secure a majority in the House of Commons. For the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg is left with fewer seats than before the election, only a few percentage points behind Labour in terms of votes but with only one-fifth Labour's share of seats.

For the Murdoch press, their attempts to terrorise people into voting for a Conservative majority by warning of the horrors of a hung parliament have resulted in the election of the hung parliament they urged against. For the television media, the outcome of the election seems to have reduced them to a condition of total inability to understand the simplest and most straightforward statement made on the doorstep of Liberal Democrat HQ at 4 Cowley Street. For the pollsters and pundits, they're left scratching their heads at how what appeared to be happening during the campaign turned into the result that finally occurred.

And for the British public, once again they've been denied what they wanted to vote for, by a crooked electoral system which has delivered a totally distorted result, and which the likely party of government is unlikely to want to reform.

At the time of writing, Nick Clegg has announced that the Liberal Democrats are going to keep to our word, and allow the party with the largest number of seats and votes to try to govern. Let's see what Mr Cameron has to say this afternoon.

North East Cambridgeshire result

The North East Cambridgeshire election results came through later than originally predicted, at around three in the morning at the Hudson Leisure Centre in Wisbech. They are as follows:
  • Steve Barclay (Conservative) 26,862

  • Lorna Spenceley (Liberal Democrats) 10,437

  • Peter Roberts (Labour) 9,274

  • Robin Talbot (UKIP) 2,791

  • BNP 1,747

  • Debra Jordan (Independent) 566

  • English Democrat 387
The Liberal Democrats have moved from third place to second, and from 17% of the vote to 20%. The Labour vote has collapsed from 30% in 2005 to 17% this time.

I've congratulated Steve Barclay on his election as MP for our constituency, and hope that he'll represent this beautiful area and its people as we deserve to be represented.

I've also pointed out that nationally, the unfolding results show how badly our electoral system is broken.

Wednesday 5 May 2010

Scary stories from worried Tories

As we count down the hours until the polls open at 7:00am tomorrow, all three parties in North East Cambridgeshire have been out delivering last-minute leaflets today. Steve Barclay's final effort for the Tories holds a grim postscript for its readers.
"P.S. A hung parliament would cause indecision, weak government and a paralysed economy. This would mean higher costs for families, higher fuel prices and higher mortgage payments"
it intones. Of course, that's what he wants residents to think, but unfortunately for him, his scare stories aren't borne out by the evidence.

A national newspaper report reveals that
"Fears of an economic meltdown in the case of a hung parliament have been dismissed by a leading credit rating agency and senior economists."
It goes on to show that
"of the 16 countries worldwide who currently have the top triple-A financial stability rating, 10 are run by coalition governments. The majority of nations that have taken the toughest action in recent decades to tackle their debts were also governed at the time by coalitions."
Moody's ratings agency thinks a coalition government would find it easier to push through necessary savings. Another ratings agency, Fitch, describes the prospects as 'stable', which it says takes into account the prospect of a hung parliament. And a third agency, Standard & Poors, lowered its assessment of Britain's economy to 'negative' - but they did this a year ago, when the Conservatives had a 17 point lead in the opinion polls!

It just shows that the Conservatives will say anything to terrorise people into voting for them. What was that David Cameron said in the television leaders' debates about it being 'wrong to frighten people' in election leaflets?

On a lighter note, while at home for a brief respite, I answered a knock at the door - a young charity salesman trying to sign me up to donate regularly to his (very worthwhile) cause. "Don't worry," he told me, "I'm not a politician after your vote". "Well, I am!" I told him, to the amusement of both of us.

Tuesday 4 May 2010

My personal election broadcast

Nick Clegg's personal guarantee

"This is my personal guarantee that I will use all the support you give me on Thursday to deliver fairness in Britain.

"We need a fairer tax system. I will use your votes to cut taxes for those at the bottom and in the middle and close the loopholes for those at the top.

We need to support our children. I will use your votes to ensure extra funding for schools, to cut class sizes and give all children a fair chance.

We need to clean up politics. I will use your votes to reform Parliament, to deliver a fairer voting system, protect your freedoms and give you the right to sack corrupt MPs.

We need a new economy. I will use your vote to split up the banks, get them lending again, invest in green infrastructure and so create jobs.

This election campaign has shown us that millions of people want us to do something different this time.

Politicians should work together to solve the nation's biggest problems.

That is why, whatever the outcome on Thursday, I believe we should be prepared to work together to fix the terrible state of our public finances and ensure economic stability.

These are the key steps to a new, fairer Britain. Give me the power of your vote and we can make it happen.

Together, we can make the difference."
View Nick Clegg's guarantee here.

Smash and grab

Extraordinary news emerges this morning of rumours that David Cameron's Conservatives are planning to mount a smash and grab raid on 10 Downing Street, regardless of the outcome of Thursday's election.

The Conservatives have always made it clear that they oppose the introduction of a fair voting system, because they prefer a system that gives one party a majority to one that reflects what voters actually say they want.

