Wednesday:
The Liberal Democrats have always been at the forefront of the LGBT+ movement for equal rights, pressing the argument forwards in the face of Conservative reactionaries and Labour half-hearted compromise and backsliding.
As one of Millennium Elephant's famous gay daddies, I'd want us to be back at that cutting edge, with an out and proud voice on FPC scrutinising every policy to make sure our communities are never left out where we should be included and that there's a proper section in the manifesto on what Lib Dems are going to do next to keep pressing for true equality. With the party’s emphasis on “Fairness” in the last few years increasingly focused on economic fairness rather than more difficult to measure LGBT+ issues, someone needs to keep an eye out, and I’m volunteering, if I’m elected!
I'd want to consult with LGBT+ Lib Dems and take your lead on which policy areas are of most importance. Personally, my concerns focus on: the problems of bisexual invisibility; on how we can widen the debate around marriage and civil partnerships to include polyamorous relationships; and on the needs of the trans community, how government should be opening doors not putting barriers in the way. Meanwhile, there are some bad laws on the statutes, put there by Labour as much as the Tories, making people criminal where no harm has been done. Those laws need to be repealed.
It's clear that Liberal Democrats in government have taken us closer to equality, if mostly in little steps rather than great strides. The one great stride we have made is marriage equality – which is why at the next election those timid late converts Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband will both be claiming credit, despite one’s Party having opposed marriage equality for thirteen years while in power and the other's Party still being largely opposed as their recent Conference revealed. We need to be clear that this has happened because of us, Liberal Democrats with Lynne Featherstone leading the charge in the Home Office, now followed by Jo Swinson and supported by Nick Clegg and the entire Party.
There are powerful forces gathering against us – not all of them malign, but sometimes we do need the courage to call a bigot a bigot. Freedom to love should not offend anyone, but if someone is determined to take offence, that does not and cannot give them a right to prevent other people's love.
[LGBT+ Lib Dems asked candidates standing for Federal elections to submit 150-200 words on what they would do to support the LGBT+ community. Being me, I wrote 400. So, presented here is the "extended cut" version.]
Showing posts with label FPC elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FPC elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Day 4306: The Problem with the Four Pledges Test
Monday:
"What four pledges would you put on the front of the next Lib Dem manifesto?"
If you're following the Liberal Democrats internal elections at all, you'll have been reading closely the answers submitted to Jennie Rigg's questionnaire for candidates, and that is the second question.
But there's a problem with this approach: those pledges have to do two jobs – they have to DIFFERENTIATE us but they also have to be DELIVERABLE.
The need to have "red lines" that we can be sure the other Parties will agree to is making us pick BLAND, CAUTIOUS, "MORE OF THE SAME" policy.
We like to see it as a Lib Dem TRIUMPH that we can flourish: look at the four big pledges on the cover! We DELIVERED them all! (To a certain value of "delivered" when it comes to political reform.)
But look at what happened to us over the unofficial "fifth" pledge: tuition fees. Sure, it wasn't on the cover, but signing those pledge cards went and made it co-equal. And we had no chance of agreeing it with either Labour (authors of the Browne Report and who had form on bringing in tuition fees in the teeth of their own broken promises) nor Conservative (who were highly unlikely to disagree with making people pay for something they technically already owned).
We were completely burned for selling out one "red line".
But it makes you realise how carefully "gamed" those other pledges were: they were different enough to make a splash, but close to what the other Parties would agree.
Count Packula puts it best when he answers Jennie with:
"The best set of pledges need not only clearly represent our values, they must be electorally useful in winning support, distinguish us from the other parties and be plausible to deliver in any hung Parliament negotiations."
So I'm seeing a lot of times "keep increasing the personal allowance" and "keep investing in pupil premium" (yes, that one's on mine!), and the lack of ambition is slightly beginning to depress me.
Or to put it another way: let's have "more of the same", because "more of the same" is making us SO POPULAR AND DISTINCTIVE, isn't it.
The alternative is seeing genuinely BRAVE and INNOVATIVE policy and reacting warily to it for fear that it's going to be another bruising, busted pledge.
For example, Mark Thompson – who is an excellent candidate who I would be delighted to see on the FPC – includes in his four: "A pledge to legalise and regulate all currently illegal drugs"
Of course this is absolutely the right policy: he's done much more research into the evidence than me, but what we'd both tell you is that the so-called war on drugs is a massively expensive failure that boosts the profits of criminal gangs while putting many lives in danger from cut drugs and crossfire. Legalisation would save police time and money; allow users some certainty they were getting what they paid for and not chalk cut with horse tranquilisers or rat poison; and allow us to treat addiction medically without stigma. The levels of harm from cannabis or ecstasy (see Jennie's question one) are not nothing but are tiny compared to the levels of harm that we accept from drinking or smoking. It's obviously the liberal thing to do. And, hell, it might even boost the economy.
But Labour and the Conservatives will join forces to block it, just as they did with Lords Reform, because the status quo is in there interest – namely playing to the "law and Order" gallery for the support of certain newspapers in their ever more insane bids to outflank one another on the right.
They'll beat us up for suggesting it and then beat us up AGAIN for not delivering it!
Another example is where Prateek Buch – also an admirable (not to mention ubiquitous – how does he fit in all those speeches?) candidate who I'd be very happy to see elected – includes "coalition compromises would not cross red lines of increasing gap in wealth and power between top and bottom".
