Liberal Vision

Who is Nick Clegg talking to these days?

Last year at conference, a motion calling on the party to “urge” people “not to take up the option” of the new Free schools was overwhelmingly carried. It was a very Liberal Democrat kind of conference motion.

It had no teeth, had the political lobbyists chuckling into their gin and tonics and the likes of my friends and family asking what the hell that meant? It meant very little.  A squeal from the activists at having lost some of their historical power over the party, a squawk against having to work with the hated Tories. A symbolic gesture. 

And a damaging one at that. For a party that purports to advocate freedom in the abstract, why is it that conference all too frequently objects to it in practice ? No wonder so many of my friends tell me that the Lib Dems stand for nothing – and everything – according to what suits them at the time. I some times feel they may be right. But we should remember that votes at conference don’t always reflect the views of the wider Lib Dem voters. On the issue of free schools I bet you any money you like that regardless of the conference vote there will be swathes of Lib Dem (and Labour) voters, not just Tory voters, itching to get involved in setting up these schools.

Nick’s initial stance on free schools was spot on. So one the one hand I am delighted that Nick ignored conference, considered the evidence and embraced free schools – to the extent that today, he is calling for more of them. His instinct that parents want more choice is right - and the evidence from countries such as Holland, Sweden and Denmark is that they work.

Where I think Nick is wrong however is to create another “phony” yellow roadblock.

His statement that these Free Schools must not be “for-profit”  was however a mistake. It is to imply that he (and his colleagues) have somehow stopped the Conservatives going down this route. It has been taken as such by many political commentators and discussed widely across the media today. It is however perfectly clear that the Lib Dems have had nothing to do with stopping “for profit” schools . Gove, Osborne et al had already decided that “for profit” schools were a political step too far for the Conservatives just now. Nor indeed is there any suggestion that these are intended, or will turn out to be, middle class enclaves. So why has Nick even ventured down the path of raising these issues? Is it “muscular liberalism” (“don’t worry folks I have my beady eye on these blue bastards” ) or, more likely, is it to send out “reassuring” warm words to his party. But which part of his party? The activists or the voters?

If it is the activists he is wrong because he has shown time and again that he is much more in-tune with the voters than conference activists are. If it’s the voters he is wrong. We can’t really be planning to go into the next election asking the electorate to judge us on the our record in Government by churning out a long list of things we “stopped” rather than the things “we have done” ? Especially when they twig that half the time the claim of a Lib Dem roadblock is er hmmm a tad overstated. People are not that stupid. Nor do people vote for negative action, roadblocks and political gesturing. They vote for positive action, solutions and results delivered.

And that’s not to say he should not voice his views. He was spot on coming out of the blocks fast to dispel any idea that he would sanction any moves to restrict social network sites in the aftermath of the riots. But that is a world away from allowing this “yellow roadblock” concept to gather further traction.   

There is also just the chance that we might have to work with the Conservatives again in the next term. As things stand the next election may well be close. How much harder will it be for David Cameron to persuade the Tory grass roots to go along with another term in coalition with the Liberal Democrats if all they get over the next two years is a constant stream of  ”yellow roadblocks” real or phony. We can differentiate in a positive way just as easily and with better results.

Tags: free schools, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Things you wished you’d never said…

Nick Clegg said on July 5^th 2010, in response the appointment of John Sharkey as chairman of the Liberal Democrats’ Fairer Votes Campaign

“I am delighted that John Sharkey has accepted this role.”

“This is a vital campaign for the country and I can’t think of a better person than John to run it for the Liberal Democrats.”

Ten months later, the website promoting fairer votes now looks like this http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

How did that one work out for us, Nick?

Tags: Lord Sharkey, Nick Clegg

Is Laws set to return as Clegg’s consigliere?

 

Get ready to break out the champagne.

 The Independent reports in today’s paper that David Laws looks set to return to the heart of the Coalition Government. We at Liberal Vision can only pray the report is true. His presence has been truly missed.

According to the Inde, Nick Clegg and David Cameron have had private discussions about appointing Mr Laws to work alongside Oliver Letwin and Francis Maude in the Cabinet Office. 

 Amusingly the Daily Mail describes the role as  “..Mr Clegg’s ‘consigliere’ in Whitehall.” . Oh I wish.

The Inde reports, more soberly, that David will be  taking on responsibility for “co-ordinating and driving through all aspects of the Coalition’s policy agenda”  (a job currently undertaken by Danny Alexander).

Danny has been a good and loyal friend to Nick Clegg  for some time – so it would seem unlikely that he will raise any objections to Nick’s plans to return David to the heart of the Coalition. Especially as it comes with senior Tory approval. Surely its a win-win? Danny gets to focus more clearly on his work at the Treasury, whilst Nick gets one of the Lib Dems greatest minds (and Orange-booker) working on Coaltion policy (and future Lib Dem policy no doubt). 

The post is unlikely to be a “full cabinet position” – (that might upset the “Tory-Lib Dem balance” (yawn)),  but would allow David to attend Cabinet and would have influence over all areas of policy. That should be enough to be going on with.

As the Inde rightly points out, any comeback would be dependent on David being cleared by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards which is, as far as we can tell, STILL investigating whether David broke expenses rules. So when exactly is the investigation going to be concluded? Perhaps the conversations between Dave and Nick are an indication that the investigation is finally drawing to a close.

Tags: Danny Alexander, David Laws, Nick Clegg

BBC ban on term “electoral reform” even more preposterous

As recently noted, the BBC powers-that-be have decided to ban the term “electoral reform” being used by its correspondents because the word “reform” sounds too positive (see previous post on why this in itself is preposterous).

