The issue with messaging and the messenger

First off let me just say I am still IN! Yes in my sporran are still Euros from a train trip I took the other weekend down to Dublin to the seen the finish of the Giro d'Italia's visit to Ireland. I'm also glad that for the first 10 years that I lived in Scotland I worked in a job that would not have existed here were it not for freedom of movement across Europe allowing us to operate a pan European, multi-language contact centre all under the one roof. I'm pleased that unlike five years ago we were able to talk about European issues on the doorsteps or phones, unlike last time when we were overshadowed by the expenses excesses of MPs.

However, while the message in principle was good the general public didn't get it, or didn't want to listen. Why?

Go back four years and what was the mantra we were shouting out, what was our hashtag. Then it was #IagreewithNick yes on the back of it being said in the first leader's debate we turned it into a personality cult. Is it any wonder that four years later after not delivering on a number of issues that voters did agree with Nick on that they no longer agree with him. But it goes further than that, they not only no longer agree with him but they no longer trust him, and as a result they no longer listen to what he has to say.

It didn't take long for me to realise that we had a trust problem. In the lead up to the 2011 Scottish elections I got a lt of correspondence from people who had voted for me in 2010 and some even in 2005. Some of it said that while they still trusted me they would only vote Lib Dem if I was standing. As you imagine I replied back and in the run up to the election personally vouched for the Lib Dem candidates in my area to everyone who had contacted me.

Then we have also had the other mantra that where we work, we win. But this has been twisted a little bit this weekend into there are areas that we hold and have worked hard and maintained. The implication in saying this is that others have not been working hard, pounding the streets, delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, ringing the phones. Of course that is just not true. So there is now a disconnect between HQ and those who for months, years and decades have been carrying out the work for the party.

The leadership even last night was dismissing the number of signatories on the LibDems4Change letter. Paddy Ashdown said on Sunday Politics that there were more people who liked Lib Dem Friends of Cake than had signed the letter. Well Lib Dem Friends of Cake joined Facebook at Conference in 2011, indeed the day after my birthday, after a discussion in the conference bar. It took two and a half years to reach 360 likes*, the letter at time of writing is now equal to that in a little over 3 days.


However, while there was focus on one of two of those who had signed the letter who may no longer be party members the spokespeople ignore something that the Guardian pointed out:

"include 45 sitting Councillors, two council group leaders and 33 former Councillors, including one former council leader. [Five] prospective parliamentary candidates, 22 former parliamentary candidates and seven chairs of local parties are also signatories."

As this was the figures from this mornings print edition these were some of those first 200 or so that the leadership were dismissing.

In other words you are talking about the hard working and committed members of the party, many of whom are used to getting people's response on the doorsteps and phones or unsolicited through emails and social media from their constituents and local residents over many years. They are also highly likely to have been at the special conference in 2010 to vote in favour of the Coalition Agreement. These are people who face the public daily from outside the Westminster bubble.

Now I know that there are many within my party and circle of friends who disagree with me, but as we entered the election on the catch phrase I agree with Nick, but that message is still remembered but no longer resonates with many of those who voted for us we have an issue. The issue is the messenger, it concerns me the number of times in the last four years I have heard I'll not vote Lib Dem again until you have a new leader and this has been borne out in poll, after poll, after poll.

Yes there are exceptions and well done to all of those who have bucked the trend, but we should not dig into our trenches, we should be a party leading the advance and walking into the sound of gunfire. But at the moment the bullet in our own guns, our message, is not having the impact because those in the field are not prepared to listen to the message as they don't agree with the main messenger. They don't agree with Nick.

It is sad, but having seen the reactions over the last few days I think many of us know that something needs to be done.

I think the reaction of Eamon Gilmore Ireland's DPM and leader of the junior coalition partner this afternoon to losing half his vote down to 7%, losing all three of his MEPs and many of his councillors was telling. It had parallels to the situation the Liberal Democrats faced but he realised it was time for him to go, although it seems he was persuaded by his parliamentary colleagues. But he also said "Where we have done well we must built on that, where we have not we much look at that." This is only part of that he said but it is in marked contrast to what our own leaders are saying ie nothing needs to change.

I know that many fellow Lib Dems will not agree with this and that is your right. But can we please stop hurling personal insults at each other over this disagreement in direction from here on.

* They have since added about another 90 thanks to Paddy's publicity.

Nick right to address but wrong conclusions on immigration

Currently to access the Lib Dems website you have to go through an image of our manifesto from 2010 to highlight our fairer tax manifesto pledge which has been announced in this week's budget. Maybe we should make Lib Dems go through a copy of the preamble to the party's constitution instead.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

Why you may ask do I think that? The reason is in the words that Nick Clegg uttered today on the subject of immigration.

Far a start we aim to safeguard a free, fair and open society. Yet we appear to want to put up  barriers for others to enter that society, unless they afford a £1000 bond. Which to me suggests that we are enslaving future immigrants to poverty.

He also seems to suggest that they should know English to a level that they can understand all the legal documents that their moving here would lead them to face. Yet all of us who have any involvement in politics know that often our friends, who were born and bred here and speak English as a native tongue will often come to us with queries about some complex form and often we too are flummoxed by the legalese. So when he asks Mark Harper to look into whether we should ask immigrants to pay for translation services, is he not enslaving those who cannot afford it into ignorance.

You see by acknowledging that "many migrants...have contributed to our country" while being immensely proud of this nation's wonderful diversity and openness" you need to walk the walk. Somehow what Nick is saying just isn't it. He appears to be appeasing a certain part of the electorate that do not hold Liberal Values instead of coming up with a truly liberal solution to the problem. While Lib Dems would be remiss not to acknowledge these concerns from some we should the ones coming up with Liberal solutions that reflect the benefits that we in the UK gain from having migrants and being able to emigrate ourselves when we desire to do so.

