Vince Cable sympathises with the 99%

A week ago I stated that I sympathise with the Occupy London protesters in the sense that they seek to protect the poorest 99% against the excesses and greed of the top 1%. Following endorsements from senior politicians from the Green Party and the Labour Party; I argued it was time for the Liberal Democrats to state their support for the 99%. Yesterday on the Politics Show, the Business Secretary Vince Cable announced that he sympathised with the cause of the Occupy London protesters. Occupy London which is primarily based outside St Paul's Cathedral is campaigning against gross inequalities of wealth, corporate corruption and basic unfairness in our society. The endorsement of such a senior Liberal Democrat and government figure will act as a political boost for the primary aim of the Occupy London movement which is to protect the poorest 99%. Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats have long been campaigning for a fairer more equitable capitalism, where the rich pay their fair share. It has been stated by the media (often mistakenly) that the camp at St Pauls is an anti-capitalist protest. Although much of Occupy London is emboldened by campaigners who are Marxists, Trotskyites, socialists and anarchists not all at the camp are anti-capitalist. Indeed, mine and I daresay Vince Cable’s support for the protesters outside St Paul's comes out of a belief that our current neoliberal capitalism is increasingly unfair and that we need to create a capitalism that is fairer, more progressive and that works for everyone not just the ultra-rich top 1% in our society.

To read an article from the Guardian concerning Vince Cable’s statement on the Politics Show please follow this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/13/vince-cable-sympathise-occupy-london

I stand with the 99% and so should the Lib Dems

A couple of weeks ago I went to visit the Occupy London camp outside St Pauls Cathedral. As a student studying politics at University as well as someone who was slightly sympathetic to the Occupy movement; I felt that it was a part of British political history that I just had to witness. Occupy London was the British arm of a movement that in the last few weeks has spread from Wall Street to Central Europe and from Oakland to London. The camp seemed to consist of two main groups your usual SWP Trotskyite socialist types and your typical anarchist types. The camp was a very far left institution complete with anti-capitalist banter and far left posters that reminded me somewhat of Soviet-era propaganda. This camp had been established for little more than a week when I visited it on Sunday, October 23, 2011. While I was visiting the camp they held a "general assembly." This acted as a forum for discussion and to report the progress the movement was having. While I was in attendance it had been decided that a midnight curfew should come into effect. At the time I did think it was not very anarchist for the Occupy LSX campaigners to be imposing a curfew on themselves; but I suppose they would argue it was the fact that they were choosing to impose it on themselves not an external force doing it for them. Overall the Occupy movement aims seem to be to represent the poorest 99% against the greed and recklessness of the top 1%. They are campaigning against corporate greed, gross inequality and corporate capital dominating our democracies. I for one felt it was refreshing to see that for once someone was standing up to the vested financial elites in the City of London whom got our economy into such a dire mess only a few years ago. It was about time that people stood up against this clear injustice. Despite some media coverage, not all the people in the Occupy London camp were anti-capitalist there were even some posters stating that the protest should not be viewed as one that was anti-capitalist. It is clear that they were campaigning against the unfairness of the present neoliberal economic order. Now although I do not sympathise with the ends that the extreme socialists and anarchists wish to achieve, I do sympathise with the fact that these people were making a stand against injustice and doing it so peacefully and carefully. Contrary to some reports it didn't seem to me like the protesters were seriously preventing the Cathedral from being used. They even seem to have taken great care to ensure that they received a good public hearing in the press.

On Saturday, November 5, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas addressed the Occupy London rally at St Pauls. Thus it is clear that the Green Party has given its support to the aims of a fairer country that Occupy London seem to promote. This was followed on the Sunday, by relative endorsement by the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband who declared himself to be a supporter of the 99% against the 1%. One has to wonder whether his record in government truly makes him out to be a worthy patron of the 99%. Especially when you consider the fact that both Ed Miliband and Ed balls were working in Gordon Brown's Treasury when bankers were earning obscene bonuses, company directors were earning extreme salaries and when the economic system was becoming increasingly more unstable due to a lack of financial regulation. Furthermore this is not to mention Labour's 13 year love affair with Rupert Murdoch something that even continued when Miliband himself became leader of the Labour Party. It is clear that during Miliband's time in the Treasury as well as during his time as a government minister the top 1% got wealthier and almost brought the global economy to the brink of destruction. I for one hope that Ed Miliband is not using the slogans of the 99% and the 1% to further his and his party's objectives through cynical opportunism and self publication; Miliband should not try to dominate concepts that go far beyond that of the Labour Party.

It is now time I believe for the Liberal Democrats to endorse the notion of being on the side of the 99%. Do not forget that the term 99% will encompass the poor, the working class and the overwhelming majority of middle-class people. It is hardly your usual class warring far left factions. I would seriously hope that Nick Clegg as well as other senior Liberal Democrats like Simon Hughes and Tim Farron can speak confidently about standing up for the 99%. It is the duty of a radical progressive party like the Liberal Democrats to do exactly this. I may not endorse socialism or anarchism but I do think we need a fairer society, economy and politics that moves beyond the current domination of neoliberalism. I would prefer (like some at the Occupy London camp) to have a fairer more progressive capitalism that works for everyone rather than no capitalism at all. It is this notion of a fairer more progressive capitalism, politics and society that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats should be promoting. Although this is nothing new to the Lib Dems it must be placed in the context that the top 1% need to pay their fair share and that the lower 99% need to be protected and supported from the excess and instability of neoliberal capitalism. Finally I hope that the Occupy London movement moves to encompass many progressive and left-leaning groups beyond the far left; especially political parties like the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens.

We are a Centre-Left Party, now let’s get out there and prove it!

I for one am very proud to consider myself on the centre-left of British politics. I believe that three years ago I joined the party of the centre-left. And I also believe that as a party of government, this party promotes a centre-left agenda and enacts many of its centre-left policies. Surely, goes the conventional wisdom this party must be the Labour Party. However it is not the Labour Party; I became interested in politics due to my opposition to what was then an authoritarian Labour government. No this governing party of the centre-left is the Liberal Democrats.

How can you say that? Many people will ask. Surely the Liberal Democrats are a Tory leaning party of the centre at best. Surely they can't be described as centre-left; after all they are in coalition with a centre-right Conservative party. They will say. No I'm adamant that many of the policies and principles of the Liberal Democrat supporters, members, MPs and government ministers are those of a genuine party of the centre-left.