We all know that Liberalism is about dispersing power, breaking up vested interests and returning opportunity to individuals. And anyone who has read "The Spirit Level" will be familiar with the benefits, to health and happiness as well as growth, which appear to come from a more equal society. But at the same time you must see the hostage to fortune: even if you DON'T consider that an automatic ruling out of another coalition with the Conservatives, whichever Party ends up in opposition, they will immediately start looking for measurements to show that the wealth or "power" gap (however it's measured) HAS increased and that we've "sold out".
Similarly, my own manifesto includes the Citizen's Income suggestion.
Now, "raise the personal allowance" is a policy that we can sell to either other Party – the Tories would buy a tax cut; Labour would buy help for workers on the lowest incomes – but a radical change to the tax and benefit system, abolishing huge swathes of bureaucracy (read "Whitehall power")? It's too big, too radical, too scary.
So you see the problem. This need to be able to compromise AND show we've not broken our "headline policy promises" means that far from breaking the mould, we're now moulding ourselves to fit with policies that are acceptable to the old status quo of the Labour/Conservative axis. When people are crying out "you're all the same" we are literally making ourselves "more of the same".
We make a TRAP for ourselves if we say our HEADLINES are also our RED LINES.
Red lines should be the absolute MINIMUM acceptable to us. If our headlines are no higher than our absolute minimum then what are we saying? Either we are too radical to ever form a coalition with either old Party or we're already too compromised.
With Labour and the Conservatives BOTH retreating to Nineteenth Century One Nation-ism, I think we need to be braver about offering a REAL transformation, not just tinkering with the current broken system, but a genuine promise of a new direction.
"What four pledges would you put on the front of the next Lib Dem manifesto?"
If you're following the Liberal Democrats internal elections at all, you'll have been reading closely the answers submitted to Jennie Rigg's questionnaire for candidates, and that is the second question.
But there's a problem with this approach: those pledges have to do two jobs – they have to DIFFERENTIATE us but they also have to be DELIVERABLE.
The need to have "red lines" that we can be sure the other Parties will agree to is making us pick BLAND, CAUTIOUS, "MORE OF THE SAME" policy.
We like to see it as a Lib Dem TRIUMPH that we can flourish: look at the four big pledges on the cover! We DELIVERED them all! (To a certain value of "delivered" when it comes to political reform.)
But look at what happened to us over the unofficial "fifth" pledge: tuition fees. Sure, it wasn't on the cover, but signing those pledge cards went and made it co-equal. And we had no chance of agreeing it with either Labour (authors of the Browne Report and who had form on bringing in tuition fees in the teeth of their own broken promises) nor Conservative (who were highly unlikely to disagree with making people pay for something they technically already owned).
We were completely burned for selling out one "red line".
But it makes you realise how carefully "gamed" those other pledges were: they were different enough to make a splash, but close to what the other Parties would agree.
Count Packula puts it best when he answers Jennie with:
"The best set of pledges need not only clearly represent our values, they must be electorally useful in winning support, distinguish us from the other parties and be plausible to deliver in any hung Parliament negotiations."
So I'm seeing a lot of times "keep increasing the personal allowance" and "keep investing in pupil premium" (yes, that one's on mine!), and the lack of ambition is slightly beginning to depress me.
Or to put it another way: let's have "more of the same", because "more of the same" is making us SO POPULAR AND DISTINCTIVE, isn't it.
The alternative is seeing genuinely BRAVE and INNOVATIVE policy and reacting warily to it for fear that it's going to be another bruising, busted pledge.
For example, Mark Thompson – who is an excellent candidate who I would be delighted to see on the FPC – includes in his four: "A pledge to legalise and regulate all currently illegal drugs"
Of course this is absolutely the right policy: he's done much more research into the evidence than me, but what we'd both tell you is that the so-called war on drugs is a massively expensive failure that boosts the profits of criminal gangs while putting many lives in danger from cut drugs and crossfire. Legalisation would save police time and money; allow users some certainty they were getting what they paid for and not chalk cut with horse tranquilisers or rat poison; and allow us to treat addiction medically without stigma. The levels of harm from cannabis or ecstasy (see Jennie's question one) are not nothing but are tiny compared to the levels of harm that we accept from drinking or smoking. It's obviously the liberal thing to do. And, hell, it might even boost the economy.
But Labour and the Conservatives will join forces to block it, just as they did with Lords Reform, because the status quo is in there interest – namely playing to the "law and Order" gallery for the support of certain newspapers in their ever more insane bids to outflank one another on the right.
They'll beat us up for suggesting it and then beat us up AGAIN for not delivering it!
Another example is where Prateek Buch – also an admirable (not to mention ubiquitous – how does he fit in all those speeches?) candidate who I'd be very happy to see elected – includes "coalition compromises would not cross red lines of increasing gap in wealth and power between top and bottom".
We all know that Liberalism is about dispersing power, breaking up vested interests and returning opportunity to individuals. And anyone who has read "The Spirit Level" will be familiar with the benefits, to health and happiness as well as growth, which appear to come from a more equal society. But at the same time you must see the hostage to fortune: even if you DON'T consider that an automatic ruling out of another coalition with the Conservatives, whichever Party ends up in opposition, they will immediately start looking for measurements to show that the wealth or "power" gap (however it's measured) HAS increased and that we've "sold out".
Similarly, my own manifesto includes the Citizen's Income suggestion.
