Browse > Home /

| Subcribe via RSS



Oldham – thoughts for Lib Dems

By Angela Harbutt
January 15th, 2011 at 9:01 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in Liberal Democrats

One serious omission from my previous post on Oldham. Norman Lamb (in the studio) and Tim Farron (at the Count) both gave stellar performances for the Lib Dems on the night (on the BBC’s by election programme).

Norman has long been a trusted friend of Lib Dem leaders and has a style and personality that makes him easily likeable. That possibly makes it all to easy to forget just how effective he really is in combative situations. I am sure he has many and important tasks within the Coalition – but why he is not given a more prominent role facing the public? He is easily one of the most effective advocates the Coalition has. Get this man out there. More. Now.

Tim Farron is likewise a class act. We have praised him on several occassions on this blog – his quality shines out- and whilst our support ultimately went to Susan during the election of President, I for one think that few, if any, could have done  a better job than Tim on the night. If he continues in this vein, and uses his many skills to support Nick and the party in coalition, then he will have my support all day long. Great job.

Tags: ,
'

That Guardian article and my ask of Tim Farron…

By Angela Harbutt
November 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm | 14 Comments | Posted in Liberal Democrats

Today’s Guardian has the most alarming headline…”Revealed: Secret documents show Liberal Democrats drew up plans to drop flagship student pledge before election”.

Hmmm. Whatever happened to standards over at the Guardian? The fact that the Liberals did a U-turn on tuition fees is not news. Welcome to the world of coalition politics…you stand firm on some stuff and have to give way on other stuff. And if we are being accurate, the Liberals drew up some contingency plans in the unlikely event of a hung parliament..but lets not let the facts stand in the way of a sexy headline.

Just for the record, had the Liberals managed, by some miracle, to be majority party, all the evidence points to the fact that they would have honoured the pledge to students  (having the option to scrap other areas of spend (eg Trident) to pay for it). Indeed the Guardian main story actually has a line buried in the article that states.. “The leaked document showed that during the preparations for a hung parliament the Lib Dems still intended to fulfil that commitment.” and  reiterates this point it in the Wintour and Watt piece   The Alexander document made clear the party was determined to maintain that pledge.”  

What this story reveals is the unexpected, and highly impressive, foresight of the leadership. They recognised that, in the unlikely event of a hung parliament they would need to negotiate, stand firm on some issues (eg electoral reform) and be prepared to give ground on others. And so they dedicated valuable election-strategy time to plan for that unlikely scenario- a hung parliament. Come the day, they had a well crafted plan (and thank goodness they did, given the furore that surrounded those few days of post election negotiations) . As for deciding that tuition fees would be one of those areas where they would give ground, well why be surprised they gave way? Given the Tory party and Labour party commitment to tuition fees we would very likely have seen coalition negotiations go on for weeks had the party chosen to draw the line in the sand on this particular issue. 

And to be honest u-turns in tuition fees is hardly new (witness the Labout party u-turn when it was the majority government). It seems a little rich to then condemn the Liberals for doing something similar in a coalition.

So,the story is not “Lib Dems planned to drop student pledge” they didn’t. Nor is it “Lib Dems do u-turn on tuition fees” thats not news..It’s not even “Lib Dems  show mature approach to politics shock” ..well that’s a bit more of a story to be honest.

So what is the story if indeed there is one?

To my mind the story is “Lib Dems must grow up fast” .

But given that the leadership show every sign of having done that, what else should be done?  Well (and here I address our new president directly)..for a start we must now change the undemocratic and frankly ludicrous system of allowing a few hundred activists at conference to determine Lib Dem policy – regardless of what the leadership want or believe – or wider party membership views . Firstly it makes the job of leader of the Lib Dems an almost impossible task  – constantly second guessing “what conference wants” and engaging in compromise and deal-making behind the scenes to shape the policies he wants. It is a handicap too far. Secondly, this out-dated policy making process is absurd. How can the Liberals argue so vociferously to the nation for AV because it s a fairer more democratic system than FPTP, I wonder, yet exclude 90% of their own members from having a vote in the formation of Liberal policy?