I would argue that examples of such centre-left policies promoted by the Liberal Democrats include the following. Restoring the civil liberties lost under the last government. Helping the poorest pupils through the pupil premium and restoring the pensions link to earnings. Being the first party of government to genuinely focus on tackling climate change. Limiting the role of private companies in the controversial NHS reforms and ruling out the profit motive in our schools. Presenting a measured reasonable response after the summer riots. Ending up front fees for part-time students. Having a referendum on changing the voting system, pledging to democratise the House of Lords and planning to clean up party funding. Finally, we have maintained the top 50% rate of income tax, while ensuring that the poorest 880,000 people have been taken out of paying any income tax altogether. These are all policies that anyone with a slight centre-left sympathy would agree with. Now of course these outlooks will be counted by accusations of enacting harsh spending cuts. And indeed it cannot be ignored that the Coalition is implementing a harsh deficit reduction strategy; however Labour are hardly an anti-cuts party, since seven out of every eight pounds cut last year were agreed to by Alistair Darling in his last Labour Party budget. If Labour had won the election they would be cutting much of the same things as the Coalition is. For evidence of this just look at local Labour councils, many of whom shut sure start centres prior to the last local elections; whereas every council run by a Liberal Democrat kept the sure start centres open. If you like we are in the honest, responsible centre-left party outlining our programme of austerity simply because we have to do because we are now a party of coalition government. The same would be true if Labour was still in power and not behind the comfort blanket of opposition.

The truth is that the Liberal Democrats are the most left-leaning party of government since James Callaghan's Labour party in the 1970s. We as a party have a great centre-left message to promote. Centre-left voters in Britain should not be turning away from us and voting for an irresponsible centre-left party like Labour or for a divisive separatist party like the SNP; they should be voting Liberal Democrat. Ed Miliband’s Labour Party continues to be committed to erosions of this our civil liberties like a CCTV surveillance society and the DNA database. They are certainly taking an increasingly illiberal stance towards immigration. They remain unwilling to introduce a proportional voting system or elect the House of Lords. They remain unwilling to scrap Trident. And this is before we mention some harsh things Labour did in government like eroding civil liberties, illegally invading Iraq, privatising parts of our NHS and abolishing the 10% rate of income tax. None of these things would be supported by anybody of the centre-left.

We as Liberal Democrats shouldn't be complacent with our centre-left voters running off to other parties. We shall be doing our utmost to sell our centre-left message and get them back to voting for us. Poll ratings between 8% and 12% are utterly dismal. We should not have UKIP nipping at our heels. We should not let Labour claim the centre-left with anti-progressive policies or with collective amnesia of their 13 years in government. This centre-left message needs to resonate from the leadership of the Liberal Democrats right down to the grassroots. It needs to go from Great George Street to your street. And this message is simple; "we are a centre-left party, we are enacting centre-left policies, we are restraining the right-wing elements within the Tories and we are not going anywhere until the lack of freedom, fairness and justice in our society is tackled." Now let's get out there and reclaim the centre-left ground where we so rightly belong.

The Social Liberal Alternative to Neoliberalism

The present system of free market capitalism known as neoliberalism is clearly teetering on the edge of a major crisis. ‘Occupy’ protests have swept the Western world in recent days and more and more people are becoming hostile to the notions of austerity and additional bank bailouts. Capitalist globalisation is clearly in need of radical reform. However the issue is not whether we should abandon liberalism but rather how can we strengthen it. Neoliberalism in my opinion is not liberal; despite its namesake. It does not promote social justice and greater fairness, it does not enhance our democracy and it does not value individuals acting within their local communities. It is necessary to find a different outlook that can truly further liberal aims in the 21st century. This outlook is social liberalism. I have written an article for the Social Liberal Forum that outlines a social liberal alternative to neoliberalism. I also critique the new and emerging Labour Party antidote to neoliberalism known as ‘Blue Labour.’ Please read my article for the Social Liberal Forum in full by following this link: http://socialliberal.net/2011/10/15/the-real-alternative-to-neoliberalism/

Big Money Politics Beware!

For many decades the two biggest parties in British politics have had a financial edge over their opponents. There is a clear link between the achievement of power and the ability to receive vast sums of money from party political donations. The very concept of big money politics is arguably quite regressive to a modern liberal democracy, because the party that has the best policies should win the election not the one with the biggest bank balance. Also it's worth noting that big money politics is linked to the corrosive effects of lobbying with the party more concerned about their next big donations and not what is in the best long-term interests of the country. Furthermore, the political parties become so reliant on big money donations that they do not strive to create a party with a mass membership; hence party politics suffers as a result. The Conservative Party has been in the pocket of big business and corporate Britain for over the past 40 years. While the Labour Party on the other hand, has been in the pocket of the trade unions literally since its creation in 1900 and has been exclusively in the receipt of trade union donations since the 1920s. Big money politics has been a factor in Britain for decades (if not centuries) and it seemed like this big money consensus between Labour and the Conservatives would go unchallenged with big business and the trade unions eagerly funding their preferred party. However could this be about to change?

Today the Independent reports that Nick Clegg is intent on tackling the big money politics that has dominated our political discourse for so long. The Liberal Democrats are Britain's third-largest party and currently the junior partner in the ruling coalition. They have never been reliant on the support of big business or the trade unions; they have just been dependent on private donations from supporters and party members; much like all the other smaller parties. Mr Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister is putting forward some radical plans that would see the wide scale reform of party political donations. Amongst the Deputy Prime Minister's ideas are to cap individual donations to political parties at £50,000. He is also considering whether small donations to political parties should qualify for tax relief, similar to the current situation for charities.

Naturally, the vested interests in both Labour and the Conservatives are concerned about Mr Clegg's plans. This would seriously curtail the financial clout that the trade unions and big business have over British politics. Although this may have a positive effect on party politics as parties will need to go out of their way to recruit new members to ensure that they receive adequate income, hence parties being more focused on the concerns of their members than the concerns of their donors. In this Independent article, it also outlines recent donations made to the main political parties. Between April and June this year, the Labour Party received £3.2 million in donation, £2.7 million of which came from trade unions. In the same period the Conservatives received £4.2 million in donation, a million pounds of which came from wealthy companies and £2.4 million in donation came from wealthy individuals. The Liberal Democrats received just short of £1 million in donation of which over half a million came from wealthy companies. Here is the link to the Independent article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-worried-by-cleggs-plan-to-cap-party-donations-2343467.html.

I for one hope that Nick Clegg succeeds in tackling big money politics in our country. It has been a long-held aim of the Liberal Democrats to tackle big money politics and I sincerely hope that they succeed in doing so. Should Mr Clegg and his Liberal Democrat party be successful it will be a good day for British democracy with the tarnish of big money politics removed and hopefully our democracy and our political parties will be strengthened as a result; without the albatross of big money financial interests hanging around their necks.

Great Simon Hughes Comment Piece

There’s a great comment piece by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes for today’s Observer. The comment piece comes as a response to the recent English riots. Read the comment piece here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/14/profits-top-simon-hughes?intcmp=239.

Please Vote Lefty Liberal Paul

A few months ago I started this blog to advance ‘Lefty Liberal’ and Social Liberal viewpoints within the Liberal Democrats and beyond. Also I thought it was important to advance centre-left politics more generally. Now it’s that time of the year again when Total Politics wants people to vote for their favourite blogs. Can I ask everyone who supports centre-left Social Liberalism or who just likes this blog to vote for Lefty Liberal Paul in the Total Politics poll. Here is the link to the poll:

http://www.totalpolitics.com/surveys/total-politics-blog-awards/

Please show your support for centre-left Social Liberalism!