But now it looks even more absurd!

The Prime Minister – who is standing with the NO campaign is still using that self-same term.  In his speech on Friday (and i will say this again!), arguing against AV, David Cameron himself uses the term “electoral reform” again and actually defines AV as a type of reform …quoted on the BBC website…

“(David Cameron) said he believed the Alternative Vote was “completely the wrong reform” and would be “bad for our democracy” – leading to unfair results and an unaccountable political system” (source bbc website)

If AV is -according to the PM – the “wrong sort of reform” ..then definition-ally it is “reform”. Any reason why we can ALL agree that this vote is about ELECTORAL REFORM – except the BBC? 

Surely there is something very odd going on…The Prime Minister of this country can make a speech against electoral reform in which he uses – once again –  the term ”electoral reform” … and in that speech define  AV as a type of reform (if the wrong one). That the BBC can report that speech, quoting the PM using the term “electoral reform” and showing the highlights of the speech in its website. BUT the BBC journalists are banned from using the term themselves? 

The dictat looks more preposterous and untenable with every day that passes. 

On a related issue – any reason why the main BBC News political story on AV runs with the title “Votes referendum: Cameron rejects Clegg AV call” . Is that really fair? to headline the story with reference to Cameron’s view (what’s wrong with “Clegg and Cameron go head to head over…..”) …. is it really impartial to list the PMs objections extensively at the top of the article and drop in Nick ’s arguments much further down the piece?  Maybe it doesn’t matter – but for a BBC that appears obsessive about impartiality this seems a tad..oh how can I say this…biased?

Tags: ban, BBC, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg, no to AV, yes to AV

So why has the BBC banned the term “electoral reform” ?

About a fortnight a story emerged that BBC journalists had been sent an internal document from the top brass demanding that their staff stop describing “electoral reform” as “electoral reform”.

I raise it now (late) because having missed the revelation at the time I assumed “word had got out there” about it, so I let it pass. I am however surprised to find how few people who are usually “in the know” – don’t know. Here are the basics….

In an internal BBC memo leaked to The Independent, Ric Bailey, the corporation’s chief political adviser, said: “Please can we make sure that we don’t describe this – in our own scripts, headlines, etc – as the referendum on ‘electoral reform’. When the [BBC's] Guidance is published ahead of the referendum period, it will make clear that, in the context of the referendum, that is not an impartial term – ‘reform’ explicitly contains a definition of ‘improvement’.”

 So if “reform” is “not an impartial term” why is it that changes to the public services and laws of this country can be described in terms of “reform” by the Government – and parroted by the BBC…. NHS reform plans will strenthen NHS,says Government. BBC October 1st 2010. Welfare benefit reforms unveiled by Government. BBC October 2010. Government to press ahead with radical NHS reform plans. BBC December 15th 2010.  “When ministers drew up their plans for radical reform of the NHS, schools and the welfare system..” Norman Smith Chief Political Correspondent, BBC Radio 4 , February 2nd 2011. and so on……

Why is it that a term such as “electoral reform” causes such offence to the BBC but all other Government reform is OK?

You could argue I suppose that the reason why”electoral reform” is on the forboten list and “NHS reform” isn’t, is because there is to be a vote on electoral reform. But then surely that must mean that the BBC is openly admitting that it frankly doesn’t give a toss about the language it uses day-today, but does care when it comes to a vote.

Slack, lazy reporting on a day to day basis BBC? Maybe. But I suspect that it is not that. Could it be that the BBC is running scared of the Government? Could it be that the BBC has been got at by the highly influential No campaigners with their slick suits, armed with promises of who-knows what  post election by those in the corridors of power?  So BBC,  are you incompetent, lazy,or just plain “got at”. It doesn’t look good any way you look at it.

And here is why this is oh so puzzling.. “electoral reform” is a term that has been around longer than the BBC. It is part of the language of politics. Of democracy indeed. We all know what it means.

Significantly it was this Government  that made a pledge to introduce a vote on electoral reform. Not “electoral change”. Not “electoral alteration”.. It is there in black and white. A vote on electoral reform.. “We will bring forward a referendum on electoral reform” … (Coalition Agreement)… “Next May, there’ll be a referendum on electoral reform”; (David Cameron speech to Conservative Party) ..

And so, The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-11 has thus been called, ever since, as the “electoral reform bill” by all the main news sources in the UK – including the  BBC….. “Lord Falconer and Lord McNally debate whether the house of Lords should pass the electoral reform bill”  (source BBC)….  “Peers’ threat to AV voting reform referendum defeated” (source BBC)…

 So if the Prime Minister and the Coalition Government can and have promised this country a vote on electoral reform -and  the newspapers and broadcasters of this land have thus described it, and the bill that will enable it, as “electoral reform” / “electoral reform bill”, for the last 12 months, why has the BBC decided in its infinite wisdom to ban the term now?  On whose say so?

The BBC should not be allowed to rewrite history, or skew the debate. Nor should any shiny suited boys, with an eye to their own future prospects, be allowed to threaten or cajole the BBC into actions that suit them now.

 Yes to Fairer Votes are writing a letter to the BBC condemning this action, which you can sign here: Reform” isn’t a dirty word: Cosign our letter to the BBC.  It is a start but it is almost certainly not enough if what we get in May is a free and fair vote. We need more questions raised in every public place, and to the BBC at every opportunity. And frankly, a lot more answers…

Oh…. and if any BBC employee  out there is willing to spill the beans and tell us what is really going on – please email me – I will happily publish your post – anonymously if necessary. Surely one of you cares more about journalism than just plain self interest?

Tags: ban, BBC, coalition, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg