The LibDems' Titanic revival

Five years ago I made a prediction about the fate of the party in the General election in 2015.

Sadly, I was right.

Early last week I made a prediction about the fate of the Medway LibDems in the local elections which drew heavily on a metaphor of von Spee's fleet with the two Councillors leading the three candidates and despite wild inaccuracies from our opponants we were out gunned despite a valiant show went down with all hands.

Sadly I was right again.

Last Friday night as we sat waiting for the Local vote mulling over the General election the Titanic soundtrack came onto my I-pod and I pictured the scene where Thomas Andrews, Titanic's

designer  was explaining to Captain Smith, Bruce Ismay and collected deck officers how the vessel would sink.

She would go down by the head with water flowing over the water tight bulkheads - There would be no stopping it.

This got me thinking about the National party. Clearly we have hit a big 'burg and after the loss of a swathe of very talented MPs we were going down by the head and it would only be a matter of time before people were abandoning ship enmasse and only a few loyal members would go down with the ship still tirelessly working in the Engine room.

This prediction is looking, thankfully, to be unfounded.

Greg Mulholland MP - Fighting back

Over the weekend whilst I was mulling things over and having these dark thoughts the strangest thing happened.

Out of nowhere thousands of supporters rose up and joined the party, including my friend Caz and I'm working on my wife still. These people are angry at the treatment of a party who had given so much in government and was being punished for Tuition fees and for putting party before country and joining the Tories in a Coalition to reverse a horrendous financial deficit. They were also the compassionate side of the Coalition for the most part having passed many reforms and measures (such as 20 free nursery hours, free school dinners, income tax threshold etc) to help working families.

The big question of who to lead us is also hanging over us. With so much talent lost to the parliamentary
party there was an inherent fear that there would be a vacuum but this is not the case. Tim Farron, former president and one of the leading lights is being touted as a serious leadership challenger as is Norman Lamb who has worked closely with Nick Clegg over the years. Behind the scenes as well is Greg Mulholland who is tweeting frantically about change within the party and getting leaner, keener and meaner as well as getting up out of the dust immediately and pushing forward with all its might - a sentiment shared by many of us!

This party is not deceased, nor is it mortally wounded. It has escaped the fate of Titanic and is looking like the engineering crew will get her back afloat and going again and I am very excited to be a part of this!

Greg Mulholland to disestablish CofE???

Imagine my surprise last night, when I was leafing through the Evening Standard on the train home, and discovered that Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West) is taking the first steps to disestablishing the

Church of England.

Er.... Are you sure Chris?

Afraid so. If you don't believe me the whole article was reproduced in the Huffingdon post.

To go into greater detail it isn't as bad as it sounds.

One of the most divisive parts of the introduction of Gay marriage has been the fact that basically the state is perceived as ordering Religious leaders to make it so and dictating rules on what people had to believe.

One of the problems that many probably had with the proposition of equal marriage was that the state was effectively telling them that their beliefs were wrong and correcting the word of God rather than any deep seated Homophobic views or hatred. The British government has no right to tell Muslims, Catholics or even Church of England what they can believe.

I know some scions of the Christian Church still view homosexuality as wrong or sinful and although, I personally have a more enlightened approach I cannot tell them that their interpretation of the scriptures and Bible are wrong. After all the freedom to practise your own spirituality and beliefs is one of the cores of Liberalism - as long as it isn't being actively used to persecute and restrict the freedoms of the Gay community.

So we reach an impasse of what is more important - something Greg has stressed in this online press release on the subject.

He states:

I also want to make it clear that, as a liberal, I do also believe that it should be up to each faith and belief based organisation to decide for themselves what they believe marriage to mean and who it should be open to. I also do believe that the current situation, where same sex couples in civil partnerships lack some of the rights of civil married opposite sex couples (notably on partner's pension rights) is not equal or fair and must be addressed.

Which I think is something we can all agree with.

It further makes sense that you should secularise civil and state marriages and leave them as a wholly

civil/state controlled affair.

I am a little shaky on the removal of the clause that means adultery can be used as grounds for divorce but lets see how that plays out.

This isn't the end of the Church of England, nor is it a great secularisation of State and marriage, rather a way of encouraging equality for married couples, no matter what your orientation, and giving religious bodies the right to practise their beliefs and definitions of marriage as they see fit. How can this be a problem?

Religion is not as big a part of a significant part of the nation's life anymore, unless you are dying or there is a major sporting event on and for many marriage is about the committing as a couple rather than before God. Attitudes have changed as well over the last fifty years and now Homosexuality is considered, and rightly so, as the norm where as my Grandad was a policeman at the time it was illegal and was involved in arrests!