Now, "raise the personal allowance" is a policy that we can sell to either other Party – the Tories would buy a tax cut; Labour would buy help for workers on the lowest incomes – but a radical change to the tax and benefit system, abolishing huge swathes of bureaucracy (read "Whitehall power")? It's too big, too radical, too scary.
So you see the problem. This need to be able to compromise AND show we've not broken our "headline policy promises" means that far from breaking the mould, we're now moulding ourselves to fit with policies that are acceptable to the old status quo of the Labour/Conservative axis. When people are crying out "you're all the same" we are literally making ourselves "more of the same".
We make a TRAP for ourselves if we say our HEADLINES are also our RED LINES.
Red lines should be the absolute MINIMUM acceptable to us. If our headlines are no higher than our absolute minimum then what are we saying? Either we are too radical to ever form a coalition with either old Party or we're already too compromised.
With Labour and the Conservatives BOTH retreating to Nineteenth Century One Nation-ism, I think we need to be braver about offering a REAL transformation, not just tinkering with the current broken system, but a genuine promise of a new direction.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Day 4301: Facing the FPC Questions
Wednesday:
As you might know by now, I am standing for election to the Party's Federal Policy Committee, but this isn't just about me, it's also about what you want from your FPC and your Party policy generally.
Standing for election should be about answering a lot of your questions about me and what I would do on the FPC. So I'm very pleased to say that Jennie Rigg has put together a list of decent challenging questions for every candidate to answer that will hopefully give you more idea of what we stand for and what we all might do.
You can read the replies of other candidates who are standing over at Jennie's blog, here. Meanwhile, here are the questions and the answers that I gave:
1. Which of the following activities do you consider the most dangerous and why?
This is a question about banning things, and I'd say that while I consider all these activities to be dangerous the Government should be in the business of informing people of the dangers and helping them minimise the risks rather than banning any of them.
But I realise that that is doing the politician thing of telling you what your question ought to be, so here is the thing politicians don't do which is trying to answer the question as put.
My gut reaction says this is a "trick" question (no offence) and that the "surprise" answer will be that giving birth turns out to be the most dangerous whereas the only one we legislate against, taking ecstasy, is the least dangerous.
But policy shouldn't be decided based on gut reactions or trick questions, so I would need to look the evidence.
A very brief search with Google reveals that the UK has an average maternal fatality rate of 8.6 per 100,000, which would be approximate 62 deaths based on 2011 birth statistics of 723,000.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/midwife-numbers-london-pregnancy-deaths.aspx
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents--country-of-birth--england-and-wales/2011/sb-parents--country-of-birth--2011.html#tab-Live-births-to-UK-and-non-UK-born-women
That would compare with reported ecstasy-related deaths of 40-70. Except, as this useful piece from Mark Easton explains, mentioning ecstasy in relation to a death is not the same as saying ecstasy caused that death.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
Both of which are tiny compared to the approximately five thousand motorcyclists killed or seriously injured on the roads each year. (I haven't found specific figures relating to taking the advanced motorcycling test).
Of course "dangerous" is much more broadly defined than merely the risk of fatality, so the risks of other effects would need to be identified and some way of comparing them decided (how, for example, do you compare possible brain damage against the economic impact of raising a child, say?).
Also, is it even a fair comparison? Childbirth is the conclusion to a (usually) nine-month pregnancy (with all its own associated risks), whereas taking a single tablet should be no more than an evening's duration, and a motorcycle test shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. A more fair comparison might take into account different patterns of ecstasy use – the single tablet, the occasional party-goers, the regular weekend user and so on.
I'd also want to know how to factor in the benefit versus the risks of the activity: for example, taking the advanced motorcycle test may be a risk in itself, but the rate of motorcycle accidents tends to be lower among people who have passed the advanced test. The risk of not taking the test may actually be greater than the risk of taking it.
This of course is also important in considering drug usage, for example the pain relief available from marijuana or opiates may very well be a greater benefit than the risk of harm from the drug. The long-term effects of MDMA (ecstasy) remain unknown, though some studies show possible medical use in alleviating mild psychiatric disorders and also some pain relief.
In fact I put five suggestions on my FPC manifesto:
Freedom from Poverty – a citizens' income that would help those in work and out.
Freedom from Ignorance – develop a "Pupil Premium II" perhaps with the money from charitable status of Public Schools.
Freedom from Conformity – addressing the Court system that can't seem to take a joke.
Freedom for Growth – breaking up RBS and Lloyds to make community-scale lenders for small business and jobs.
Freedom for the Future – investing in green renewables to achieve energy independence by 2050.
I don't think it would be entirely fair to make that statement in the manifesto and then make a different one to you, so I'll stick with my five if that's okay.
I can only remove one law?
It would have to be RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act), Labour's snooper's charter which gave the power to jobsworths up and down the country to spy on citizens. In practical terms, without RIPA we wouldn't be having the present difficulty over communications monitoring and interception. But morally, RIPA is the architecture of a system for Governments to control citizens. NO Liberal Government should tolerate it remaining on the statute.
As for what law I would add, well if I knew what one law would make it possible for Stephen Gough, (the Naked Rambler) to be released from prison without getting immediately re-arrested then it would be that, because the fact that this man is basically in perpetual imprisonment without having broken any law at all, merely for having a different attitude to nudity, is a running sore on any claim that this county has to be civilised.
