Keith Nevols

Immigration and the Lib Dem Policies - Letter to Sittingbourne News Extra

2015-01-07T17:10:00.002+00:00

Mike Apps asks for more policy details and less rhetoric from the parties on the key topic of immigration. I am happy to oblige.

Liberal Democrats believe in the positive attributes of immigration and freedom of movement - in allowing our businesses and industries to employ the cream of the world's top executive talent, in being able to employ foreign citizens to do jobs that British workers do not want to do, and in giving opportunities to our own citizens to live, work or study abroad.

This does not mean though that we should not crack down on those that play the system. Liberal Democrats have continually called for the introduction of exit checks, so we can establish how many are leaving and check on those overstaying visas. Lib Dems would reduce and then abolish child benefit for children living outside the UK. We would require new claimants for Jobseekers Allowance to have English language skills assessed and insist on language classes if necessary. EU migrants would only receive Universal Credit once they have worked in the UK for six months.

And all this is on top of what Liberal Democrats have already achieved in government - such as closing loopholes, reducing levels of appeal, and making it impossible for migrants to leapfrog over local people in the council housing queue.

We do not believe in leaving the European Union, nor do we believe in an aggressive 'keep-them-out-send-them-back' policy. The key is getting the balance right to move towards the benefits of an active and open immigration policy.

Labour's Tax & Liberal Democrat Fairness - Letter to Sittingbourne News Extra

2014-12-23T18:59:00.000+00:00

This letter is a reply to a contribution from Mr Barry Pearson who advocates we should vote Labour because they would take more from the top 1%.

Barry Pearson thinks we should vote Labour because, as he puts it, they will take more from the top 1%. Oh, what a short memory he has. Does he remember what the top rate of tax was from June 1997 to April 2010 under a Labour government? It was 40%. And what is it now? Yes, Barry, it is 45% - so the top 1% are paying 5% more income tax now than they did under Labour.

On top of that, Labour turned a blind eye to various tax avoidance schemes. The coalition government, on the other hand, are clamping down on such measures and have reclaimed £9 billion a year for the Treasury.

Under Labour, the amount you earned before you paid tax was just over £6,000. Thanks to the Liberal Democrats top demand, it is now at £10,500 - that is £800 a year in the pockets of all lower and middle incomes. This policy has proved so popular that even David Cameron is copying it.

And above all, maybe Mr Pearson has forgotten Labour's famous last words - 'sorry, there's no money left'.

In the coalition, Liberal Democrats have put fairness of taxes as the number one priority and, despite the dire state that Labour left the country in, some progress has been made. There is a lot more to do of course, but it is now the Liberal Democrats, not Labour, who, in government, have worked towards fairness in taxation, and only the Liberal Democrats will continue to do so.

Despite talk of bringing down the political elite, the ConLabs may still have the last laugh

2014-12-10T12:23:00.001+00:00

At the last general election in 2010, over a third of voters did not vote Conservative or Labour - two-thirds of whom voted Liberal Democrat.

Since that time, we have seen a decline in the Liberal Democrat vote, along with a rise in other parties - UKIP are propelling forwards constantly in the 15-20% mark, the Greens are making good progress overtaking the Lib Dems in some polls, and the SNP, despite a failed referendum campaign, are going from strength to strength in Scotland. Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru are still campaigning hard, and of course there are the parties from Northern Ireland. At the time of writing, there are 11 different parties with MPs in the House of Commons.

Polls show the combined ratings of the Conservative and Labour parties (the 'ConLabs') hover around the early 60s - the lowest for about 100 years.

This has caused much excitement in the circles of some political observers. There is talk of no party ever having a majority again, of multi-party politics, of coalitions with two or three parties becoming a permanent feature, of smaller groups talking about the balance of power.

However, there is a huge stumbling block. It is our old favourite - the electoral system - the most formidable protector of the two party consensus. While the ConLabs may fall even below 60%, it looks quite possible that their share of the seats will go above 90% for the first time since 1992.

Firstly, the Liberal Democrat decline. Predictions are that they will lose at least a third or even over half of their 57 seats won in 2010. Who will pick most of those up? That's right - the Conservative or Labour parties, with maybe a few to the SNP.

Secondly, UKIP. They have the famous problem that the old Liberal-SDP Alliance struggled with. How to turn votes into seats. Despite the two by election wins, hundreds of councillor victories, and a consistent poll showing in the high teens, latest indicators are that even Nigel Farage will struggle to get into parliament. It is quite possible, after a four week campaign of talk about the government, that UKIP will be squeezed in the classic smaller party tradition and come away with very little, if anything.

Thirdly, the Greens. They have the same problem on a much smaller scale. Their main targets are to hold Caroline Lucas's seat and taking Norwich South - but both are top targets for Labour, the latter will almost certainly go red.

It is quite possible that UKIP and the Greens will get over 20% of the vote between them without a single seat to show for it.

Finally, the SNP. They have an advantage in that, unlike UKIP and the Greens, their support is more concentrated. But you can be sure the general election campaign will focus on who is the UK government - Conservative or Labour. Many SNP supporters may vote Labour to keep the Conservatives out. Indications are that SNP will make some gains - but probably not as spectacular as some of the headlines say.

So the overall question is - will the number of Lib Dem losses exceed the SNP gains? If the answer is yes, then the likely consequence is to increase the number of seats held by the ConLabs.

There will still be a good spread of 'other' MPs of course, and whether there is a hung parliament will depend on how close the Conservative and Labour parties are to each other, but if one of them has a majority, and there is a substantial increase in the number of seats they hold, you can imagine the pleased and smug expressions from the politicians and the media at the re-assertion of the poltical establishment.

Sorry, small parties, they will all say. You have had your fun, but you can't beat the system. It's two party politics, old boy. Back to business as usual.

Letter to Sittingbourne News Extra - A Parliament For England

2014-09-25T19:22:00.004+01:00

With the debate in Scotland over, the focus is rightly shifting onto England and already the Conservative MPs are discussing different ways to betray the voters of England. The latest proposal is for England's MPs to double up as a substitute Assembly which is not only unworkable but also ludicrous.

So Scotland and Wales would get elected assemblies. And England would get a large Commons Committee. Scotland and Wales get First Ministers. England gets jumped up MPs. And you can be sure that England's MPs will want extra reward for their doubled up role.

The only way for equal treatment for the voters of England would be to set up a separate directly elected English Parliament with the same powers and responsibilities of the other assemblies. And before the complaints about more politicians, I would say that, with four national bodies, you would not need so many MPs - so they could be reduced by 80% or so and discuss Union issues only.

Full equality for England should be just that - no more and no less - and without giving England what the other nations have, then equality and fairness will not be achieved.

A Brief History Lesson

2014-05-25T10:51:00.000+01:00

Can you name the time and place?

1. A country which has come through some tough times but beginning to recover

2. A section of society being singled out and blamed by some for the country's ills

3. Individuals concerned about their country's culture and traditions who feel they are being ignored

4. General disillusionment, distrust and, in some cases, absolute hatred, with the established political parties and individuals

5. Controversial posters going up focusing on a campaign of hate and fear

6. Overwhelming apathy with the democratic and political processes

7. Increasing support for a right wing party with a very able and charismatic leader possessing outstanding oratory skills

Got it yet? Yes, that's right.

This is Germany in 1932. Did you think of somewhere else?

Go Back To Your Constituencies - And Prepare For Opposition!