As he says part of the problem of the legacy of both the Major and then Labour Governments is a lack of management of the issue, and keeping monitoring the numbers. Not knowing who is in the country and has exceeded their right to stay is a concern that needs to be a addressed. As Lib Dems we did believe that one way to deal with that was to pragmatically allow those who have spent over a decade contributing to our society the right to remain. It wasn't some automatic reward,it was for those who spoke English, had a clean record and wanted to stay here. It was an historic promise and not something that those coming after 2010 were going to be able to achieve, it was a plan to help deal with the mess.

But what about the point-based system that would allow immigrants to work where they were needed. There was no mention of those regionally based worked having to pay a bond in case they strayed to another region, but we expected to be able to keep a track on them better with the systems back in place. It was a system that we promised in our manifesto could deal with the regional variations in needs for workers while at the same time allowing those that we needed to fill skill gaps to come into our country to fill those voids. It was liberal, it was fair and it didn't require a financial barrier to entry, if you were employable you could have the right to come and fill one of those gaps.

Mike Nesbitt and his bigot question

Yesterday there was a rather bizarre tweet by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Especially when you consider that Mike Nesbitt is a media professional in his former life and this tweet came  over 5 hours after Nick Clegg's office sent a correction to it's earlier press release.

That earlier release said:

"Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we 'postpone' the equalities agenda in order to deal with 'the things people really care about'. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once."

Corrected to:

 "Continued trouble in the economy leads some people to demand we 'postpone' the equalities agenda in order to deal with 'the things people really care about'. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once."

So what of the word in question:

big·ot  (bgt)

n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Definition from The Free Dictionary

From the way the question is phrased you expect that Mike wants to hear @allianceparty, who recently passed a policy in favour of equal marriage, come out and say yes, or give some indication that they lean that way. Even though the Lib Dem and Alliance Party's policies are both tolerant of those that disagree with equal marriage in not forcing anything on anyone.

But the headline grabbing word, even if later rescinded, itself is nothing without the full context.



Even if the first form of the words were used the caveat is there that pursuing greater equal and fixing the economy are what the 'bigots' that Mike is asking about think is impossible. There is never the intention that all who opposed equal marriage are in that category, if someone opposes marriage equality on religious grounds for example and sticks to that line that is not hiding behind economic turbulence.

Opposition to the idea appears to not be a issue, finding excuses to not face the argument would appear to have been the issue, that is from people who do not believe their argument is strong enough to face the debate and therefore want postponement probably to the end of time.

Now Mike Nesbitt himself has said that marriage equality is not in his opinion 'necessary', he went on to say there was no 'realistic prospect' of it coming to be in Northern Ireland and in fact called those in favour dancers to a Republican tune. Is he one of those advocating no debate on this until the end of time. Is that why the sentiement of the idea is cutting him close to the quick and why he decided to come unto twitter to ask such a question?

So maybe Mike should ask himself is he one of those who says that the equality agenda on this isn't one issue that should be pursued or is he prepared to back up his own objection to it in realistic terms that takes into account the views of everyone here in Northern Ireland. In other words is he prepared to look for a solution over this or is he prepared to take the side of the vocal objectors who may well contain bigots?

Reading and hearing some of the comments in Northern Irish media against marriage equality the opposition does show a lack of tolerance of people in same sex loving relationships even without marriage being an issue. Some DUP elected representative are even on record that they'd want to do away with civil partnerships if they had the chance. So there certainly is a lack of tolerance to people with opposing views. Therefore there probably is an element of bigotry.

Looks like David Cameron wants a Big Secret Society

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

First we have the Snoopy snooping row today we hear that the Conservatives want more closed, secret court hearings.

The issue is over whose say so court proceedings should be secret. Cameron says it should be the Ministers, but Clegg is saying this power should not go to Parliament but remain with the judiciary. Maybe David Cameron fancies himself as the next James Bond (which after all is just 4 years older than the PM as a film franchise) with Theresa May as Q, but there is too much talk from the Tories about subterfuge at the moment.

Thankful this time it appears that Clegg has taken the bull by the horns before it even contemplates the merest possibility of bolting from through the doors of Westminster, saying:

"[Security Services] cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the principle of open justice".

Clegg has even said that the Tories have gone about announcing legislation in a "blunderbuss" fashion, the past few days when there have been leaks about secrecy legislation plans being a case in point. Spuriously coughing out a worst case scenario that may have been discussed that in no way would get approval by the Lib Dems, hence making us look bad only to then come in later with another proposal that is less scary after all the initial accusations have passed and nobody gives them as much attention.

However, Nick Clegg has told the National Security Council that the Lib Dems will not back legislation that allows more court hearings and inquests behind closed doors. The excuse from Ken Clarke that the USA are  afraid of the openness of UK judicial proceedings is not a valid one. The USA had long held secret, closed sessions of their supreme court sometimes subpoenaing witnesses at the last minute. They are one of the most secretive states in the world at times for all the appearance of openness on the outside.

Their failure to ratify Protocol I and II of the Geneva Conventions and other Internation Human Rights Conventions, or at least without much alacrity means that the USA is one of the least accountable countries in the World to everyone else. Their use if extraordinary rendition and sanctioning of evidence obtained through torture are things that aren't to be held in esteem. Indeed their retention of capital punishment would make them ineligible for membership of the EU. So the USA is hardly an example of being above board in terms of judicial practice, so the fact that they fear handing over secrets that may expose some of the practices mentioned in an open review is hardly a cause to hide those ourselves.

The Conservatives want secrecy, the Lib Dems want openness. We know how the secrets of the MPs expenses went down with the general public, so how on earth do the Tories think that keeping something so fundamental a secret is going to go down? I'm glad the Lib Dems are in government at the moment and are campaigning for openness and the retention of open justice.

David Cameron is not so much wanting a Big Society as to still be the member and leader of a Secret Society it seems.

Further to my earlier blog post, here is some good news about Lib Dems standing up for civil liberty. In a letter to the Guardian fifteen of our MPs have spoken up for the party. Not just over the last 48 hours but over the last months and indeed the years that I have been a member of supporter, in other words since the Lib Dems were founded.

They say:

It is absolutely vital that the public get a chance to see and debate the details of any proposals to extend state surveillance, not just being presented with a Home Office fait accompli. It is also essential that the initial plans include adequate safeguards – which should be stronger than the current weak controls.

