Monthly Archives: September 2011

What sort of liberal is Nick Clegg?

Mark Pack writes:

The new (and in fact only) biography of Nick Clegg is very much a book of two halves. The first – a fascinating tale of Nick’s multinational family; the second – a fairly standard recount of some of the political events of the last few years, with little in the way of revelations. If you do not follow political news closely, you will still find in the second half much of interest, but whether or not you do the first is illuminating not only because of the colourful relatives (as one newspaper put it, think Tenko meets Reilly, Ace of Spies) but also because the clues it gives as to Nick Clegg’s liberalism.

There is always a risk of mixing hindsight with tidiness so as to draw too neat a line between events in someone’s past and their subsequent believes. It is though very tempting to link Nick’s passion for the pupil premium and lukewarm views on tuition fees with his mother having been a special needs teacher. From his own early years, it is early years education that has been at the centre of attention. Tempting also – and on perhaps more solid ground – to link the multiple nationalities of Nick family with his own very internationalist outlook along with the obvious linking of his liberalism with his own family’s continental liberal traditions.

The biography rightly reminds readers that although Nick’s ascent of the political ladder was very swift, it has involved three hard-fought membership contents – to be selected for the East Midlands Euro list, then to become the candidate for Sheffield Hallam and finally the party leadership contest. In each case he was up against at least one very strong rival candidate.

That background helps explain why Nick Clegg has consistently been a regular visitor to local parties around the country, even despite the pressures which normally befell people who become party leader or go into government, let alone those who do both.

He has not disappeared off into a bubble. If anything his cycle of meetings with local parties and their members is now more intensive than it has even been. Both consciously and subconsciously a political career based on having to win over members is serving him well.

Yet it is also a rather top-down heritage: you go to meet people, you persuade them you are a good thing. It is not a campaigning heritage: you go to meet people, you persuade them to go out campaigning.

Hence perhaps the usual absence from his rhetoric and actions about the need to build the party’s campaigning infrastructure and foster activity at the grassroots. He certainly isn’t hostile and the party has made some good changes since he became leader (such as the move to VAN) and the Bones report certainly tried to deliver much. But you rarely hear the sort of enthusiastic exhortation on the topic that featured regularly in Paddy’s early years as leader.

Moreover, the party’s local government basis has featured very little in Nick’s ascent. He has never stood for a local council, let alone been a councillor or taken part in running a council, and nor has his route to being Deputy Prime Minister rested much on securing local government victories first, unlike those MPs who got elected after first nurturing a growth in the council base in their patch.

Add to that a working career centred on working in that most bureaucratic of places, the European Union, and you can easily see why Nick combines a healthy scepticism about under-performing centralised public bodies with what would otherwise be a somewhat puzzling almost complete absence of talk about community politics.

What he has rarely had to do in the past is directly attempt to improve the quality of public services – explaining perhaps why his views in this area are ones that most often leave people asking questions about where his instincts lie. On that the past gives very little in the way of clues; the present is however rapidly making up for that.

You can buy Nick Clegg by Chris Bowers from Amazon

 

Bookmark and Share

A Policy Motion on Policy Motions

‘The Lib Dem Conference is a recognisably democratic event in a sense that the other conferences can no longer claim to be. Policies are proposed, amended, debated and voted on in an impeccable manner’. (Martin Kettle, ‘The Guardian’, 18/09/09)

Conference notes

Policy forms a vital role within the Liberal Democrats, not only enshrining values as the party evolves but also forming part of the fundamental democratic process that centres on pluralistic beliefs.

However, conference observes

Since becoming a Coalition partner, policy motions have become extremely ambiguous, vague and unspecific.

Take for example the policy motion paper entitled “Violence against Women”. Not only did this paper commence by not defining violence against women, but nor did it address the subtle nuances between domestic abuse, domestic violence and non-domestic abuse and violence that occurs across a broad spectrum of relationships in the United Kingdom.

