Follow Up to My Resignation Letter from LDCF

 As I did say at the end of my post of my resignation letter from the LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum) I did say I would publish a follow up about some of the context before and to answer some the queries that have come up since.

First of all the context.

Last weekend I became aware that the Chair of LDCF has signed an open letter started by Liberal Voice for Women. He had signed it not in a personal capacity as all bar one of the other signaturies had done, but on behalf of the exec of LDCF. The other exception was the Chair of Liberal Voice for Women.

Liberal Voice for Women is a group that is not affiliated to the Liberal Democrats in any way and have been asked to stop using the word Liberal in their title as it is misleading. This, however, does not stop them emailing members of the Liberal Democrats bringing Gender Critical concerns to the fore and sometime leading potentially naive members, councillors, peers and others to be swayed by their argument. Some of whom have later regretted decisions they made supporting the group and have apologised for their action, naivity on the subject and hurt they have caused long standing friends.

The current letter was regarding freedom of speech for the groups LGB Alliance and FiLiA to have stalls at the upcoming Lib Dem Conference. The only people with a right to have stalls at Lib Dem Conference would be the Groups that are made up of Liberal Democrats the groups that represent subsets of our membership. Groups such as LDCF and LGBT+ Lib Dems for example. Other groups, organisations and charities with outside interests will be invited or accepted by the Conference Committee. Some of these are ungoing concerns that share the parties values, other are groups that are relevant to the debate or areas of policy we are focussing on at present. In any event there is finite space for stalls in the exhibition part of conference.

The argument about freedom of speech is one that would sway Liberal Democrats, we love debate especially amongst ourselves. However, with relation to the two organisations in question how do they use the freedom of speech they already have?

Those who support these two organisations use their freedom of speech to spread fear about trans women, never trans men it is interesting to note. They want trans people to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth, ie they don't want trans women in women's bathrooms, changing rooms or spaces, but seem to ignore the implication that trans men with their testosterone shots and growing their facial hair would be subject to the same rules and have to be in "women's" spaces. 

They also use their freedom of speech to lambast, copy post, abuse and torment not only trans people but any of us who show support for them. Everytime any of us of LGBT+ Lib Dems twitter account post in support of Trans people we are attacked virolantly.

This letter is asking to allow members of this organisation to operate a stall, to share the same space as LGBT+ members who would have their own stall at Lib Dem Conference. The LGBT+ stall is more than just a stall to promote our organisation it is also a stall that has helped many LGBT+ members of the party feel safe, often for the first time, to talk about their sexuality or gender identity. This safe space would easily be affected by anti-trans groups, who also aren't too keen on trans supportive LGB people or trans inclusive feminists, being set up who knows how far away.

Now when I saw that the Chair of LDCF had signed this letter on behalf of the LDCF Exec I did not accuse the entire Exec of making a misjudgement. I reached out to friends on the Exec of LDCF to get a better picture of what was happening. I was relieved to hear that concerns had been raised by some about taking action as a group to sign this letter. 

There was also an offer to speak to the chair relayed through one of these exec members. As I have a tiring work schedule and other commitments I asked to what end this phone call would have, but heard nothing back through that channel.

Well this morning a statement (since amended slightly) appeared on the LDCF website. The initial wording started with "LDCF unanimously co-signed a letter". I took obvious objection to such wording as I was a member of LDCF and had not given permission for anyone to sign that letter on my behalf as part of LDCF, nor was there any communication with the membership of the whole about such a letter. How this could be unanimous is a party of voting geekery is beyond me.

Clearly as a past member of the LGBT+ Exec, an openly gay three time Westminster Candidate I could not stand by and have myself associated with such a poorly worded statement that seemed to suggest I agreed to such a stance. I announced I would be tendering my resignation forthwith in response to the Twitter post with the statement and drafted the letter.

I said I would publish the letter just over an hour after I submitted the resignation letter. This was to allow peope time to maybe persuade others that the statement should to be taken down from the website before further consideration was given to this matter. When it was still there at 10:30 I hit publish on my accounts.

In the interim I did get question from the LDCF Twitter account, at first anonymously but in a personal capacity. When I enquired who was asking, it was from the Chair. However, when I asked publically if he had reached out the LGBT+ Lib Dems I got the response.

We did reach out to various people including LGBTQ+ in the Party and received no response other than the same ‘they are transphobic’. We have asked very senior people in the Party for their evidence and experience also. Let’s all push now for some clear statements.

So yeah going to the authority on trans issues, being told the organisations in question are transphobic apparently isn't enough clarity. 

I was also asked to share proof that the organisations were transphobic. I face enough of this whenever I do stand up for trans rights, it is an ongoing struggle for many of us on social media. But our party is clear on what constitutes transphobia. But if the chair of any part of our party (and I say this having chaired parts of it myself) can't do some basic research, ask some relevant people and then listen to their answers. Before going ahead and doing something anyway on behalf of that organisation or just exec (not quite clear which, if either), what hope is there?

This is a Saturday I have a two day weekend this week (which only happens 50% of the time). I was hoping for some self care this morning. Thanks to those who have helped provide care to me as I went through this tough time. I may write more on this latter but for now I am taking some time for myself.

Well Being Economics: First Reflections on Jo's FIrst Leader's Speech #JoSwinson #LDConf

The key thing that made me jump out of my seat during Jo Swinson's leader's speech was when she questioned why we measure the state of our country by GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It took me back to one of my first Economics tutorials  a little over 30 years ago.

In that tutorial the tutor said that economics was basically powered by everyone getting out of it what is best for themselves. I questioned that said what about those who were concerned about giving others a fair chance, cared about the environment etc. It will probably not therefore surprise you to know that in my elective courses in my second and third year I focused on Environmental and Developmental Economics along with my third choice European. The fact that after the second year and carried all three on deeper shows you that I have been tuned into this for over 30 years.