They talk about the "duty … to safeguard basic freedoms against the encroachment of state power" and that at the recent conference (and it was only last month not months ago) conference "called for stronger safeguards on existing surveillance measures to guarantee that the balance of power is firmly in favour of ordinary citizens".

They got it and these are just the sort of firm messages that Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems should have been saying since Sunday when this story reared its head again.

Indeed when the coalition agreement already states  "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We shouldn't be talking about extending police powers in this area but working out what comes under good reason and how to delete the storage of the rest.

Speaking in The S** today (and I apologise for this link) Theresa May says:

"I'm not willing to risk more terrorist plots succeeding and more paedophiles going free."

Just how does further encroaching on personal freedom achieve this. As Trefor Davies from the Internet Service Providers' Association states these groups will just go ahead and use proxy servers. As he say by doing so

"You could send emails back and forth to al-Qaeda to your heart's content, the Government wouldn't know."

And as for paedophiles:

"There is a danger we are driving people to an underground culture."

As anyone who uses certain websites whether global LGBT ones or other things for certain human rights discussions will tell you, mirror sites to proxy servers exist even for some of these and you would have no clue simply from the traffic that it generates what is going on. If you even could see the traffic report.

So why haven't us Lib Dems been standing up against this as a matter of principle not merely saying we will make sure that any extension of powers is highly safeguarded. The worry is that extension of powers will be given to the police without supervision. We are looking for greater safeguard on the existing powers while Mrs May says that the police cannot afford to lose any of their existing powers.

There is a red line there, one that is marked out in the coalition agreement. If we don't stand firm on this one, what will become of our party? Worryingly although these 15 have now stood firm, why haven't our frontbench team done it already?

We don't give the police blanket warrants

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

Should the police be able to gain internet records of terrorists or criminals in order to help them with their job, bring about justice and keep us safe?

Of course they should.

Should they be able to do this carte blanche on their own say so without making the case to either a judge or a Home Office minister?

Of course not and therein lies the problem with the current draft legislation that has been proposed. That is why only last month the Liberal Democrats at conference did call to ensure "that there shall be no interception of telephone calls, SMS messages, social media, internet or any other communications without named, specific and time-limited warrants".

The current scheme apparently under consideration removes the power for police to have that authority to take action. They can do it on their own judgement. This is the same police that take pictures of me on parades and marches of various types in case I might be a terrorist or potential looter. This is the same police that take pictures of me going towards football matches because of course Livingston Football Club has a long history of violence, not!

We don't give the police a blanket warrant to enter home that they wish to do so, nor do we allow them blanket access to any phone line. Yet Theresa May is saying that extending just such a right to social media and email brings it in line with powers that that police already have with phone records. No! It crosses over that line. Retrospectively convincing somebody of the right to access is not the same as acquiring a warrant up front, a warrant is for a specific person, reason and time.

Of course if the police can persuade a judge or minister of the need to intercept someone's communications that is different matter. But they have to persuade them of the need and gain the specific warrant before taking action. They should not have the right to act as judge, arbitrator of need, surveillance officer and arresting officer should the need arise for the latter.

The coalition agreement even upholds this principle that "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We need a better reason that simply because the police think so to extend that right to them. It needs to be backed up by the case by an independent arbitrator of the law. Protecting not only those doing the surveillance but also the right of those the surveillance is carried out on to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Mrs May may not like the right of people to be presumed innocent, yet as Home Secretary she has to uphold that pinnacle of UK law or else we all have failed.


I do hope that this illiberal extension of power does not get passed by our Liberal Democrat MPs. If it does I will seriously have to work out how to stand by the words of someone that if our liberties were taken away that we should consider civil disobedience to ensure they are returned, yes those words were from Nick Clegg.

Did Cameron wish for a furious Clegg?

It isn't just me who was rather irate about David Cameron's handling of Europe early on Friday morning. It appears that Nick Clegg his Deputy is equally angry.

Of course in 1992 the Prime Minister was special adviser to Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday when his reaction to an Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis was to up interest rates first from 10 to 12%, then to 15%, then back down to 10% and withdraw from the ERM. All in the space of 24 hours. Maybe if he had stayed around the table in Brussels for a few extra hours we would have had some diplomacy, but then maybe we didn't have a diplomat at the table. Two years later there was a Cabinet member training in the way diplomacy works in Europe, but he was sleeping in his flat in Sheffield at the time of the negotiations.

So what was the problem that Cameron ran across, surely it couldn't have been the issue of more fiscal union of the Eurozone countries, that was something that his Chancellor George Osborne had been talking about for months. Although I doubt his talk of a two speed Europe was going to be us against the other 26. Or does that become a three speed Europe those in the Eurozone, the nine not in that yet and then us now?

As for the autonomy of 'our' banking sector, the Tobin tax that was negotiated had a separate veto attached to it. So what additional threat was the Prime Minister protecting his friends in the city from, as this wasn't mentioned in the communique from the EU leaders.

The Prime Minister said that he couldn't let 'our' banking sector suffer while he protecting the parts of Britain that we enjoy like the single market. HANG ON A SECOND! The single market was set up to allow freedom of movement of resources across the EU whether labour, trade, influence etc. So the Prime Minister to protect the single market is ring fencing one favoured indusrty and vetoing the rest of the 'single market' from making inroads or approaches to changing that dynamic. What if the Germans were to do the same with their car industry, or the Estonians with their internet business, or sacre bleu the French were to do the same with their viticulture. Bang goes the champagne at Tory conferences.

How can the UK operate in a single market if he claims that it has the sole property rights to a certain industry? It doesn't work. Either you are in a single market where the industries can decide how and where they wish to operate or you are not. So how is the PM protecting a single market by doing this. What if a new industry wants to relocate to the UK, but the other EU countries that currently have parts of it are reluctant to let that go. The PM will argue that we are in a 'single market' but they will reply, but you have your banking industry, remember Brussels.

