Monthly Archives: June 2011

Report on the Social Liberal Forum (Scotland) Meeting in Glasgow on 25 June

A small but vocal group of Lib Dem activists came together last Saturday in Glasgow to debate the current state of and prospects for the Party in Scotland.  Although mostly drawn from Glasgow and the West of Scotland members travelled from as far afield as Irvine, Bo’ness, Edinburgh and the North of England.

The meeting heard a comprehensive report of the London Conference of the Forum on 18 June and were treated to a rousing speech from our regrettably ex-MSP for Glasgow Region, Robert Brown.  Robert’s speech has been posted in full on Caron Lindsay’s blog here.

The Q and A session that followed Robert’s speech and a series of short discussions in an Open Forum session produced the observations below:

UK Coalition

Attitudes to the Party leadership and the coalition varied but outright praise for both was muted.  Some speakers felt strongly that Nick Clegg should have resigned after the disaster of the May local and Scottish Parliament elections.  There was also condemnation of the leadership’s stance of apparently accepting the necessity of adopting Tory policy on cuts and tuition fees before the general election and yet campaigning otherwise during it.  The often passive, equivocal role that the Westminster Parliamentary Party appears to be playing was criticised.  In particular there was dislike of the way that Liberal Democrat spokesmen are being seen to champion Tory policies which run counter to Liberal Democrat principles of supporting the freedom of the individual within a supportive state and a strong and stable society.   Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg drew particular comment for appearing to relish the announcement of the cuts programme.

Whilst there was broad acceptance of the rationale for coalition there was limited enthusiasm for the end result.  It was felt that trumpeting the achievement of 90% of our manifesto was useless when it was our support that permitted the Tories to push through a raft of their own policies that our members and voters consider unacceptable.  As an example, public pensions are already affordable yet we are supporting the current further Conservative attack on them.  We need to distance ourselves more from the Tories and better publicise the distinctiveness of our successes.

The failure of the leadership to adequately prepare for coalition negotiations or to learn the lessons garnered in Scotland and Wales in running coalition administrations was noted.  It was felt that the coalition agreement should be re-visited to make it more flexible in dealing with inter-party disagreement and the development of new policies.  The lay Party should also seek to take ownership of the agreement through Federal Conference.

The Scottish Party and Parliament

The Scottish Executive was strongly attacked as being remote, weak and ineffective.  It produces annual action plans that it does not publicise and has presided over a withering away of Party policy-making.  Party membership is declining swiftly without any action being taken and the Party has organisational and structural difficulties that are not being addressed.  In addition, senior figures in the Scottish Party are not doing enough to project a strong Scottish voice at Federal level.

The Scottish Parliamentary Party It was felt that the Party had become too prone to criticise what it disliked without proposing alternatives.  It seemed at times during the last Parliament that the entire rationale of the Party was to bash the Nats.  We need to concentrate more on cooperation to achieve success where our policies are close to other parties.  It was felt that less attention should be paid to focus groups and more effort put into developing our own distinctive vision.  There are encouraging indications that the new leader is taking these views on board.  We also need to better articulate our wish for more powers for the Scottish Parliament and in this connection it was felt that neither the Westminster Parliamentary party nor the Federal Executive really understand the implications and necessities of devolution and that they need to raise their game in this respect.

Scottish Council Elections 2012

The councillors present voiced their horror at the electoral prospects for next year.  At best it will be an election where we fight to hold what we have.  Again it was felt that the leadership was out of touch with the havoc being wrought by its actions and there was a need for the Scottish Leader to distance himself from coalition policy.  It was felt that the best way ahead was to champion a revitalised form of community politics where there is concern to foster effective communities and effectively devolve power.

What Role Should the SLF seek to undertake in Scotland

The SLF in Scotland should formalise its role and seek influence and change within the Party.  It should seek to promote debate within the Party on tactics and values and take policy initiatives to Scottish Conference.

Bookmark and Share

Blogging about the SLF Conference

Bloggers have been writing up their impressions of the SLF Conference on 18th June.

Here is a selection of them. Please add any that have been overlooked in the comments below.

Bookmark and Share

Time to review student funding?

After all the pain the Lib Dems went through with the student funding policy, the least we could expect is that it would do what it said on the tin.

But that has turned out not to be the case.  At the time when they were debated in the Commons, we were told to expect to see the average university charging around £6,000 in annual fees.  In fact, the average looks like it may be around £2,500 higher.

To make matters worse, it would appear that the government will now be faced with a stark choice: cut student numbers or have to pay more than they expected to underwrite the loans needed to pay for all these high tuition fees.

Many have suggested that it is time the Lib Dems began pushing for a review of a policy which has caused us so much harm and which does not appear to be working.  What do you think?

Bookmark and Share

Guest post: How do you pick an expert? by Mark Pack

You need an expert. What do you do? Plenty of different ways of going about finding one, I’m sure.

But I bet you don’t dig out the books from 20 years ago, look who was an expert back then, place the names in the hat and then pick out a name or two at random.

That, however, is how the House of Lords works – and that’s why I am unconvinced by those who argue that democracy has no place in one half of Parliament because ‘we need experts’.

Certainly there are some experts in the Lords. Just as there are some in the Commons. But the argument that elections for the Lords would be bad because ‘we need experts’, aside from having to glide over people such as Rory Stewart in the Commons, founders on the basic question, “if we need experts, why is the Lords set-up the right way to go about it?”

It’s an approach to finding experts that is riddled with flaws. You may be an expert at the time of appointment, but that is no guarantee you will still be one as your field moves on over the next 10, 20, 30 or more years. If you want to pick an expert, you judge people by their current knowledge – and have you noticed any peer who is against elections suggesting instead regular expertise exams to check peers are still up to the mark? I don’t think so.

Nor is taking an expert and giving them a post for life any way of ensuring you have the right balance of experts. Take the internet: a major factor in our society, economy and public sector and one that frequently comes up in government business. Yet the Lords has barely any experts in this field. As a collection of experts it’s a notably bad one.

There are plenty of ways to get experts involved – ways that let you pick experts whose knowledge is current and whose field of expertise is relevant to current needs. Giving someone a seat for life in Parliament isn’t needed.

So that’s one of the reasons why I think it is so important for the Liberal Democrats to push on with introducing elections for the House of Lords. It shouldn’t be the party’s only big issue, but nor should it be dropped.

Amongst the opponents, including yes some Liberal Democrat peers (and hence the grassroots Liberal Democrats for Lords Reform group), there is a canny understanding of the power of divide and conquer, trying to persuade some reformers to back off because what is proposed isn’t quite 100% their own preferred package.

But look at the lesson of those who took such a view in the 1960s and opposed Lords reform proposals then; the next 50 years showed how wrong that decision was. With all three parties nominally in favour of Lords reform and a package being put before Parliament this is our best chance in a century finally to spread democracy to the other half of Parliament.

If you agree, sign up to back the grassroots Liberal Democrats for Lords Reform group.

Bookmark and Share