Greg's motion is something that should definitely be considered and is the best liberal answer to a groundbreaking move within politics and society to finally make people equal in marriage. It is hardly the first step in disestablishing the C of E, but giving them the freedom to practise their beliefs without interference from the State.

Party losing Liberalness over Gay Marriage?

I am hoping that what I have read recently turns out to be false, if it is not then we have some serious problems within the party.

I read that Lynne Featherstone MP, minister for equalities is pushing for the up coming vote in the Commons on Gay marriage to be whipped so MPs "Should" vote "Yes" rather than voting with their conscience.

Now I'm not a religious man, I lost my faith as a young man and my faith is in Liberty, Chivalry and democracy and I feel that whipping this vote is wrong.

I'm all for Gay marriage. If two people love each other and want to commit before their friends, family and their God then so be it - I think it is the only right thing to do and for me there is nothing more important than standing for love.

But people with religious views will disagree. The Bible and Qu'ran have clear cut views on Homosexuality and although many religious folk are accepting there are still those who feel strongly that it is an affront to God. You can label the Homophobes or Zealots as much as you will but each persons faith and belief is sacred to them and will not be changed just because You tell them its wrong.

My question is - who are we to tell people what to believe?

Now, I don't agree with Nadine Dorries, nor did I agree with the abortion clause that she wanted to add to the NHS bill but the vote on abortion was left as a vote of conscience. I know that Greg Mulholland who voted for it was labelled a religious pro-life zealot in some circles, I saw the tweets, but he stood by his beliefs, convictions and faith.

I really believe that this should be done with the Gay Marriage issue too. It is a matter of conscience not party and should be left as such and although I hope and trust that the motion will be passed I also hope that people will vote with their consciences and not because they are instructed to. If their belief's are being dictated by the Government then it flies in the face of everything this Party (and I) stands for and believes in - which is why I hope that the original statement is indeed false.

The "New Politics" is dead.

One of the things that drew me to the Liberal Democrats, apart from polices, was a certain honesty that wasn't questionable unlike New Labour and their spin machine and the fading memories of Conservative sleaze that rocked the Major Administration.

I became inspired by Nick. As the expenses scandal hit the news and the "truth" that the public had held about MPs being corrupt was proven, only one person seemed to be listening to the public out cry as Nick called for Parliament to extend its session to get to the bottom of this.

Leadership debates followed and Clegg stepped up over the bickering of Blue vs. Red and spoke to the people, spoke to me.
"The New Politics" it was dubbed. Moving away from party over people or bitter blood feuds against the old enemy. Its something I believe in, something I think is worth fighting for.

But New Politics is now the same as the Old.

70% of people failed to vote last week in local elections, Politics is failing the people.

Parliament is like the battle of Waterloo - A furious battle between two opposing armies hell bent on the other's destruction. In fact blog posts and Political pundits of all sides talk in terms that sound like Napoleonic battle reports.
(I'm not singling out Cllr Osborne as an attack, only for illustrative purposes as writers from all parties are guilty of this - So if you're reading this Tris I'm sorry.)

Both sides are now hell bent on taking the middle ground, a metaphorical La Haye Saint, and losing strength on their left and right flanks respectively.

I know (well hope), that at heart politicos believe their candidate would be the best at representing the people than the others but outwardly it seems that its all about the winning.

When slogans like Labour cannot win here (Winchester Conservative Group) or Only Labour can oppose the Tory Council (Medway Labour) and the Libdems have done as bad. It sounds pathetic and I want to bang peoples heads together and knock some sense into them.

Take a look around you.

The Public have been screwed over by Labour, they've faced Conservative austerity and now they've been failed by the Libdems too and the paragon of virtue that was Nick Clegg has "Sold Out" for a whiff of power.

No one perceivable politician or party stands up for the common man.

My Sister said to me a few weeks ago;
Why should I vote? What's the point they're all the same - A year ago I'd had an answer but now there is only silence.

Cllr Juby raised similar comments in "Party People" a few weeks ago about a lack of representation and too much Party before people and I echo those sentiments. Maybe its because we're such a small group in Medway with a small clutch of Councillors - I'm not trying to be Holier than thou- but we spend a lot of time talking about the people of Medway rather than a resurgent Gold tide that will sweep the Tories and Labour away. Although I'm sure my observations could be true for Libdem groups and politicos around the country too.

Another thing is the misleading comments. Last week before the local and Mayoral elections rising Labour star Chuka Umunna tweeted this:

Needless to say there was no response.

Voting Labour in a local election today will not oust Cameron tomorrow. Last year local Libdem Councillors were berated on the doorstep for their failure to stop tuition fees! This isn't down to voter ignorance but to years and years of political leaflets blurring the party lines between local and national issues.