The Prime Minister may well have backed himself into a corner in order to protect just one industry. He has decided to lift us out of the centre of the EU. As the Guardian reports Clegg fears as

the "lonely man of Europe", with less influence, not more, for the City of London, less influence with the US and less foreign investment.

If Cameron has indeed put the interests of the city above manufacturing and real jobs he will find it increasingly hard to rely on support from the Lib Dems. If the fall out from this decision to step outside of the decision making of Europe means that we have to try and survive on our own pulling power Cameron may realise that unlike in the time of some of his influential forebears, there is less of that than 100 or 200 years ago.

Nick Clegg terrorised on flight for supporting the Human Rights Act

Warning this blog post contains a link to the Daily Mail


So the Daily Fail has a headline Woman passenger's jet rage at Nick Clegg over his support of Human Rights Act. The article contains the line "David Cameron pledged while in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA), which he said prevented Britain from deporting foreign terrorists." While talking about a passenger who had to be physically restrained from an onslaught against the Deputy Prime Minister.

Apparently according to the Fail the physical assault and terrorism by one woman is a sign that many are angry at the deputy Prime Minister for vowing to keep the HRA. One person in an incident of air rage is the voice of the people! Wow! Those Occupying the London Stock Exchange (or to be precise a public space close by) certainly seem glad of the rights under the HRA.

No doubt as her attack happened over international territory and I trust over the EU, she'll be glad that it will mean she is entitled to a fair trail, unlike if it had occurred once off the plane in Cairo. That her liberty and security as well as those of the other passengers were protected by her being restrained because of her attack. That she won't be tortured or face the death penalty for attacking another passenger on a plane. That she wasn't deemed to be a threat to the plane so much that she may have been shot by an air marshall, but that the life of everyone on that plane was protected, even hers. That she was allowed her freedom of conscience to make her points to the DPM. She also had her freedom of expression until it was restricted when it reached into the realm of needing to prevent disorder and crime.

Yeah you've guessed it I've just stated her case in relation to six of the ten articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. You'd almost feel that a majority of people had voted for a party that was opposed to the HRA in May 2010. It's not just the Lib Dems on page 9:3 of A Future Fair for All the Labour Manifesto they say

"We are proud to have brought in the Human Rights Act, enabling British citizens to take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg. We will not repeal or resile from it."

So there you have it, there is no public will to get rid of the HRA. There is only a Tory will that ignores the many fine points in it because it gets in the way of them doing things that they want to do, even more so than the Liberal Democrats it seems.

Read also What Zadok Day over at A Song of Liberty actually found to be what happened, but that sort of mutually respecting conversation doesn't sell the Daily Fail or the Scum.

The Three Conference Speech Wordle Comparison

So David Cameron has just completed the cycle of leaders' conference speeches. So how do they compare as far as key words go here are the comparative Wordles

Nick Clegg

Main words

• people
• economy
• right
• Labour
• easy
• government
• every

Ed Miliband

Main words

• people
• values
• Britain
• country
• right
• change
• economy
• work

David Cameron

Main words

• people
• country
• get
• know
• back
• economy
• one

Cat on a HRA Tin Roof?

Did you hear the one about Theresa May, the Human Right's Act and the Cat?

Well earlier today the Conservative Home Secretary said in her speech to the Tory faithful.

We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat.

Only she was kidding them somewhat.

The cat wasn't the reason that the immigrant couldn't be deported but was merely evidence that the immigrant had a relationship of some time standing. Indeed as the Telegraph at the time reported.

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat. 

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

So not only was the cat only part of circumstantial evidence that the man was in a relationship with another human being, not a feline, but also he wasn't a criminal as the Home Secretary, whose remit includes policing and immigration, almost seemed to imply by adding him to this list.

Indeed the Home Office had failed to carry out its own procedures regarding unmarried partners which is why the cat and the other factors were brought up to show that the relationship status was that of partners not housemates. So British authorities had failed to acknowledge their own procedures in bringing this man before  British judges seeking to expel him.

Ken Clarke has even challenged her that nobody has even been refused deportation purely because they owned a cat. However, May has been back pedaling since she left the stage saying that the fact checking of her speech was done from the press, maybe she puts too much trust in the Daily Mail's reporting of this story. Why not the court papers themselves to which she would have access?

May got a knee jerk reaction to her speech from the conference faithful, just as Nick Clegg gained a great cheer for saying we would not be scrapping the Human Rights Act in his speech at Lib Dem Conference. The difference is that Nick Clegg knows the history of the Human Rights Act, as he demonstrated in his speech, Theresa May was just playing to the crowd.

We are right to stand up for civil liberties. No retreat to the illiberal populism of the Labour years. We are right to insist on keeping the tax system fair. Asking the most of the people who have the most. And we will always defend human rights, at home as well as abroad. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I'll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay. Nick Clegg in Birmingham 21 September 

Update The BBC have made it possible download the original judgement here

Notes:

The European Court of Human Rights came into being21 January 1959 by virtue of Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Convention was founded out of the Council of Europe at the end of World War II.

The Council and what it were seen as required to do were laid out by a speech from Winston Churchill on (fortuitously for my memory my birthday) 19 September, 1946.

In the meantime some cats.

Maybe the wrong coloured paint from Stuart Rodger

 I did start to try and write this last night but couldn't get around to completing it until now

It is a pity that Stuart Rodger* felt he had to resort to such a cheap stunt a throwing an egg full of blue paint to try and get a message across to Nick Clegg. He is a bright and intelligent young man. Yes in his brief time in the Lib Dems I did get to know him and debate with him, both at that time and since he left.

He has the intelligence to frame an argument against what the Lib Dems did. I know me and him had that debate on Facebook in private messages. I'm all for people entering into the debate, if they can only offer an alternative. Apparently as the egg was hurled though Stuart shouted "No Shock Doctrine for Britain" in relation to Naomi Klein's book.