As Jo said with the level of well being for our planet and indeed everyone in our society we need to act now. We are in a climate emergency, we need urgent action. We have a President in the White House and another in Brazil who seem to not see the importance and actually don't want others to see this either. But the facts have been there for years and looking at some of my Environmental Economics books from 30 years ago even the predictions then are way sort of the disaster we are in now. 

However, as Jo points out if we have any Brexit, especially if we have a no deal Brexit we will be furiously kicking under the flood waters to keep ourselves afloat without the time, energy or resources to be able to deal with such big issues. We'll be in survival mode, like those developing countries I learnt about 30 years ago, who said they had to follow our path to development burning fossil fuels, massive factories, chopping down their forests. This was because we refused to share with them the benefits their resources had given us in colonial times and they now felt left behind. But that will be the Britain post-Brexit. 

We need to deal with things in the round, in conversation and coalition with other nations to deal with these issues, not heading to isolation behind the hulking, shulking Boris running from people who think differently from him.

We need to act. We need to demand better. We need to do it now.

Stigmatising HIV and Hepatitis isn't an Ecumenical Issue...or even a Health Issue

The resignations of my friends Jennie Rigg and Sarah Brown resigned from the Liberal Democrats over the joyful acceptance of Philip Lee into the party it gave me pause for reflection.

It wasn't that long ago that another "health issue" caused a lot of hurt here in Northern Ireland when Iris Robinson mentioned that her friendly psychiatrist could cure Northern Ireland of Sodomy it seemed. Quite rightly the Liberal Democrats were up in arms about those comments.

However, when someone's views in the past that we should stop people coming to this country who have HIV or Hepatitis, some of those same people brush it under the carpet as a health issue. Then reject the anger and hurt that is felt by LGBT+ activists and campaigners. You see many of us who are LGBT+ have been told to our faces that we have a health issue. Usually as with Iris Robinson this is referring to our mental health. People have told us there is a cure, some of us even have tried the so called "cure" so know even more how much this hurts.

Refusing people entry to this country because they have HIV or Hepatitis is a mixture of Homophobia and Xenophobia. It is based on ignorance like in the 1980s that these are just gay diseases. It ignores the many millions from Sub Sahara Africa who have been infected by their partners or parents. It legitimises a certain amount of asylum refusal, in much the same way that many LBGT+ asylum seekers have been turned away by the Border Force for not being stereotypically "gay" enough to warrant asylum.

CIS, straight people telling LGBT+ people that they shouldn't be offended. That our lose would be unfortunate is stirring a pot that should not be stirred. We can feel this oppression because we still face it ourselves. We are still anxious about public signs of affection in areas we don't know well. We have faced the name calling, we have faced the accusing looks, the ignorance, the hatred.


Unlike from Father Ted this isn't so much an Ecumenical Issue. We are a party that believes nobody should be enslaved by conformity.

When you base you standards of conformity of misguided health guidelines; without realising the fact about undetectable viral loads or the health nightmare that some of the poorest in this world face, you are not allowing everyone to achieve the best that they can be. If you do are you truly Liberal.

Feeling Used - Confession of a Gay Christian Lib Dem

It has been a long time since I have blogged and that is not really like me. Today I am once again not feeling well it has been a tough 12 months for me health-wise. However, something has happened today that makes me feel used that makes me feel like I have to write.

Speaking today on Premier Christian Radio the former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said that he now regrets the statement he made during the last general election when he said he did not think gay sex was a sin. This is the latest in the line of remarks he has made since he stood down as leader of the party that has worried me.

I am on record in this very blog as being one of the first LBGT+ Lib Dems to support his bid for the leadership. Based on the conversations I have had with him in person and online about LGBT+ issues and his and my faith.

In my case of course I feel ostracised from the Christian community for being gay and from the LGBT+ community for being a Christian. Now of course Tim Farron is able to support the Lib Dem idea of marriage equality because as a true liberal, LGBT, Christian I knew that the state had no right to interfere in how individual faith groups govern themselves. No LGBT+ Christian wants a faith group to marry them in a same sex marriage that doesn't want them.

Today however now I'm not sure if all the conversations I have had with Tim have really seen the progress I thought I had seen. I'm not longer sure if my sharing of my struggles led to him making the decisions he had done or whether this was for expediency and acceptance within the party. I know there are members of my party who are Christians who have risked their position within their church for standing up for LGBT+ issues.

Tim is saying that one group that did not give him advise from within party HQ was fellow Christians. Yet I know many within the party who are Christians of all backgrounds who have been supportive of all that the LGBT+ Lib Dems have brought forward. I also know some who have been against. But nobody shall be enslaved by conformity is and underlying core value of our party. The equal marriage policy that our party brought forward into law allowed freedom for religion and religions. Somehow today it feels that some of the Christians and one of the most prominent ones regrets having allowed freedom from religion.

One of friends in politics who took the other stance when Tim made those comments  during the general election today has said he expects acts of contrition, maybe this is what this is or maybe I was just used and had wool pulled over my eyes. 

Have I been played? Have I been used? Tonight I don't have the answers. But I do feel hurt by the comments today taking back a comment I lauded at the time it was made. Something I said at the time that proved the leader got it and stood by his liberalism above all else.

Now? Who knows?

Time after Tim

This evening Tim Farron has announced that he will step aside as party leader at the time of the Parliamentary recess so that the Liberal Democrats 104,000 members at last count can have a say in the new leader.

In his resignation statement Tim says:

"From the very first day of my leadership, I have faced questions about my Christian faith. I've tried to answer with grace and patience. Sometimes my answers could have been wiser.