Yet, hope remains were company stays true... Some MPs including Libdems Greg Mulholland, Dr Julian Huppert and local Conservative MP Tracey Crouch (to name but a few) restore a certain amount of faith in that they are willing to put down Party loyalty and vote for their constituencies. Mulholland and Huppert voted against tuition fee rises and the NHS bills! Tracey recently stood up for constituents against the Government line on Mesothelioma and Asbestosis sufferers.

Party's are about linking like minded people with in parliament not about forming two separate power blocs who are hell bent on the destruction of the other. Politicians, politicos and pundits are losing sight of what its all about and I urge everyone to please take a look around you and remember why we are doing what we're doing and try to recapture that idea of "New Politics" it is what is needed for the benefit of all.

Rebellious MP Mark Reckless

Mark Reckless MP for Rochester and Strood was the third most rebellious Conservative MP in England. He has defied the Government line 20 times - mostly over Europe but also over Tuition fees.

Tracey Crouch has "rebelled" twice and was absent/abstained for the Tuition fees vote and Rehman Chishti has not rebelled once.

When asked about this dubious honour he said;

The Conservative Whips in action.

In the short term it probably is a trade off [Against a Ministerial job]  but in the long term its important to stand up for what you believe in and what your constituency want.

This is what Parliamentary MPs should do. This was one of the reasons a PR style government was not chosen for the electoral reform referendum as everyone likes a point of contact and it keeps MPs responsible to someone. After all is your loyalty primarily to the Prime Minister? The party? The Government or your Constituency? I'd say the latter.

Every MP is different as is every constituency and the difference could be that one constituency is more Pro Europe than another.

The other thing that some politico's and commentators forget is that Political parties are not all one voice.
If you join the Liberal Democrats you instantly agree with Nick...

I can assure you that is certainly not the case.

The same is true with national Politics and "Rebel MPs" should be congratulated for having the balls to stand up for what they believe in. (In fact Anyone who stands firm and true to their personal beliefs should be commended for it.) Members don't agree with everything their leader says or even everything that is in their manifesto, even if they do they don't necessarily agree with their leader's application of it or even a Government's answers to national problems. There is also the issue of personal honour and pledges. MPs like Greg Mulholland and Julian Huppert voted "No" on tuition - not just because it was a bad idea but because they had pledged to vote No and run promising to vote No.

John Stuart Mill wrote in "On Liberty" that one should not be dominated by the will of the majority and nor should they.

A rebel MP is not a problem and as long as they are representing their constituents then they are indeed doing what they are meant to - likewise an MP that follows the party line and is following the wishes of their constituents or prove that they are working in their best interests are also doing their job.

Greg Mulholland and the Dorries amendment.

In the aftermath of the Dorries Amendment last week there were many stunned Lib Dems who looked down the Hansrad list and saw Liberal Democrat's who had voted for it.

One such name was Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West. How could a Liberal Democrat vote for such Illiberal policy? Surely it would be naturally abhorrent to any Liberal? These "Liberals" are the enemy of all we stand for right?

I'm not so certain. Firstly, I don't agree with Dorries, I believe that a woman should be allowed to decide what she wants to do with her body and should be free to decide either way without being forced into termination OR keeping a pregnancy. My main problem with this whole episode was the way she delivered the whole speech and the way she attacked those who were offering up constructive counter arguments and didn't even listen to co-sponsor Frank Field and plowed on regardless.

Right now that's out the way lets address the Illiberal Liberals. I was under the impression that Liberalism allowed for us to accept that others have a different view to our own and that we should be open to debate? Should we not accept that Greg Mulholland has a different vantage point over abortion, disagree if we do, but ultimately respect that?

But his point of view threatens the freedom of choice by the mother and her freedom of action.

What of the freedom of action and of life of the unborn child? (I'm playing Devil's advocate, my belief's on abortion are a little misty as it is something I've not really had to think about in my life since school until now.)

It could be argued that you cannot make a balanced decision until you have received arguments from BOTH sides of the pro life debate.

Another point is that the Dorries Amendment was not a whipped vote. Nor was it a party political vote. It was a vote based on the MP's conscience and beliefs. Are we going to pillory a man who has beliefs contrary to our own just because they are contrary? If anything we should be admiring a man with beliefs who is standing to be counted by them and not worrying about the consequences. I admire soldiers of the Wehrmacht who struggled to defend Berlin, not because they were Nazi's but because they stood by their beliefs and fought.