2014-05-06T15:52:00.002+01:00

There is one year to the next general election - and speculation will increase over the result, and the consequences.

As we enter the last year of the coalition government, there is much that we Liberal Democrats can look back on with pride.

We have made progress towards fairer taxation with tax cuts for millions, we have invested in education opportunities for those from less well-off backgrounds, we have protected the state pension, we have worked towards a greener government, we have introduced same sex marriage, perhaps the biggest and most permanent reform, and, above all, we have participated in a stable government which has reduced inflation, reduced unemployment, reduced the deficit, increased growth, increased business confidence and commenced the recovery. None of this would have happened without the Liberal Democrats.

And of course we have put the 'wasted vote' argument to bed for good. Never again can people describe us as being able to promise anything because we will never get in power - something we have all heard on the doorstep (but not since 2010!). We have proved to be capable and effective in government, and that we can produce good ministers and work well with those with whom we do not agree on most things.

Every government has its failures, and there have been some here too. Fixed terms were the only constitutional change we brought in. Voting reform, Lords reform, party political funding reform, lobbying reform, the right to recall - were all frustrated, mostly by the ConLab block vote. Labour can no longer say they are part of a progressive majority - if Labour had genuinely wanted an elected Lords, the elections would be taking place next year.

And in the interests of compromise, we have had to swallow some heavy medicine. The bedroom tax, the benefit cap, a hostile approach to the EU, and a cut in the top rate of tax are all things we have had to accept with the heaviest of hearts. And as for the tuition fees debacle, let's not go there!

2015 is general election year. And in my view we will move back into opposition. If there is a hung parliament with Labour as the biggest party, my feeling is that they will go it alone as a minority. And, let's face it, after their behaviour over the last few years, would we really want to work with them? Equally the Conservative party, having promised their MPs and their members a say, are also likely to veto any thought of a second coalition. There may be possibilities where either of them work with other parties. And if either of them forms a majority then coalition does not even arise.

So back in opposition, we will have to once again reinforce our message and campaign for what we believe in. What will the next five years mean for us? (In this scenario, I am using the assumption that Scotland votes no in September).

Obviously the first question will be the leadership. By autumn 2015 Nick Clegg will have been our leader for eight years - he will always be the first Lib Dem leader to take his party into government - and it will be time to step down. I think we will only really start to appreciate Nick's achievements once he is gone. Even the media might at last forgive him for entering government.

Nick may not want to go, so it may be a case of our party grandees, such as Paddy and Shirley, having a quiet word. It is hard to imagine Nick back in his old seat at PM's Question Time.

Who will be the next leader? Because of our government experience, there are a large number of good candidates to choose from, and we will no doubt have a party debate about the direction we should go. For example, a party led by Jeremy Browne or Danny Alexander will go a different way to one which is led by Tim Farron or Vince Cable. Or maybe a chance for others such as Jo Swinson or Ed Davey.

The position we should take in opposition will depend on what government results from the election. There may be areas in which we would agree. I'll discuss that in future articles

But I hope we keep to the basic principles we have always pursued. A strong economy, a fairer society, civil liberties and human rights, a positive proactive role in the EU, protection of the environment, local issues, and, the main area which the coalition government has largely failed, political reform and the modernisation of our politics.

Above all, our task back in opposition will be to continue to make ourselves heard. The media will doubtless revert to ignoring us - we may get even fewer appearances on BBC Question Time - so it will be up to us to shout loudly on the issues that are dear to us.

There are a few perks to being in opposition. We may regain some Councillors, party membership may increase, we will get back some Short money, and we can build on our government experience to improve our standing as an established professional party. Those members who left us at our greatest hour of need, will be replaced by more serious minded campaigners who will see the party as no longer a waste of time. After all, how many of us joined the Lib Dems just to run a few Councils. Would we not one day like to see a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister? That should be the (very) long term aim of this party.

It may be a case of going back to our roots. Active local campaigning on local issues and re-building the party up from the bottom.

In the next few articles, I will at look at the various scenarios that may come out of the 2015 general election, how they may develop, and what position we could take. But my overall message is that being back in opposition must not be something that we should fear.

After the defeat in the 1979 general election, the late Tony Benn wrote in his diary that he enjoys being in opposition because of the campaigning opportunities. For an active campaigning party such as ours, there are opportunities which we should take and may even look forward to.

The Clegg-Farage Debates: It Was Nick Wot Lost It

2014-04-08T16:32:00.000+01:00

One point was lost amongst all the debates about the Clegg-Farage outcome. The number of Conservative and UKIP supporters, as well as anti-Clegg Labourites, far outweighs the number of Liberal Democrat supporters. Given this fact, it would be virtually impossible for Nick Clegg to win any sort of opinion poll over Nigel Farage.

Having said that, in my view, the first debate was a low scoring draw, where neither impressed. But no such doubt with the second debate. Farage found a strong finish to bring home the bacon. Not a 'wipe the floor' victory that the media have been telling you about, and will doubtless continue to build up as such, but a victory nonetheless.

I felt it was more of a case of Nick losing rather than Nigel winning. We have seen Nigel Farage wilt under fire on television and perhaps Nick, buoyed by his 2010 success, and the fact that he can take on 500 hostile MPs in one go, took Nigel too lightly. But to me the mistake was to play the man and not the ball.

What I wanted to see was Nick calmly and professionally list the reasons why it is in the UK's interests to stay in the European Union. No-one says the EU's institutions are perfect, far from it, but there are positive reasons - jobs, business, trade, opportunities to travel, live and study. Nigel can then list, in his opinion, the reasons why the UK would be 'better off out'. Each can then counter the others' points and the viewers, most of whom are undecided, will then be better informed to make up his or her own mind.

Instead Nick decided to directly attack Farage and UKIP. This would be effective if the debate was between two parties, but it is irrelevant to the overall issue of whether we should be in or out. Farage may be an admirer of Vladimir Putin, that point is noted, but waving old UKIP leaflets around was irrelevant to the discussion.

To counter this, Nigel did not directly attack Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, but instead attacked 'the political class', a far more effective tool by including Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems as part of the political establishment, at a time when the reputation of politicians is at an all-time low.

Of course the political establishment consists of the Conservative and Labour parties, who will join forces to defend the status quo to the death. I have previously argued that the Lib Dems and UKIP are actually on the same side as the 'others', those on the outside who want political reform, and whom the ConLabs wish to keep out. But Farage was able to disregard UKIP's own misdemeanours and skilfully portray himself as the leader of the 'anti-politician's faction.

Nick overdid the facts and stats. Do 7% of laws come from the EU or is it 75% or is it somewhere in between? The EU is such a bureaucratic mess that I doubt if anyone knows, but let's just leave it that some laws do. And if one has done one's homework, any case study and examples on one side can be countered by case studies and examples on the other.

And I outwardly groaned when, to the question of how the EU would look ten years from now, Nick said 'much the same as it is now.' That's the last thing we want!

Nigel had his poor moments. In the first debate he was surprisingly very nervous. In the second, he almost fell apart at the start under Clegg's attack over the Ukraine, but once on more familiar territory regained his composure and, as I said, had a strong finish.

Immigration is, of course, UKIP's trump card, which is why they talk of little else, and Nigel played it well. The positive side of the freedom of movement of people - including the opportunities for UK citizens - was completely disregarded.