People with Hopes and Opportunities don’t Riot

Over the last few nights, many riots have occurred in British cities. The riots were disgraceful and all the people responsible for them deserve to be brought to justice. Shops have been looted, windows have been smashed and buildings burnt to the ground; these are truly disgraceful acts and display the worst of humanity creating anarchy on the streets of the UK. Now there are many reasons why such people would resort to such criminality and looting and over the next coming days politicians from the left and the right will try to bring some clarity and understanding to the causes behind the riots. However it is worth saying that regardless of the causes that may have led up to the disturbances they in no way justifies them whatsoever.

There are many explanations going round as to why people can act in such a vile and unlawful manner. One train of thought advocated by the Prime Minister today was that there was a lack discipline and family responsibility from the households of the youngsters committing the acts of crime. Another thought was advocated by the former Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone who associated the austerity cuts, the scrapping of EMA and the rise in tuition fees with the recent violence. On the one hand, David Cameron might be partially right when he says that these youngsters lack a sense of family discipline; however I don't think this is the beginning and the end of the reasons behind the rioting, since many adults also took part. Nor do I take the view that the rioting comes as a as a response to any particular policy enacted by any particular government. It is more likely to be the case that these people riot because for successive generations their communities have lacked sufficient hope and opportunity. Although, some of the people involved would have just been taken advantage of an opportunity and the only issue behind their motives was criminal greed.

In the 1980s, Britain saw similar inner-city riots and although the reasons behind the 1980s riots were different from the reasons behind the riots of 2011 there remains a significant group of people who are devoid of having any aspiration, hope or opportunity. Some may refer to this group of people as "the underclass." The underclass are those people who spend their days in relative squalor, living off the proceeds of benefits and who have fallen out our society and out of what our society deems to be acceptible. It's the same people who are often referred to in the media as being "dole spongers" and "chavs." For over 30 years these people have been neglected by successive governments from across the political spectrum, who focus on the most desirable constituency of support and representation that of Middle England. If we are to ensure that these riots never happen again, governments will have to open a strong dialogue with community leaders and young people will need community role models who they can aspire to be like. Governments will have to acknowledge that Britain doesn't start and end with Middle England and that at all times governments will have to address the grievances within the poorest communities of the UK. Whether this is ensuring that a sufficient number of people get a good education or that a sufficient number of jobs are available or that there is a strong dialogue between members of our communities and local government.

Now no matter what the grievances of people are it is never a justification to commit acts of criminality. But if we are to ensure that Britain's streets remain safe in the future we will have to tackle the root causes that leave many members of the so-called underclass in a situation where they deem it acceptable to rob, loot and destroy. If politicians from all parties forget this constituency of the British people (no matter how undesirable it may be) and just focus on Middle England; we will see similar acts of criminality and destruction in the decades to come.

I agree with Tim!

There’s a very interesting piece on the Independent website, with calls by the Liberal Democrat Party President, Tim Farron to distance the party from the Conservatives in the Coalition. So that party members can ‘hold their heads up high.’ Give the article a read it is very agreeable from a centre-left prospective.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-faces-calls-to-distance-his-party-from-the-conservatives-2334134.html

Please Sign The Anti-Death Penalty Petition

The death penalty has been a very serious and divisive subject since its abolition as one of the main social reforms of Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s. Following the social reforms in the late 1960s the only act that was punishable by death was treason. Since then almost every parliamentary term has had a vote on whether or not to bring back the death penalty. The last vote occurred in the early 1990s. In 1998, Parliament passed the Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law; this act of Parliament once and for all abolished entirely any notion of the death penalty in the United Kingdom.

This week, the Coalition Government has launched a new program of e-petitions on the Internet. The right-wing blogger, Guido Fawkes announced that he would launch a petition calling for the return of the death penalty and if the petition is successful this will be debated and voted upon in Parliament. The death penalty is a barbaric and authoritarian measure whereby the state can legitimately murder its own citizens. As Mahatma Gandhi once said ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.’ Britain would be morally blind if it allowed the return of the death penalty. That is why I encourage everyone to sign the anti-death penalty petition. This petition has been submitted on the government’s e-petition website by the chair of Liberal Youth, Martin Shapland. This petition submitted by the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats seeks to counter the calls made by Guido Fawkes to bring back the death penalty.

Please show your support and sign the anti-death penalty petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1090

Lib Dems Seem To Benefit Most From Hackgate

Yesterday was another extraordinary day in the ‘Hackgate’ scandal. David Cameron had to make a statement to the House of Commons regarding the hacking scandal as well as his judgement in hiring Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. On Tuesday we saw the Emperor himself being thrown to the Select Committee lions as Rupert Murdoch eat humble pie (pun very much intended). Speculation is rife as to whether the Murdochs will retain leadership of their company and whether David Cameron will retain the leadership of the country. Now there are concerns over whether the PM and Rupert Murdoch discussed the now failed BSkyB bid. Although Vince Cable must be punching the air. Perhaps, there are more questions in hindsight as to whether or not the PM should have stripped the BSkyB bid from Dr.Cable’s judgement.

After all the scandal and revelations of late, which political party comes out of it best? Well according to the voting intention polling data that political party appears to be the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems have seen an increase in support for them recently. This seems to be mostly at the expense of the Labour who has seen a dip in their support in recent days, whereas the Conservatives have only seen a gradual decline. The other parties have also seen an increase in support.

The most recent polls of the major polling organisations:

Com Res         14^th July           Con   36% (-1%)      Lab   40% (+3%)      LD   10% (-1%)

Populus           17^th July           Con   34% (-5%)      Lab   39% (-1%)       LD   11% (+2%)

ICM                17^th July           Con   37% (nc)         Lab   36% (-3%)       LD   16% (+4%)

Ipsos MORI    20^th July           Con   32% (-5%)      Lab   39% (nc)          LD   11% (nc)

You Gov         20^th July           Con   35% (-1%)      Lab   43% (nc)          LD   11% (+3%)

(Source: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/)

Yes these are only modest climbs in the Lib Dem poll rating and yes both Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have seen increases in both of their popularities due to their handlings of the hacking crisis. However according to this recent polling data the Lib Dems have made the most gains of the three main parties. This rise in Lib Dem support may be a reflection of the fact that they have consistently opposed the influence of Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation and News International unlike Labour and the Conservatives. We will have to wait and see if this trend of the increase in Lib Dem support continues.  

Labour’s Welsh First Past The Post Stitch Up

At last the Labour Party has shown its true colours on electoral reform. Just months after over half the Labour Party vocally opposed the Alternative Vote Referendum, a major policy shift has emerged in Wales that threatens the very notion of Welsh democracy. This is a policy put forward by the shadow Welsh secretary, Peter Hain which aims to change the Welsh Assembly voting system from the Additional Member System to First Past the Post. The current system used in the Welsh Assembly is an Additional Member System made up of 40 seats elected on a constituency First Past the Post basis; with the remaining 20 seats elected by Proportional Representation on a regional list basis. The plan by the shadow Welsh secretary is to reform the Welsh voting system to the Welsh Assembly not by bringing it into the 21st century but by dragging it back into the electoral dark ages.