As an economics graduate Klein's theory that neo-cons and neo-liberals rode on the back on manufactured crisis to maintain laissez-faire economic success strikes me as ranking up there with all manner of conspiracy theories, as where is the null hypothesis. If Klein in correct the UK economic growth wouldn't have been stable for so long in the 50s. Ok it was on the back on a crisis, yet she fails to call World War II a monetarist created 'crisis'. How an intelligent politics student at one of Scotland's top universities can fall for that one sided evidence without looking at the historical context objectively is beyond me.

However, liberalism to me has always been about more economic liberalism. In my debates with Stuart since he left the party that seemed to be his only focus. He forgot that the Lib Dems were and are a party that will stand up for universal individual freedom, something that as he appears in Glasgow Sheriff's Court today he may well be thankful for. Indeed as Tim Montgomerie has written today on ConservativeHome, it is Nick and the Lib Dems who are taking the Conservatives away from some of their election pledges.

So maybe it was the wrong colour paint at the wrong leader, not that Stuart with his narrow obsession of what he thought it meant to be liberal would see that.

Read also

Mark Valladares Rhapshody in Blue (paint) ....
Caron's EXCLUSIVE Pictures of the Greater Spotted Rennie

* Some of the media are asking if he is a member of the party. He came to us from Labour but left again shortly after the 2010 General Election, burning his membership card.

Why we need to elect the Lords - Bryant stumbles into a Labour induced reason

Earlier today it seems that Labour MP Chris Bryant's objection to a fair, egalitarian House of Lords, based on the result of the election result left him standing there in just his underpants. Oops, that's another thing altogether.

However, here is what he said in Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister:

The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords

"with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."

There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium? 

Now when the New Labour regime first got elected, with the most sizable majority of ANY Labour Government they promised to reform the Lords and get an elected element to it. In thirteen years, including a second term with the second highest majority of Labour members, the only elected element they managed to secure for the Lords was the remaining hereditary peers. 

What they did do was lead to the inflation of the size current second chamber, which of course was to bring it more into line with the votes of the people in the previous three general elections. The moratorium in appointed more peers would keep a disproportional number of Labour peers to their popularity in the last General Election.

Here is Nick Clegg's response:

Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords. 

So yes for thirteen years the only Lords Reform that Labour brought about was to largely get rid of the hereditary element, down to 92. Ironically if there hadn't been by elections to replace this number with fresh blood there would be only 78 hereditaries remaining. There are 512 creations of Life Peers since 1997 who are still alive, this is more than the 465 (187 of whom are still alive) who were in the House then. 830 Peers now compared to 616 (taking the Life plus 92 Hereditaries, 26 Spiritual and 26 Law Lords as of 1997).

As both Nick said and I agree, the fact that more 'appointments would currently be need to rectify 13 years of Labour creation of peers shows just why we need to Reform the Lords and do it NOW!

Clegg wants us Lib Dems to work til we're muscle bound

Marking the first anniversary of the coalition Nick Clegg speaking today says that the Liberal Democrats will be more "muscular" in government and our influence more "visible".

Speaking this morning at the National Liberal Club he says:

"The coalition has shown itself to be a durable, stable government. But it is clear, not least from what we heard on the doorsteps in recent weeks, that people want the Liberal Democrats to be a louder voice in government."

Actually Nick it wasn't just in recent weeks, it is what activists have been telling you since late last year, it is what conference was telling you at Spring conference. Maybe it has been the lose of so many good MSPs, AMs and councillors that has pricked up your ears. We are meant to be the party that works for our local people all year round, not just at election time. That is what I have done for 23 years, that is what many of my fellow activists have been doing. We try and get the message that we are still distinct out there to the electorate yet we hear our most senior voices seemingly singing from not just a different hymn sheet but often in some foreign language.

"In the next phase, both partners will be able to be clearer in their identities but equally clear about the need to support government and government policy. We will stand together but not so closely that we stand in each other's shadow.

"You will see a strong liberal identity in a strong coalition government. You might even call it more muscular liberalism."

We will see a strong liberal identity??

I thought we'd already claimed to have 75% of our manifesto  included in Government, opposed to 60% of the Conservatives. Surely that should mean that we are already seeing a strong liberal identity.

I may have been a little quiet on the pushing the liberal agenda in a broad sense in recent months, I was pushing for electoral reform, working with other parties, so keeping my own politics on a lot of issue under the carpet. Doing what was best for the referendum and not trying to do what was best for me or the party working with a broad cross section of parties. But I'll be shouting things from the rooftops again, I know why I'm a Liberal Democrat, I hate being told by people that I'm just a Tory as I know nothing is further from the truth.

David Cameron is denying claims that Lib Dems have "moderated" the Conservative agenda. So Dave, as the Browne report suggested uncapped tuition fees, would the debacle of yesterday where students paid full fees have become a reality for all without Lib Dem intervention? Would this have been brought in without any requirement on the Universities to help the poorer students into Higher Education? Would the income tax threshold have risen so far ahead of inflation, to ease the burden of your VAT increase on the poorest families? Would you have returned pensions in line with earnings, something your party has said for a long time they were against?

The answer to all these and many more is that without Lib Dems you would have made things tougher on the poorest, you know it and yet you claim that this is what you wanted all along. These are the muscles that we have been flexing over the last year, one muscle we haven't exercised enough has been the one in our mouths to speak about it.

It happened to us in Scotland were over eight years in coalition all the best policies the ones that resonated with the public were being claimed by labour as being their own. By in large most of these has originated in Liberal Democrat manifestos. If we're seeing the same in Westminster we shouldn't let the Tories rain on our parade, steal our limelight and claim that all is sweetness and light.

Last Thursday the public punished the moderating force not the ones wanting to cut more. We need to show them that while Cameron and Osborne claim "We're all in this together" that it is actually the Liberal Democrats who are on their side, fighting for the NHS, for the students, the pensioners, the poorest, the unemployed.

As my picture for this post implies us Lib Dems are strong to the finish, cos we eat our spinach, that spinach being the content of our policies and our manifestos.