David Cameron has, in my opinion, come up with some interesting ideas for future expansion - very unusual for a Conservative party leader. Clegg could have praised Cameron in his efforts here, which would have had the happy side-effect of stoking the Conservative civil war.

Overall, my assessment is that Nigel did not win the debates but Nick lost them through the wrong tactics and arguments. Anyone who was undecided and hoping to be better educated to make their own decision will be little the wiser.

Far be it for me to advise Nick Clegg on debating, and it is highly unlikely that one day I will be on TV debating the EU, but I think I would have taken a different approach. I am not here to defend the European Union but the reasons we should stay in are A, B and C, our membership has achieved D, E and F while we would like to see changes such as X, Y and Z.

And the EU ten years from now will NOT be the bureaucratic monster that you see at present, but hopefully an efficient streamlined democratic free trade body that we can be proud to be an active part of. (It is very unlikely to be like that ten years from now - but that's a better answer!).

In the 1975 referendum, as to whether we should stay in the EU, two years after we joined, a tactic used by the 'In' camp was to portray the 'Out' leaders as slightly unhinged - which, when you consider Michael Foot, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, became an effective tool. For the next referendum (which is inevitable one day) this tactic might be repeated, as the 'out' camp is seriously short of credible leadership.

However, Britain's membership of the European Union is one of the most, if not the most, important topics out there. Although we lost this debate, raising the profile of the topic can only be good. I hope we see more debates but which focus on the issues and not on the individuals.

Benefits to the UK of the European Union - Letter to Sittingbourne News Extra

2014-01-23T18:57:00.000+00:00

The Eurosceptic cause has been well argued for lately, but has anyone considered the other viewpoint? There are two sides to every argument. No-one says the European Union is perfect, but there are considerable benefits to the UK's membership.

Any British business has access to a market across 28 states of 500 million people, plenty of scope for growth. Businesses from outside the EU will locate in Britain to enjoy this access - resulting in investment and jobs. This trade has no tariffs or barriers, sets out an equal paying field of rules and regulations, and enables free trade to an area larger than the USA. Competition opens up markets for UK companies to expand into. And we get far more beneficial terms trading as part of the EU with China, Brazil, the USA etc than we would on our own with a begging bowl.

Of course, we could have access to the free market from outside the EU, which is what Norway does. What you don't hear is that Norway pays a substantial price for this access - far more to the EU per head than the UK - and with no say in its organisation.

We always hear about the free movement of peoples, but it is easy to forget it works both ways. Any British citizen can live, work, travel or study in any EU country without the need for any permit. Two million British already do so - there are British students in Holland, British residents in Germany, and British retired in Spain. All have access to free emergency healthcare. Holiday makers are free to shop without being charged excise duties. Remember having to pay a hefty sum when you came back to Britain through customs!

We cannot work against dangers such as terrorism, drugs, the environment and organised crime in the UK alone - but by co-operation across the content, we can work together on a multinational basis. Remember when British villains would live in comfort on Spain's beaches!

Of course the European Union has many faults - it is over-bureaucratic, inefficient and expensive - and these are the things we should be campaigning to change - but a UK departure will not change this, and would deny us the benefits mentioned, as well as harm the fragile recovery, which still has a long way to go.

I hope soon we can see a national referendum, so that those of us who believe our membership is a great asset to the UK, can put our case, and we can have a national debate upon this very important subject. Once the people of the UK confirm our commitment, as I hope and believe they will, we can then fight for the type of Europe that we want to see.

My Review of 2013 And A Look To 2014

2013-12-30T18:06:00.000+00:00

This has been a relatively quiet year, hence my lack of blog entries, but has concluded with my election as Chair of the Swale Liberal Democrats for the important year of 2014 - important because of its lead-up to election year.

At the next general election, for the very first time, we have a record of government to defend. There is much we can be proud of. The tax threshold to £10,000, the pupil premium, the green bank, a million extra jobs in the private sector, improved childcare provisions, a free meal for primary school children and, above all, our part in providing a stable government after an indecisive election result to steer the country out of economic crisis and towards recovery. None of this would have happened without the Liberal Democrats.

There have been mistakes too, of course. I have said enough about tuition fees, but I remain concerned about the benefit cuts and the bedroom tax, the latter to me seems absolutely pointless, and the increase in the use of food banks shames the government. And although the decrease in unemployment is welcome, youth unemployment is still far too high. While we continue on to recovery, we must not forget those who might be left behind.

The main elections this year were the county council elections in May. UKIP did well in the election of 147 councillors across England but what is often overlooked is that the Lib Dems won 352 seats, over twice as many. Add to this the Eastleigh by-election, where, despite a huge media effort on behalf of the Tories, we held on to win, plus the increase of party membership of over 2,000, and clearly the Liberal Democrats are not finished yet.

Locally, for the Kent County Council elections, in Swale we decided to save our scarce resources and instead give our neighbours a hand in Maidstone. This was a great success where, not only did we hold our three county council seats in the town but we gained the fourth. In the constituency of Maidstone and the Weald, overall, we outpolled the Conservatives, so it is easy to see why it is a strategic target seat for 2015. A Lib Dem MP in the constituency next door can only be good for us.

At our AGM in November, yours truly was elected as the Chair for 2014. I see our main priorities as (i) the selection of two parliamentary candidates, (ii) developing and expanding our membership (which has also increased - I have to admit, to my surprise), (iii) fund-raising (as always!) and (iv) the development of a strategy for the 2015 Swale council elections. I have some ideas along these paths which I will be taking to our committee meetings, and hopefully increasing our activity.

We have no local elections in 2014 (by-elections permitting) but we must gain some momentum for 2015. And I hope that as we enter 2015, we have a local party in good shape for that very challenging election year.

Coalition Politics and Andrew Adonis in '5 Days in May'

2013-07-14T16:37:00.000+01:00

Having read David Laws and Peter Mandelson on the topic, I decided to purchase Andrew Adonis’s book on the coalition negotiations ‘Five Days in May’. While this does not have the immediacy of the other books, it has the advantage of looking back from afar and assessing the author’s views of progress and what coalitions could mean if, as some might expect, they are to be a common feature of UK politics.

Formerly a Lib Dem, Adonis defected to Labour in 1995 and became a leading member of the New Labour project, serving as Head of the Policy Unit and then, after getting a peerage, as a government minister. He was a key part of Labour’s negotiation team with the Liberal Democrats in the aftermath of the 2010 general election.

The first section of the book was written in 2010 and consists of Adonis’s account of the days from polling day through to the formation of the Con-Lib Dem coalition. While differing in some aspects from other accounts, it is a rattling good read. One gets a good sense of the chaos and confusion of those hectic days.

Gordon Brown comes across as someone both desperate to stay in power but also an honourable and sympathetic figure. The account of his final evening in 10 Downing Street, as his final hopes of a deal with Nick Clegg were slipping away, is quite moving.

Throughout the account, Adonis’s view is that a Lab-Lib Dem coalition was possible. In my view, as I blogged on Tuesday 11 May 2010, this was not the case. I wrote ‘The election was clearly a rejection of Labour’s record and policies and to put together a Lab-Lib Dem government would be ridiculous, especially with Gordon Brown STILL running things’.

Three years later we forget how poor the image of Gordon Brown was, but his character was one of the main issues on the doorstep. Also he has always struck me as a ‘my way or the highway’ type of guy and might not have compromised as much as David Cameron has.

