Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Uncategorized'

| Subcribe via RSS


Cracking edition of Question Time

By Editor
March 25th, 2013 at 11:54 am | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

If you missed Thursday’s edition of Question Time, do take a moment, if you can, to catch up on iPlayer. On the panel last week were Michael Gove (Con), Emily Thornberry (Lab), Natalie Bennett(Greens), Anthony Horowitz (writer extraordinaire) and Mark LittlewoodQuestion_time_logo (IEA).

Many will know that Mark Littlewood was founder of Liberal Vision so we were especially pleased to see him on the panel doing just a grand job – most particularly on the issue of press regulation. Though to be frank he served up aces for every question posed (budget/press regulation/education/Cyprus).

Many on twitter report that it was one of the finest editions of QT in a long time – and we certainly wouldn’t argue with that one.

ps Anthony Horowitz occupying the usual lefty writer slot was a very pleasant surprise indeed – sounded like a good liberal through and through. His comments on Hacked Off were truly top drawer.

Tags: , , ,

Lord Rennard: Good news, but MORE questions

By Angela Harbutt
February 24th, 2013 at 9:27 pm | 3 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Good news from the Party today that the investigation will NOW be “independently chaired”. Why such an obvious decision was not easily made at the outset is concerning. From what I can gather, they seem to have taken this decision without any conversation with the women concerned [but will happily be stand corrected]. But it is good to hear that our concerns (and others) were listened to. Special mention here goes to Stephen Tall , who piled in behind us on Friday. No news yet on who the “independent Chair” is to be or how they will be appointed.

Questions: Following suggestions that the person at the end of the “whistle-blower” hotline appears to be too intimately connected to the party, on too many levels. I assume that the hotline will now likewise be put in the hands of someone out side of the party. And quickly.

This isn’t to suggest any aspersions about the fair-mindedness of either Tim Farron (who was originally slated to head up the inquiry) or Kate Parminter (who manages the rather under-advertised hotline), but surely these things properly need to be placed under the command of those who don’t have a long history at the senior levels of the party?

Finally, it has to be asked, for the umpteenth time, who exactly is managing the party PR machine? Had the party line on Friday not been so hapless, some of the weekend’s newspaper speculation, and embarrassing statements from Cable and Browne could probably have been avoided.

Added to that, the statement made by Nick Clegg this evening, and the press office follow up,  seem to leave more questions than answers. Nick’s tone of indignation was utterly inappropriate. And he is already having to issue clarifications about the difference between his knowledge and his office’s. This is exactly the sort of running commentary that he said, rather optimistically, he wished to avoid. He is unlikely to be able to do so over the coming days.

Update: We are delighted that the party has announced that a new independent whistleblower group will deal with complaints: Telephone number 020 7404 6609

It has also announced that it has appointed Alistair Webster QC to lead the formal internal investigation under the Party’s disciplinary rules into the specific allegations made about the conduct of Lord Rennard.

Finally the party has said that it will also be announcing an independent Chair for the investigation into party procedures and to thoroughly examine how allegations made in the past have been handled.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Lord Rennard : What next ?

By Angela Harbutt
February 22nd, 2013 at 1:37 pm | 4 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

News broke last night that Lord Rennard is being investigated for sexual impropriety.

Lib Dem Voice can hardly bring itself to mention the words, referring to it rather obliquely as “Party launches investigation over C4 News allegations“. You would not know the allegation was even about Lord Rennard, had they not put up a statement from Lord Rennard’s solicitors. Likewise the rest of the blogs seem unusually quiet on the issue. Shock? Fear? Denial?

The Channel 4 investigative report is admittedly, truly shocking. Put simply, the programme states that women who worked for the Liberal Democrats have told the programme that Lord Rennard abused his position for years by inappropriately touching and propositioning them – and that leading Lib Dem MPs and peers who knew – failed to take any meaningful action. Lord Rennard has responded through a solicitor saying he has no recollection of any inappropriate behaviour and is unaware of any complaint about his conduct ever being made against him.

It is too early to get into the specifics of the allegations made about Lord Rennard. This may well end up being a police or legal matter. It is worth stating that those appearing in the Channel 4 programme all came across as highly rational women with no particular axe to grind. There was no payment involved and the motivation for them speaking up was said to be the concern that, having quit as Chief Executive, Lord Rennard was being re-integrated into the party.

The women should be applauded for their actions. It was a terribly brave thing to do. Who knows how many other women may feel emboldened to come forward as a result of their willingness to put themselves in the firing line. Who knows what this may eventually uncover.