A Personal Statement - On Tuition Fees

The following is a personal statement I have issued as the former Liberal Democrat candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the 2010 General Election:



Last night in the House of Commons MPs voted 323 for and 302 against the proposal to increase the cap on tuition fees in England to £9000. If I had been elected on 6th May as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk I would have been joining the 21 Liberal Democrats who upheld the Liberal Democrat party policy not to increase tuition fees but instead to look at abolishing them. This had been stated in our manifesto as well as the personal pledge that many of our candidates in May signed.

The reasons I would have done so are:

• The party had instructed us to do so, not only in the years before the election, but in motions passed since the general election in most of our federal regions upholding that commitment.
•  Because personally the increase on personal debt to students is something I personally have been campaigning against since I was an undergraduate fighting the introduction of student loans when they first came in to replace grants.
•  We would be leaving students with half a hefty amount to pay off when they leave university, which when you take in the interest payments comes to a sizable part of a second mortgage
•  Even though I would have been representing a Scottish constituency I saw that the cut of the teaching budget funded by the increase in tuition fees would have a knock on effect in Scotland were tuition fees have been abolished.

I take exception to some of the comments made by colleagues in the party I have long considered closely aligned to me on the political spectrum.

Steve Webb wrote on his blog:

"I stood on a manifesto that had literally hundreds of policies and pledges."

I thought a lot of that was aspirations, many of those had caveats dependent on the economic situation, one that didn’t no matter what the financial situation was the promise not to increase tuition fees. He goes on to say that he was elected as part of 'Coalition programme for Government', a programme that allowed for Lib Dems to abstain if the findings of the Browne Report were contrary to our beliefs. That was a concession that was made to our party over this sticky issue yet Steve and 27 others not only didn't take that option, or uphold their pledge but voted for increasing the level of tuition fees.

Lynne Featherstone another blogging MP wrote:

"For some one like me – who has always believed that education should be free – it has been a difficult decision. Sadly, my view of education (free through raising taxation) isn't on the table – or anywhere near it. That vision was ended when Labour introduced tuition fees and the principle of free education for all feel."

Thankfully my colleagues in Scotland didn't feel this way and reversed the decision in Scotland and as a result that was the aspiration of our party nationally to repeat that process in both our 2005 and 2010 manifestos. I also think that because of the general benefit to society as a whole of those who go through Higher (and Further) education that this should indeed be funded, if need be, by increased taxation. The fact that it is not on or near the table would be a reason for me to further vote against.

Last night I heard Vince Cable even say that Scotland had failed to take hard decisions, I beg to differ one that Scotland has taken in that tuition fees should be abolished and from what I understand the main parties are agreeing that they should remain abolished. That is a tough decision made in light of the current situation and one that I was signed up to as a candidate this May, that we, no matter how bad things were would phase fees out.

At least in Lynne’s favour she did have the courtesy to apologise for breaking her pledge.

However, I am most proud of the twenty one, who I feel are erroneously listed as ‘rebels’ they have stood up for what the party believes in, and how the electorate who voted for them believed they would vote. Therefore I salute Annette Brooke, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mike Crockart, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Charles Kennedy, John Leech, Stephen Lloyd, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Alan Reid, Dan Rogerson, Bob Russell, Adrian Sanders, Ian Swales, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Jenny Willott and Simon Wright.

However, if Nick Clegg things that those listed above and myself are 'dreamers' because of our opposition to increasing tuition fees, I'm glad that I can still dream of a fairer and truly progressive way of funding Higher and, I want to expand it to, Further Education.

I'll not stop dreaming. I will fight on.

Even though this blog may be remaining silent over the next few months due to the nature of my work, I will be keeping up the fight. Recently I was elected as a Conference Representative for my local Liberal Democrat Party. I will not be ripping up my membership card in disgust, I will be pushing up my shirt sleeves and getting down to the business of upholding the things enshrined in the opening paragraph of the preamble to the party constitution:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

I'll carry on dreaming of achieving the above, but when I'm awake I'll be fighting tooth and nail to achieve it.

Note: This statement is made in a personal capacity due to the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat candidate in the General Election in May. It is not a statement on behalf of either the West Lothian Local Party, who very graciously selected me, nor the Northern Irish Local Party of which I am now a member, nor of my current employers. 

Guest Post: Andy Williamson: Mid-Terms of Engagement

There is nothing that a blogger more that somebody giving them stuff to put on their blog. Yes, even if that blogger is as prolific as I can be. Therefore earlier today I received an email from one of my Edinburgh friends and fellow campaigners containing his overview of the American mid-term elections and how it relates to us in the coalition. I am therefore of course happy to share it with you all.

The US midterm results are in, and the results seem bad for Obama. Even though the Democrats held the Senate, many of the Senators who survived the Republican onslaught did so only by standing as anti-Obama Democrats. Joe Manchin, elected Democratic Senator for West Virginia, produced a campaign ad showing him shooting the President’s ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation. But whilst partisans in the US are spinning the results faster than an Ann Widdecombe polka, it remains to be seen what the impact will be for UK politics. However, the lessons that can be learned by the UK coalition government must not be ignored.

Firstly, however, we must put the result into context. Yes, it was a clear bloody nose for Barack Obama, as a galvanised Republican party led a vociferous, and successful grass-roots campaign against him. However, government split between president and Congress is extremely common in US politics. In the last twelve years, Republican and Democrat presidents have had both hostile and friendly Congresses to work with. Indeed, the US public seem to regard a partisan division between President and Congress as a strengthening of the separation of powers.

Although the success of the ‘Tea Party’ should not be downplayed, we should also not read too much in the resurgence of the right in the US, particularly given the relative nadir they reached in 2008. Global trends do not seem to suggest a rise of the right. The French regional elections this year saw a victory of the Parti Socialiste (the Socialist Party), and despite the victories of the right in Hungary and mixed messages in Italy, there does not seem to be an overarching global trend towards the right as there was in the 1980s. In Britain, the inability of the Conservatives to gain a clear majority is indicative of an absence of a rise of right-wing vote.

What must be understood is that many Democrats and swing voters who backed Obama in 2008 feel disillusioned with the President’s consensus-based approach. Despite the passage of health care reform, the President has not used his Congress majority to his full advantage, even before Scott Brown and the Republicans ended the filibuster-proof Democrat majority.