"At the start of this election, I found myself under scrutiny again - asked about matters to do with my faith. I felt guilty that this focus was distracting attention from our campaign, obscuring our message.
...

"A better, wiser person than me may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to have remained faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment."

I did come out in support for Tim's bid to become leader very soon after the last general election. Indeed I had written to him as soon as I got back to Northern Ireland after that horrible night two years ago to encourage him to stand.

It is a sad day for our society and our Liberal Democrat party if someone of faith does not consider he is able to lead the party and be true to both. Long before Tim stood as leader I did have discussions with him about his faith and the work on LGBT+ issues that I was working on.

As a fellow Christian but also a gay man I was convinced then, as I am now, that Tim Farron is no homophobe and in no way stands in the way of LGBT+ rights. Indeed at every step of the way he has backed every reform wholeheartedly. I was ashamed with the way the media and especially Cathy Newman would continue to drag up question they dared not ask the rectors daughter with a record of voting against LGBT+ advancement who resides at Number 10.

For the past 2 years I have been proud to be one of the Lib Dem cockroaches that Tim mentioned early in his leadership. One of those who would be hard to kill off as we started to fight back.

I am sad that he felt the need to step down and list his faith as one of the obstacles he saw in leading our party. I wish him well in the future and for the moment while I have my own idea who should be next I would encourage all members to think carefully about who can continue to lead the fight back our party still needs.

Eight "Labour" Candidates does this mean the time for NI Lib Dems to stand? #ae16

Firstly I must say I am writing this in a personal capacity and not in my role as Chair of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats, that it why it is being blogged her and not on the NI Lib Dems website. The reason for this is that there are differing opinions with the NI Lib Dems and the Federal Constitution does stipulate that until the local party decides otherwise and brings a constitutional amendment before conference we cannot stand candidates.

One thing that strikes me about the list of candidates for the NI Assembly elections for 2016 is that 8 of the 18 constituencies have a Northern Ireland Labour Representation Committee member standing. There are also 10 constituencies where you can vote for the Conservatives.

While the latter are recognised by the national party, I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was actually out canvassing with my local Conservative Candidate this afternoon. The former of course were recently not formally allowed to stand by the national executive of the Labour party, they appear to have done so anyway.

Political anoraks may be aware that the name Labour Representation Committee was the names used from 1900 until after the 1906 election by a group of candidates and activists that have since become the Labour Party. As far back as late 2010-11 when I was running the referendum campaign I became aware of the fact that Labour Party Members in Northern Ireland were looking at standing candidates for the Assembly elections and that they aimed to do this by 2016. I would appear that in eight seats they have managed to achieve this.

I have also noted that in his first speech as Deputy Prime Minister to a Liberal Democrat Conference in Autumn 2010 that Nick Clegg he intended for the party to stand in every seat in the Westminster election in 2015. Of course we didn't do that we didn't stand in any of the 18 Northern Ireland seats nor did we oppose the speaker seeking re-election.

Now I know that there are many in the Alliance who would consider themselves to be Liberal Democrats, some indeed would tend to vote that way if they life in the rest of the UK, some of course are dual members. There are others, most famously Naomi Long who after the 2010 election said she was not a Liberal Democrat and would not be taking the Lib Dem whip through that parliament, who would not.

I also know there are members within the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats who do see the need to stand for elections in Northern, who think we should continue to throw our all behind the Alliance. Others raise issues about how we would be able to fund it, would be have enough supporters to run it etc.

As for the fact of raising the level of membership and funding I have watched with interest the increase in activity of the Northern Ireland Labour Party over the last 5 years. They have expressed their desire to seek election, to stand up for a normalisation of politics and not stand on sectarian lines, something that some of their members see support of the SDLP and maintaining.

I have also for a number of years watch the Alliance fudge issues that would for a liberal be a matter of principle. But when one of the tenets of your existence is merely to be non-sectarian some of the Liberalism that the Northern Ireland Liberal party once stood  for, before the return of Direct Rule and formation of Alliance in the 1970s, is not in main reason for being.

People have often asked me why I don't stand here in Northern Ireland for the Alliance Party. The reason you most often here is "I am too liberal for them". Many of the Alliance representatives will tell you that I challenge them a lot on what I see as logical liberal steps long before they have come to a party position on them. Reading twitter in light of the recent abortion debate I think there is a large section of Northern Irish society that is now too liberal for most of the Northern Irish parties as well. It looks like I am not alone, it looks like there is a liberal heartland out there that has survived and is starting to rear its head as the Northern Irish parties continue to get bogged down with the politics of division so much that they fail to deal with everyday issues. Or one side or the other will attempt to block them despite it not being a sectarian matter.

The Conservative stepped up in the 1980s, Labour are stepping up in 2016, is it time as Liberal Democrats to consider standing up for the liberals that do exist in Northern Ireland and give them a real liberal voice for the future?

Reminder this article though written by the current chair of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats is written in a personal capacity and does not reflect the opinion of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats or the Liberal Democrats.

Incomplete measuring of diversity #LibDems

I'm in the process of completing a diversity survey of the Liberal Democrats approved candidates, I trust that by being asked to complete this I have been retained (although I have yet to have official confirmation of my post election review).

My first gripe was the first question, where it asked for DOB in the format mm/dd/yyyy when like me you have a repeating number (nine) you have rattled this off from an early age. To have to think when answering a UK based survey before you start, to transpose into American format is not a good first impression and people born in the first 12 days of a month may not have realised their error.