Further to this, the paper discriminated in failing to address non-gender bias of domestic abuse, but it also covered a broad spectrum of subjects. One area appeared to be focused entirely on trafficked women without taking into account refugees, asylum seekers, first-generation immigrants or ethnic minorities at all.

Should the proposer of the motion wish to address these areas specifically, then not only should the title reflect that intention of the motion, but it should also be inclusive, with clear definitions and a clear purpose.

Due to the ambivalence of the motion proposed, it was passed, as a great deal of policy motions appear to be in recent years, not because the motion was well written, well argued for or well disciplined, but because people generally object to domestic abuse and felt that there should be a better regulation and focusing social policy on prevention and addressing domestic abuse.

This was further seen in the motion on the Digital Economy Bill. The campaign to stop the erosion of civil liberties is a central part of policy within the Liberal Democrats, and the bill looking at repealing legislation and preventing the detrimental effects would naturally be supported. However, when going through the proposals, elements of the bill were removed by the Federal Policy Committee and announced by the proposer of Amendment one who was attempting to get the detail re-entered and the specifics readdressed.

The motion looking at Drug Harm in Communities was also a rhetorical repeat of Liberal Democrat policy produced in our manifesto to the 2010 election. While it may be considered that putting such motions forward when we are a party in government is both radical and progressive, none of these motions helped shape or develop party policy beyond what has already been achieved previously. This therefore implies that there is no mandate or accountability within the ordinary membership of the party to help shape and evolve Liberal Democrat policy when we are in government.

While there was a significant increase in the level of political engagement, inclusion and enthusiasm at a conference seen amongst members, there is a need to increase this at all levels throughout the party and not just for those that can attend the conference.

Passing of equivocal motions that fail to address, go far enough or develop and construct party policy leaves party members feeling less engaged, less part of the pluralistic foundations of the Liberal Democrats and less able to influence and shape government policy.

Interviews of party members on the radio yesterday spoke of the party redeveloping and confident to go back out and knock on doors and continue to proclaim a Liberal Democrat message. While this is one integral value of the Liberal Democrats, the ability to shape and develop policy is also essential and there is a need to engage more on this level with methods as much as there is to engage at a campaigning level with supporters.

Conference therefore asserts

Policy Motions have the potential to help the Liberal Democrats, as coalition partners, distinguish themselves from the Conservatives and demonstrate to the electorate how things will be done differently were we the larger party in the coalition or in a majority position.

Liberal Democrat Policy Motions should be stronger in their intentions, more clearly defined and above all specific.

Policy motions should not simply repeat current Liberal Democrat policy but seek to improve upon and evolve policy.

Kelly-Marie Blundell

Bookmark and Share

Majority of conference calls for detailed debate on the Health Bill

An attempt to suspend standing orders and allow an emergency motion on the Health and Social Care Bill was approved by a majority of conference representatives but failed to get the two-thirds majority needed (235 voted to suspend standing orders against 183 who opposed it).  Commenting on the vote, Chair of the Social Liberal Forum Dr David Hall-Matthews said:

“Despite the steer to leave the agenda as it is, a clear majority of conference representatives voted to ensure that health was properly debated.  We regret that the motion will not be debated but feel that we have made our point.

“This wasn’t just a debate about the future of the NHS; it was about the health of our party’s democracy.  We cannot allow party policy to be dictated by government.

“It is clear from the mood at conference that the party still has deep concerns about the Health and Social Care Bill.  In the interests of party unity, it is crucial that the leadership and members of the House of Lords listen carefully and respond positively as the legislation enters the final stages of its passage through parliament.”

Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Policy Committee Dr Evan Harris added:

“I am confident that the widespread concern about the health bill in its current form will come across when it is discussed at conference later this week.”

Bookmark and Share

LibDem NHS Activists heartened by extent of health rebellion

Lib Dem NHS activists take heart from extent of Parliamentary rebellion as new analysis shows “two-thirds of MPs” withhold support from Government on health bill.