Above all there was the numbers issue. Labour plus the Liberal Democrats would have made 315 seats, short of the 326 seats needed for a majority; or rather 322 if one takes into account the absence of Sinn Fein and the non-voting speakers. The Labour negotiating team stated that the DUP hated the Tories and would never vote with them, a fact which the Lib Dems were not so sure of. The Lib Dems have been subsequently proved right – the DUP have voted with the Conservatives on a number of key issues.

Equally the nationalists could not be relied upon. We saw in 1979, the SNP’s willingness to commit suicide when bringing down the Callaghan government and putting Mrs Thatcher in power, a huge blunder which damaged Scotland and set the nationalist cause back by twenty years, but of which a repeat could not be ruled out. And we Lib Dems are not exactly best buddies with Plaid Cymru.

While there is passing reference to Clegg’s concern of how the media would attack a Lab-Lib Dem coalition, especially if it resulted in a second unelected Labour Prime Minister, there is no mention of the expression which the media termed – ‘The Coalition of Losers’. This struck me as a damning and memorable phrase. A cartoon in the Daily Telegraph had three boys on an Olympic podium, those in 2nd and 3rd place placed higher in a state of jubilation while the winner stood lower, under the banner ‘Lib-Lab Sports Day’.

And of course there were many in the Labour party who, after 13 years of government and now exhausted, yearned for the comfort of opposition. David Blunkett, John Reid and Caroline Flint were amongst those pointing out that Labour had lost and should make a dignified exit. (Ironically there were no voices from Conservative backbenches opposed to the coalition – obviously biding their time to make the most mischief as subsequent events have proven).

In my view, these were the main reasons that a Lab-Lib Dem coalition would not have worked.

In the second section of the book, Adonis then moves to the present day. He discusses how the coalition is doing three years on and the lessons of coalitions overall. This section is well written and very interesting.

Adonis repeats his view that he thought a Lab-Lib Dem coalition would have worked and that the crucial decision was that of the Liberal Democrats, primarily Nick Clegg and David Laws to ‘veer right’. There may be some mileage in the latter view with the ‘Orange Bookers’ in control. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are two men of the same age with similar backgrounds so it is natural they would get on. And that as the Lib Dems moved right, and the Tories subsequently moved left, the two should meet somewhere.

In my view, two crucial points were (i) when during the campaign Clegg announced the Lib Dems would open discussions with whoever had the biggest mandate (which obviously was going to be the Conservatives) and (ii) even earlier, when the Conservatives had prepared a paper for discussion with common policies for agreement in the event of a hung parliament. Even though the polls had indicated an indecisive result was possible, Labour had done absolutely no preparatory work - did they really think they would win a majority in 2010? This fact gave the Conservatives a head start in the post-election manoeuvrings.

After considering the events of the past three years, Adonis’s four lessons are:

Coalitions can work in Britain and can be as stable as single party governments (agreed)
Coalition may be a serious option in a future hung parliament if all parties are prepared(agreed – one would hope all parties would be better organised in 2015 and that greater patience is exercised)
Coalition is not a superior form of government to singe party majority government (obviously we would all like our own parties to govern alone – but it is the voters who should make that sort of decision)
‘Nick Clegg went into government but not into coalition which is why Lib Dem influence is so weak’

On the last point, Adonis sticks to the Labour party line – that in coalition the Liberal Democrats are doing no more than prop up the Tories and have no influence whatsoever. Conservatives, of course, argue the opposite – that the Lib Dems have too much influence. Obviously both views are nonsense – the real picture probably being somewhere in between.

That is not to say the Liberal Democrats have not made many mistakes, and this is mostly due to the novelty of coalitions in this country. Indeed many in this country still struggle with the concept. A coalition has to compromise. The Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act and their supporters fail to understand why they have not done so. And Lib Dems have been criticised for the cut in the top rate of income tax – which of course a Lib Dem government would not have done.

I would add one more lesson. That the coalition parties should learn to govern for mutual benefit - not to use the coalition as an excuse to kick each other. If we were now looking forward to an election under new boundaries as well as elections to the House of Lords, both parties would be happy. Instead, rebel Tories (with Labour’s help) blocked Lords reforms so, in retaliation, the Lib Dems blocked boundary changes – not an adult way for a government to behave.

With this in mind, the coalition party leaderships must exert total discipline on their own backbenches – an issue at which the Conservatives have failed completely with regular rebellions.

As for future coalitions, Adonis argues four points:

The leader of the second party needs to head a major department in his/her own right
There needs to be genuinely joint control of economic policy and the Treasury
The second party needs to hold at least one Cabinet post in each of the three main sectors of government (foreign/defence – public services and welfare – environment/energy)
There needs to be machinery for ongoing policy development and negotiation

These are excellent arguments. Adonis makes the point, not unreasonably, that ‘hardly any Lib Dem ministers count’. I would argue that Danny Alexander, as Financial Secretary, counts very much – but most of the key department posts – home office, health, education, local government, foreign affairs – are firmly in Conservative hands.

In Europe, coalitions often result in smaller parties controlling certain departments in their entirety, instead of a spread of ministers as we have seen here. If, for example, Nick Clegg had become Home Secretary, and the departments of health, defence and climate change were controlled by Lib Dems, the government may have behaved very differently indeed. (This goes back to the discipline point earlier – as without doubt Conservative backbenches would have blocked any legislation or actions by Lib Dem departments).

The machinery point is, in my view, very important. We are now at the stage where the government seems to be drifting with all minds on the next election two years away. A ‘Coalition Agreement 2’ with fresh ideas and re-emphasis on key policies would have given the government fresh impetus.

The final point I would make is to point out that to win a majority in 2015, the Conservatives will have to gain over 20 seats – only once has a governing party done this in the last 50 years (1983) – and Labour will have to gain over 50 seats – which the party has only achieved in the landslides of 1945 and 1997. This, plus the fact that the rise of UKIP and other parties may make it impossible for any party to poll 40% ever again, make, in my view, a hung parliament the most likely result. Thus the thoughts of Adonis are worth considering as a contribution to the debate.

Overall, ‘Five Days In May: The Coalition and Beyond’ is recommended reading, both as an account from the Labour side of the immediate post-election events, and as a contributor towards discussion about the format of future coalitions in this country. I hope everyone takes the prospect of a hung parliament in 2015 and beyond very seriously, as coalitions and minority governments may well become the norm in this country.

In Support Of Marriage - ALL Marriage

2013-06-06T12:56:00.000+01:00

There have been many Liberal Democrat successes in this coalition government – for example, the £10k tax threshold, the pupil premium, fixed term parliaments – but these and others can be overturned or altered by subsequent governments. However, we are near a success on an issue which will be a permanent step – a genuine positive reform that the coalition government will always be remembered for.

I talk, of course, of same sex marriage, or gay marriage, which, at the time of writing, has passed the second reading in the Lords. Still some distance to go but it looks hopeful. Of course, a future government could overturn this and ban same sex marriages, but that is as unlikely as overturning the legislation which allowed women to vote.

We must of course give David Cameron a great deal of credit – no other Conservative party leader would have endorsed it to the extent that he has. Equally, had Cameron been leading a ‘Conservative-only’ government, nothing would have happened – he needed the Liberal Democrats’ liberal and reforming zeal, as well as the contribution of people like Lynne Featherstone, to get this legislation put together.