Since I don't know what that law would be, though, I suppose I will settle instead for a law that if you sell someone software (whether that's a book or a video or a computer program) then they have the right to control how they use that software – the main aims being that if someone wants to read a Kindle ebook on a Kobo reader, they can; if someone wants to watch a DVD without having intrusive and insulting copyright warnings forced on them first, they can; and if they want to use software they've bought without having to agree to an "end user agreement" (imposed after you've handed over the money), then they can.
The policy committee should clearly serve the membership first. We are being elected to present certain views as representatives of the Party members.
That isn't to say that we should routinely pick fights with the Leadership. One of the strongest reasons I have for supporting the coalition, and one of the biggest disappointments with the behaviour of our Conservative Partners, is a belief in cooperation and compromise. I prefer arriving at a synthesis rather than loggerheads.
The Party sends a lot of internal communications explaining why we've just done something. It seems it would be more productive to try and be pre-emptive: send out communications about debates that are coming up before they happen and gather feedback from the Party membership in advance of decisions rather than trying to manage the response after the fact.
The Internet provides much wider opportunities to "crowd source" ideas and evidence than we have had before and we should consider online consultative sessions and working groups.
I support Richard Morris's ideas for widening involvement at Conference through online attendance and by making the Party more democratically responsive to the members.
For me, the most important is freedom from conformity. I would hate to live in a world where we all have to make the same choices, or where those choices are imposed upon us.
But at the same time I am aware that I am hugely privileged having benefited enormously from a generous education and now being in a well-paid job, my own freedom from ignorance and poverty has been (I hope) assured.
That's why it's right that the preamble mentions all three as a foundation for freedom and we should act where possible to support all of them. (And possibly more freedoms: freedom from pain, some might say, would be one you could add.)
I am (usually, when I remember) a member of LGBT+ and a sometime member of the Green Liberal Democrats.
I don't believe in factions, particularly not ones that accept the media narrative of a left/right axis that has never had very much to do with Liberal politics. If elected, I would want to scrutinise all policies independently and then make up my own mind, rather than voting with a "slate".
That said, I'm open to ideas from anyone – I'm just not going to be tribal about it. For example, I have a lot of sympathy with the Social Liberal Forum's pamphlet "Plan C" – particularly when it comes to trials and evidence based response to policy. On the other hand, I've also read the Orange Book.
The economics of the manifesto should be audited by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as already happens.
I would like to see Liberty audit the Civil Liberties implications (and the actions of the Coalition).
I would like to see the Plain English Campaign audit the language to make sure we are saying what we mean in a simple and easily understood fashion.
If there was an external Green body that I trusted, then I'd like to see an environmental impact audit too (but I think the external Green bodies are all too politicised).
It might also be useful if an "end of term report" could be produced for our MPs in association with someone like They Work For You, provided that such a report could properly reflect the amount of constituency case work, and work on committees in addition to time in the chamber of the House.
I think that we need to make it very clear to the media (and the City) that one of the causes of weakness in the Coalition agreement was the pressure that all Parties were under to arrive at an agreement very quickly. If at all possible we should lay out a timetable that would see at least one and maybe two weeks set aside after the date of the general election for the business of forming a Government, should a second balanced Parliament be the will of the British People.
Having said that, I think that the procedure of the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 negotiations was pretty near exemplary. Certainly we made mistakes – the largest being that the negotiating team failed to reflect the strength with which the Party wanted to keep the tuition fee pledge.
However, far more of the Coalition's problems arise from the failure of the Conservatives to give their Party members and particularly their Parliamentary Party any ownership over the process, which has resulted in them largely feeling sold down the river by David Cameron and under no obligation to keep the promises that he made on their behalf.
Labour too have behaved in extremely bad faith both during and after the coalition process, repeatedly blaming us for failing to deliver policies which we could not have delivered from Opposition or even in coalition with Labour, and of course blocking policies which they purport to be in favour of in order to score political victories.
As a result, it might be necessary to make a condition of any future coalition agreement that the coalition partner conduct a vote of support for the agreement (at least of their Parliamentary Party).
Where possible, at least within the Chatham House Rules, I want to blog about the policies considered using Millennium's diary. I'm happy to lay out my own position on issues that come up and I will try to represent other views fairly (if anonymously).
Also, through blogging and meeting other Party members, I've built up a wide circle of friends from across the Party, both geographically and politically. I would hope to reach out to them sharing what I think is going on in return for their ideas and feedback on how policy is shaped and in turn that they could talk to their own friends and contacts.
I'm only standing for FPC.
I don't believe that people should stand for more than one committee. The Party is full of good people who want to contribute, and I think that it's important that we maximise the number of people who are able to take part. One person, no matter how good they are, occupying two elected seats is stopping another good person from coming through.
As you might know by now, I am standing for election to the Party's Federal Policy Committee, but this isn't just about me, it's also about what you want from your FPC and your Party policy generally.
Standing for election should be about answering a lot of your questions about me and what I would do on the FPC. So I'm very pleased to say that Jennie Rigg has put together a list of decent challenging questions for every candidate to answer that will hopefully give you more idea of what we stand for and what we all might do.
You can read the replies of other candidates who are standing over at Jennie's blog, here. Meanwhile, here are the questions and the answers that I gave:
1. Which of the following activities do you consider the most dangerous and why?
- taking a single ecstasy tablet
- taking an advanced motorcycle riding test
- giving birth
This is a question about banning things, and I'd say that while I consider all these activities to be dangerous the Government should be in the business of informing people of the dangers and helping them minimise the risks rather than banning any of them.