It’s time to modernise. Give Nick the power to put forward his proposed policies to the membership- and invite the whole of  the membership to take a vote on them. A modern system would not prohibit conference discussion ahead of the wider membership vote. It would not prevent other points of view being put to the membership. But it would give the party – and especially those facing Paxman et al on a daily basis – clarity.

As an ordinary party member, the idea that you have to suffer the vagaries of the local party system, curry favour with the local chairmen and their cohorts, deliver x number of focus leaflets and generally making sure “your face fits”  just to get a “conference voting pass”  (which you must have to have a vote on policy) is just plain mad. Is this an old boys network or a viable political party?

In case our President has not managed to meet the many thousands of members who don’t have a right to vote at conference, he should know that many (though certainly by no means all) local party hierachies hand these passes out like treats – and usually to those of like-minded views. Over time this has meant that conference voting views have fallen out of kilter with the wider Lib Dem member  (who largely take their cue on what they see, hear read from the likes of Clegg, Cable Huhne etc on TV, radio and newspapers). We have a blockage in the system between the face of the Liberal Party (the MPs) and its members. And that blockage is conference.

Maybe that did not matter when we were the permanent third party with no hope of actually implementing our policies. But times have changed. And so must we. We need a more realistic, modern and (because we love this word) “fairer” way of making policy. One that engages the wider party and unfetters Nick from back room deals with his own party to avoid humiliating defeats from the peculiar conference collective.

Untie the hands of Nick and we would not see him feeling the need to engage in silly unsustainable election stunts. The reason why the Guardian story has any legs at all is because off the over-the-top pledge made by the MP’s on tuition fees. And why was that stunt undertaken?..because of deals made with certain people around certain conference votes.  Plain and simple.

More generally allow the whole party to be involved in the decision making process and you may well find more people becoming engaged and get better policy as a result. And by the way, if we can democratise our own party and may be we stand a chance of convincing the electorate that our stand on AV is a principled one. 

It’s not the only change we need. But it would be a start.

Tags: , , , ,

Party President election – vote Susan Kramer

By admin
October 25th, 2010 at 1:00 pm | 4 Comments | Posted in Liberal Democrats

Liberal Vision’s Andy Mayer recently interviewed Tim Farron and Susan Kramer, granting each candidate a chance to explain why they should be elected as the new Liberal Democrat Party President. We would like to thank Tim and Susan for their time in answering Andy’s questions. Liberal Vision has thousands of Lib Dem readers, and it’s heartening to see both candidates communicating openly and honestly with the party’s activists.

Even through print on a screen, Tim’s alacrity comes through, and he certainly appears to be an energetic, charismatic media star in the making. Hopefully these qualities will prove to be a great boon for the party.

However, it is a concern that nearly all of the “good” policies that Tim wishes to promote as core Liberal Democrat beliefs involve even greater government intervention – protecting or increasing state spending (housing benefit), the 50p rate of income tax, state control of areas to provide “free” services (“no tuition fees, free personal care, and free eye and dental tests”) and so on.

Liberal Vision does not believe that tax increases are “about asking people for more money for something they know to be right, buying peace of mind and social equity…” As we state on this website:

“…we [Liberal Vision] believe people should be in control of their own lives, and to do so it is essential that they have more control over how they spend their money. We support a reduction in the overall tax burden. Too much of the wealth we produce is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats and not enough by ordinary men and women.”

It is also unclear whether Tim feels that all individuals and organisations should have the freedom to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, or whether this is just a freedom that Christian (and perhaps other religious) groups should be granted.

While policy formulation should not be a part of the President’s job, Tim’s examples suggest that the more interventionist policies are those that, typically, would be championed by him as President, in a bid to “articulate what the Lib Dems are for”, as a counter-balance to the policies of the Coalition.

Susan Kramer, meanwhile, presents herself as a different kind of President – a grassroots campaigner, looking to strengthen the relationship between the party’s hierarchy and its support base rather than using the Presidency to publicly counter-balance the Coalition.