However, I see there are some areas that allow a true measure of diversity but when it came to ethnic background I hit a stumbling block as it failed to allow me to fill in my legislated right to identify as I want. I could choose White/British or White/Irish, but unlike what the Belfast Act allows I cannot identify as both White/British and White/Irish. So I shall have to fill in with other. Update Thank you Jennie Rigg who pointed out the other box, I have met my legislative right to identify as both.

The last section is work that you do and it assumes that all candidates are actually in work. It does not allow for candidates to be unemployed, students, retired, or indeed stay at home parents/ grandparents.

I know for ethnic background it may only affect me. But the working background homogenises all our approved candidates as being in work, which isn't necessarily so.

Update Apparently it you answer "No" to do you have a Religious belief the survey ends. While this would not be a problem with the DUP and potentially the Conservative it has repercussions for the Liberal Democrats with a high number of non-religious folks in our ranks.

The silenced minority #ldconf #lgbt

I have just listened to most of the Liberal Democrat motion on increasing diversity of our MPs. While there were women (the main beneficiaries of the motion), disabled, BME and Trans speakers on this motion. One of the minority groups that is not represented in our MP gay men was not represented, indeed through most of the speeches LGBT+ rights was barely mentioned.

In fact the most mention of LGBT+ candidates came in the request for a reference back. This is a way to ask for the motion to be looked at in more depth and brought back to a later conference. The call for the reference back mentioned LGB and non-binary inclusion to be considered. This was not even voted to be debated. So it appears that Liberal Democrat Conference didn't even want to listen to the concerns of LGBT+ representatives on this issue.

Between the lack of those called, the lack of consideration from most speakers and the failure to even listen to the reference back, it appears that Liberal Democrat Conference does not care about the impact of have no LGBT+ representation and the fact that the chance of having any gay male MPs after the 2020 election appears almost non-existent.

As as gay man who has stood in three election cycles I will be almost 51 at the 2020 election, but almost 56 at the 2025 election. I have spoken on issues affecting women, disability and BME people at conference in the past. I'm not someone who only speaks at conference for people like me, but today I'm sorry that conference seemed to have a debate covering a wide range of boxes, but each of those from a box or boxes addressed "mostly" only those within their box and little outside that box.

It has therefore as a result of the debate this morning that this candidate sees no way to advance as a candidate. There is a lot I can offer to the party going forward, but the party this morning has just shut the door on the potential for me as a Westminster Candidate.

Equal Ever After and the missing Scottish footnote

This morning I received my copy of Equal Ever After  by Lynne Featherstone. As one of campaigners from the LGBT+ community from one of the political parties that pooled resources to achieve great things in the arena of same sex marriage I wasn't going to hang around to get reading this book.

Of course I have great praise for Lynne and the role she had in making same-sex marriage happen in England and Wales, but her telling of the tale omits one very important part of the tale both of her party's and the nation's move towards that goal. The fact that before the May 2010 election Liberal Democrats in at least one part of the country were able to answer to answer questions on this that is was party policy where they were standing and they hoped that if elected they would pursue it across the UK. Two of those the candidate for Falkirk and his agent, who also happened to be the candidate next door in Linlithgow and East Falkirk,  were even able to talk about the role they had played on creating that policy.

Sadly the fact that the Scottish Liberal Democrats had debated, voted and passed a policy on equal marriage and equal civil partnership in the run up to the 2010 election does not appear to warrant a mention, not even as a footnote to history of Lynne's history of the fight for same-sex marriage. \It is one significant footnote in our party's fight for LGBT+ equality, as well as footnote in the history of LGBT+ equality in our nation that is missing.

Obviously as somebody who was there on that platform helping to propose that Scottish policy motion to conference who now finds himself back home in Northern trying to close the circle in that "corner of our United Kingdom" that has "set its face against marriage equality" my fight goes on, waiting for us all to be equal ever after.

New Year New Role

I know it isn't quite the start of the year but hey it is still the first month.

Yesterday I had to give my apologies for the AGM of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats, this also meant that I had to send in my report on behalf of LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland to be read out in my absence. But of course the other order of the day of any AGM is the appointment of the officers.

Therefore it is pleasure to know that the members of my party graciously elected me* the new chair for the coming year.

It is honour to have been elected to this position at the first AGM into the Lib Dem Fightback and even though the Northern Ireland party do not contest elections if not mean that I will be sitting idly by and not being involved in that Fightback. As regular readers will know I was already up for the fight even as I waS travelling back to Northern Ireland after the disappointment of election night.

Being chair here in Northern Ireland is a challenge that I will look to embrace especially as the General population are more liberal than many in the Assembly would care to acknowledge. There are a number of issues that I feel it is important that a Liberal Democrat voice is heard, you can be sure that I will be doing all I can for that voice to be heard loud and clear. Fellow Liberal Democrats will have heard me joke often in the past that I am too liberal for politics here in Northern Ireland, thankfully many people here are catching up to my point of view. You can be sure I want to bring that viewpoint to the fore amongst all the closed, narrow minded and self preservationist views that dominate opinion here, showing people that there is a hope for a better way forward.

* Don't worry this wasn't an abuse of my absence I had previously given consent to being nominated.

Dear Cathy Newman, your interview was a sin against journalism

Forgive me for having better things to do on a Friday evening, especially in a week I have spent many hours playing competitive bowls, that to watch Channel 4 News and your interview of my new party leader Tim Farron. But I finally got around to it this morning and have some comments to make.

Firstly, Tim Farron's views on abortion are ones that a number of us can take. I've known a number of single women who became accidentally pregnant at inopportune times in the their lives and with men who were inappropriate or unable to become the father figure to the child they were carrying. I believe the decision of those women as to what they should do under those circumstances is entirely up to them.