The subject is one of three topics on which there has been a substantial rebellion on the Conservative back benches – with the EU and Lords reform being the other topics. What is remarkable is that, generally speaking, it is the same people rebelling each time!! Do those who want to leave the EU also want to protect the Lords and oppose same sex marriage? What a co-incidence! Or is it, more likely, that it is the ‘awkward’ bunch of Tory MPs firmly opposed to the coalition government and to Cameron personally that just like causing trouble?

There have been some bizarre arguments made against the legislation. From Norman Tebbit’s ‘lesbian-queen-test-tube-baby’ scenario through to classroom plays and comparisons with the blind. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, who you would think would be concerned about the church being seen as irrelevant and out-of-touch, spoke of polygamy!

It is probably the fact that much of the opposition springs from those who simply do not like gay people! They would rather ignore their existence.

The only counter point which I can give the time of day to is those who argue that marriage should be for the procreation of children. I can respect that argument. However, it is a fact that half of all children in the UK are born outside of marriage. This would have been scandalous only a few decades ago but now no-one is too bothered. It is a fact that society has decided that marriage and childbirth are not linked, and so this argument is weakened.

My view is simple. I think marriage is a wonderful institution – I have been happily married for ten years. It is a public commitment by two people to love and take care of each other for the rest of their days. If more people were married, the world would be a happier place. Thus, it should be open and encouraged to all.

I am concerned by the recent trends away from marriage, and how fewer couples are tying the knot. Statistics show that married people live longer, healthier and happier lives. This legislation would be a positive move to encourage and show support for the institution. Far from weakening it, this will strengthen marriage - and hopefully bring it back into fashion.

In some ways, I agree with those Conservatives who say that marriage should be encouraged and recognised within the tax system. My preference would be to restore the marriage tax allowance by which married people start paying tax at a higher threshold. That way, all married couples would benefit whereas a transferable tax allowance only benefits a few.

I end by coining a phrase – what would Jesus do? If Jesus was here, what would he think? Would he welcome everyone into his church regardless of sexual orientation? Would he love everyone? Or would he firmly and resolutely deny gay people from showing their love and commitment to each other? I think we know the answer.

My Free Televised Sport For All Bill

2013-05-18T12:40:00.000+01:00

Here’s a good dinner party question. Imagine you are an MP. You put your name into the ballot to introduce a private member’s bill and, joy of joys, you have won! You get first shot at introducing a bill on a subject of your choice, and plenty of time to do it. This is a chance for you to make a difference! Even if your bill does not make it into law, it is still a chance to bring an important issue to public attention. What would you do?

This year’s ballot was won by James Wharton MP and he has decided to introduce a bill … on a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU! This is something which has been discussed ad infinitum, has been voted on, has been promised by the Prime Minister, and, frankly, an in-out referendum one day is inevitable. This strikes me as a waste of an opportunity. Many would argue it is an attempt to commit David Cameron so he can’t get out of it at a later date, but if Conservative MPs can’t trust their own leader, it does make it hard for others to do so. And surely there is a specific issue which is close to Mr Wharton's heart.

But I digress, the point of this entry is to imagine that I am in the Commons and I have won the ballot. This gives me the chance to introduce a bill on a topic which particularly annoys me – The Free Televised Sport For All Bill.

In this country we love our sport – we are keen followers of football, cricket, rugby, even darts and snooker. Our Olympics was a massive success.

But televised sport is dominated by the paid TV market, especially Sky, and you could find yourself having to fork out beyond £50 a month just to watch sport on TV.

For example, I learnt the rules of cricket by watching the test series between England and West Indies in 1976 on the BBC. But now a generation of children are growing up and, unless they have Sky, they will have no idea what cricket is - such is the dominance of Sky's hold on the game. By 2025, our test team will consist entirely of people who had Sky in their youth.

Let’s look at the facts. What do we have on free-to-view TV?

-No live Premiership football

-No live Football League or League Cup football

-Some (not all) England internationals, very few from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

-No domestic cricket, not even highlights

-Only highlights of England home cricket matches, nothing at all from overseas

-No boxing

-Only half of the Formula One Grand Prix shown live – shared with Sky

-Half of one major darts tournament – shared with ESPN

-Only one major golf tournament – The Open – with occasional highlights of others

BT Sport are launching a new channel soon – and much has been made of the fact that it is free with BT Broadband – but not everyone has computers.

To its credit, ITV is the only channel seeking to provide free-to-view sport. It has some FA Cup, some Champions League and Europa League games, French Open tennis and other bits and pieces. BBC have no interest in major sports (Sports Personality of the Year is often dominated by people who are never on the channel) and Channels 4 and 5 are too small.

There are some sports which are protected – Wimbledon, the Boat Race, the Grand National, the World Cup, the Olympics, the Six Nations – but can we really trust our politicians and TV companies not to hive these off at some future date?

So my Bill would not only protect our televised sport, but would expand it so that we can enjoy and support our top sportsmen and everyone can watch for free!

The rights for the following will only be sold to someone who commits to putting them on a free-to-view channel:

-At least one Premiership football package (presently 26 games live)

-Live coverage of all competitive matches by the Home Nations

-Live coverage of all England home cricket test matches

-Live coverage of domestic cricket one day finals

-Live coverage of all rugby internationals involving British teams (including the Lions)

-All world boxing title fights involving a British boxer

-The Ryder Cup

-Live coverage of all Formula One races

-Both the PDC and BDO World Darts Championships

That would be a start and would be under constant review.

These are the sort of things that were on when we only had three or four channels – in the era of multi-channel TV there would be plenty of room for all these. My Bill would not stop Sky, BT or anyone else bidding for these rights – but if they did so, they would have to make the event available on a free-to-air channel.

Of course, this Bill would have no chance of becoming law. Not by accident is Rupert Murdoch the most powerful man in British politics. The vested interests of Sky and others have huge influence over our MPs and they will be queuing up for favours to talk the Bill out. But it would bring to the surface the issue of British sport which is becoming more and more denied to the eyes of our people, unless they have deep pockets in tough times.

And the more people see sport, the more they will get behind our sports people, the more we will see encouragement and development of our younger sportsmen, and we will see the result in hopefully future British sporting success.

Why UKIP's Success Could Be Good For The Liberal Democrats

2013-05-03T17:05:00.002+01:00

Throughout UKIP’s campaign in recent months, much has been said about the ‘ConLibLab’ consensus, and how they are aiming to break through. And there is no denying that UKIP have achieved spectacular results in this week’s county council elections.

But, as I argued in a previous article (‘The War of Two Coalitions’ – 8 July 2012), if there is a political ‘consensus’, surely it is the two-party coalition between the Conservatives and Labour which has existed since 1945 with the mutual desire of both parties to resist any genuine political change and reforms. Surely we too should aim at bringing this down?

True, at present, the Liberal Democrats are in a national coalition with the Conservatives, but this is a temporary five year deal. At the end of the day, the Conservatives will always side with Labour and vice versa, and resist Lib Dems, UKIP or anyone interfering with their game.

In what ways are the Liberal Democrats closer to those sharing our aim of breaking this consensus?

Voting reform: both the Conservatives and Labour parties have resisted any change to our voting system. In 1979, Labour went back on their promise of PR for European elections in return for the Lib-Lab pact. Granted, the Conservatives allowed a referendum for AV in 2011, but then used their vast resources to shoot it down. Ed Miliband’s support was half-hearted at best. Most of Labour will have remembered that Labour won a healthy majority in 2005 with only 35% of the votes.