But I realise that that is doing the politician thing of telling you what your question ought to be, so here is the thing politicians don't do which is trying to answer the question as put.
My gut reaction says this is a "trick" question (no offence) and that the "surprise" answer will be that giving birth turns out to be the most dangerous whereas the only one we legislate against, taking ecstasy, is the least dangerous.
But policy shouldn't be decided based on gut reactions or trick questions, so I would need to look the evidence.
A very brief search with Google reveals that the UK has an average maternal fatality rate of 8.6 per 100,000, which would be approximate 62 deaths based on 2011 birth statistics of 723,000.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/midwife-numbers-london-pregnancy-deaths.aspx
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents--country-of-birth--england-and-wales/2011/sb-parents--country-of-birth--2011.html#tab-Live-births-to-UK-and-non-UK-born-women
That would compare with reported ecstasy-related deaths of 40-70. Except, as this useful piece from Mark Easton explains, mentioning ecstasy in relation to a death is not the same as saying ecstasy caused that death.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
Both of which are tiny compared to the approximately five thousand motorcyclists killed or seriously injured on the roads each year. (I haven't found specific figures relating to taking the advanced motorcycling test).
Of course "dangerous" is much more broadly defined than merely the risk of fatality, so the risks of other effects would need to be identified and some way of comparing them decided (how, for example, do you compare possible brain damage against the economic impact of raising a child, say?).
Also, is it even a fair comparison? Childbirth is the conclusion to a (usually) nine-month pregnancy (with all its own associated risks), whereas taking a single tablet should be no more than an evening's duration, and a motorcycle test shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. A more fair comparison might take into account different patterns of ecstasy use – the single tablet, the occasional party-goers, the regular weekend user and so on.
I'd also want to know how to factor in the benefit versus the risks of the activity: for example, taking the advanced motorcycle test may be a risk in itself, but the rate of motorcycle accidents tends to be lower among people who have passed the advanced test. The risk of not taking the test may actually be greater than the risk of taking it.
This of course is also important in considering drug usage, for example the pain relief available from marijuana or opiates may very well be a greater benefit than the risk of harm from the drug. The long-term effects of MDMA (ecstasy) remain unknown, though some studies show possible medical use in alleviating mild psychiatric disorders and also some pain relief.
2. What four pledges would you put on the front of the next Lib Dem manifesto?
In fact I put five suggestions on my FPC manifesto:
Freedom from Poverty – a citizens' income that would help those in work and out.
Freedom from Ignorance – develop a "Pupil Premium II" perhaps with the money from charitable status of Public Schools.
Freedom from Conformity – addressing the Court system that can't seem to take a joke.
Freedom for Growth – breaking up RBS and Lloyds to make community-scale lenders for small business and jobs.
Freedom for the Future – investing in green renewables to achieve energy independence by 2050.
I don't think it would be entirely fair to make that statement in the manifesto and then make a different one to you, so I'll stick with my five if that's okay.
3. A genie appears and tells you that you can remove one law and make one law; what would you remove from the statute book and what would you add to the statute book?
I can only remove one law?
It would have to be RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act), Labour's snooper's charter which gave the power to jobsworths up and down the country to spy on citizens. In practical terms, without RIPA we wouldn't be having the present difficulty over communications monitoring and interception. But morally, RIPA is the architecture of a system for Governments to control citizens. NO Liberal Government should tolerate it remaining on the statute.
As for what law I would add, well if I knew what one law would make it possible for Stephen Gough, (the Naked Rambler) to be released from prison without getting immediately re-arrested then it would be that, because the fact that this man is basically in perpetual imprisonment without having broken any law at all, merely for having a different attitude to nudity, is a running sore on any claim that this county has to be civilised.
Since I don't know what that law would be, though, I suppose I will settle instead for a law that if you sell someone software (whether that's a book or a video or a computer program) then they have the right to control how they use that software – the main aims being that if someone wants to read a Kindle ebook on a Kobo reader, they can; if someone wants to watch a DVD without having intrusive and insulting copyright warnings forced on them first, they can; and if they want to use software they've bought without having to agree to an "end user agreement" (imposed after you've handed over the money), then they can.
4. What balance should the committee give to the views of the leadership, the parliamentary panels and the membership in setting policy priorities?
The policy committee should clearly serve the membership first. We are being elected to present certain views as representatives of the Party members.
That isn't to say that we should routinely pick fights with the Leadership. One of the strongest reasons I have for supporting the coalition, and one of the biggest disappointments with the behaviour of our Conservative Partners, is a belief in cooperation and compromise. I prefer arriving at a synthesis rather than loggerheads.
5. How would you change the party’s procedures on gathering and analysing evidence when formulating policy?
The Party sends a lot of internal communications explaining why we've just done something. It seems it would be more productive to try and be pre-emptive: send out communications about debates that are coming up before they happen and gather feedback from the Party membership in advance of decisions rather than trying to manage the response after the fact.
The Internet provides much wider opportunities to "crowd source" ideas and evidence than we have had before and we should consider online consultative sessions and working groups.
I support Richard Morris's ideas for widening involvement at Conference through online attendance and by making the Party more democratically responsive to the members.