Greg Mulholland is an asset to the party and especially in parliament. I watched his impassioned speech before the Tuition fee vote intently as he argued for fellow Lib Dems not to be sucked into the Coalition's plan and to stand by their pledge as he did. He wrote in the Mirror on the same lines.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/opinion/2010/12/09/greg-mulholland-mp-on-why-he-s-voting-against-the-government-115875-22771018/

He also convened the Lib Dem Back bench Group back in February this year to help put across the new back bench as it were to party leadership and for them to stand united stating;

"We look forward to working constructively with Ministers and the Liberal Democrat leadership to make the government programme as positive as possible in these difficult times, as well as bringing a distinctively Liberal Democrat perspective to some debates"

Clearly marking that sometimes it seemed as if a LibDem voice was being lost. If you follow him, as I do, on Twitter you'll notice that his tweets are all about his constituency and the work he does for it. His entry on Libdems.org shows his local involvement and states that he is first and foremost a local MP, not a party MP. His hard work for the people of Leeds should be commended as should his voting record. He stood firm against Tuition fees, he also voted against the NHS reform. Should we be so quick to wash our hands of him over a difference of opinion?

I don't think so. I foresee a great future in the party for him.

Political blame game.

The more I indulge in politics, especially concentrating on the local scene, the more I am seeing more and more incidents where debates can end up being platforms for point scoring or rapidly descending into blaming everyone else.

It has become more and more of a phenomena over the last few years- or maybe I'm just noticing it now! Maybe it has been going on for centuries.

During the war of 1812 was Lord North's administration blamed for losing the colonies in the first place?

As the bombs fell on Berlin, did Interior Minister Frick release a press statement blaming Stresseman for Versailles?

I should like to raise my hand and say that I have never been partisan or tried to score points for my party. - I can't though- Often it comes back to siding with the Conservatives in defending the Coalition or on occasions agreeing with Labour over a misguided policy of Medway Council.

I do try and stay out of a blame game though.

I've watched many a debate dissolve into an argument as to whose fault it is. I was talking to someone last week about the train fare rises and the political side of it. I told him I was tired of the blaming and squabbling and he responded with;

The only ones who care about that is you guys.

It is true.

As a commuter I want answers and solutions to the problems not someone to blame! What am I to do with someone to blame? Vote for the other party in four years time because of a policy twenty years ago- especially when the other guy hasn't any better suggestions!

Charles Kennedy wrote that people do not appreciate or understand the game of "Political Rugby" that seems to be modern politics and all it does is alienate the electorate who are watching them on BBC parliament. One of the issues of this country is is that the electorate feels very detached from government as if they are moving in separate worlds.

It could be argued that this is very true, even of the local council! Politicians (both local and national) seem to be more interested in point scoring and party politics rather than looking after their constituents!

Even issues that both parties agree on can break up into arguments. I once saw a discussion about the Hoo Peninsula Airport, on which a Tory and Labour councillor agreed upon (that it was a bad idea) dissolve into an argument as to who was to blame for it, who wasn't going to do what and the effectiveness of local MP's and yet at the bottom of it - All three of us agreed on the issue but it put casual readers, even myself off, the subject entirely.

It is one thing understanding where a bad policy or incident occurred. It is the nature of learning, identify a problem and work on solutions. However sometimes it does seem that we get bogged down in the past rather than looking to the future and solving the problem.

We must remember who we are here to serve... Not our parties, not the chief whips but the people and what they want and what is good for your constituents. That's why I have the utmost respect for Greg Mulholland (LD) , Julian Huppert (LD) and Tracey Crouch (Con) who all voted against the government on "Tuition fees"
and for the benefit of their constituents and their beliefs.

It is also sad, and I've said this many a time before hand, that Good/ Excellent constituency MP's lose their seats because of their party affiliation when it comes to the General Election. Be they Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem. It seems the electorate would often rather swing votes to another party just so "they" don't get in and cut their nose of to spite their face, suffering five years under a complete pillock just because he is not one of "them".

More importantly, effective opposition needs to be constructive. It seems the current Labour opposition, and to be fair the Conservatives were the same when they were in opposition, seem to be concentrating in criticising Government policy without actually coming up with alternatives. It is easy to sit and jeer at someone and to say;
"You're wrong!"
It takes a sharper intellect and more vote worthy party to come up with alternatives to the Government plans. Take the Conservative vs. Liberal and Labour battles of the 1920's over the policy of Protectionism or the Liberal vs Conservative on Lords reform. Alternatives and compromises were made, for the good of the country and policy was passed. If you're in an opposing party you can say;
"I think that you aren't doing enough... BUT have you thought about doing this?"
Again the people suffer as the Government or elected representatives continue to act as they see fit and so for four maybe five years it is the electorate that suffer.

MP's (and councillors) are selected from among the people, voted for by the people, to represent the people and they shouldn't forget that their primary allegiance is to the people they represent and dedicate the time they use sniping and trying to gain political kudos for themselves and party, to helping those people and come election time your good work will be remembered.