This may be a preferable role for President, yet it would be nice to see some stronger ideas on how it can be achieved. Susan, like Tim, seems opposed to any real structural reform in the party. On ideas like giving all members a vote at conference, and reaching out to more Lib Dem supporters (not necessarily members), there is uncertainty and a lack of resolution or solid alternatives.

On policy issues, some of Susan’s record may concern members of Liberal Vision – the stance against lifestyle freedoms such as smoking and hunting, to take two examples. However, she is “comfortable being seen as an Orange Book liberal” and spoke well about the need for pragmatism in party politics while maintaining a principled stance on core civil liberties (90 day detention without trial, for example). Reassuring stuff, and particularly important while in government (last week a Guest Post on this site demonstrated how principles in opposition are often forgotten once in power).

But most importantly, one gets the feeling that Susan’s political views would not influence her performance as President, during which she would hope to inject energy into the party during its time in government, and ensure that the party as a whole doesn’t simply become a back-drop to the Lib Dem Cabinet members at the top of the pyramid.

Tim Farron’s talents are evident, yet would perhaps be suited to a different role in the near future. For now Susan Kramer appears the best candidate for this position. Her commitment to and affection for the party seems genuine, and hopefully she will get the chance to demonstrate her qualities as the next Liberal Democrat Party President.

Tags: , , ,

Tim Farron would get my vote..

By Angela Harbutt
May 28th, 2010 at 9:31 pm | Comments Off on Tim Farron would get my vote.. | Posted in Liberal Democrats, UK Politics

…If I could vote that is!

With Vince stepping down from the job as deputy leader of the Lib Dems, no sooner are we out of one election, we find ourselves facing another. This one however really only concerns 57 individuals. Which is a blessing in many ways – as I think many of us are “electioned-out”. 

I am a bit disappointed that only two MPs have come forward so far…. Though I understand that several of the obvious choices (Norman Lamb is the obvious name that comes to mind)may feel that their roles in Government prevent them from stepping forward… But I, for one, am very pleased that Tim Farron has put his name forward.

He has proved himself to be an excellent MP, impressive campaigner, a great team player and all round nice guy (with seemingly impossible levels of energy!). I am sure that we dont see exactly eye to eye on some areas of policy- but there is no doubting his outright abilities.

Back on June 14th 2009, Liberal Vision asked the question “Is Tim Farron the Lib Dems best campaigner”. Yes we certainly thought he was. Mark Littlewood wrote on this very blog….. 

“Tim Farron may not be a household name yet, but keep a close eye on thetim-farron-mp1 39 year old MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Having ended nearly a century of Tory dominance at the last General Election with a majority of less than 500,  you’d expect his seat to be categorised as “ultra-marginal”. And no doubt Tim Farron is wisely treating it as such.

But some of the psephological info emerging from the Lake District is so amazing that computer programs would probably reject it as being too ridiculous. …..

……If Tim Farron converts Westmorland into being a rock-solid seat at the General Election, watch his national profile soar in the next Parliament.”

 

Well – he certainly delivered on his own constituency – in spades, and I think has the necessary attitude and drive for the job . I also think he deserves to take the next step in his own political career. So, for what it’s worth I hope he gets the job. Good luck Tim.

Tags: , ,

Is Tim Farron the LibDems’ best campaigner?

By Mark Littlewood
June 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm | 13 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

tim-farron-mp1Tim Farron may not be a household name yet, but keep a close eye on the 39 year old MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Having ended nearly a century of Tory dominance at the last General Election with a majority of less than 500,  you’d expect his seat to be categorised as “ultra-marginal”. And no doubt Tim Farron is wisely treating it as such.

But some of the psephological info emerging from the Lake District is so amazing that computer programs would probably reject it as being too ridiculous. On Tim’s watch, the local election results in the area have been little short of sensational, including some wards where you may as well weigh the Liberal vote as count it. This was capped off with the news that,  in the Euro elections, South Lakeland produced the highest LibDem vote share anywhere in the United Kingdom.

If Tim Farron converts Westmorland into being a rock-solid seat at the General Election, watch his national profile soar in the next Parliament.

Tags: