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.

Southwark Council want to spend 120k on A roof terrace!

(Thanks to @juptin for passing this one to me)

In the past I have been quite critical over the matter of the wasted expenditure, and it is something that I think we should keep an eye upon as Councils (and even the Government) spend our tax money in trust on services that will benefit the area/country.

I am proud to say that the LibDem faction of Southwark council caught and blocked this bid by the Southwark Labour council to spend £120k on building a roof terrace at the Council HQ at Tooley Street for VIP functions!

According to Lib Dem Councillor Anood Al-Samerai's website this facility wouldn't be open to anyone but the Labour Mayor, Labour colleagues and VIPs from buisness soirees.

This expenditure from a council that is closing Older Resident Daycares and Council employees are facing redundancy!

"I am delighted that Liberal Democrat Councillors in Bermondsey stood up for the residents of our borough and refused this outrageous Labour Plan."

Councillor Anood Al-Samerai said at the Bermondsey Community Council Planning meeting on the 8th September.

"This shows why it is so important that elected local councillors make planning decisions at local community councils rather than the centralised decision making that Labour wants.
Lib Dems continue to campaign agains t Labour waste and Hypocrisy."

Indeed we should against any governing power, including our own.
(http://anoodalsamerai.mycouncillor.org.uk/ward/2011/09/08/Labour-Southwark-plan-for---120k-roof-terrace-blocked)

Lib Dem Peer defies Cameron on Marriage

Well, I'd hardly call it true defiance, more proving a point.

The Conservatives want a return of good old fashioned family values, nothing wrong with that, and especially after the Riots they want to see parenting coming back into play and family units actually working rather than parents allowing their children to do whatever and not taking part in society proper. To encourage this David Cameron has said, when the state can afford it, that he would like to look into giving married couples a tax break.

Today in the House of Lords, Bishop of Wakefield asked Lord McNally (the Libdem Justice minister) to give the house reassurances that the Coalition will encourage marriage to which Lord McNally refused.

"One goes out on to very thin ice. I am not sure that it is for a government to promote marriage any more than it is for them to promote any other relationship,
They say Elizabeth Taylor was in favour of marriage because she got married eight times."

This is very true. As a married man I am all for tax breaks for my family but why should I receive a tax break just for those reasons yet a couple in a long term relationship with two children that are unmarried do not? What of civil partnerships and gay couples that cohabit? Why should they not receive the same benefit as a married heterosexual couple?

If it isn't one rule for all it shouldn't pass. A sheet of paper that officiates a marriage doesn't mean that a couple love each other more than a couple that stayed unmarried. I've known couples who have been together for years but after getting married they've lasted six months. My parents were married for ten years before divorce but lived separately for three years and my mother worked damn hard to bring my sister and I up well and she did a fantastic job on her own. Why shouldn't she get a tax break?
Priti Patel MP commented that "His (Lord McNally) comments are surprising. Marriage is the bedrock of our society."

I thought it was common law, freedom and equality that formed the bedrock of society an at the centre of that family rather than a piece of paper. Who is to say what constitutes a strong family unit?

The Shadow of Dr Evan Harris.

Amid the clashing of sabres and the heated arguments that resounded through the House of Commons today one name was thrown around a lot, a spectre of the past that, according to Nadine Dorries, controls the party politics and the direction of the Liberal Democrat party. A spectre so powerful that even after losing his seat in last year's general election continues to hold sway over Nick Clegg and even David Cameron using bully tactics and blackmail to enforce his beliefs and whims. His name is Dr Evan Harris.

Evan Harris, the former MP for Abingdon and Oxford West has always had strong secular views and has worked for pro-choice and open debate on assisted suicides - earning him the well known nickname, which out of respect for Dr Harris, I will not repeat here as it is indeed awful to compare a man with firm political and secular beliefs with a well known SS Surgeon who experimented on the vulnerable etc. These are difficult subjects, ones that take a lot of moral fibre to discuss with complex debate and they need to be had.

Since he lost his seat in 2010 Evan has been working hard and is very prominent on the Social Lib Dem forum, a place where left leaning LibDems go to discuss policy, voice concerns and opinions. He is also one of the vice chairs for creating Federal Lib Dem policy. He has indeed had issue with coalition policy, as have we all at times and is one of the key movers and shakers talking about the NHS reform and the Dorries amendment. He has been vocal, on Twitter and other mediums about his views and ideas - but what is wrong with that? I've spoken with Evan through the medium of Twitter and joined the Social liberal Forum because I believe in the work they are doing and what they believe. I've always found Evan to be intelligent and calm with his tweets - Nor does he try to brain wash, rather reason and produce evidence.

Part of Liberalism and indeed politics is about having views, voicing opinions and getting the opposition to account for their ideas and statements rather than just letting them off the hook. Evan is also well placed to voice the views and opinions on the Social Liberal Forum along with Tim Farron, with the Party leadership in private and at conference, which again is a good thing isn't it?

However to suggest that Evan is a devious mastermind who has blackmailed Nick Clegg and David Cameron into doing HIS bidding is preposterous! As he is not an MP, nor have any specific power how can he enforce his will upon them? Didn't Dorries accuse Nick Clegg of talking the Prime Minister into backing down on Tuesday? Didn't she also say that the Lib Dems were too much of an influence on parliament too? It seems to outrageous to claim that Evan Harris is controlling the party like some twisted puppet master, he is but one voice - one voice in many. It was also unfair of another member to accuse Dr Julian Huppert of being ;

"Evan Harris' vicar on Earth"

Afterall Dr Huppert was merely stating an opposing view to Dorries that she didn't agree with that coincided with Evan's arguments. Dr Julian Huppert is a educated grown man capable of making up his own mind and deciding what he believes in, so why make it seem like he is Evan's mouth piece?

It was an unfair and unfounded comment by Nadine Dorries. Dr Harris is doing what anyone with a strong interest and belief in politics does, voice his opinion and argue rationally to support it. He is not some kind of evil Sith lord controlling parliament from a bunker in Abingdon with a roller rack of files with which to black mail Members of Parliament and the DPM/ PM. I sincerely hope Evan Harris continues to speak up for Lib Dem members who feel their opinions and beliefs are being maligned by the coalition. He is an asset to the party not a shady voice from its past.

PMQs: Nadine Dorries Question.

I've done something that rarely happens. I have left PMQs halfway through to sit and write, and write cross. (arguably I've written some of my best work cross!)

Prime Minister's Questions is an open forum for the Prime minister to be questioned about policy and direct issues to do with constituencies and since is televisation, and I agree with Charles Kennedy on this one, that it has become more of an open circus with people making media statements and trying to get noticed.

Any way today, and I should I have since this coming considering my previous post; ( http://gingerliberal.blogspot.com/2011/09/covert-whipping-and-nadine-dorries.html) Nadine Dorries asked the Prime minister;

"Considering that the Liberal Democrats make up only 8% of parliament why do they have such a large impact on Government policy? When will the Prime Minister tell the Deputy Prime Minister who is boss?"

Or words to that affect.

Firstly, a quick stats check... There may only be 50 Lib Dem MPs but 25% of the vote across the country was for the Liberal Democrats, so we are pretty unrepresented.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is being discussed by the whole house this afternoon and it isn't just the Lib Dems who oppose her amendment, in fact large groups across the country are against it, we are merely voicing their concerns which is what you are supposed to do in the House.

As for the Lib Dem influence on the Coalition? Maybe we do have a large influence, however there is a lot of common ground between our two parties and so a lot of the Government policy is naturally agreed upon and tweaked where necessary by both sides. We've had to sign off on things that we've not agreed on, Tuition Fees for example or Trident... The coalition is a partnership and we both have to make sacrifices - That's how it works!

I know, as I said in the previously mentioned post, that Ms Dorries thinks that Nick Clegg has influenced the Prime Minister and the letter that was sent to all MPs but this is not the case. She is frustrated that her amendment is not getting support and is looking for someone to blame. 

Both parties are in this Coalition together, and lets not forget why we are doing this, for "Real change" to the country and to sort out the massive deficit that has befallen the nation.

Will we always agree? No!

Do we negotiate and talk before finding a common ground that we can agree on like adults? Yes.

If Ms Dorries has a problem with the way the Government is being run, she should talk to her party leader, Mr Cameron and voice her concerns properly, not on national television in front of the whole house like that. It makes valid concerns that some Conservatives have about the government look like spoilt children.

We do not throw our toys out of the pram at PMQs just because we think the other kids are deciding what games are played. It's school yard and infantile and not the kind of grown up politics that this nation needs.

Liberals vs. Liberals

More of a comment than a Blog post really.

I saw, last week, an argument brewing between a few Lib Dems about the upcoming Lib Dem conference and the security measures put in place.

It wasn't the standard debate that we in the party usually love but almost a battle from different ideologies. I know the party is a cross spectra party based on Liberal theory and democracy rather than servicing the left or the right but this was something else.

There seemed to be a misunderstanding over someones choice not to attend vs their inability to attend due to not being able to. The basic drift was that due to reasons beyond their control one couldn't complete the Security clearance in a satisfactory manner and thus was barred from going, they were merely making the point that their vote/opinion did not matter and that ultimately there might as well be no conference this year.