There are three things that the party needs to do. It has not had much time, and thus far gone some way to addressing them, though there are as many questions as answers raised by the Party statement made to date. And some things that feel, well, just wrong. Let me go through them:

1. We need full investigation into claims made against Lord Rennard.

The party has stated that an internal investigation into the specific allegations raised by Channel 4 has begun under the Party’s disciplinary procedures.

The allegations made in the programme are individually serious and collectively devastating. An investigation must happen. But the suggestion is to conduct an internal investigation. Is it really appropriate given the allegations made? Have the women concerned been asked how they would like to see this conducted? After all, one of the women was quite clear that she had already tried the internal complaint route. Would she be happy treading the same path again?

Surely, and mindful that I have not spoken to the women either, wouldn’t it be better if this job was conducted by an independent arms-length body or individual. People, perhaps still active in the party, may feel more comfortable coming forward, if the investigators they have to speak to are NOT their colleagues, bosses, or leading members of the party.

We also do not know where this investigation may take us, who may come forward, and what they might say. Though we all hope it is not the case, supposing other members of the party are accused of harassment or bullying? At what point does an internal investigation into internal issues become an impossible mess?

All in all, we do need an investigation, but I urge the party to consider consulting with the women first this time, and probably putting this investigation into hands of a third party, giving them full reign to investigate where they will with impunity. That is surely the only way to be sure of the best outcome for everyone.

2. We need a full investigation into the actions of Paul Burstow, Jo Swinson and Ros Scott

The party says there are a number of questions that have been raised and that the review will ensure it properly addresses all of them.

I assume this refers to the fact that at least one of the women, Alison Smith, states that she took her complaint to not one but two parliamentarians.

The first person she says she took her complaint to, “within a week” was Paul Burstow, the then Chief Whip. She says he listened to her complaint and did nothing. Paul has to be allowed to have his say of course. But this has to be investigated, and if true, he must face serious sanctions. It really is that simple isn’t it?

Alison Smith then says she took her complaint to a second member of Parliament, Jo Swinson, the then spokeswomen for the party for “women and equality” [She is also the MP who put down a motion in parliament for "unwanted touching and harassment"]. According to Alison Smith, Swinson did at least agree to investigate her complaint and, indeed appears to have done so. But again says nothing happened.

Again Jo must be given the opportunity to answer the claims made. But if she was indeed “aware of a number of cases”, and let the matter get swept under the table then she too should face serious sanctions.  Certainly she would have to cease to pronounce on women’s issues forthwith.

Finally we must ask what the party president knew. In a statement she gave to Channel 4 News, Baroness Scott refused to comment on why Lord Rennard resigned. Why? It was ill health wasn’t it?

According to Alison Smith, Ros Scott told her that Chris Rennard had been forced to stand down because of these allegations. Ros Scott did say to Channel 4 that she was “aware that there were issues about his behaviour” She says that she received no formal complaint; but says that as a result of the allegations she instigated a review of the party’s whistle-blower procedures. This is puzzling. She was sufficiently concerned about allegations she had heard to instigate a better protocol for whistle-blowing, but appears to be insufficiently concerned about the lives of the young women to investigate, or demand to be told who had investigated the situation, and what the outcome was.

There may be others.

We cannot stand on platforms espousing equality, women’s rights and commitments to tackling sex discrimination in the workplace whilst turning a blind eye to what may be happening within our own ranks. That would be hypocrisy. If the cries of help from women have been ignored, then anyone who ignored them, failed to take action, or stood by and allowed nothing to happen, must all face the music. .

3. Getting it all out

The party is urging anyone to contact the Chief Executive or the Lib Dem confidential whistle-blower procedure if they have issues they wish to raise as a result of Channel 4’s report.

That is welcome but insufficient. We cannot sit back and “hope” that word gets around that that an investigation is underway. If we are serious about this we need a letter written to every Liberal Democrat member, informing of the investigation and asking anyone with information to come forward. We need a specific name to contact (not “the Chief Executive”) a hotline telephone number, and a confidential email address people can write to. Every member of staff should be encouraged to come forward, if they have anything meaningful to report, using the “confidential whistle blower procedure” (whatever that is).

As well as putting this investigation into the hands of an arm’s-length third party, we should also ask the party to a commitment to reporting back its findings. I do not mean the specifics of the allegations against Lord Rennard. But at the very least we should expect a report detailing the findings of the broader investigation, conclusions and outcomes. To date there has been no mention of what the outcomes may look like. This must be addressed.

It is fair to say that collectively we are in shock. But we must get over that. If we are to move on from this we have to get to the truth, and be seen to get the truth. If that means asking questions about how the party is to conduct this investigation, and demanding more of it, if we find it wanting, so be it.  Mostly we must ensure that the women in this are given every opportunity to have their say in how this process is conducted.