Liberal Democrat activists and Parliamentarians seeking to amend the Health Bill today released an analysis of the Report Stage votes , based on House of Commons Library figures , showing that more than  two thirds of the eligible  English Lib Dem Backbench  MPs failed to support the government on key votes, the  vast  majority of whom voted against the government at some point.

The figures showed that,  of the  24 Liberal Democrat English backbenchers who are neither on the Government payroll, no Ministerial aides, abroad or disqualified from voting (as chair of the Bill Committee), 16  failed to support the Government in at least one of the three main votes on the Bill at report stage (on amendments to retain the private patient cap, to retain the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of health services, and on the 3rd reading of the Bill).

The majority of those, 11, voted against the Government on at least one of the divisions.

Commenting on this, Andrew George MP (who tabled the amendments) said,

“There is an underlying unease about the Bill amongst my colleagues. Although I knew I was not alone I hadn’t anticipated a rebellion on this scale.  Liberal Democrats  were the architects of the NHS  and do not want, by default, to become the architects of its demise.”   

Those of us who voted to ask the Government to reflect on the folly of carrying on with the Bill in its present form will be vindicated with further concessions in the Lords.”

Dr.Evan Harris, a former party health spokesman and a Vice-Chair of the party’s Federal Policy Committee, said, “The extent of unhappiness on the Lib Dem backbenches, is a real encouragement to Baroness  Shirley Williams and her cross-party colleagues in the Lords as they seek to make major changes to the Bill.”  

The vast majority of activists at our conference have only ever wanted the government’s health policies and the Bill to go no further than the Coalition Agreement. The amendments tabled yesterday and our party conference motions are only seeking to restrict the government to the Coalition Agreement that the party voted for. ”

Dr. Graham Winyard, Chair of Winchester LD and a former NHS Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England said, “Full credit needs to be given to Nick Clegg and Paul Burstow for securing the changes already made to the Bill following the Party’s spring conference.   

“However it is clear that further change is necessary before many Liberal Democrats can support it. We were encouraged by the clear hints given by Paul Burstow that the government would seek to make changes to the Bill.

 

Notes:

1. The 10 Lib Dem MPs who voted against the Government, in favour of Amendment 1176 (Division 340) were  Annette Brooke, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Martin Horwood, Julian Huppert, Stephen Lloyd, John Pugh, Dan Rogerson, Adrian Sanders and David Ward.

Those who abstained were  Stephen Gilbert, Simon Hughes,  John Leech and Greg Mulholland

2. The 4 Lib Dem MPs who voted against the Government for the Third Reading of the Bill (Division 342) were: Andrew George, Julian Huppert, Greg Mulholland and Adrian Sanders.

Those who abstained were  Annette Brooke,Tim Farron, Martin Horwood, Stephen Gilbert, John Pugh  and Dan Rogerson

3. The 3 Lib Dem MPs who voted against the Government on Amendment 1165 on Private Health Care (Division 338) are Andrew George, Martin Horwood and Adrian Sanders.

Those who abstained were Annette Brooke,  Tim Farron, Simon Hughes, Julian Huppert, John Leech, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Dan Rogerson,  Ian Swales,  Stephen Williams

 

Bookmark and Share

North West SLF launched

Following a brief recent history of the national Social Liberal Forum from Kat Dadswell, John Commons, the Chair of the Manchester party, spoke on why he felt that Social Liberalism and by extension the Social Liberal Forum were particularly needed in the North West region. Former MP for Rochdale Paul Rowen made the point that we shouldn’t be made to feel that opposing Conservative policies is a bad thing – we need to be on the side of our neighbours and residents in the North West.

John Leech MP (Manchester Withington) then gave us his views firstly on what a step forward it is for people from all over the region to come together in this way to discuss policy for a change! A number of members suggested we back John Leech’s soon to be proposed EDM on asking the treasury to look at ways to peg the tax threshold to the minimum wage – no one would pay tax unless they earn at least the minimum wage. John has been speaking to Vince about the matter.