Obama, more than any world leader in recent history was given a personal mandate for boldness. In this he has failed, or at least is perceived to have failed. (In politics perception is nine tenths of the law). As Machiavelli wrote:

"it is better to be bold than too circumspect"

Obama is guilty of giving the people consensus, when they wanted audacity. He has managed, not led.

The lesson of last night for David Cameron and Nick Clegg is simple: play to your mandate. Cameron and Clegg have exactly the reverse mandate to Obama – in Britain, consensus reigns. The mandate of consensus is a difficult one, although it suggests that policy should be aimed at the middle ground, rather than the core voters. Obama has paid the price for ignoring his core supporters. It is the dilemma which faces every executive upon gaining power – whether to govern for your supporters, or for the country. Ultimately, this is the decision which must be made. Machiavelli again provides the words, “it is better to be feared than to be loved, if you cannot be both”. Obama is neither.

Time will tell for Cameron and Clegg, although the nature of the coalition suggests that they should strive to be ‘loved’. They will underestimate the mandate at their peril.

Where are the Answers Nick?

I see that my friend and colleague Michael Carchrie Campbell has taken to task one of the email Lib Dem members received last night. I'm going to take to task the other.

Nick Clegg, after the announcement of the Browne Report inviting comments to be sent to him. Apparently according to last nights email the special email address that was set up received over 1000 responses. Yet only five points were raised in the response all carefully worded to sound supportive:

• concern that the proposals would result in a free market in higher education
• some key progressive elements of Browne’s report, particularly the repayment system similar to the concept of a graduate tax, and highlighted the need for Liberal Democrats to emphasise the positive aspects of the report, while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected
• suggestions we should make savings elsewhere and increase taxation to fund higher education
• need to focus on Further Education and apprenticeships as well as higher education
• concern that those from disadvantaged backgrounds wouldn't be able to go to university under Browne’s proposals

I'm amazed that in those 1000 emails there wasn't a response to the unrest amongst many candidates like myself who raised the promise from our manifesto (emphasis mine):

"We will scrap unfair tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part time, saving them over £10,000 each. We have a financially responsible plan to phase fees out over six years, so that the change is affordable even in these difficult financial times, and without cutting university income. We will immediately scrap fees for final year students."

and how this grinds instead with an increase in the tuition fee cap. If we were promising responsibility with our financial account how can we say we have allowed for even these difficult times yet are doing the opposite. It wasn't just a NUS pledge than many of us signed it was a manifesto commitment that "even in these difficult financial times" we would not need to burden our students further.

All we got under the question of making savings elsewhere was the same old drivel we were hearing from Cameron pre-Election not the bold, fairer, progressive language that the issue of tuition fees has raised through every conference debate we have had on the issue down my 22 years within Liberal Democrat circles.

I for one not am not going to be a shrinking violet on this one. Nick if you are going to be writing to members cut the drivel and actually answer our concerns. As Jennie Rigg put it so eloquently the other day "it would help if it was not worded as though giving a lecture to the hard of thinking".

Sheffield Hallam Man Speak with Forked Tongue

In the run up to the general election the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said this about the Liberal Democrat manifesto:

"The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top."

Obviously we as a party were jumping up an down with delight with such a judgement in the week before the election. The great and the good of the party Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and of course Nick Clegg were all over the headlines expounding the wise judgements of the analysts at the IFS.

The IFS has called the comprehensive spending review "more regressive than progressive" and "unfair" saying the poorer families with children would be the "biggest losers" of the cuts. Excluding the wealthiest 2% of the population, who the IFS assesses will be the hardest hit, it says the poorest 10% of the population will, on average, lose about 5.5% of their net income compared with roughly 4.5% for the top 10%.

So these very sage like analysts from April/May should obviously be taken seriously by Nick Clegg. Not a bit of it, in today's Guardian he says:

"It goes back to a culture of how you measure fairness that took root under Gordon Brown's time, where fairness was seen through one prism and one prism only which was the tax and benefits system. It is a complete nonsense to apply that measure, which is a slightly desiccated Treasury measure. People do not live only on the basis of the benefits they receive. They also depend on public services, such as childcare and social care. All of those things have been airbrushed out of the picture by the IFS."

Yes Nick. But we are making fundamental cuts that are going to affect some of those other services to if we are not careful.

Elaine Bagshaw's response to Nick's tuition fee email

Elaine Bagshaw a former Chair of Liberal Youth posted her response to Nick Clegg's email on Facebook. I felt it deserved a wider audience and therefore with her permission I am publishing that response below.

My response to Nick's tuition fee email

Dear Cowley Street staffer/poor intern that's been given this job,

Thanks for your email. I note it's the exact same one you sent to MPs last night, that many had already seen and reacted to. The fact that you haven't acknowledged a single point about debt and trust and the hundreds of others that have been made by people since we all saw that email, shows how little you now respect the membership of this party. If you want an "open dialogue", start by opening your ears and listening.

You keep referring to this dire financial mess argument. The problem here is that we had a fully costed and affordable manifesto - I know, I helped formulate the thing in FPC, in which a 6 year plan to scrap tuition fees was included AND costed. I have to ask whether you will now be using this as an excuse to drop all of our other pledges? Have you started a review of our manifesto and the policies in the coalition agreement, to see if we can afford them? Have you started a process internally to make sure we never produce a manifesto that, in hindsight, contains pledges we simply can't afford? No, didn't think so.

You may not have made any detailed decision but you and Vince both publicly endorsed the broad themes in the proposal. Vince did so on Tuesday morning before the ink on the Browne report was even dry. It is not an open dialogue when you have already decided privately and said publicly what you are going to do.

There are some good points in the Browne report, the extension of support to part-time students is an excellent move, but all it proposes is to tinker with the system. I agree that major reform of the system is needed, but Browne simply isn't it. It was a narrow review that hasn't tackled many of the major issues in HE, and hasn't looked widely enough at the alternatives.