Update: Earlier this evening  I received an email from Alex Folkes , a leading Lib Dem photographer for many years , asking that I immediately take down the photo of Lord Rennard because it was “unauthorised and uncredited”

Alex Folkes is in Georgia so I gather he was unable to contact me by telephone.

Following an email exchange with him, I am delighted to confirm he is now content for the image to appear on our website.

Liberal Vision is pleased to confirm that Mr Folkes is the copyright owner of this image and we are grateful to him for allowing us use of it.

 

Tags: ,

Sam Bowman: Liberal Voice of the Year

By Editor
January 14th, 2013 at 12:38 pm | 1 Comment | Posted in Uncategorized

Congratulations to Sam Bowman, Policy Director of the  Adam Smith Institute, for winning Lib Dem Voice “Liberal Voice of the Year” award.

 

Sam was the clear winner taking 52% of the vote, indeed Sam was the clear winner through out every round of the voting (see here) receiving nearly 50% from the off.

The top 3 were

1. Sam Bowman (52%)

2. Malala Yousafzai (28%)

3. Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (20%)

Congratulations to all three. But special congrats to Sam. A very worthy winner who has been positively prolific across 2012, speaking out for liberty across so many areas:  immigration, same sex marriage, legalisation of drugs,  the surveillance state, minimum alcohol pricing, and much more. Sound on every occasion.

Sam follows in the footsteps of Mark Littlewood (formerly of this parish), Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Liberal Voice of the Year winner 2012.

Tags: , , ,

Minimum Pricing: Battle lines are drawn

By Editor
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm | 6 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

There is an article in the Mail Online today that will warm the hearts of every good liberal.

Whilst Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne MP has been gagged (as has Farming Minister David Heath MP,) on the topic of minimum pricing of alcohol, word has leaked out that Jeremy is clearly on the side of the angels:

“…friends of Mr Browne have told The Mail on Sunday that he disputes claims that the policy is certain to cut binge drinking – or reduce the number of pub fights.”

A source close to Mr Browne said: ‘Jeremy’s view is that the thug who has downed nine cans of lager is hardly going to think, “Oh dear, I can’t afford a tenth because of minimum pricing. I think I’ll go home to bed instead of starting a brawl.”

Needless to say his stance has meant that Tory Police Minister Damian Green has been given the task of speaking publicly in support of the policy. Jeremy is right of course. As is the assertion made on his behalf :

“Jeremy maintains that the middle-class woman in Oxfordshire who drinks a £10 bottle of Chablis every other night will not be affected because it won’t go up in price and she can afford it anyway,’ said the source.

‘But the working-class woman in Oldham who drinks a cheap bottle of Lambrini will be hit because it will cost more”

Well said that man. Is his, and other MP’s, opposition enough though? It would appear sadly that there is no ‘organised’ campaign against minimum pricing to date. It is not clear if this is because the supermarkets & drinks companies are following the strategy of appeasement, looking at the likely boost to their incomes such a policy will deliver regardless of the hurt it will cause their customers, or were genuinely taken by surprise. Perhaps they feel the policy is too absurd to worry about?

But history tells us that you need more than having right on your side and reasoned arguments to win against the relentless, rich and powerful lobbying health “charities”. With privileged access to policy makers, often funded by those they lobby, these fake charities rarely fail their paymasters in delivering the desired outcome in such “public” consultations.

There are signs of a resistance building. An e-petition against minimum pricing was created a while ago but has trebled signatures in the past 24 hours and an informative facebook page here (and an event to sign up to here) has appeared in the past couple of days (that from which we harvested much info – thanks!) .We have also seen the excellent Chris Snowdon step up to the plate with a must read report (co-authored by statistician John C. Duffy) “Minimum evidence for minimum pricing” and enjoyed his many and brilliant turns on the media. And of course we have the efforts of Pub Curmudgeon, Dick Puddlecote, Frank DaviesSpiked! ASI, IEA and TPA, (and many others) to count on. (We also hear tell of a newspaper campaign though can’t pin that one down right now).

Whether their efforts, combined with the fact that minimum pricing is illegal , fails the evidence test, is based on a flawed model, punishes the poor, the sensible and the moderate, and of course that public opinion is against it, is enough to win out against the might and money of the government’s own pet groups, on a mission to deliver Mr Cameron’s desired outcome, however remains to be seen. For now our thanks and appreciation to Jeremy (and many other MPs) for standing firm.

Ps if you want to get the minimum pricing widget (above) for your web site, click here (courtesy of the marvelous Pub Curmudgeon).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,