Liberal Vision

Occupy The Street

Introducing the next leader of the Liberal Democrats : Norman Lamb

 There’s not a vacancy, of course.

And nobody’s talking about a vacancy.

We’re all backing Nick. Some of us still dust down the “I agree with Nick” banners, T-shirts and badges. They bring a tear to the eye. They remind us of those dreamy days when, with just a couple of weeks to go to polling day, the LibDems were at over 30% in a cluster of opinion polls.

Much has changed since then, of course. If a week’s a long time in politics, a year is, in rough terms, about 52 times as long.

But, most likely, if you had to put your house on it, you’d probably shove it on Nick Clegg leading the party into the next election. And if you knew he wasn’t going to – and have to bet your mortgage on someone else – you’d probably have to edge towards Chris Huhne or Tim Farron as his likely successor.

Every loyalist insists in public, of course, that such tittle tattle is just the media making mischief.  But – in our heart of hearts – we know that’s totally disingenuous.

Bar room gossip at party conferences quite often turns to the topic of who the next party leader might be. It’s not plotting. It’s just idle speculation. But that doesn’t make it illegitimate or poisonous.

Everyone involved in politics is interested in how things might “pan out” and telling Jeremy Paxman that you “don’t answer hypothetical questions” is just a cop out. Virtually everything we think about and discuss is based on hypothetical questions.

So, consider this.

Imagine – for whatever reason – that Nick Clegg doesn’t continue as party leader for the next decade. You don’t need the imagination of an Arthur C. Clarke or a J. R. R. Tolkien to see how this might happen. Maybe he just gets cheesed off with the whole thing. Maybe there is some enormous internal party revolt at some stage. Maybe there is some recalibration of the way the Coalition operates. There’s a zillion ways it could happen, even though, on balance, it probably won’t.

Step forward Norman Lamb. He is an almost complete unknown outside of the LibDems. But then so was Nick until the first TV debate.

Crucially, he’s fairly independent. He’s not put all his chips on the Coalition succeeding, which many other possible leadership candidates have had to (partly because, of course, he was shamefully overlooked for ministerial office when the Coalition was formed).

He’s also essentially a party loyalist, but with Orange Book and mildly eurosceptic tendencies.

His television profile is rising. He’s an obvious choice for party-orientated media (by-elections etc) and also strong on his former health portfolio. Yesterday, he broke cover to make a splash on his concerns over the Lansley NHS reforms. Not in the terms of some tedious conservative Luddite, but for fear they hadn’t been fully thought through.

About a year ago, here on this very blog,  Norman was described as a media superstar.  Objectively he is not that – not yet. He’s occasionally a bit defensive and slightly hesitant. But he does have the common touch and doesn’t talk in jargon. Additionally, I’m not sure that “macho” politicians – displaying Ed Balls-style certainty in the face of all credible evidence to the contrary – are very popular anywhere any more.

He also has a few other things going for him. Typically, LibDems seems to vote for more establishment middle-of-the-road candidates rather than firebrand radicals. Despite their many strengths, Simon Hughes and Chris Huhne have now both lost two leadership elections from “the left”. To run for a third time for the party leadership surely puts one in the “Ken Clarke” position – widely considered charming, but unlikely to ever actually inherit the crown.

The lefty-leaning, charismatic, activist-adored and media savvy Tim Farron, only narrowly defeated the more establishment Susan Kramer for the party’s Presidency last year despite running an enormously more impressive campaign.

Norman also has a pretty hardened and impressive political CV – both at the coal face of Westminster and at the grassroots level. He had to deal with the growing disquiet over Charles Kennedy’s difficulties with alcohol (having been his PPS) – and was one of the very first MPs to publicly call for Charles to quit. He also has the battle scars of the frustrating Ming Campbell period, serving as his chief of staff in troubled times.

At local electoral level, Lamb’s achievements are staggering. He first contested North Norfolk – a rock solid Tory seat with a 10,000 majority in 1992. He cut this to around 1,000 in 1997 and just won it with a majority of 483 in 2001. In 2005, he saw off Tory blogger Iain Dale and increased the LibDem majority by over 2,000%. He increased his majority again in 2010 to an eye-watering 11,626.

If the shift in votes which have occurred in Norman Lamb’s seat since 1992 had been replicated across the country last May, the national vote share in the 2010 General Election would have been LibDem 46% Conservative 20% Labour 17%.

He may need simply to find a little more self-confidence and a bit more steel. And no doubt his surname gives rise to a whole string of dismissive newspaper headlines and dispatch box jibes. But the next time you’re speculating about who might lead the Liberal Democrats next, give Norman Lamb serious consideration.

Tags: coalition, lib dems, NHS, Norman Lamb

The Observer fails to fact check its front page pro-Balls set piece

Ed Balls’ spin doctor, Alex Belardinelli, sent out an excited press release on Saturday revealing that the Observer was to “splash” on a predicted rise in household debts.

“These figures underline Ed Miliband’s warning about the cost of living crisis facing families in the squeezed middle,” it said.