6. Which is more important - freedom from ignorance, poverty or conformity?
For me, the most important is freedom from conformity. I would hate to live in a world where we all have to make the same choices, or where those choices are imposed upon us.
But at the same time I am aware that I am hugely privileged having benefited enormously from a generous education and now being in a well-paid job, my own freedom from ignorance and poverty has been (I hope) assured.
That's why it's right that the preamble mentions all three as a foundation for freedom and we should act where possible to support all of them. (And possibly more freedoms: freedom from pain, some might say, would be one you could add.)
7. Are you a member of any (S)AOs or other pressure groups which might give us an insight into your policy priorities?
I am (usually, when I remember) a member of LGBT+ and a sometime member of the Green Liberal Democrats.
I don't believe in factions, particularly not ones that accept the media narrative of a left/right axis that has never had very much to do with Liberal politics. If elected, I would want to scrutinise all policies independently and then make up my own mind, rather than voting with a "slate".
That said, I'm open to ideas from anyone – I'm just not going to be tribal about it. For example, I have a lot of sympathy with the Social Liberal Forum's pamphlet "Plan C" – particularly when it comes to trials and evidence based response to policy. On the other hand, I've also read the Orange Book.
8. Which external bodies would you like to see audit the manifesto to see if our policies are workable?
The economics of the manifesto should be audited by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as already happens.
I would like to see Liberty audit the Civil Liberties implications (and the actions of the Coalition).
I would like to see the Plain English Campaign audit the language to make sure we are saying what we mean in a simple and easily understood fashion.
If there was an external Green body that I trusted, then I'd like to see an environmental impact audit too (but I think the external Green bodies are all too politicised).
It might also be useful if an "end of term report" could be produced for our MPs in association with someone like They Work For You, provided that such a report could properly reflect the amount of constituency case work, and work on committees in addition to time in the chamber of the House.
9. What proposals do you have to improve the process of negotiating policy priorities for a coalition agreement in the event of another hung parliament?
I think that we need to make it very clear to the media (and the City) that one of the causes of weakness in the Coalition agreement was the pressure that all Parties were under to arrive at an agreement very quickly. If at all possible we should lay out a timetable that would see at least one and maybe two weeks set aside after the date of the general election for the business of forming a Government, should a second balanced Parliament be the will of the British People.
Having said that, I think that the procedure of the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 negotiations was pretty near exemplary. Certainly we made mistakes – the largest being that the negotiating team failed to reflect the strength with which the Party wanted to keep the tuition fee pledge.
However, far more of the Coalition's problems arise from the failure of the Conservatives to give their Party members and particularly their Parliamentary Party any ownership over the process, which has resulted in them largely feeling sold down the river by David Cameron and under no obligation to keep the promises that he made on their behalf.
Labour too have behaved in extremely bad faith both during and after the coalition process, repeatedly blaming us for failing to deliver policies which we could not have delivered from Opposition or even in coalition with Labour, and of course blocking policies which they purport to be in favour of in order to score political victories.
As a result, it might be necessary to make a condition of any future coalition agreement that the coalition partner conduct a vote of support for the agreement (at least of their Parliamentary Party).
10. If elected, how do you plan to engage with the wider party?
Where possible, at least within the Chatham House Rules, I want to blog about the policies considered using Millennium's diary. I'm happy to lay out my own position on issues that come up and I will try to represent other views fairly (if anonymously).
Also, through blogging and meeting other Party members, I've built up a wide circle of friends from across the Party, both geographically and politically. I would hope to reach out to them sharing what I think is going on in return for their ideas and feedback on how policy is shaped and in turn that they could talk to their own friends and contacts.
11. (was 29 on Jennie's list). Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones, and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
I'm only standing for FPC.
I don't believe that people should stand for more than one committee. The Party is full of good people who want to contribute, and I think that it's important that we maximise the number of people who are able to take part. One person, no matter how good they are, occupying two elected seats is stopping another good person from coming through.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Day 4298: Richard Flowers for Federal Policy Committee
Sunday:
We have the lists of who has been nominated for the Federal Elections 2012, and to start with congratulations to Mr Tim Farron for being returned to the Party Presidency unopposed.
There are SIXTY confirmed (and maybe three more) people standing for the Federal Policy Committee, including a number of people I admire and think would be good. And one of them is me, Richard Flowers.
So am I vain or insane to want to do this? I hope neither.
What I want to do, the main contributions I hope I could make, are to start with a little base-level competence about the economy and liberal philosophy. There are limits to what governments can do economically, and the ongoing recession and fall out from the crash further constrain us, but that should be a reason to be more imaginative in our solutions not less.
This is a rich country but our prosperity is poorly distributed, with too many people, especially young people, out of work; while too many people in work work too long hours; and far too few people derive the lion’s share of the national growth.
So that leads to the second thing that I believe FPC needs: new, bold, big ideas. We are going to have to stand up and say that there is a third alternative model to rival those of Labour’s borrow and spend and the Conservatives’ cut and cut. A Liberal economy that looks to the future, to the individual, to Internet and creativity and increases every person’s ability to profit from their own ideas and hard work, without dependence on capital investors. The big ideas of the Twentieth Century – free trade, the Welfare State, the NHS – were Liberal ideas. We need the big ideas of the Twenty-First Century to be Liberal ideas too.