To prepare to overlook the result of the 'first past the post' system they favour, if it doesn't suit them, therefore seems not only anti-democratic but hypocritical too. Somehow, this doesn't seem all that surprising.

Monday 3 May 2010

Liberal Democrats unveil high-profile supporters

Mark Pack has the story.

Measuring up for curtains

So David Cameron is measuring 10 Downing Street for curtains already, and announces he'll ignore the Liberal Democrats in hopes of stitching up a deal with the Ulster Unionists at Westminster.

What happened to his "invitation to join the government of Britain" then? Or is the invitation for Conservatives only?

Cameron's presumptuous attitude to the people is symptomatic of everything that's wrong with politics in Britain. It's time to take power away from those who hoard it; to challenge vested interests, and break down privilege.

After the credit crunch and the recession, it's now clear that the banks are the biggest vested interest of all - and only the Liberal Democrats will take them on. The Conservatives are the party of choice for rich bankers - not surprisingly, when their major tax policy is to give tax breaks to multi-millionaires.

Since Mr Cameron became leader, the Conservatives have raised more than £15m from their banking connections, while one in 10 Conservative candidates for Thursday's election is either a former banker or has links to the industry - like Steve Barclay here in North East Cambridgeshire. Will Cameron really tackle the bankers on whom he is so dependent?

We have three days left to change Britain - to get rid of governments, both red and blue, that have served vested interests rather than the people who elected them. The opinion polls continue to show that there's all to play for, with the Liberal Democrats targeting seats which previously would have seemed out of our reach. Will it be more of the same under Cameron or even Brown, or real change with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Only a few days till we find out!

Older people

I've been working very hard to answer the letters and emails I've received during this election campaign, particularly those sent by people who live in North East Cambridgeshire, rather than by national pressure groups. As I've previously remarked, these have covered a wide range of topics, but one that has cropped up recently is the needs and views of older people, on which quite a few residents have written to me.

Our senior citizens make a huge contribution to our community and to the economy, not least because of all the unpaid work they doing looking after grandchildren. There's an urgent need to make sure that the state pension is fair, and that older people are given flexibility over when they choose to stop working. The NHS and public transport are particularly important public services for older people.

Liberal Democrats have promised to boost the state pension by immediately restoring the link with earnings growth - we wouldn't leave it until 2012. We'd scrap compulsory retirement ages, and introduce the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just those with young children.

We're proud of the NHS - it's built on the basic British principle of fairness. Liberal Democrats believe we can improve the NHS; in fact, we believe it's our duty to do so at a time like this when budgets are tight. We all know that too much precious NHS money is wasted on bureaucracy, and doctors and nurses spend too much time trying to meet government targets.

Our first health priority is to increase spending in some parts of the NHS, by cutting waste in others. We've identified specific savings that can be made in management costs, bureaucracy and quangos, and we'll put that money back into front line health care. Because of the rising costs of treatments and an ageing population, there'll be particular pressure on services like cancer treatment, mental health care, and dementia care; only by going through this process of finding savings elsewhere can we protect these services in the coming years. The NHS is a huge system, and we'll make changes to ensure it works as effectively as possible.

We'll cut the size of the bureaucracy at the Department of Health by half, abolish unnecessary quangos such as Connecting for Health and cut the budgets of the rest. We'll scrap Strategic Health Authorities and seek to limit the pay and bonuses of top NHS managers so that none are paid more than the Prime Minister.

We'll make the NHS work better by extending best practice on improving hospital discharge, maximising the number of day case operations, reducing delays before operations, and where possible moving consultations into the community.

We'll integrate health and social care to create a seamless service, ending bureaucratic barriers and saving money to allow people to stay in their homes for longer rather than going into hospital or long-term residential care.

We'll use the money from Labour's flawed Personal Care At Home Bill to provide guaranteed respite care for the one million carers who work the longest hours. We'll establish an independent commission, with cross-party support, to develop proposals for long-term care of the elderly.

We'll prioritise dementia research within the health research and development budget.

Finally, we have no plans to cut travel concessions to older people that have been pledged by the current government. In fact, we'll help to increase the opportunities of older people to travel by investing £3bn in a Rail Expansion Fund, to reconnect places like Wisbech to the rail network. We'll also give local authorities more control over local bus services so that they can control routes and prices and ensure companies like Stagecoach provide a better service.

Sunday 2 May 2010

Winner!


Even before Thursday's election, there's already one winner in the Spenceley household! Our lurcher Valentino, whom we adopted from Poplar Farm Kennels at Sutton Gault when we moved to NE Cambridgeshire last summer, won First Prize for Best Rescue Dog at the dog show at Cottenham. (The rosette is of course the wrong colour).

Saturday 1 May 2010

Whittlesey

A hot, sunny day in Whittlesey, where I helped deliver leaflets for Thursday's election. Very friendly cats everywhere, and some of my favourite tracks on my MP3 player. I didn't realise how sunburned I'd become until I got home.

Followers