On one occasion  I was actually asked by the mother of one of the young women in my church youth group what advise she should give her daughter who had found herself pregnant. I probably shocked that mother by saying that whatever that daughter decided to keep the child, or to give it up for adoption or to abort it so she could get on with the life plan she had, the most important thing was that her mother supported her in her decision. That is a liberal answer and one that Tim was alluding to.

From personal experience I have faced the dilemma of a girlfriend being late. While we waited to see if she was just a little late before buying a testing kit we discussed the possibilities. Both of us were of the opinion that no matter what the circumstances we at that time were in we would work around the fact that there was another mouth to be fed in our lives. That was our personal opinion, our personal decision after considering the various options together. As a Christian when faced with that decision the option of abortion was considered.

As for challenging Tim on whether he believes homosexuality sexual practise is a sin or not shows a clear misunderstanding of:

a) what the liberal party is about
b) that all Christians are the same

Tim was quite right to point out that the Liberal Democrats believe is religious freedom for everyone. That means that there are Christians, Humanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, Atheists, Shintoists and whatever living tooth by jowl within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed our party policy on same sex marriage didn't single out any particular religion but gave all faith groups and humanists the right to self-determine their own position on whether to carry out same-sex marriages or not. That is how the Liberal Democrats deal with religious diversity and diversity of the population as a whole.

As one of the many LGBT+ people within the party who also has a faith I can account for the fact that not every member of a faith group within the party is diametrically opposed to same-sex relationships, those who are in them and those who are sexually active. Tim and I have had a number of rather frank discussions about this in the past, not as accusational and finger pointedly as your brief exchange yesterday. Yes Tim absented himself from the vote on the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill but he was present and voted for the second reading, as well as its subsequent divorce and annulment provisions and extension to armed forces personnel serving overseas.

Unlike many of those who have used language in the past (if not so much these days) that homosexuality is a sin who voted against it at every stage here is a man who has actually voted for and actually spoken in Parliament and asked questions positively about LGBT rights. Unlike many of those he actually takes part in debate around the issues that he publicly expresses concern or lack of understanding over, as someone blocked by many Northern Irish politicians for asking much simpler questions that the ones I have bombarded Tim with down the years this is a true reflection of how he views LGBT+ people.

Cathy there is one final thing you should be aware of, there were a number of prominent LGBT+ members of the party who were supporting Tim just as there were supporting Norman. People who were instrumental in getting the party and then Government to accept same-sex marriage. If these people had in anyway felt that Tim's faith in anyway hindered him from representing them as leader that would have been news. But the LGBT+ members of our party were as split as other sectors based on the individuals and what they could do for the party and not based on faith, LGBT friendliness or other criteria. We were looking at the person who could lead our party, represent liberty and freedom for all and help promote the ethos of who we are as Liberal Democrats.

We have been demonised by Labour, the Conservatives and the press (yourself included Cathy) for years while in coalition. The result in my opinion is a far more marginalising government than that of the past five years, one that is not supporting those who need it most, but actually making their lives tougher. David Cameron claims to have a faith yet does not seem to take Jesus' command to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and care for those less fortunate than yourself at face value. Maybe you should challenge him on that, Tim at least does care about social housing, the poor who have to attend food banks and are hit by the bedroom tax. Maybe you only have a limited view of what those of faith are all about, but they are a broad spectrum too, just like the Liberal Democrats.

Considering the interview started out asking the leader of the Liberal Democrats about the news that our troops had been involved in bombing raids in Syria all that liberal stuff was lost by Ms Newman's personal agenda on these other issues.

I want to be proud of what we couldn't do in Government

Yes as Liberal Democrats we now have a record in Government nationally. We have to admit there are some things that as the junior partner of that Government we were unable to prevent, but there were other things that without us would not have been achieved.

However, that is our record in Government and enough people will have written or have yet to write about those achievements. What I want us as Liberal Democrats to focus on are the things from our 2010 manifesto that we were unable to achieve in Government because the conservatives would not want us to.

Why should I do that?

Simple the reason is it shows that we are our own party, not one that can be absorbed into either the Conservatives or Labour, or even fit nicely in alongside the Greens. Sure there are components of what we as Liberal Democrats stand for that all three of those parties listed can agree with and that goes for the SNP and Plaid Cymru as well, there are even elements that Euroscpetic UKIP can agree with Europhile Lib Dems over. But the raison d'être that makes Liberal Democrats tick is the thing that would infuriate any of the other parties.

It is the things that we couldn't get into a programme of Government with the Conservatives that make us not Conservative poodles. The manifesto we decided to put out for the last election was lacking in the conviction, as many radical ideas and a clear liberal agenda of those in the past. We were positioning for Government not position for liberalism.

That is what I want our party to be proud of our policies that other parties want to shy away from. Those policies that are based on need, science, making society fairer for all not one group or another. Only the Liberal Democrats can look past the demands of the richest that the Tories bow to, or the Unions that Labour still kow-tow to no matter how much they claim to have changed. We do however stand up for business and the workers. Realising that one needs the other and vice versa but that there should be opportunity for everyone to get on with their life unencumbered by too many constraints.

When looking at who to lead us forwards as a party while both candidates are truly liberals, I want the one whose prime objective is to make us liberal first and as a result give us a voice in Government, not aim for a voice in Government as the prime goal diluting our liberalism to appeal to both Tories and Labour.

In recent days I've seen too many of the Normtroopers say that they want to be led back into Government without any mention of liberalism. If that is your aim join the Tories or Labour and have an easy ride into Government. The reason I got into politics was to stand up for liberal values. Looking at what the current Government is doing on welfare, refusing to accept refugees who risk their lives from resettling here, accelerating removing the wind farm subsidy, restoring the snoopers charter and forgetting the "Northern Powerhouse" when it comes to trains shows that there needs to be a liberal voice.