On the other hand, both the Lib Dems and UKIP support a campaign for fair votes. Both parties support voting reform, albeit through different methods, they both favour the principle of a PR based system to make a fairer reflection of people’s votes. Whereas the big two will defend First-Past-The-Post to the death.

Lords reform: Labour decided to backtrack on their previous promises and collude with Tory rebels to block any change to the Lords. Can we trust a future Labour government to reform this retirement home for politicians? Of course not. UKIP, on the other hand, have supported an 80-20 split, similar to previous plans.

Party funding: the Conservative party have vast unlimited resources. Labour, maybe not to the same extent, also has immense wealth. Lib Dems and UKIP, on the other hand, both raise money with car boot sales and quiz nights. I don’t know UKIP’s views on party political funding but I imagine they would be open to change.

Written constitution: both parties have floated the idea of a written constitution to establish the rights of the individual and the powers and limitations of the legislative and executive bodies. This is something which could be worked on.

Right to recall: both parties support the right to recall MPs for misconduct, for example, over expenses, something the big two have always resisted.

These are just a few examples, and a browse through UKIP’s constitutional policy document is interesting reading, but it is clear that, when it comes to changing the system, and the ‘political consensus’, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP are both in favour of drastic changes to the status quo, and have much more in common with each other than either do with the Conservatives or Labour.

But what about policies, I hear you say? Yes, it is true that on EU membership, immigration and the environment, the two parties are far apart – but there may be elements where we can work together – the basic tax rate for example where both support taking the minimum wage out of tax. We have proved we can work with the Conservatives, despite the large policy gaps that are there and still exist.

And we are not talking about a formal coalition or agreement. What I would like to see is the Liberal Democrats and UKIP working together on political and constitutional reform alongside liked-minded people from other parties to finally bring our politics into the 21st century (it has barely made it to the 20th).

The point is: both parties will remain on the long-term fringes of British politics unless we see genuine political change in this country.

Already some Conservatives are talking about Con-UKIP council administrations to 'bring UKIP back'. Many Conservatives see UKIP as a temporary group of ex-Tories all waiting to dash back home once we are out of the EU. Then, before we know it, we will be back to the world of Con-Lab majority governments – ‘back to normal’ as the media would have it.

It depends on whether UKIP genuinely want to become a long-term political party in their own right. And whether they would join those of us who cry out for modernisation and political reform.

But, for now, I cannot be sorry to see more votes go to UKIP and away from the Con-Labs. Every success for UKIP is a success for those of us who genuinely want to break down the ‘political consensus’ and, with that in mind, UKIP successes could be good for the Liberal Democrats - so perhaps we should wish them well.

An Important Point Leveson Didn't Cover

2013-03-28T13:21:00.001+00:00

Here is the BBC News at Ten O’clock. The headlines are:

Vote Conservative! That’s the message across the country for tomorrow’s general election – vote Conservative.
Nick Robinson, our political editor, reports why a Conservative majority government is the best answer to the country’s problems.
Our economics editor, Robert Peston, discusses the dangers to the economy of implementing policies promoted by the Labour party.
Peter Snow uses his famous graphics to show the confusion and disarray of a hung parliament and how we can avoid it.
David Dimbleby interviews Grant Shapps on the latest on the campaign.
And, finally, sport. The England coach, Roy Hodgson, says that England’s bid to win the world cup would be strengthened by the return of a Conservative government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, you won’t be hearing these words on BBC News, or even ITV or Sky. This is because televised media are bound to give fair proportionate coverage to general election parties based on votes gained at the previous election.

Newspapers, on the other hand, have no such restrictions. They can give as much biased coverage as they desire. This would not normally be a problem if there was a balance – but the fact is there is a complete imbalance which has a major effect on our democracy.

Fact: Five of the country’s top selling seven national newspapers are staunch supporters of the Conservative party and right wing policies.

The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express will all disagree with the Tories from time to time – but when it counts they will put all their considerable united muscle into helping the Conservative election campaign.

In the recent Eastleigh campaign, the Mail and Telegraph happily jumped on the lead given by Channel 4 News and pumped the Lord Rennard allegations for all they were worth – the Mail totalled about 40 pages in the week up to the by-election while the Telegraph called on Eastleigh’s voters not to vote Lib Dem as 'punishment'. Since the by-election concluded, you will note that the Rennard story immediately vanished. Coincidence?

When Nick Clegg won the first leader’s debate, in 2010, Paddy Ashdown correctly said ‘they will come for us now.’ Sure enough, all the papers ran various and different smear stories about Clegg on the day of the second debate. Had David Cameron won that first discussion, would he have got that treatment? I think not.

One image that stands in my mind was in 1992 – which had been a close campaign, and the result of which was still uncertain to the end. I went to the supermarket on election day and saw all the front pages lined up next to each other. Almost unanimously, they had pictures of John Major and the word ‘trust’ – the exception being The Sun with its famous front cover of Neil Kinnock in a light bulb asking that if Kinnock wins, can the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights. The Sun later argued, perhaps with good justification, that the media’s support was the clincher for John Major's subsequent victory.

The most powerful man in British politics over the last thirty years has been Rupert Murdoch. It was no surprise that first Tony Blair and then David Cameron sought to court him. The subsequent switchings of the Murdoch allegiance are clearly seen as major events in recent British political history. Even today, the news of Nigel Farage having dinner with the Murdochs was enough to raise eyebrows.

Should this be so? Should it be the case that one person should have so much power over British politics?

The Leveson enquiry concentrated on press ethics, as was its brief, but I would like to see a future enquiry broaden out to concentrate on the overwhelming political bias in one direction of our major newspapers.

Obviously the rights of a free press should be foremost but maybe there is a case for implementing the same sort of restrictions that TV has to adhere by – that in the final weeks of an election campaign, national newspapers must show impartiality and equality of coverage to all concerned.

I am not sure how we can work on the details. And after Leveson, media relations are understandably touchy at present. But hopefully one day we can restore a balance of opinions and allow people to make their own decisions based on a wide range of advice and information. And that the election is not about which paper it was wot won it.

Channel Four News - the response to my complaint

2013-03-01T11:24:00.000+00:00

Dear Mr Nevols,

Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding CHANNEL 4 NEWS.

We are sorry to hear that you feel the timing of this report was ill-timed, we have passed your concerns onto our news editors. Please be assured your complaint has been logged and noted for the information of those responsible for our programming.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries

A rather bland and standard response – I doubt my comments will have been ‘noted’ by anyone. However I won’t of course be taking the complaint any further.

Ironically, if it had been the intention of Channel 4 News to help the Conservative campaign in Eastleigh, it spectacularly backfired – the consequences fuelled the ‘anti-politician’ voters into the arms of UKIP and pushed the Tories into third place.

In my comments to various articles on the Conservative Home forum, I had speculated that the media would have a story on hold which will be carefully released at the right time to wrongfoot the Liberal Democrats. This proved to be the case. I felt it was disappointing that we had been so ill-prepared for this – if I could see it coming, why did no-one else? The lesson is that we need to brush up our technique for responding to such media explosions.

Fortunately, despite this and the usual barrage from the right wing newspapers, our party’s resilience and hard working held on for a great victory. I am proud to have played my own very small part in this (two days down there) and the fact that the entire party rallied around at its moment of need.

Congratulations to Mike Thornton and everyone in the Eastleigh Liberal Democrats.

Channel Four News - My Complaint

2013-02-25T08:48:00.001+00:00

Dear Sir/Ma'am. I wish to make a complaint about Channel 4 News.

On Thursday 21 February, Channel 4 News ran a special report into alleged sexual harassment by Lord Rennard of the Liberal Democrats. I have no issue with the report itself and agree it is a newsworthy item which should be reported. My complaint is regarding the timing of the piece.

Channel 4 News are presumably aware that (i) there is a parliamentary by-election to be held at Eastleigh on Thursday 28 February, (ii) that polls indicate a close fight between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party, and (iii) political commentators agree on the importance of this by-election with likely consequences for either or both of the coalition parties, or even the government. It has been called the most significant by-election in 50 years.

Despite this, Channel 4 News decide to run this report at the time of maximum effect – exactly one week before polling – so that it can snowball and disable the Liberal Democrats in the lead up to polling day. One week earlier or one week later would have been different. But now, three days before the vote, the Liberal Democrats campaign in Eastleigh has been run off the tracks and Channel 4 News are the toast of every Conservative party gathering.

Surely this possibility had occurred to someone in the Channel 4 newsroom – or did they genuinely not know about Eastleigh?

The impression given is that Channel 4 News are deliberately seeking to influence the result of the Eastleigh by-election, and that the victims of the alleged abuse are being used for party political and election purposes. Such conduct is against all codes of professional ethics for televised media and removes any pretence of political impartiality by Channel 4 News.

Channel 4 News have built an enviable reputation for the quality of its news reports, so it is a shame that it should blatantly use a legitimate story in this way.

I would welcome your comments.

Review of 2012

2012-12-23T16:24:00.001+00:00

This is my last entry of 2012 so I am using it to review the year gone by.

The highlight of the year was the London Olympics. I took two weeks off to follow TV coverage, visited various events on five occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it all.

The highlight of my five visits was taking my wife to Wembley Stadium to her first ever football match, where we saw Team GB Ladies defeat Brazil 1-0 in a great atmosphere. We also met some Brazilian supporters at a volleyball event in Earls Court and the colour and enthusiasm they showed on both occasions convinces me that the next Olympics in Rio 2016 should also be a success.

The low point of the year was the death of my best friend, Adam, in October after a long battle with liver disease at the age of 42. We had been good friends since meeting at university in 1988 and even now it is hard to comprehend that someone younger than me has gone so soon. As someone told me, remember the smiles. And with that spirit, I think back to the good times and to many Christmas and New Year events which we enjoyed together with other friends over the years.

Politically, it was not a great year for me but then chances were limited. There were no local elections in my area, although we had a council by-election in March which got me back into the campaigning spirit. I aimed to be an MEP candidate for the Liberal Democrats in London and, while enjoying the six week campaign, was disappointed to fall short of the final list.

Blog-wise, my most read entry was back in January with ‘Be loud and be proud. The Liberal Democrats are the party of the poor’ which, having thought about it, makes a rather misleading headline – it should mean that the Lib Dems are the best representatives of the poor, and not the fact that the party is very poor itself – although that is not too far from the truth.

I argued that by taking a million people out of paying tax completely, cutting taxes for every basic rate payer, bringing in the pupil premium to invest billions in under-performing schools, and restoring the pensions to earnings link – all of which are measures that would not have happened under a ‘pure’ Conservative government nor a Labour administration – that it is to the Liberal Democrats that the poor can look to for support. To add to this, we can point to the fact that we are vetoing over-the-top Conservative measures to cut the benefits bill. The bill needs to be cut but fairness should be the watchword. I hope we can do more to get this message across.

My favourite entry was in July when I talked about the ‘war of two coalitions’. In my view, it is a fact that the Conservative and Labour parties have an unofficial unwritten alliance to ensure they keep all the power between them, and that other parties (of whom are growing support all the time) should be kept in their place. This is chiefly why both parties are so angry with the Liberal Democrats rather than each other for daring to get into government.

This point is further strengthened by the year’s biggest political disappointment – the failure of the House of Lords reforms. Labour decided to betray their great forefathers and ally themselves with the right wing Tories in order to protect privilege and patronage in the Lords against democracy – a once in a century opportunity – which just displays the emptiness and vanity of the modern Labour party. Who would ever have thought that the Conservative party leadership would be more reformist than that of the Labour party?

As for the Liberal Democrats, I am pleased to see us pursuing our policies on tax, education and the environment. I am concerned that our ‘differentiation’ strategy has started too early – we are only halfway through the parliament and I would much prefer both parties getting on with the job. We don’t need to lower ourselves to the yah-boo spoilt-child level of Peter Bone, Nadine and the others on the Tory backbenches.

If the Conservatives can exert some discipline and keep their loony element quiet then it is quite possible the two parties can work together up to and through the next election to sort out the economy, bring in social and political changes, and keep Labour out. This, however, would be up to David Cameron. If he continues to show weakness and fails to exert discipline, it may not be long before Ed and Ed are in Numbers 10 and 11 – and then we are all in trouble!

Come 2014 we can think more about differentiation. But I want to see more co-operation and productivity in 2013. If we are worried about the council elections, we should remember that Labour did very badly in 2009 – so we will take a hit and Labour have a good result regardless.

My last act of the year in my blog is to thank you all for reading, whatever your views and whichever party you support. Without the Olympics or the Diamond Jubilee, 2013 will undoubtedly be a quieter year but I am sure we will all have just as much to talk about.

I hope you all have a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

Who will save the Church from itself?

2012-12-15T21:47:00.001+00:00

One of our most treasured institutions in English life is the church, and, in particular, the Church Of England. Religion and faith is deeply rooted within our national conscience. Go to any English village or town and you will see, in pride of place, a church – sometimes it dominates the area, other times of more modest size, but in nearly every case it will be a main centrepiece of the community, an organiser of social activities, a place of celebration at Christmas, a place of solemn reflection on Remembrance Day, and always a place of worship and thanksgiving.

I write as a regular attendee at my local church. I am actively involved in event organisation and fund raising, I sit on the Church Council, and I edit the church newsletter. On Sundays, when I can, I go along to pray for my friends and family, enjoy some fine hymns, and partake in the service.

So it grieves me when I see the church and its leadership regularly shoot themselves in the foot, completely unaware of how their actions, or inactions, may make a difference to the future of the existence of the church itself.

Everyone who loves the church should bear in mind two simple facts and commit them to memory. These facts are (i) each year, the numbers regularly attending church have been steadily reducing – congregations get fewer and fewer in size, and (ii) the average age of those who regularly attend church has been increasing. Even at the age of 45, I am one of the youngest in my congregation. Apart from the children, who may have been dragged along, the vast majority of those present are pensioners – and there are very few young adults.

Should these two trends continue then, sooner than we think, congregations will die out and disappear altogether. And churches all over England will become empty disused buildings.

Why is this the case? Why don’t people go to their local church? Some tell me they are simply too busy, others that they like a lie-in on Sunday mornings after a busy working week, and others, not unreasonably, think churches are full of old people and they would feel out of place. But the most common reasons are that people say they ‘don’t feel religious’, although these people celebrate Christmas and see their kids in nativity plays or, the issue I wish to deal with, they simply do not see the relevance of the church to themselves and to today’s world. It is part of the old corrupt British establishment of politicians, financiers, businessmen, people who are only in it for what they can get out of it, and of complete disinterest to ordinary working people

Now I defend the institution as much as I can but feel the Church is its own worst enemy and this viewpoint is only confirmed by two massive blunders in recent months. Blunders which continue the battle between church and society (and history has shown that when the church battles with society, it is usually society that wins out).