And finally, I’m a very ordinary member in a very ordinary constituency and I want to see a reconnection between the membership and the leadership, to burst that Whitehall bubble. At Conference in Brighton I was worried that there are developing two worlds, what I call the Danny Alexander world, where we are in government and getting Liberal policies into action, and the Linda Jack world, where everything is terrible and everyone hates us for supporting Tory cuts. Neither of these worlds are completely true, but neither of them are totally false either. We need to bring these two worlds back together.
How can YOU help?
Well, if you are a voting representative, then I would be very grateful if you would give me your first preference. And if you know any voting reps, and could put in a good word. In a field as wide as this, the first preferences are going to be especially important, to make sure that I can stay in the contest to later rounds of transfers.
Secondly, any rebroadcasting of Millennium’s diary or the Facebook page “Richard Flowers for Federal Policy Committee”, on Facebook or Twitter or link-blogging, will be very useful in spreading the ideas that I’m talking about.
And thirdly, if there’s anything you think I should be talking about or any questions you want to ask then please do write to me, either in comments here or by e-mailing millennium[at]waitrose.com or by phone on 07889 145 104.
And very best of luck to everyone who has put themselves forwards.
We have the lists of who has been nominated for the Federal Elections 2012, and to start with congratulations to Mr Tim Farron for being returned to the Party Presidency unopposed.
There are SIXTY confirmed (and maybe three more) people standing for the Federal Policy Committee, including a number of people I admire and think would be good. And one of them is me, Richard Flowers.
So am I vain or insane to want to do this? I hope neither.
What I want to do, the main contributions I hope I could make, are to start with a little base-level competence about the economy and liberal philosophy. There are limits to what governments can do economically, and the ongoing recession and fall out from the crash further constrain us, but that should be a reason to be more imaginative in our solutions not less.
This is a rich country but our prosperity is poorly distributed, with too many people, especially young people, out of work; while too many people in work work too long hours; and far too few people derive the lion’s share of the national growth.
So that leads to the second thing that I believe FPC needs: new, bold, big ideas. We are going to have to stand up and say that there is a third alternative model to rival those of Labour’s borrow and spend and the Conservatives’ cut and cut. A Liberal economy that looks to the future, to the individual, to Internet and creativity and increases every person’s ability to profit from their own ideas and hard work, without dependence on capital investors. The big ideas of the Twentieth Century – free trade, the Welfare State, the NHS – were Liberal ideas. We need the big ideas of the Twenty-First Century to be Liberal ideas too.
And finally, I’m a very ordinary member in a very ordinary constituency and I want to see a reconnection between the membership and the leadership, to burst that Whitehall bubble. At Conference in Brighton I was worried that there are developing two worlds, what I call the Danny Alexander world, where we are in government and getting Liberal policies into action, and the Linda Jack world, where everything is terrible and everyone hates us for supporting Tory cuts. Neither of these worlds are completely true, but neither of them are totally false either. We need to bring these two worlds back together.
How can YOU help?
Well, if you are a voting representative, then I would be very grateful if you would give me your first preference. And if you know any voting reps, and could put in a good word. In a field as wide as this, the first preferences are going to be especially important, to make sure that I can stay in the contest to later rounds of transfers.
Secondly, any rebroadcasting of Millennium’s diary or the Facebook page “Richard Flowers for Federal Policy Committee”, on Facebook or Twitter or link-blogging, will be very useful in spreading the ideas that I’m talking about.
And thirdly, if there’s anything you think I should be talking about or any questions you want to ask then please do write to me, either in comments here or by e-mailing millennium[at]waitrose.com or by phone on 07889 145 104.
And very best of luck to everyone who has put themselves forwards.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Day 4292: When I say break up the banks I mean REALLY break up the banks!
Monday:
Hard Labour's Mr Milipede has called for the "break up" of the banks. More accurately, he's called for no more than the implementation of last year's Vickers and Tarts report.
Not that the Coalition's WATERED DOWN Vicker's proposals are GOOD, but Hard Labour's proposal is TIMID, and leaves a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Liberal Democrats to lead REAL RADICAL REFORM.
WE SHOULD break up the banks but NOT JUST into "high street" and "casino". We should take these ENORMOUS institutions, particularly the two that we OWN and turn them into LOTS of SMALL local and regional banks.
I wanted to say this in the "Growth and Jobs" debate at the Brighton Conference just past. I put in a card but sadly I didn't get called. Sadly, because the debate was largely side-tracked into a false debate between the leadership and Liberal Left's amendment. I don't think that that debate was helped any by having so many of the speakers against the amendment be MP's; when it came to a vote it seemed very few people – passionate though they are – actually favour breaking the Coalition's fiscal mandate agreement. It would have been HEALTHIER for the Party to see some "ordinary" members taking to the stage to speak against the amendment. I know I would have done, given the chance.
However what I really wanted to contribute was support for the policy of better access to local banking and credit for small business. Largely what I'd have said was this:
The banks are very big, international institutions. But jobs and growth in the UK have always, historically, come from small and medium sized local businesses. This is a FUNDAMENTAL MISMATCH in SCALE.
Small and medium sized businesses are the REAL "wealth creators" and often they're not ACTUALLY WEALTHY (a distinction that the Conservatories prefer to blur – but I'll talk about the need to tax WEALTH rather than WEALTH CREATION in a different diary) and not being wealthy means that these businesses, and the people who work to make them work need to BORROW.
And we know that small and medium businesses are the ones finding it HARDEST to get investment from the big banks. That's why Vince is having to set up HIS OWN bank just to try and uncrunch the credit to their businesses.