John Leech also spoke on a number of issues where he felt that Lib Dem MPs would like to be able to push the Conservatives more on. On the matter of the government’s welfare reform plans, he said members should operate a “tough love” policy with our MPs, both through members’ lobbying and through conference holding the MPs and the leadership to account and showing exactly what the party expects of its MPs. “The more pressure we bring at conference, the better we can make things in Parliament.”

A steering committee of 10 members was elected, including members from all over the region. The NW branch of the SLF hope to meet every other month somewhere in the region and will be meeting next in October in Preston, details to follow.

Bookmark and Share

SLF fringe meetings

Policy Forum: Open Public Services: Another fine mess they’ll get us into?

Saturday 20.15-22.15 ICC Hall 5

What should we support and what should we oppose in the Open Public Services White Paper?

Chris Nicholson, CentreForum,
Linda Jack, Social Liberal Forum
Mark Serwotka, PCS union,
Lord Matthew Oakeshott

Chair: Dr. Prateek Buch (SLF)

Phone Hacking, Privacy and Libel – the Future of the Press

Sunday 13:00-14:00 Hall 8b, ICC

Brought to you with the support of Index on Censorship and the Hacked Off campaign

Hugh Grant, Actor
Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian
Jo Glanville, Editor, Index on Censorship
Don Foster MP, Lib Dem Spokesman on DCMS

Chair: Dr. Evan Harris (SLF and Hacked Off Campaign)


How Unions can Support Business to Grow the Economy

Sunday 13:00-14:00 Dolce Room, Hyatt Hotel

Brought to you with the support of Unions21

Peter Kunzmann, Social Liberal Forum
Prof Mark Stuart, Univ of Leeds
Fiona Hall MEP
Speaker from the Musicians’ Union


The SLF reflects: Where do we go from here? Lib Dem priorities until 2015

Sunday  20.15-21.30 ICC Hall 5

Brought to you with the support of The Liberator Collective

What should be our key policies and strategies for the rest of the parliament?

Will Hutton, The Work Foundation,
Julian Huppert MP,  Social Liberal Forum
Jackie Ashley, The Guardian

Chair: Dr. David Hall-Matthews (SLF)


The SLF debate: Pension reform – public, private and state – What’s fair?

Monday, 20.15-21.30 ICC Hall 5

Brought to you with the support of UNISON

Will we all get what we deserve when we retire? Can we justify changes to contributions and entitlements?

Steve Webb MP, Pensions Minister,
Dave Prentis, UNISON,
Janice Turner, Social Liberal Forum
Danny Finkelstein, The Times

Chair: Sandra Gidley (SLF)


In conversation: Are we democratic, independent and radical in Coalition?

Tuesday 20.15-21.30  ICC Hall 5

Brought to you with the support of Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust

Unity or Distinctiveness? Can conference votes influence Government policy?

Alistair Carmichael MP, Chief Whip
Simon Hughes MP, Deputy Leader

A Q &A on Party Independence and Distinctiveness

Moderator: Dr. Evan Harris

Bookmark and Share

Sign here for appeal and emergency motion on health reforms

Please complete this form if you want to sign

  • the appeal to allow conference to debate NHS reforms (see this page for more information)

and/or

  • the emergency motion on health reforms (see this page for more information)


Bookmark and Share

An appeal to allow Conference to debate NHS reforms

Below is the text of a motion on the NHS reforms that wasn’t accepted for debate by Conference Committee, including two short update paragraphs. Dr. Charles West is appealing this rejection, if you’d like to support this appeal please click here to sign up.

Conference Motion on Heath

Conference…
A) notes

1) the long-standing support of Liberal Democrats for the basic principles underpinning the National Health services: A high quality, accountable, responsive, accessible, comprehensive service, free at the point of use, funded by general taxation, with resources allocated fairly on the basis of need.
2) the decision of this conference in March 2011, to reassert our support for the implementation of the health policies in the Coalition Programme and to reject certain policies that were not in the Coalition Programme.