The Welsh Labour Party draws its impetus to rejuvenate First Past the Post in Wales from two sources. Firstly, the defeat of the Alternative Vote Referendum and secondly, the plan by Westminster MPs to reduce the number of MPs in Wales from 40 to 30. Added to this notion, the plan put forward by the Welsh Labour Party would see Welsh constituencies in the Welsh Assembly elect two members per constituency. This abolition of the Proportional Representation regional list would make the Welsh Assembly truly determinant on First Past the Post and that could only ever benefit one political party, that of the Labour Party. Labour has emerged in all four assembly elections as the largest party and with the added advantage of total First Past the Post Labour would receive an absolute majority in the Welsh Assembly after every election. Wales would truly become a one party state. This is nothing more than a stitch up by the Labour Party designed to move the goalposts of democracy in Wales in order to benefit itself and undermine the opposition parties in the assembly. In the latest election held in May of this year the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats received the majority of their seats from the regional list. First past the post would clearly undermine the three opposition parties in the Welsh Assembly and strengthen the position of the Labour Party and its First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

I for one have always been quite dubious of the claims of the Labour Party to favour of electoral reform after their opposition to the Alternative Vote, this policy shift in Wales surely puts that notion to rest. Labour has nothing to offer when it comes to electoral reform. They are not liberal and progressive in this respect, they are conservative and traditionalist. And their aims are truly tribalist and self-interested. In Wales as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom they support First Past the Post solely because it benefits themselves. Hopefully, the people of Wales will see through this stitch up by the Labour Party especially given the Welsh political traditions of Liberalism and Radicalism. The idea of electoral reform to Labour is not to insure that everybody's vote has equal weight and equal value and that election results are determined fairly with each party getting a fair and accurate proportional of the seats but by ensuring that more people are disenfranchised, less votes count, the parties have fewer representatives and that democracy as an institution is undermined. Labour has once more shown their true colours when it comes to electoral reform. They are willing to stitch up democracy in order to benefit themselves and not the votes of the people, whether it is their majority opposition to the Alternative Vote or the fact that they are willing to introduce First Past the Post in the Welsh Assembly, Labour cannot be trusted on electoral reform. There is only one political party that can be trusted to reform British politics and Britain's electoral system and that is the Liberal Democrats. See the article regarding Labour’s plans here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/07/14/first-past-the-post-for-senedd-has-labour-vote-91466-29049445/

The Empire’s Last Stand ... For BSkyB?

Today British politics will see a piece of history as the next phase of the battle against Rupert Murdoch and his media empire begins. This is the battle between the media mogul and the British Parliament. The House of Commons shall vote on whether Rupert Murdoch should proceed with his bid to take over BSkyB. All of Britain's major parties; the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats will today join forces in the House of Commons (which is an extreme rarity at the best of times) and overwhelmingly reject Rupert Murdoch's bid to obtain full ownership of BSkyB. Could this vote signal the last stand of the Murdoch Empire in its aim to control all of BSkyB? This motion (which has been tabled by the Labour Party) will be the latest in a long line of recent humiliations for Murdoch and his company, News Corp. These humiliations range from the potentially illegal developments in the phone hacking scandal, the necessity to close the News of the World and the public rejections of Murdoch's BSkyB bid by all three main parties.

In the early hours of the day when this historic vote is due to occur, a letter has emerged that has been written by three senior Liberal Democrats, which represents yet another rejection of News Corp’s bid to own all of BSkyB. The letter written by Simon Hughes, Tim Farron and Don Foster also goes on to state that the recent allegations made against News International have "shocked and sickened the British people." Furthermore the letter accuses those working for News International of seeking to "cover up the many wrongs which it has committed." The aim of the letter is to persuade Murdoch to drop his bid to own all of BSkyB because after the recent scandals "many people in this country have no desire to have any more of our media" fall into his hands. This letter is evidence of how one of Britain's main political parties, the Liberal Democrats wishes for Murdoch to withdraw his BSkyB bid. The link to the article displaying this letter is here: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/07/13/lib-dems-fire-salvo-against-murdoch. It shall soon become apparent after today's vote in Parliament whether or not Murdoch will withdraw his bid for BSkyB. Today, may very well be the last stand of the Murdoch Empire’s takeover ambitions. One thing however is certain it will take months if not years for News International to rebuild its integrity in the minds of the British public and Britain's politicians after its integrity has been so clearly shattered in the past fortnight.

In Praise Of Simon Hughes

I would just like to send my praise and thanks to Simon Hughes, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats. This is due to the fact that he has written to Ofcom the media regulator regarding Rupert Murdoch’s planned takeover of British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB). Simon Hughes asks Ofcom to assess whether News International is a ‘fit and proper’ person to take ownership of BSkyB in accordance with the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996. Here, Here! It is important that we stand up for Liberal Democrat principles especially now we are in government. We as a party have never taken Rupert Murdoch’s money or support, unlike the Conservatives and Labour. Here is what Simon Hughes said. (http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Simon_Hughes%3a_Ofcom_must_investigate_whether_BSkyB_is_%e2%80%98fit_and_proper%e2%80%99&pPK=292bc47b-a281-4faa-a990-7e0c0505885f).

Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem Cabinet ministers are bound by Cabinet collective responsibility but senior Lib Dems like Simon Hughes, Tim Farron, Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy aren’t bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. Hence they should on occasion be willing to promote the Liberal Democrat view point on an issue even if it contradicts with those in the Conservative Party. An idea that the Party may want to consider is to appoint a ‘Chief Parliamentary Spokesperson’ who is able to communicate to the media the view of grassroots Liberal Democrats on an issue besides just the policy of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Government. The Spokesperson would represent the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party and could offer a comment to the media alongside David Cameron the Leader of the Government and Ed Miliband the Leader of the Opposition. Due to the Spokesperson not being a member of the Coalition Government and the Coalition Cabinet they could make a comment and would not risk undermining the stability of the government. Simon Hughes as Lib Dem Deputy Leader may be an ideal candidate for this role.

The Labour and Conservative Love For Murdoch

The world ended yesterday well the News of the World anyway. The jewel of the Murdoch Empire has been shattered after the recent developments in the phone hacking scandal. Added to that the former Editor of the News of the World as well as the former spin doctor for David Cameron, Andy Coulson has been arrested by the police. This scandal has put News Corporation and its master Rupert Murdoch at the top of British news agenda (well with the exception of the Sun and the Times). But there’s another angle to this story to consider and that’s the relationship between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and Rupert Murdoch.

A few weeks ago both David Cameron and Ed Miliband were at one of Rupert Murdoch’s parties, both were trying to win favour with News International. This was just the lasting wooing of the media tycoon by Labour and the Conservatives. In 1992 the Tory PM, John Major had the support of the Sun when he narrowly won the General Election, the myth was born that Murdoch had a hand in determining elections. This myth continued in both the Tories as well as in Labour Party. Tony Blair and New Labour were dependent on Murdoch’s support as was Gordon Brown. Within days of the formation of the Coalition Government, Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street to meet his latest Prime Ministerial admirer, David Cameron. For too many years Britain’s two largest parties have been under the influence of Rupert Murdoch and it must end. The Liberal Democrats must be the first party of government in over three decades not to be under Murdoch’s spell. We as Liberal Democrats must once more take the fight to Rupert Murdoch.