Of course, this wasn’t the Observer’s splash, but Balls’ man was right that his story would appear on the Observer’s front page the next day.

Unfortunately, the second paragraph of this story got its facts wrong.

“The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year,” it says.

Not true. In the OBR’s forecasts “late last year” (ie. November), debts were forecast at a revised £2,113bn. The latest forecasts are for £2,126bn.

This is an increase of £13bn, or 0.6%.

It is not an increase of £303bn, which would be a 14.3% jump.

A big hat-tip to David Smith [@dsmitheconomics], economics editor at the Sunday Times, for pointing out the error.

What the Observer meant to say, Smith calculates, was that the figure has increased by £303bn since last summer.

At that time, last summer, inflation was at 3.1% (CPI), while now it’s at 4.4%. Spiralling inflation might just have something to do with the rise in the figure.

The Observer article is packed with quotations from and citations of Ed Balls (funny, that), Labour MP Chuka Umunna, the Labour-leaning IPPR, and the socialist-Keynesian’s favourite economist, Paul Krugman.

It is bylined, incidentally, by the Observer’s political editor and policy editor – not the economics team.

The OBR’s March report, which the story is based on, also revealed that government sector debt net will break through 70 per cent of British GDP by 2013-14.

The UK’s net debt (note to Balls – this is different to the “deficit”) hit £875.8bn in February, while government spending has increased since Osborne arrived at Number 11.

Central government spending alone is up over £30bn compared to the same time in Labour’s last fiscal year.

And yet it’s “cuts” that are responsible for our economic plight? The Observer and its pals needs to get its facts right.

Where is the Lib Dem candidate for London Mayor?

We keep wondering – and seem to be getting no closer to an answer – who will be the  Lib Dem candidate for London Mayor? It turns out that the Politics Show is likewise intrigued.  Here is a clip from last Sunday’s show – featuring a piece about this very subject . Well actually it’s about Lembit – as he appears to be the only Liberal Democrat in London who wants the right to be ritually humilated right now.

The more observant of you will notice Liberal Vision’s very own Andy Mayer being interviewed in the pre-recorded piece at the top of the clip.  Andy’s assertions are forthright, but frankly, spot on. 

Tags: lembit opik, Liberal Democrats, London Mayor

No national DNA database here thanks

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy recently called for all men in Bristol to have their DNA screened in the hope of discovering the murderer of Jo Yeates. Fortunately, it seems that the police have more sense than McCarthy does, and her proposal will not be implemented. Given the costs and practical difficulties of testing thousands of people for the purpose of solving just one criminal case, such a suggestion is clearly unrealistic in practical terms.

However, some argue that if a compulsory national DNA database of every UK citizen was established, far more cases where DNA evidence is left at the scene of the crime could be solved, as the DNA from the crime scene could be matched to the database. This would probably not work as smoothly in practice, and the potential benefits are usually over-stated: DNA evidence has sometimes resulted in wrongful convictions, and multiple matches on DNA databases are often returned. Compiling the database would also be very expensive. But regardless of the effectiveness of a compulsory national DNA database, it should be opposed as a matter of principle by anyone who believes that the state should pay any attention at all to respecting our privacy.

Our DNA is perhaps the ultimate symbol of our individual identity. It can reveal information about us which even we ourselves are not aware of – such as our susceptibility to certain diseases. If we have no right to restrict the state from holding our genetic information (assuming that we have not committed a crime), then we cannot logically be seen as having a right to any privacy at all, and any principled case for upholding our civil liberties must be abandoned. A fundamental liberal value is that the state is the servant, rather than the master of the individual; the creation of a compulsory national DNA database would imply a complete reversal of this notion.

Furthermore, a national DNA database could potentially be turned into a tool of vast oppression. While catching criminals is the standard justification, there is no guarantee that its use would remain limited to this (illegitimate, but not in itself critically threatening) function. Historians such as Jon Agar have noted a tendency of ‘function creep’ in the use of identification technologies; personal information often ends up being used in ways markedly different from those for which it was originally intended. Over the next few decades, scientists look set to make enormous progress in determining which specific genes contribute to various human traits. If the genetic associations of psychopathy or paedophilia (or a number of other characteristics) are determined, I imagine that the majority of people, without fully considering the implications for liberty, would support the state revealing to the general public who has such genes. I also imagine popular support for taking pre-emptive action against people with certain genes; for example, those with a gene associated with paedophilia might be banned from working with children. Once you accept such a principle, the power of the state is effectively unrestricted. Any future government that wished to control which people should and should not reproduce would certainly find a national DNA database very useful indeed.

I was opposed to Labour’s plans for ID cards for many reasons, but one significant reason why I felt it was such an important issue is that I feared that a national DNA database could soon follow. Thankfully, the coalition government have abandoned the ID cards scheme and have also recognised that the state has no right to store the DNA of those who have not been convicted of any crime. But McCarthy’s recent call should remind us that such illiberal principles are still supported, and we must remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by DNA databases and other technologies of identification.

Post by Simon Rigelsford