B) applauds the success of the Liberal Democrats in Government and in Parliament in obtaining amendments to the legislation and policy, including those which:-

1) increase transparency and accountability of Commissioning Consortia and ensuring they are responsible for the commissioning services for everyone living or visiting that area
2) uphold and promote the NHS constitution
3) rule out competition based on price as first suggested by the last Labour Government
4) modify Monitor’s role such that it is no longer an economic regulator charged with promoting competition as an end in itself,
5) recognises the importance of integrating health services and integrating health with social care in the interests of delivering high quality care.
6) the promise of fair financial arrangements to reimburse providers who treat patients with the greatest needs to tackle cherry-picking of patients by new providers;
7) remove the obligation on commissioning consortia to take responsibility for commissioning before they are ready and able.

C) recognises that the Government is itself no longer the universal provider of health services, but that democratic accountability of NHS services requires that the Secretary of State should retain the ultimate legal responsibility for securing the provision of NHS healthcare for the people of England

D) recognises that determining how to spend tax-payers’ money on NHS services is a public function, which must be carried out with full transparency, with the minimum of perceived or actual conflicts of interests; and reiterates our call for work which directly underpins commissioning decisions to be carried out using the skills and experience of NHS staff, and not be permitted to be outsourced to private companies.

E) Believes that promoting informed patient choice is desirable but, in the interests of equity, calls for:-

1) any legislative or mandated requirement on commissioners, the NHS CB or the Secretary of State, to enhance choice and competition should be a lower priority than their duty to increase quality and safety, improve fair access to services and reduce health inequalities.
2) patients, if utilising personal health budgets, to be prevented from spending tax-payers money on topping up privately-funded provision or on non-cost-effective treatments

F) endorses the proposition in the Coalition programme that public sector, voluntary sector providers and independent providers should generally be treated equally when services are commissioned or when providers are approved, subject to:-

1) there being a duty on the NHS CB, Consortia, Monitor and on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to carry out their functions in a way that avoids the risk of a transfer of such income or case-load as to undermine the ability of existing providers to provide emergency, complex case and intensive care services and to provide education, training and research and
2) that Monitor’s duty to prevent anti-competitive behaviour which is against the interests of patients, is matched by a duty to prevent anti-collaborative behaviour for the same purpose.

X) re-affirms its long-standing support for more local democracy in the NHS and calls for

1. Health and Well-being Boards (HWBs) to have a majority of elected members
2. local authorities exercising their overview and scrutiny function and HWBs to have the power of referral to the Secretary of State
3. commissioning groups to be fully co-terminous with social services local authorities, except where HWBs and local authorities agree otherwise
4. Directors of Public Health to remain independent sources of expert advice

Y) cherishes the fundamental values of the NHS and demands that
1. Commissioning groups are funded solely on the basis of the health needs of the population and the power to pay financial incentives to practitioners as a means of influencing their referral behaviour, is removed
2. the cap on Private patient income by NHS Foundation trusts is retained
3. the facility for transferring NHS assets, including land, to third party providers is removed

G) calls on Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to ensure that the current health reforms do not go beyond the coalition agreement in these areas

Bookmark and Share

Emergency Motion on Health Reforms

Dr. Charles West is submitting an Emergency Motion on the NHS reforms. If you would like to support this motion please click here to sign up.

Reforming the NHS

Conference notes that the March 2011 Conference clearly rejected several aspects of the Health and Social Care Bill (“the Bill”), which breached the agreed Coalition Programme.

Conference applauds Nick Clegg and our ministerial team on achieving changes to the Bill reflecting some of those concerns.