Nick Clegg has called for a judge led inquiry into the actions of News International. The Deputy Prime Minister is continuing the Liberal tradition of not siding with elites and vested interests. Just remember when Vince Cable was caught by undercover journalists declaring war on Rupert Murdoch. The Lib Dems are only one of the main parties to have never allied themselves with News International.

David Cameron has now agreed to hold a judge led public inquiry. Another person to also call for a judge led inquiry as well as for Rebekah Brooks’ resignation was the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband has been praised across the media for daring to distance himself from his would-be master, Rupert Murdoch. However, I for one view Miliband’s decision as being hypocritically opportunistic. If the Labour Party was serious about distancing itself from Murdoch it could have done so when the phone hacking scandal began to emerge in 2006. Even Ed Miliband harboured hopes of gaining Murdoch’s affections or else he would not have attended the media tycoon’s parties. If Labour had won the General Election and maintained the Sun’s support would they now be opposing Murdoch? After 13 years of worshipping Murdoch; I doubt it! So how is Ed Miliband or David Cameron in a fit state to criticise News International after decades of their respective parties hanging on the word of Rupert Murdoch. We need Nick Clegg to take the political lead on this issue.

Frankly neither the Conservatives nor Labour can be trusted to bring News International to account over the recent scandals given their previous love for Murdoch. Nick Clegg was absolutely right to call for a judge led inquiry and it is now up to the Liberal Democrats to hold Murdoch and News International to account. Also and almost as important we must not let Labour and the Conservatives paper over the past, they were allied to and dependent on Rupert Murdoch for decades; and we shouldn’t let them or the British people forget it. It is good to know that for all that time there has always been one party that hasn’t been obedient towards the likes of Rupert Murdoch; the Liberal Democrats!  

The End of Murdoch’s British Empire?

Has the Last Post begun to sound for Rupert Murdoch’s British Empire? Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the United Kingdom consists of four major newspapers: the Sun, News of the World, The Times and the Sunday Times. Rupert Murdoch also has a large stake in the television media and is seeking to complete a takeover of British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB). Several years ago rumours began to emerge about News Corporation journalists from the News of the World hacking into the phones of major celebrities and politicians. It has since transpired that many individuals indeed did have their phone messages hacked into by journalists working for newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation. However the last few days has taken this scandal from the world of celebrity and politics into the country at large. This is due to the fact that it appears that the mobile phone of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler may have been hacked into by journalists of the News of the World. Further suspected cases of phone hacking may also include the murdered Soham teenagers, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as well as the bereaved families of those who lost loved ones in the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14040841). Tonight, it has also transpired that the families of dead soldiers may have had their phones intercepted and hacked into by the News of the World (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909). I for one would like to echo the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg who described the recent developments in the phone hacking scandal as "beneath contempt" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-mps-milly-dowler). All of these allegations arguably put the future of the planned takeover of BSkyB at as well as the career of the head of News International, Rebekah Brooks at risk.

But what are the political implications of the scandal that is now engulfing Rupert Murdoch's dealings in the United Kingdom? Firstly there are the BSkyB takeover and the Prime Minister's relationship with Andy Coulson. However there is a much more central issue regarding politics and Rupert Murdoch in Britain. This is due to the fact that for many decades Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have been senior backers and donors to both the Labour and Conservative parties. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron have sought strong links to the Murdoch press because they were dependent upon their support. Politicians for decades from both the Tories and Labour viewed the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch as a key steppingstone to achieving power. No politician of the two largest parties with any prospect of a political future has dared to criticise News International; but as Nick Robinson from the BBC speculates could that be changing? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14045722) At any rate both Labour and the Tories have been dependent on Murdoch's empire, it is up to the Liberal Democrats to hold News International to account. This is especially the case now that we are in government. We as Liberal Democrats were not afraid to criticise the Murdoch press when we were in opposition and we certainly shouldn't be afraid now that we have influence in government. The one continuing factor throughout all the decades when the Murdoch Empire was either endorsing Labour or the Tories is it was always hostile to the Lib Dems, a third-party that would seemingly never achieve power. It wasn't the Sun that won it for us, far from it. It is important that those who are directly responsible for these latest phone hacking scandals are brought to account. Rebekah Brooks's position as the head of News International is looking increasingly untenable and the planned takeover of BSkyB should now be halted as it is clear that Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is not a fit and worthy company to be running such a large swathe of the British television media. Nick Clegg it is now up to you to carry the Liberal Democrat baton that has always opposed Rupert Murdoch and call for Rebekah Brooks to resign and also call for a halt to the planned BSkyB takeover.

We Should Protest In Defence Of Lib Dem Values

Today Britain has seen the latest in a long line of protests along with strikes from several major national trade unions. These protests and strikes have been in response to pension reform plans put forward by the government as well as on the issues of cuts, tuition fees and the NHS reforms. Estimates regarding those who have gone on strike range from 50% to 85% and potentially three quarters of a million workers had the option to go on strike today. Now we can discuss whether or not the strikes and protests were legitimate today, but as Liberal Democrats the question remains whether or not we should be protesting against proposals put forward by the Coalition government of which we are apart.

Surely if we were not a part of the Coalition government and the Conservatives or Labour were running the country by themselves we would find it a lot easier to determine whether or not to protest, however actually being in government leads us naturally to think twice before deciding whether we should take any action. Just to clarify by action I mean democratic protests and peaceful protests not in undertaking any violence, vandalism or occupation. Surely we should be willing when necessary to stand up for the values that we have always held as a party. Although we are in Coalition and that naturally means making compromises, surely we should still hold the values for which we have cherished for many decades. Many Liberal Democrats have deep concerns about some of the cuts and reforms that the Coalition is enacting. Whether this is the speed and pace of the cuts in general, the fear of enhanced private-sector influence in the National Health Service, the tripling of tuition fees and yes even concerns over how public sector workers are being treated. It was over mainly the latter over which the protests and strikes were happening today. I for one believe it is a worker’s democratic right to withdraw their labour and go on strike democratically and responsibly. I'm from a working-class background myself and would never scoff at those who choose to protest and strike like some in the right-wing media would because contrary to right-wing belief it is not a decision that is easily taken by many working people; to go on strike and lose a day's pay as a result.

Today, in Lancaster I attended a rally in the centre of the city hosted by trade unionists and workers. I wasn't the only Liberal Democrat member in the audience either. There were also many members of the Labour Party and the Green party attending the rally. Personally, my main reasons for going to the rally was over concerns regarding the NHS reforms and the raising of tuition fees however I also harboured some genuine sympathy for the public sector workers who were demonstrating. There were many moderates like myself in the audience; however there were also many representatives of the far left there as well. The far left speakers ranged from anarchists, moderate socialists and fully signed up Marxists with their usual rhetoric of class struggle, class war, solidarity and revolution. I strongly disagreed with the extreme rhetoric used by the far left considering that I am a supporter of capitalism and consider the us and them approach that they used to be dangerous and divisive. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that we should be actively disagreeing with policies that are against our social liberal values while offering a moderate buffer to the extremist veil of the far left. In addition, we must be willing to stand up for the poor and working people that we have supported for decades while ensuring that they aren't swept up by the stance of either Labour or the Greens.