That liberal voice needs to appeal to the many people who basically share our liberal values. That liberal voice needs to reach out to them so that local candidates and activists can get alongside those people on the doorsteps and harness that renewed enthusiasm for our party. That voice needs to connect to the people about the things on their hearts.

I know that voice in the one that Tim Farron can give our party and make us strong again. Strong in our values, strong in our liberalism and as a result strong in our council wards, devolved Governments and Westminster.

2015 General Election round up and the way ahead #GE2015 #LibDems #GE2020

The last 40 hours have been tough and indeed I have yet to sleep (note to self never travel all day following a General Election ever again).

Firstly I'd like to thank the 1370 people in the Sedgefield constituency who put their trust in me yesterday to vote for me to serve as their MP, sadly we needed many more to think the same way. Especially the one individual who said that me responding to a tweet from them on eve of poll was enough to secure their vote.

I'd like to also thank my agent Ian Barnes for all the work he has done in sorting out the paperwork, nominations and deposit and the members of the Sedgefield and Darlington Liberal Democrats for the opportunity to stand as their candidate. I'd also like to thank Ian Jones the North East England regional chair for all his support as well as my fellow candidates and those providing candidate support in party HQ. This has certainly be a fun, interactive and supportive election for all the Liberal Democrat candidates who put themselves forward this time. Many new friendships have been formed between those of us who stood there last night as the tsunami of rejection poured over us as MPs lost seats, candidates lost hard fought fights and many, many of us lost the deposit.

One thing none of us as candidates lost as a result of last night is our core beliefs and values is a liberal vision of the world, where we seek to give everyone an opportunity to get on in life. Although the electorate didn't see the value that Liberal Democrats have provided in the past and could have provided in this next parliament to ensure those values are maintained it is something that is still worth fighting for.

Therefore I am determined that within the next few months I will secure a full time job in either England, Scotland or Wales. Once this has been done I will be seeking selection for a seat somewhere in that area early on in this General Election cycle. I hope that both the job and selection will have been sorted within the year. Then I will be knocking on doors, putting good things that we do on pieces of paper and through letter boxes and telling the locals about those values and what spurs me on to continue to be a Liberal Democrat. I can envision that many of my fellow candidates are feeling dejected this morning, I can also envision that many of them like me are more determined than even to carry out the fight.

I believe last night we faced the sound of gunfire and many of us fell on the battlefield. But now is the time to entrench, bring in the reinforcements to fill the ranks and prepare for the next offensive in 2020. We have a fight on our hands to get back to the strong voice we have gained in recent years, but it is a fight back that I sure is worth the effort.

This is me stating that I am ready to return to the fray (after a little sleep that is), stand up for liberal values, get back unto the doorsteps facing the people who think erroneously that we have lost our values to show that far from it we know that those core values are what ground us. From which we base our priorities of fairness and freedom. We, as a party, must return to those values and proclaim them on the doorsteps, write about them on bits of paper and regroup around them and put them front and centre once more.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The DUP number game

The DUP are claiming that their 9 MPs being greater than the SNP's 9 and Plaid Cymru's 3 puts them in a position to be at the leaders' debates ahead of these other regional parties.

But look at it another way the DUP will be fielding between 16-18 candidates (the number is variable as they are still talking about possible deal(s) with the UUP), this is against the SNP who will be standing 59 and Plaid who will be standing 40.

Of those 59 and 40 they will all face a Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat and a high proportion also facing a Green and UKIP candidate. Of the DUP candidates there may be a handful who face Conservatives, UKIP and Green candidates. Not one will face a Labour or Lib Dem candidate (although they may be facing a member of one of those parties under a different label).

So does the DUP on the numbers game they are playing deserve a podium at the debates? In my opinion no.

However, I would love to see Peter Robinson up there as to actually debate real issues would show up how backward the DUP actually are. I've long been of the opinion that even many third and fourth placed candidates in the rest of the UK have a greater grasp on reality, people and working for all people than the DUP. So I dreamt last night of Peter Robinson having to face questions for the other UK party leaders having to justify the conscience clause and his parties anti-LGBT and anti-abortion agenda while claiming they wanted to be British.

Of course both Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are now all saying that they too have as much right for representation with the inclusion of two parties who don't stand across all of the UK in these debates. And the DUP are saying that Naomi Long of the Alliance is represented by the Lib Dems, when she is not on my membership list and has said she is not a Liberal Democrat many times and the SDLP by Labour.

Tories show true colours and ditch being fair to society

As a Liberal Democrat there is one thing I need to say about the first Conservative poster of the 2015 election campaign:

Yeah that is right for years they have talked the coalition Liberal Democrat mantra "A Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society", so in their first attempt to distance themselves from their Liberal Democrat partners they turn their backs on being fair to society.

Therefore just as in the 2010 manifesto look out for them making pledges to cut the tax burden on the richest and very little to assist the poorest.

While yesterday Ed Miliband was going on about how he was going to be fairer to society while at the same time continuing to cut spending in some departments but little to say about strengthening the economy. Only the Liberal Democrats will continue to work towards doing both simultaneously rather the swings and roundabouts of the Labservative agendas.

BREAKING - Former Liberal Party Leader Jeremy Thorpe died this morning

Jeremy Thorpe the leader of the Liberal Party from 1967-1976 passed away this morning according to the Breaking News header on the BBC website.

John Jeremy Thorpe was born  in 1929 the son of  John Henry Thorpe who had been Conservative MP for Manchester Rusholme and Ursula Norton-Griffiths, whose father Sir John Norton-Giffiths was the Conservative MP for Wednesbury until the end of WWI and then Wandsworth Central. However, while he was reading law at Trinity College, Oxford he broke with family tradition and became President of the Liberal Club.