Conference however further notes
a) that since the beginning of July the Bill has been amended in the Public Bill Committee without fully addressing our concerns.
b) that the Government published further amendments on 2nd September for the report stage of the Bill on the 6th and 7th September 2011 without address any of the outstanding concerns.
c) the amended Bill still contains significant proposals for the NHS which go well beyond the Coalition Programme and have widely criticised by health professionals, academics, managers, and the wider public over the Summer.
d) after the re-examination of the Bill in committee and after Parliament had gone into recess the Health Secretary issued instructions to PCTs obliging them to identify three services to be put out to contract in an exercise that could see an extra £1bn of NHS money being paid to private providers.

Conference is concerned that:
I. the underlying Conservative agenda is the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS, with the Secretary of State and the NHS no longer delivering healthcare but simply buying it in the ‘market’.
II. the promotion of “choice” is being used by the Conservatives as a smokescreen for the promotion of competition at the expense of co-operation and integration.
III. the NHS in England is being floated off into independent buyers and providers of care divorced from the state and from political accountability, and that £80 billion of tax-payers money is to be spent with little or no direct political accountability at local or national level.

Conference believes:
A. that a competitive market is not an appropriate model for delivering healthcare in the UK, nor one that the Liberal Democrats can help to bring nearer.
B. that Liberal Democrat MPs and peers should not be whipped to support Conservative policies that go beyond the coalition agreement and which have been rejected by our conference.

Conference therefore for calls for the bill to be amended by:
1. the removal of all references to promoting competition whether directly or indirectly.
2. any duty to promote choice being made subsidiary to duties to promote fair access, equality of outcomes, and integrated services.
3. the removal of the facility for transferring NHS assets, including land, to third party providers.
4. retaining the cap on Private patient income by NHS Foundation trusts.
5. the restoration of the duty of the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of, healthcare services, and the reinstatement of the power of the Secretary of State to delegate his functions to NHS commissioners and to direct them as necessary.
6. the retention of the ability of the local authority overview and scrutiny function to refer significant services changes to the Secretary of State for adjudication.
7. providing that Health and Well-being Boards (HWBs) have a majority of elected members and are able refer unresolved disputes with local commissioners to the Secretary of State rather than to a national qango.
8. the explicit prohibition of the wholesale outsourcing of commissioning work to private companies.
9. guaranteeing that commissioning groups are fully co-terminous with social services local authorities, except where HWBs and local authorities agree otherwise, and are funded solely on the basis of the health needs of the population.
10.the removal of the power to pay financial incentives to practitioners as a means of influencing their referral behaviour.
11.rejection of any personal health budget scheme which allow users to spend NHS funds on private health insurance or as a top up towards private health care or to buy services or treatments judged too ineffective or inefficient for the NHS to buy.
12.the inclusion of a duty on all NHS bodies, when arranging with non-NHS bodies to provide services, to avoid any risk of essential NHS services (including teaching and research) being destabilised in an unplanned way through loss of income or case-load,
and
13.ensuring Directors of Public Health remain independent sources of expert advice.

and further calls for the active support of these objectives, as party policy, by Liberal Democrat Parliamentarians and, in the absence of all of these changes being made, calls for Liberal Democrat Parliamentarians to reject the Health and Social Care Bill in its entirety.

Bookmark and Share

Green Investment Bank amendment

Please support this amendment to F38: A Green Stimulus for Economic Recovery, which you will find on pages 43-44 of the Conference Agenda.

If you are a conference representative, then please add your ‘signature’ by filling in the form below. Thank you!

Note: strong as this motion is, it doesn’t go far enough on the matter of green financial investment. Crucial to both the rebalancing and de-carbonisation of the UK economy, innovative investment in green industry should form the backbone of Lib Dem economic policy. This amendment will enable the SLF to argue for the green investment bank and allied green investment to be brought forward in order to stimulate green growth sooner than is currently planned.

Amendment to F38: A Green Stimulus for Economic Recovery

After para 5 (lines 30-32), add new 6 and re-number:
Consider further measures to stimulate investment in green infrastructure and technologies, through the Green Investment Bank and other investment and retail banks, including promoting green financial products such as green ISAs.


Bookmark and Share