We must not be afraid to peacefully and democratically protest against any policies that go against our values. Didn't many Labour supporters go on protest against the war in Iraq? And of course there is more than just one way to protest. Yes there are marches and rallies but there are also letters, petitions and discussions. In the heat of strikes we must never forget the latter forms of protest. An excellent example of which was the Social Liberal Forum petition calling for modifications to the NHS reforms. I hope this blog entry hasn't been too controversial but I feel that as Liberal Democrats we have spent a lifetime protesting against the policies of different governments, we should occasionally think about moderate protest again. After all 80% of the government is of the Conservative Party.

In Defence of Our Civil Liberties

I began supporting and subsequently joined the Liberal Democrats due to the issue of civil liberties. To me it is one of the most important issues in British politics and politics all around the world. The freedom of the individual is quite literally the ‘bread and butter’ for all liberals and Liberal Democrats. It is on that basis that the issue of civil liberties will always be such an important one to anyone who identifies themselves as being a liberal. Liberals have always and will always oppose government authoritarianism that seeks to erode civil liberties. A key example of this liberal tenacity was shown by the Liberal Party member, Clarence Henry Willcock, who in 1950 refused to show his identity card to a police officer. Willcock stated that "I am a Liberal. I am against that sort of thing." (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=111&item=history).

Civil liberties are thus at the core of what it is to be liberal. The previous Labour government, tried to enact several proposals that would seriously undermine civil liberties in the name of tackling terrorism and achieving greater security. Labour attempted to revive the ID card scheme that had been so clearly rebuked by liberals such as Willcock. Detention without charge limits were almost increased to 90 days. These detention limits would have been the highest in the Western world and would put Britain in the same league as dictatorships such as those in China and Zimbabwe. The DNA database was created and expanded to such a degree that millions of innocent people were placed on it without being charged of an offence. Children were placed in detention while waiting for extradition from immigration centres. Labour introduced control orders with the ability to have a house detention system for potential terrorist suspects. Finally the Labour administration oversaw the extraordinary rendition of many British terror suspects, who were taken to foreign military bases and quite likely subjected to torture, like the water boarding practised at Guantanamo Bay. It is essential that liberals oppose these extraordinary extensions of state authority and state power that although used in the name of counterterrorism and security often can apply (potentially in all these examples of how Labour eroded civil liberties) to completely innocent law-abiding citizens. The state has no right to impinge upon the individual freedom of innocent citizens. Furthermore by taking such illiberal erosions of civil liberties the government is likely to create a climate of fear and mistrust which further undermines society and the ability of the individual to act freely.

Since coming to power of the Coalition government has overseen the scrapping of identity cards, the reduction of detention without charge to 14 days, restrictions to the DNA database, the ending of child detention and a watering down of control orders to remove components of the control orders that would simulate house arrest. Furthermore we should be hopeful that the Coalition will not repeat the practice of extraordinary rendition that was used during the Labour Party's time in office. Although the Coalition has repealed much of what the Labour Party did to erode civil liberties, there is much more that still needs to be done. The Coalition is still pressing ahead with some policy initiatives that may erode civil liberties. Firstly, 14 days detention without charge may still be increased to 28 days detention without charge in the event of an emergency. It should be the case that 14 days detention without charge remains exactly that and I for one would like to see the government considering whether or not to lower the detention without charge limits even further, to perhaps even as low as seven days. Secondly, although control orders have been rebranded as TPIMs, the Home Secretary still has considerable power to limit the freedom of individuals based on secret evidence. Thirdly, the reformed DNA database still holds information potentially of millions of people and as recently highlighted the DNA of innocence rape suspects who have not been charged will be kept. Liberal Democrats within the Coalition should be careful before supporting any measures that may further erode civil liberties and in the spirit of liberalism shown throughout the decades, seek to limit the authority of the state where it may erode individual freedom.

The Forgotten Deficit of Social Justice

Every evening on the news, we are reminded of the fact that Britain has a massive economic deficit. This is reinforced by the notion of hard times and austerity that the country is currently going through, along with further threats of future cuts and public service strikes. Although it is widely accepted that this deficit is in need of being tackled (all three main parties were committed to the tackling deficit in their 2010 manifestos) we mustn't lose sight of another deficit that has been looming over the United Kingdom for more than the past 30 years. This is a deficit of social justice. We in the current climate of austerity may find it easy to believe that now is not the best time to be promoting social justice or seeking to combat the economic inequalities between the poorest and the richest. In many respects given our current economic climate, it may be believed that social justice has become the forgotten deficit.

Between 1979 and 2009 the gap between the richest and poorest grew. (graph six, http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml?2). In 2009, the income inequality gap was higher than at any time in the previous 30 years. Also in a decade from 1999 to 2009 the average income for the poorest 10% of the population decreased by 12% whereas the average income for the richest 10% increased by 37% (graph one, http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml?2). These statistics show quite clearly that in previous years the gap between the richest and poorest has continued to grow. Since 2009, Britain has embarked upon a period of austerity designed to tackle the deficit in Britain’s economics. Although it is necessary to ‘balance the books’; they should not be balanced on the poorest people in our society.

It is evident that one factor in the current economic hardship was the excesses and risk-taking practised by many banks and bankers, which almost led to the collapse of the financial industry and which led to costly bailouts and fiscal stimulus. Given that the overwhelming majority of the economic crisis was not caused by the poor why should they have to pick up the pieces? It is vital in tackling the current economic circumstances that we don't further impoverished those who have been neglected from government to government over many decades. The poor may not have the loudest voice and they are often vilified in the right-wing press as being feckless, dole spongers or chavs but we mustn't forget our social obligations to them. No one in a rich western country like Britain should have to choose between feeding themselves and their families or choosing to put the heating on.

But what can be done to tackle inequalities in wealth given the current economic circumstances? The Coalition Government has shown flashes of social justice in their key policies such as to take almost 1,000,000 of the poorest people out of income tax and to attribute a pupil premium to the poorest children to ensure that they get the best start to their education. But this does not go far enough to tackle the long-term deficit of social justice. Any revenue reaped from taxing the bonuses of the bankers should be redistributed to the poorest who have suffered due to the bankers’ malpractice. The government should also regulate energy companies who try to hike their prices up unnecessarily, which can impact hard on poor families. Land value taxation may also be introduced to tax those wealthy individuals who own land and shift the burden of taxation of the poorest, as well as giving the government more resources to tackle the social and economic injustices faced by the poor. If progressive taxation and regulation was used in such a way to protect the poor and to redistribute the wealth from the richest it may go some way to help tackle the vast gulf in economic inequalities. Of course taxation and regulation are only parts of a potential solution; other things for consideration would be the socio-economic conditions that keep a poor person within the poverty trap. However, first we need to acknowledge at the highest level that tackling the gap between the rich and the poor is a major priority. The poorest should not have their opportunities curved by a lack of economic resources, and no rational government should bring about circumstances that would make the plight of the poor worse. In a time of austerity cuts we should not hurt the poorest more than the richest. While tackling the deficit in our economy we must not yet again forget about the deficit of social justice in our society. Social justice is an issue that needs confronting and we cannot allow it to be neglected any longer; the opportunities of future generations should not be determined by the circumstances of their birth and their lack of resources but by the range and scope of their talents.