We can't expect Vince to do all the heavy lifting by himself though. That's why we need MORE banks. That's also why we need them to be SMALLER, LOCAL banks where they have the knowledge to help and support local businesses.
Hard Labour's solution to FAILING Banks, Mr Alistair Dalek's solution, was to bung them together into EVEN BIGGER banks. Even bigger FAILURES.
We all know that "banks too big to fail" were really just "TOO BIG".
The answer to the risk of bank lending is NOT to make them store up money like dragon's treasure. That's what we're doing, but it's what is stoppering up the flow of money to business.
Instead we should spread the risk about so that it becomes SMALLER and more MANAGEABLE. Small banks might be at greater risk if local businesses do badly, but small banks are SMALL ENOUGH TO SAVE.
I'm not saying get rid of ALL the International Banks. On the contrary, we need banks at all different scales. But policies of acquisitions and mergers, and laisez faire attitude to COMPETITION have seen big banks gobble up small ones, leaving us with a virtual CARTEL. (And if we're going to convince the Conservatories about this, remind them that more banks means more COMPETITION which is supposed to be GOOD for the consumer. They're supposed to like that sort of thing.)
Making banks SMALL is GOOD LIBERALISM: it protects people from BULLYING by putting them on a more even footing with their bank AND it encourages LOCALISM by giving the small bank bankers an incentive to invest in their community.
(I'm going to try writing a few "big policy idea" pieces in the near future for the fairly obvious reason that the FEDERAL POLICY COMMITTEE elections have come around again.
If you want to see the Party discussing big, radical policies again, please do encourage any voting reps to vote for me – that's Richard Flowers, rather than Millennium Elephant.
And if there are any big ideas you think I should be covering, or even any radical small ideas, please comment or e-mail me!)
Hard Labour's Mr Milipede has called for the "break up" of the banks. More accurately, he's called for no more than the implementation of last year's Vickers and Tarts report.
Not that the Coalition's WATERED DOWN Vicker's proposals are GOOD, but Hard Labour's proposal is TIMID, and leaves a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Liberal Democrats to lead REAL RADICAL REFORM.
WE SHOULD break up the banks but NOT JUST into "high street" and "casino". We should take these ENORMOUS institutions, particularly the two that we OWN and turn them into LOTS of SMALL local and regional banks.
I wanted to say this in the "Growth and Jobs" debate at the Brighton Conference just past. I put in a card but sadly I didn't get called. Sadly, because the debate was largely side-tracked into a false debate between the leadership and Liberal Left's amendment. I don't think that that debate was helped any by having so many of the speakers against the amendment be MP's; when it came to a vote it seemed very few people – passionate though they are – actually favour breaking the Coalition's fiscal mandate agreement. It would have been HEALTHIER for the Party to see some "ordinary" members taking to the stage to speak against the amendment. I know I would have done, given the chance.
However what I really wanted to contribute was support for the policy of better access to local banking and credit for small business. Largely what I'd have said was this:
The banks are very big, international institutions. But jobs and growth in the UK have always, historically, come from small and medium sized local businesses. This is a FUNDAMENTAL MISMATCH in SCALE.
Small and medium sized businesses are the REAL "wealth creators" and often they're not ACTUALLY WEALTHY (a distinction that the Conservatories prefer to blur – but I'll talk about the need to tax WEALTH rather than WEALTH CREATION in a different diary) and not being wealthy means that these businesses, and the people who work to make them work need to BORROW.
And we know that small and medium businesses are the ones finding it HARDEST to get investment from the big banks. That's why Vince is having to set up HIS OWN bank just to try and uncrunch the credit to their businesses.
We can't expect Vince to do all the heavy lifting by himself though. That's why we need MORE banks. That's also why we need them to be SMALLER, LOCAL banks where they have the knowledge to help and support local businesses.
Hard Labour's solution to FAILING Banks, Mr Alistair Dalek's solution, was to bung them together into EVEN BIGGER banks. Even bigger FAILURES.
We all know that "banks too big to fail" were really just "TOO BIG".
The answer to the risk of bank lending is NOT to make them store up money like dragon's treasure. That's what we're doing, but it's what is stoppering up the flow of money to business.
Instead we should spread the risk about so that it becomes SMALLER and more MANAGEABLE. Small banks might be at greater risk if local businesses do badly, but small banks are SMALL ENOUGH TO SAVE.
I'm not saying get rid of ALL the International Banks. On the contrary, we need banks at all different scales. But policies of acquisitions and mergers, and laisez faire attitude to COMPETITION have seen big banks gobble up small ones, leaving us with a virtual CARTEL. (And if we're going to convince the Conservatories about this, remind them that more banks means more COMPETITION which is supposed to be GOOD for the consumer. They're supposed to like that sort of thing.)
Making banks SMALL is GOOD LIBERALISM: it protects people from BULLYING by putting them on a more even footing with their bank AND it encourages LOCALISM by giving the small bank bankers an incentive to invest in their community.
(I'm going to try writing a few "big policy idea" pieces in the near future for the fairly obvious reason that the FEDERAL POLICY COMMITTEE elections have come around again.
If you want to see the Party discussing big, radical policies again, please do encourage any voting reps to vote for me – that's Richard Flowers, rather than Millennium Elephant.
And if there are any big ideas you think I should be covering, or even any radical small ideas, please comment or e-mail me!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)