This met with a stinging rebuke saying that they had chosen not to go.

This security clearance has divided party members, and I agree that it is a little extreme considering that I will be (hopefully) attending the South east conference and only need to submit my name, number and a cheque for £20's and Simon Hughes and Chris Huhne will be there who, although not Nick Clegg, are viable terrorist targets. However some people have gone too far in either direction, some believing it to be draconian, others misconstruing comments and feel they've been called Nazis, then there are comments that other liberals are living in an ideal world and security must be maintained...

Lets not forget though that the party have enough enemies out there, let alone turning on each other over pointless disagreements. Lets keep the debate healthy people!

National death of the party?

One of my friends stated the other day that he would like to see the Liberal Democrats completely destroyed in 2015. Well I'm sure many echo this statement but is it a fair prediction of our fate?

The national party may die or be severely wounded. ( I hope the electorate will keep the MP's who work wonders for their constituents) We may be set back twenty or thirty years back to the days of Grimmond's ascendancy but we still have the local councillors who do an excellent job and one day we will be back.

Since the Liberal Democrats have been in power we have put through legislation that was in our manifesto including cutting income tax for the first £10,000 you earn and shifting tax to those who ear more, ran a referendum on electoral reform, getting rid of the ID database, end of house arrests,  putting through reform to the house of lords into an elected house, pupil premium, Free pre-school for under privileged kids... In short the party is carrying out the promises it made in the manifesto a year ago, in fact 75% of our manifesto is being worked on by the current government rather than the 68% of our Coalition partners.

Apart from the obvious good that these policies do the further good is that the electorate now know who we are and what we stand for. We no longer sit on the side lines only attracting malcontents, humus eaters and idealists. We can finally hold our heads up proudly stating we have made a difference and are the serious party we were under Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith or Grimmond.

However we have not done ourselves any favours with the electorate. In Medway I have recently learnt of some of the tricks and misleading behaviour of the party of yesteryear. ( thanks to John Ward, local font of all local political knowledge. His blog post on the subject http://wwwjohn-m-ward.blogspot.com/2011/09/way-they-were.html with links to contemporary posts makes very interesting reading and should serve as a warning to future Focus writers!)  The so called "Dirty tricks guide" that was circulated some ten years ago has been fully embraced by some local party groups and even some running for general  election and it has come back to bite them on the arse.

We have also discovered that some of the policies and ideas that we have put forward in our manifesto and indeed in long term aims are not workable in National Government at this current time but unfortunately it makes the party look like bounders and liars. The big sticking point was Tuition Fees and, if the fear mongers are right, the up coming Health bill. As the Junior partners in the Coalition (and the ones who have signed up with the Conservatives to let them into power) we are the ones the Public are drawn to every time something bad happens or the Tories push an unpopular policy through. It is "clearly Clegg's fault" and they will remember this when it comes to the 2015 election and forget the good work we have done and the fact that we inherited a broken system and have done what we, as a party, thought was best.

Nick has become a hate figure, the media and press mock him as Cameron's lap dog and a sell out of all that he/we believe in just for personal power. I see him as more of a martyr for Liberalism, drawing all of the fire for the coalition but at the same time making our policies happen and getting the best deal that with Cameron to make policies as acceptable to the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

The big hope of keeping the National party alive in 2015 is the individual actions of MPs and where they stand on the issues and how they represent their constituencies. The party relies on being there for the people, the people they represent at a national level and the MP's right to vote against the Party's aims. MP's like Tim Farron (party president), Greg Mulholland, Julian Huppert have voted against tuition fees, others, as I revealed yesterday, are going to vote against the Health bill. We can but hope that the public will judge wisely when it comes to the General Election on the individuals actions rather than accept another parties vitreol about "Fib-dems!"

We still have people we represent. Though Liberalism is a principle, a method of governance not a group to represent however its' voice is being lost. The middle ground is being encroached upon by the Conservatives and Labour and we are losing voters as well as members. In conversations with a local Conservative councillor recently we were talking about cross party defections and he said that the Conservative party were not what they once were and a more "Open church, you would be welcomed." I don't intend to jump ship anytime soon, though I thank them for the compliments. The very real problem is that we could suddenly find ourselves without a base to represent. We need to address this quickly or we shall cease to have a purpose and die out.

I have faith that the local parties and the good local councillors will keep the party alive as they tackle local issues and in a way that does translate to the national level - such as Greg Mulholland asking about the closure of the Leeds heart ward. It will be the life line that can save the good constituent MPs and keep the party alive, it may just save us from death and allow a rebuild.

So where there seems to be darkness there is a faint light but as Gandalf once said;

There are many who live that deserve death, and there are many who are dead that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be to hasty to meat out death and judgement.