The Coalitions Governing Lancaster

It's been a while since I did my last blog, due to me finishing my second-year exams at Lancaster University. Before I move on to discuss what’s been happening in Lancaster locally, I would like to thank Ryan Cullen for highlighting this blog in his list of new Liberal Democrat bloggers on Liberal Democrat Voice. Thanks Ryan. (http://www.libdemvoice.org/welcome-to-the-new-bloggers-31-24465.html).

          Over the past weeks the new executive of Lancaster City Council has been sworn into office. Lancaster has a long history of strange and relatively rare executives being formed between numerous political parties compared to many other local councils. This is because there are five main political parties that stand locally in the Lancaster area. Obviously there are the three main parties, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Conservative party. There is also a very strong Green party in Lancaster, which is arguably the strongest Green presence in the North of England. Furthermore there is a local based Morecambe party called the Morecambe Bay Independents (MBIs). And it is also worth noting that Lancaster City Council has a large number of independents and a group of Free Independents who are independent of the independents and who are also independent of the Morecambe Bay Independents. So there are a lot of independents in Lancaster; if you're still following me. So due to there being so many different political groups on the council, there exists the possibility for many different political outcomes.

          The 2007 local council election had resulted in Labour having 15 seats, the Conservatives and the Greens both having 12 states, the MBIs having 11 states and the Liberal Democrats and the Independents both having 5 seats. Hence the 2007 election created a massive hung council with it being impossible for even two parties to form the council executive. Initially, a three-way coalition between Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats was formed. This was followed by a new executive led by Liberal Democrat councillor, Stuart Langhorn, which was formed by the use of a proportional representation cabinet. This meant that the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Conservatives, the Greens, the MBIs and the Independents were offered seats on the council cabinet. This all party executive (which was subsequently boycotted by the Conservatives) reflected the fact that no party had the ability to govern by itself.

          This changed however following the 2011 local council elections, which ended in Labour having 24 seats, the Conservatives having 16 seats, both the Greens and the MBIs each received 8 States and the Independents received 4 seats. Unfortunately we lost all five of our seats meaning an end for now anyway to any Liberal Democrat representation on our local council. This was surely not a reflection on the efforts of local Liberal Democrats and what we have achieved locally but more a reflection on national issues regarding the Coalition in Westminster. Following the results of the local election a new administration in the council was formed in a coalition between the Labour Party and the Green Party. There are currently six Labour seats on the cabinet compared to only two seats for the Green Party. It'll be interesting from a political perspective to see how a Red-Green alliance delivers for the people of Lancaster and Morecambe. Stereotypically, this new executive may become an alliance between authoritarians and hippies, although it's sometimes difficult to say which party those labels best apply to. Going from the fact that I know a few Labour councillors personally and a few former Greens candidates personally, the calibre of those on the council is potentially a very high one. It'll be interesting to see over the weeks and months to come how a national Coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will impact on a local Coalition between Labour and the Greens. One thing is for sure; that considering the transition from a PR cabinet to contrasting coalitions between national government and local government, local politics in Lancaster is surely to remain one of the most interesting in the country.

The Referendum Result: A Silver Lining

It has been a few bruising weeks since the result of the Alternative Vote referendum. Although many of us including myself thought that the result of the referendum would be a disappointment it was probably not an entirely unexpected one. The dark forces of conservatism reigned triumphant on results night however this is hardly a surprise given the widespread misinformation about AV. Both the yes and no campaigns resorted to political mudslinging and in the end it came down to a personality contest in the minds of the public; which basically meant choosing the set of politicians you least hated (that'll be just like First Past The Post then).

The result of the referendum was obviously a blow to us Liberal Democrats and to Nick Clegg. However here are five points of encouragement and a silver lining to look at in these dark clouds of referendum defeat.

Firstly, in 1979 the Welsh people rejected Welsh devolution by 80% to 20% and yet within the space of 18 years support for devolution had increased to such a degree that when the next referendum was called in 1997 it was won with just over 50% of the vote. The gap with the AV referendum result in 2011 was far slimmer with 68% opposing change and 32% supporting it. That's a difference of 2-1 compared to a difference of 4-1 in the Welsh referendum of 1979.

Secondly, we have managed to get what is usually considered a relatively dry topic, electoral reform into the public discourse. Although we didn't exactly get people dancing in the streets over electoral reform we were able to prove that a considerable minority of the population, a third do desire some aspect of electoral reform.

Thirdly, we have said a no to AV, now what about a yes to PR. The former SDP leader, David Owen was the poster boy for this aspect of the no campaign. Lord Owen is obviously a progressive and one that is also committed to proportional representation; however I couldn't help thinking during the referendum campaign that he and all the others who voted no believing that it would help the case for PR were being taken as fools by the no campaign. But assuming this is not the case surely Margaret Beckett, William Hague, John Reid, Ken Clarke, David Blunkett, Nick Griffin and David Owen will now start pushing for PR. Unfortunately of that list, I think that David Owen is the only one with the genuine intention to follow that through.

Fourthly, there is a chance that this could paradoxically strengthen our attempts to democratise the House of Lords as David Cameron will be under more pressure to enact the part of the Coalition Agreement which calls for a "wholly or mainly elected second chamber" elected using proportional representation. However this has always been a difficult road to tread, Nick Clegg will have to succeed where many other progressives have failed.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, we gave people a choice. When New Labour came into office in 1997 they promised to give the people a referendum on changing the voting system and yet after 13 years not even a date was announced for when the referendum should be held. Labour liked people to believe they wanted electoral reform however their inertia shows that they did not. We have wasted no time in giving the British people a say over their electoral system and yes they rejected it but the whole point of believing in liberal democracy is that you are not afraid to give the people a chance to display their democratic viewpoint.

One Year of Liberal Democrat Governance

Yes it has been one year since that beautiful scene in the Downing Street rose garden between Nick and Dave. Its one year since the political civil partnership of the Coalition Government. Its one year since Nick Clegg pretended to walk away from David Cameron (a few regretted that he turned back, not including myself). Its one year since Britain was painted in yellowish blue. And yet although we could not see what the future had in store for us; know one can say that the last 12 months of British politics from the perspective of any party especially the Liberal Democrats has been particularly boring. Speaking as a centre-left Liberal Democrat to see the object of Cleggmania stood next to the heir to all things Thatcherite did make me feel unsure whether a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was a good thing. However as time has worn on, I have begun to warm to the Coalition Government. If not in an entirely fanatical way.