He first stood for Parliament in 1952 for North Devon but failed to unseat the Conservative MP Christopher Peto. he stood again in the 1955 General Election when Peto stood down and halved the majority Peto's successor James Lindsey held. It was in 1959 that Jeremy finally won the seat with a whooping majority of 362. It was a seat he would win 5 more times before losing it in 1979 back to the Conservatives and Tony Speller, his biggest majority being the 11, 072 of the February 1974 election when he was leader of the Liberals.

But considering he was due to have faced trial for conspiracy to murder Norman Scott the week before the 1979 election, although he got a 2 week delay until after the poll, the chances of success must have been slim. Scott had claimed that he and Thorpe had had a homosexual affair from 1961- 63 when such acts were still illegal under UK law. An investigation into this was held by the party in 1971 which exonerated Thorpe. However, when he was being vetted as the possible best man for Anthony Armstrong-Jones wedding to Princess Margaret he was turned down due to homosexual tendencies. The accusations from Scott carried on even after his second marriage in 1973 to Marion, Countess of Harewood, whose first husband was a cousin of the Queen.

In October 1975 Scott's dog was shot by Andrew Newton while the two and the dog were out on the moors before turning to Scott and saying "It's your turn now". The heat was on Thorpe because of a history of allegations and threats with relation to Scott which culminated on his resignation as leader 10 May 1976. He was replaced by Jo Grimond whom he succeeded as caretaker before the election of David Steel as the new leader. On the 22 June 1979 six weeks after Margaret Thatcher had won the General Election that saw Thorpe not returned by the people of North Devon the jury ruled he and his co-accused not guilty of conspiracy.

The then Liberal leader David Steel commented on the verdict hoped Thorpe "after a suitable period of rest and recuperation ... find many avenues where his great talents may be used". Although acquitted the party felt he had not behaved well during the whole affair and refused to allow him to return to party politics. In 1982 he was appointed to Amnesty International as director of their British Section, but soon after he started to show signs of Parkinson's Disease that led to his eventual dropping out of public life in the mid 1980s.

After the merger of the Liberals and Social Democratic Party in 1988 he was made an Honourary President of the newly formed North Devon Liberal Democrat Association. In 1997 his appearance at the Liberal democrat conference led to a standing ovation and in 1999 he finally opened up about the trail in his political memoir In My Own Time.

Ursula his wife and companion for the last 40 years passed away in March this year. His son Rupert from his first marriage to Caroline Allpass, who died in a car crash in 1970, and his step-sons David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood, James and Jeremy all survive him.


John Jeremy Thorpe Politician, former Liberal Party leader  29 April 1929 - 4 December 2014

Baker resignation reveals the difference between Lib Dems and Tories

So Liberal Democrat Norman Baker has announced tonight that he is resigning for his post as a Home Office Minister. His announcement in The Independent as to why is not just a broadside into Theresa May's Home Office but also the denouement of the differences between Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when it comes to policy.

He says:

"support for 'rational evidence-based policy' was in short supply at the top of her department."

And that it was like "walking through mud".

It probably came to a head with the report on drug use and punishment last week and comes ahead of the vote that could criminalise paying for sex later this week. Yet it has probably been stoked my the whole immigration debate and the jumping at ill-judged, knee-jerk, UKIP-appeasing policy announcements based on emotive exaggeration and not evidence in any shape or form.

So let me repeat that:

If you want evidence-based policy, not knee-jerk, emotive reactionary nonsense to appease party self interests you have to vote Lib Dem.

That is the lesson. Now you can look at the various policies that the coalition have brought in over the past four years you can see the origins of policy. Those that largely based on evidence such as free school meals increase educational success come from Liberal Democrats looking at the evidence. Things like the snooper's charter apart from being illiberal are largely unachievable because of the depths of the dark web.

Why would this be so? Well the way that policy is decided by the parties help. Conference decides Lib Dem policy so no matter what we debate there is some expert able to speak with authority, or even better they have been working on drafting the policy in the first place. As to who comes up with Conservative policy, there are probably a number of envelops floating around Whitehall have that been used for late night discussions to come up with something. But they just get announced, rarely get peer reviewed (if they do not in public before announcement), and if they are peer reviewed are in the words of a former leader "not for turning".

This is the mud into which Norman Baker has found himself. This is the mud that has snared up some of the Liberal Democrats liberalism, because most of all liberalism is often common sense. Why? Because it is evidence-based as to what is the right thing to do for everyone's individual best interests.

Labour announce (a little bit of) Lib Dem Supporters Trust policy

I've just checked my pass for Conference and it certainly appears to be for the Liberal Democrats and not for Labour's. I'm sure if I'd been at the wrong one, my cousin a Labour PPC for next year's General Election would have put me right.

But I do recall speaking in the motion on Reclaiming the People's Game. In fact I have evidence that I did here:

 

Yeah, we were talking about the role of supporters trusts in the running of football clubs. Many of those in the debate had some experience of such trusts, myself included, being set up to save their clubs. In my case that has resulted in investment in the club by the supporters trust and a seat on the board for a representative of the supporters trust.

So you can imagine my shock when today Labour announce that they have a plan to for supporters' trusts to appoint members of the clubs' boards. Even more startling when a number of Labour activists and leaning journalists attacked Liberal Democrats for actually have the gall to discuss and debate this issue at our conference earlier this week.

It appears that the reason we were attacked is that this is a good idea, so much so that it has been stolen from under our noses.

But the Liberal Democrat policy that was discussed went further than just call on supporters' trusts to be recognised. It called for greater equality and diversity training and observance within football, greater clarity and robustness into the ownership and fitness of individuals to be directors and protection for individual stadiums and local identities of clubs.