But the biggest issue here is trust. I have been a proud member of this party since I joined at Uni because we are not like Labour and the Tories. It was us who could during the expenses scandal could hold our heads high and say that not a single on of our MPs had flipped their homes or overclaimed on a mortgage. Now, we sit in the same ditch as every other politician and political party that said one thing to get votes and did another once in power. I believed that over the next five years we could get a lot out of the coalition, and that we wouldn't be wiped out at the next election. Now, I'm not so convinced. You and Vince over the past two days have shown yourselves to be just like every other power grabbing politician, and frankly you have treated the membership with disdain. I supported you in the last leadership election, but if happened again today I wouldn't be able to. I am seriously reconsidering whether to stand for any publicly elected position whilst you are leader of my party.

You have let thousands of party members and voters down. You may be enjoying government now but it is us who will have to pick up the pieces of this party when you are gone. The legacy you are leaving us is not one I will be proud of.

Yours,

Elaine

Nick Why Aren't You Listening to Us?

I've just received an email from Nick Clegg, one which I am rather disappointed to have received. It is one to general members and not to the various PPCs like myself who signed the NUS pledge on tuition fees. Therefore it is addressing me as an ordinary member not someone who with the confidence of our funded manifesto, was confident we could honour our pledge not to increase the student cap no matter how bad the economy was. Who stood before various meetings, on numerous doorsteps and wrote many emails telling people we would and we could honour this pledge no matter what.

He starts (there are bits of Fisking in red by me):

I am painfully aware of the pledge my colleagues myself included and I made to you and to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career it is one that after 22 years of struggling on this issue I still will not depart from. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice but our assumptions were to reduce it over 6 years before the election, now we are looking to increase. Surely the next logical assumption, a middle ground, is to hold off the reductions a bit longer. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

He carries on saying:

We have broadly endorsed them but this is an enormously complex issue and we will take the time needed to get it right. Yet with the report announced at 9am we had Vince Cable fully endorsing it at 3pm. This despite it being a complex matter that we needed to get right. Even the coalition agreement allowed our Liberal Democrat MPs time to gauge what the Browne report said and to take action (admittedly only abstain) if it went beyond what we believe in. I think that applies to all our MPs up to the level of Deputy Prime Minister.

But I'm glad that part-time students are included in funding in the same way as full time students, that is a manifesto pledge delivered. I'm glad that Vince Cable still disagrees with a graduate tax as that is not progressive and discriminatory against graduates who fail to find graduate level employment.

However, I do have concerns about the final remarks:

The overriding principle for Liberal Democrats is that any system of higher education funding is fair I agree wholeheartedly. It should increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds Still agreeing; it should increase social mobility agreeing again; it should ensure fair access for all and not put anyone off attending university agree; it should increase the already world-class teaching and research at our universities agree; and it should ensure that those who earn more pay more agree.

Yet I agree with all this but it is not achievable under the Browne recommendation. The payments to some Universities will be higher to the prestige Universities will be higher. The number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be put off my fees which may be as high, or higher, than the family income. Social mobility will not be enhanced a the poor students will have to deal with the extra amount they have to pay back, at a commercial rate of interest. They'll be even more hogtied than the current graduates are. If penalising our students to increase world-class teaching and research is involved that is wrong. We pledge it should be free to all at the point of entry. As for those who earn more paying more yes. However, with lifting the cap all will be paying more to pay it back.

Yesterday there was a growing groundswell from MPs, PPCs other elected positions and ordinary members against the endorsement of the Browne report by "our" party. Linda Jack at conference asked Nick could we trust him with our party. Our party has told the leadership time and again down the years that we will not bend on tuition fees. Our party is telling him that again now, yet somehow he seems to be ignoring that, or the fact that we have a get out if we disagree with Browne, and is actually endorsing rather that saying we cannot support this and abstain.

Nick are you listening? We don't agree! We shouldn't endorse. Many of us are angry not with the Browne report but the way in which our leaders are rebelling against the will of the party on this. We are democrats it is the party that decides policy.

In Which I Disagree With Nick a Lot

Over on Lib Dem Voice there is a letter which Nick Clegg has sent to all MPs on the subject of Tuition Fees. In it he writes:

Like you, I am painfully aware of the pledge we all made to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

Actually NO Nick I don't agree with you. The Browne report is looking at removing the cap on tuition fees. This means that only the wealthiest of our young people, those from a privileged back ground will be able to go to our finest institutions of learning. This is not the fairness for students that we stood for.

As well as promising not to increase tuition fees we did say we would seek a fairer alternative. One thing we suggested in the past to do it was a penny on income tax. Income is a fairer way of paying for University education than tuition fees (which now will be paid back at commercial rates of interest). It is also fairer that a graduate tax, expecially as some graduates will be working alongside people in the same payscale who will not have a degree, though the graduate will be paying 9% more.

The Browne report is not seeking a fairer alternative laissez faire pricing of education does ensure that our brightest get a fair deal. The rich already pay to ensure their young go to the best schools, to get the best results, to go to the best universities. To then ensure that we also price smartest A Level students from the state sector out of the course of their choice, which meets their abilities, is not liberal and is not democratic.

Those who manage to get to Oxford or Cambridge from the state sector already do so at a great disadvantage. To place them at a further disadvantage as the Browne Report allows, is not why I stood for election. This is battle I have been fighting since the Thatcher Government of my undergraduate days moved to bring in loans rather than making the maintenance grant a fair and workable system. The campaign for fair student finance is one that runs through my political veins as deeply and any Lib Dem policy thread, if not deeper.

I signed the NUS Pledge as did every Lib Dem MP. I am standing by my promise to the students of Linlithgow and East Falkirk and I will continue to ensure that Liberal Democrat MPs do the
same.

The Browne report far exceeds what was envisioned when the coalition deal was signed. A lifting of the cap on tuition fees was one thing, a removal of it all together is not what we envisioned. The goalposts have moved and with it the game. Our Lib Dem MPs should take this on board and do the right thing and vote against allowing the removal of the cap. This is how we show we mean to give a Fairer Deal for Students.

There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, in which I have joined other PPCs, AMs and others.