The previous 12 months has been a rollercoaster ride for us Lib Dems. And yes there have been some negative things some of which I have disagreed with like the rise in tuition fees or some of the budget cuts which are less than progressive to say the least or the completely right wing marketisation proposed in the government's NHS reforms, however there are many things as a Liberal Democrat that I can only applaud. The reason I began to support the Lib Dems was because of their stance on defending civil liberties. It is fantastic that over the last 12 months the Coalition Government has been able to undo many of the authoritarian injustices inaugurated in the previous Labour Government. ID cards have been scrapped, detention without charge has been reduced from 28 days to 14 days, child detention has been ended and control orders have been watered down. Just on the basis of this defence of civil liberties, the Liberal Democrats have not been afraid to put our liberal agenda into action. We are delivering on our four main manifesto commitments. Already over 800,000 of the poorest people in our country have been taken out of paying any income tax. The pupil premium is well within the pipeline of the coalition agenda. Chris Huhne over at the Department of Energy and Climate Change is driving forward our green new deal to create a more sustainable green economy. We have even made great progress in terms of political reform despite the loss of the AV referendum, don't forget Labour promised to have a referendum on electoral reform in 1997 and after 13 years they failed to deliver even that basic progress, however we wasted no time in putting the Alternative Vote to the people.

Another factor which has strengthened my support for the coalition government is the rank opportunism of Ed Miliband’s Labour Party. The claims that Ed Miliband would make Labour more progressive, seem to me to have been too little effect. Firstly, although I disagree with some (but certainly not all) of the government’s spending cuts, I do believe that we need to reduce the deficit. Ed Miliband promised a Labour deficit reduction plan by the time the Coalition published there’s however over six months into Ed Miliband's leadership Labour has yet to produce such a program. Former Labour ministers from across the party still defend Labour's record on civil liberties. As regards to political reform Labour as a party seems completely unwilling to enact change. This was hammered home by the streams of former Labour ministers lining up to speak on behalf of the No to AV campaign.

The last year has been very interesting for Liberal Democrats. It has been the ultimate political rollercoaster from Cleggmania to tuition fees riots and deficit reductions. With serious progress potentially being made in the near future on issues like progressive taxation, the pupil premium, Lords reform, carbon emissions reduction and protecting our NHS from privatised cherry picking; the words from the Lib Dem grassroots can only be a cautiously nervous, ‘four more years.’

I’m Still Proud To Wear My Yellow Rosette

It is hardly an understatement to say that the last few days have been very hard for any supporter of the Liberal Democrats, due to the very bad election results we received on Thursday. Some political commentators were even commenting that it was the worst election result since the merger of the Liberal Party and the SDP in 1988. Indeed, with the defeat of over 700 councillors in England and obliteration across the map of Scotland, it was hardly a great night in the annals of Lib Dem history. However the Welsh party was able to buck the trend finishing the last session of the Welsh assembly with five seats and maintaining five seats by the end of the Welsh election.

Considering the bad results on Thursday, some may be wondering whether or it is time to hang up our yellow rosettes (a fact further hammered home by the incredible no vote in the Alternative Vote Referendum). In Lancaster, where I was running as a Liberal Democrat candidate for the Ellel Ward, the results for our party mirrored the national picture. Of the five seats we held prior to the city council election we lost all of them on results day.  That even included the Liberal Democrat council leader Stuart Langhorn, who narrowly lost his Lower Lune Valley seat to the Conservatives by just over 100 votes. Earlier in the day when I had done some tallying it looked possible that we may retain Lower Lune Valley. However the final result was not as close as I had hoped. In the council Ward where I was standing, Ellel, I never had any illusion about what the result would be considering that this particular council seat had a relatively strong Conservative presence. In the end I received 174 votes narrowly surpassing my Liberal Democrat running mate by 10 votes.

However after us Lib Dems received a mauling locally, I am still quite proud to wear my yellow rosette and certainly have no intention to change the colour of it this side of infinity. Oddly in the wake of my Party’s disastrous results, I am relatively confident that we can regain much lost ground in four years time. This is due to one reason in particular; for decades Liberal Democrats have seen local community politics as a speciality of ours. The next four years will give us an opportunity to excel locally and build strong local liberal foundations. It is time to prove over the next four years that indeed we are the masters of local politics and that we can recoup many of the losses dealt in the local elections this year. I personally would love to run as a candidate again in 2015 (with hopefully a much better result than I received this year). The whole experience of campaigning and going to the count was quite exciting and exhilarating if only our efforts as local Lib Dems had borne fruit. Hopefully there shall be much fruit to harvest in 2015. Perhaps I should leave the last word of local Liberal Democrat optimism to the now former leader of Lancaster council, Stuart Langhorn who was reported in the Lancaster Guardian as saying, "we have to listen to people, we have a great country with a strong liberal tradition and a great party." (http://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancaster-and-district-news/lib_dems_wiped_out_in_poll_1_3358632).

Painting The Red Rose County Yellow

This is my first ever blog, so I assume it would only be polite to apologise in advance for any spelling mistakes or inaccuracies in grammar. I hope that you enjoy reading my blog and that you take many insightful things from it. I suppose I should start by introducing myself. My name is Paul Hindley, I’m 20 years old and I’m a student at Lancaster University who is studying politics. In my blog I intend to express my opinions and comments on contemporary current affairs issues locally, nationally and globally.

As no doubt you will have realised by now I intend to blog about social liberalism especially from the perspective of the British Liberal Democrats. I suppose my liberal use of the colour yellow (forgive the pun) in the title header and the words centre-left Liberalism would have been quite a giveaway. I first became interested in politics at the age of 12 in 2003, this was during the most controversial period of Tony Blair's New Labour government, when this country was taken to war illegally against Iraq in a neoconservative mission topple Saddam Hussein by means that were unlawful according to the international community. My outrage at the war in Iraq was swiftly followed by my outrage towards the Labour Party's authoritarian stance toward civil liberties embodied by nothing more symbolic than the identity card. I subsequently gained a deep scepticism for the authoritarianism embodied by New Labour and the Thatcherite economics espoused by the Conservatives.

 All things considered, it is little wonder that ended up supporting the party that I did and in 2008 merely one month after my 18th birthday and in the middle of an A-level politics course I finally joined that party. Much has happened since I joined the party, I have been to 2 party conferences, I have become the Treasurer in my University’s Liberal Democrat society, I have stood for a council seat for Lancaster City Council and most of all I have watched my party transcend from opposition to Coalition government. Even after everything that has happened to the Liberal Democrats over the past years some good, some bad I am still a very proud supporter of my party and its centre-left roofs. It is essential, especially in these times of coalition that centre-left social liberals such as myself can convey thoughts and opinions about politics in general from a liberal left perspective. This is my main reason for wanting to start this blog.

I am Lancashire born and bred, I have lived here all my life from my hometown of Blackpool to my current studying in Lancaster at Lancaster University. Hopefully you'll enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of at least this centre-left Liberal Democrat over the blog entries to come and together perhaps we can do our bit to paint the ‘red rose county’ yellow.