So Labour are only concerned about one part of what is needed not the hard stuff that will actually have a greater effect and hopefully lead to less requirement of supporters' trust to actually have to come to the aid of their club. Labour failed to deal with the banks but are happy to appeal to the base level in appearing to do something about the result, they are up to same trick with the people's game, but they really must deal with prevention as much as they are sorting out the recovery after near death experiences of many fans.

Yet again the Lib Dems are leading the way, but leading the way by getting to the heart of the issues, not dealing only with the outcomes but seeing how they can prevent the symptoms in the future.

What did Peter Hayes say?

Well according to the Daily Telegraph he said:

[Lord Rennard's] media advisor, Peter Hayes, says "I understand that you are writing a piece about angry women." He adds that the police did not press charges and Alistair Webster did not call for a disciplinary hearing.

"The Liberal Democrat Party has now dealt with all the allegations and the matter is closed. We must advise anyone against publishing or broadcasting defamatory remarks. Accusations that were rejected by both the Metropolitan Police and an independent QC would be treated as such." 

For a press adviser is seems like something that wouldn't pass candidates' media training, but what does he mean by this?

Looking at past comments from Lord Rennard legal adviser, it would appear that the reason Peter Hayes is warning against the possibility of legal action. This seems somewhat at odds with Chris Rennard's comments about wanting to uphold the values of the party he joined as a teenager.

What about safeguarding a fair, free and open society?

What about seeking to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community?

What about not enslaving others by poverty, or ignorance, or conformity?

Firstly the above does not lead to an open society, especially not within the Liberal Democrats. Far from being rejected by the independent QC he merely found there was not sufficient substance to take it to a disciplinary hearing. It would be remiss of me, as a Liberal Democrat, to allow anyone to become enslaved to the ignorance that statement outlines.

If it were a fair outcome there would still be four very capable women, who Andrew Webster QC said gave credible statements would all still be members of the party I hold dear. They would be encouraging women to join the party, and stand for election in our name. Yet the statements Alison Goldsworthy, Susan Gaszczak and Bridget Harris have made in the last 48 hours are not like that, and to be honest I too would am wary of being so encouraging as a result.

The liberty, equality and community of my party has been shattered in the recent past. I have seen people celebrating the re-admittance of one person to our party without sparing any thought for the four brave women who have felt forced to leave and the many others who have left, or are considering leaving, as a result of the way they have been treated.

The fact that many women fear that their own party may no longer be a safe space for them, that many men within the party are being called misogynists by remaining by association, means that the values of our party are being drowned out. I hate looking at my twitter feed. It shows what many people outside the Westminster bubble think of what has happened in this case.

One man does not make a party, no matter how important he thinks he is. But one man is more than capable of doing it irreparable damage. Sadly when a number of those in the Lords, or the Commons or in power in other ways fail to see this damage and continue to try and play up to that one person, giving him a glimmer of hope that he may be useful it does mean that all of us are getting tarred with the same brush.

As for threatening to sue those who "publish or broadcast" information regarding the accusations, some will be the big papers, others will be those who speak on Twitter, Facebook or through blogs. The latter groups are generally younger, less well off, but know what is inappropriate behaviour up with which they will not put. So if you go after them in courts you take away their liberty and enslave them to poverty.

So I have a question does Peter Hayes want to uphold the principles of the party that Chris Rennard loves so much, or does he just want to uphold the stature of Rennard and bugger the party?

Update 21:36
To understand the man look no further than his Facebook profile

 

So Chris Rennard is back...so where for me?

Last night I wrote a letter on my laptop. But I wasn't prepared to send it straight away. I know that there are times when you are angry about something you need to write it down, but think about it before pressing send, publish or sticking it into a envelope. (If you don't believe me you should see some of the drafts on this blog that never made it to the interwebs)

Well yesterday the suspension of Lord Rennard's membership was lifted by Liberal Democrat HQ. So the letter I drafted was one that tendered my resignation for the Liberal Democrats, I didn't send it...yet. It is still there waiting for me to come to a final conclusion.

However, this August is an important one for Lib Dems, coming up is one of those biennial events where we get to elect our Federal Committees. I am a conference representative for my local party and therefore I along with many others have a vote. The lifting of the suspension of Lord Rennard in time for nominations means that he will be able to stand for whatever committee he wants. Depending which one he goes for he could have access to all manner of meetings.

There were four women, many of them friends of mine, who the enquiry called credible witnesses, but just said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that improprieties took place. I've heard stories down the years, I've seen female friends shy away or move towards others for security. I'm not prepared to leave others feel vulnerable in certain settings within the normal business of our party. But I feel that by letting him back in that is the situation that the party is finding itself in.

I love my friend Jennie's approach on this to basically not share a room with Rennard. However, what if he enters the conference hall just before a crucial debate and vote on party procedures regarding abuse of power, or sexual impropriety, if we all walked out when he walked in who would speak up for the victims?

Many of us talk about how the Liberal Democrats are one big family. Well that family pulled through, my Facebook chats lit up like crazy, starting with the man who won the last selection I went for. Many others told me how much I was needed and would be missed by the party. At times being over here in Northern Ireland once again I can at times feel isolated, but such comments touched my heart.

There were other comments I read last night that only seemed to recognise one person in this whole debacle. It didn't recognise that we have lost some of our best women as a result of whatever happened. They didn't seem to realise that many of us are not sure or comfortable that we can remain within the same party as Rennard and those who are his apologists.

So as for the question in the title "Where for me?" I'm still thinking, I'm still deliberating whether I should send the letter, but also when I should send it. I may wait until after I have voted and seen the results of internal elections before coming to a final decision.