The first blunder refers to female Bishops. There is still some way to go but, in the modern age, women have made great advances in all areas of society and that is something we should welcome. You would have thought the General Synod would almost unanimously have voted to allow women to be ordained as bishops – after all, why not?

The Synod did indeed vote for this measure by a considerable majority, but in the House of Laity it fell a few votes short of the necessary two thirds requirement. But people at large are not interested in the finer details and procedures of church decisions – all they know is that the church has considered the issue of women bishops and held out its hand with a big NO!

The second blunder, in my view, refers to the, perhaps more divisive issue, of same sex marriage. In the week that we learn that fewer couples are getting married than ever before, the church considers the government's proposition of same sex marriage and once again it is the hand with the NO! To be fair, some would consider allowing same sex marriages in their church, but the government decided on a complete ban on the Church of England while those of other faiths and religions have the option of ‘opt-ing in’ – a clear case of religious discrimination. Had the church shown a more positive and enthusiastic response, then the situation may be different.

In my view, the institution of marriage is a wonderful presence. I have been happily married for ten years. If two people wish to publicly commit themselves to love and protect each other, under the eyes of God and regardless of their gender, that is something we should welcome and encourage. Opponents say that marriage should be solely between a man and a woman, and I have sympathy for that view, but in the modern age, many couples are of the same sex.

Statistics show that married couples live happier, healthier and longer lives. If more people were married, the world would be a happier place. I believe that the institution of marriage would be protected not undermined by same sex marriage. As more heterosexual couples see the happiness that marriage can bring, they may well take the plunge themselves. Allowing and blessing more unions would reverse the current trend towards marriage dying out.

So what do people see of the church? They see the Archbishop of Canterbury and an array of old men dressed splendidly in fine robes, preaching to us about charity and sacrifice but not showing signs themselves of either, of an old boys club living in a long forgotten world where women know their place and the presence of homosexuality is not acknowledged.

Now, like most people, I am no religious expert. I am in no doubt there are many who would defend the Church’s view with quotes and passages from the Bible and the study of theology. I respond by borrowing the phrase of the Occupy London movement – what would Jesus do?

If he were around today, would Jesus prevent the full inclusion and participation of women in his church? Would Jesus close the door to gay people who wanted his blessing in their unions? Of course not – Jesus, and God, loves everyone. It is the Church of England who apparently does not.

We are deep into the 21st century, and as we go further on, and as society continues to change, however much many may not like it, the Church of England is crying out for the modern and forward thinking leadership that is necessary to make it relevant once again to people’s lives and the modern world. Will we see that leadership come to the forefront soon? Will the Church find the backbone within to save itself from extinction? Will anyone save the Church from itself? We can only watch, hope and, yes, continue to pray.

My MEP Campaign Part Five - Over ... and Out!

2012-12-04T13:41:00.000+00:00

It was a cold morning on Saturday the first of December as I made my way to the Liberal Democrats headquarters in Great George Street, London. Today was the count to establish all the MEP candidates for England – London were to choose eight of which I hoped to be one. I had enjoyed the campaign over the last six weeks and meeting London’s Liberal Democrats, but now it was over and time to see how the London members had voted. There was a distinct ‘exam results’ feeling – with that mixture of helplessness and apprehension that all former students are familiar with.

The count for all of England’s regions was to take place that day but fortunately London were first on. Most of my fellow candidates were there and, with those from other regions waiting, we all hovered in the kitchen and corridor. Topics for discussion included the recent Croydon North by-election, the Thames Christmas cruise, and the Middle East (The EU-Israeli agreement being the most common subject of my email in-box).

A slight delay in the announcement occurred due to a computer problem, which meant the candidates for the next count started arriving and the area got very crowded. It reminded me of the old joke about Liberal MPs in a taxi when I started thinking how many Liberal Democrat European candidates can you squeeze into a corridor?

Finally, the call went out for the London candidates, we entered the presentation room and sat along the long table like they do in The Apprentice. Who will be fired?

We were treated to a whole series of charts but it was the first list that decided it. The eight candidates were listed in front of us – and my name was not there. As the programme worked through the spreadsheets to explain how the eight were put into order, my heart continued to sink.

We Liberal Democrats are used to disappointment, and I get my fair share (as any regular reader of this blog can testify), but it is still not easy. I’ve worked in London since 1994 and know the city very well. However, I was aware from the start that I was not too well known, lacked a local party base, and hence the odds were against me. Of course I was not expecting to come near the top – but was hoping to get on the list as a marker to campaign towards and promote myself. Sadly, back to square one.

This was my first campaign of this type carried out over six weeks, I did enjoy it, and I’ve learnt quite a bit to take away. If I am still in London next time round, I intend to have another bash – and by 2017-2018 who knows what the political climate will be like?

The main consolation was meeting the eight people on the London list – a highly impressive group of people with a formidable list of achievements and experience. Despite being rivals, everyone was courteous and friendly and the campaign was held in a great spirit. The air of positivity and cheerfulness as we discussed European issues, as well as the various email exchanges and discussions with the members that I met, made a great comparison to the gloom and doom we get so much of from the Tories and UKIP.

I am glad we have such a strong Liberal Democrat team to present to Londoners and I hope they do well.

My MEP Campaign Part Four - Some Sleepwalk, Others Tour

2012-11-20T14:06:00.000+00:00

This week I had the novel experience of agreeing with Ed Miliband. This event does not happen very often but while reading his interview in the Sunday Telegraph and his speech to the CBI, I found myself nodding several times (instead of nodding off – my usual reaction to his speeches). He put it very well, referring to sleepwalking towards the EU exit and about the danger of Britain becoming a nation of low wages, low skills, ‘an off-shore low value economy’. I am sure these words were music to CBI ears.

There was no mention of an in-out referendum, of course, but it now seems that the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party are losing interest in that. There have been articles in the media, on Conservative Home, and a speech yesterday by David Davis, with all sorts of ingenious suggestions on carefully worded referendums (referring to renegotiation and repatriation etc) with the intention of luring the British people by stealth into voting to leave the EU without their realising it. Such shameless tactics do not explain why the Tory Eurosceptics are so terrified of asking a simple in-out question when they are convinced the people are on their side.

Another novel experience is feeling sorry for David Cameron as he heads into tough talks with the EU leaders on the budget while his own army are pointing their guns at his back. But seriously, it is getting to the stage where the Conservative party as a unit are becoming a major threat to Britain’s national security and well-being.

With Euro issues on the front pages again, my campaign has continued across London. I attended the AGM of the Beckenham Liberal Democrats where there was an impressive presentation by Merlene Emerson, the Chair of the Chinese Liberal Democrats, on an all-party visit to China and Tibet. I have attended a quiz night in Sutton which had a high turnout and good fish and chips. And I went to the AGM of Hammersmith and Fulham Lib Dems where we were addressed by Norman Baker MP, our Transport Minister, on fighting the Tories and he answered questions on general transport issues.

At all these events, I discussed European issues with many of the members to hear their thoughts and views. And the comments and questions by email have kept coming.

What is interesting is that, even in Lib Dem circles, much about Europe is misunderstood. More than one person has asked me about Abu Qatada – which of course is a reference to the European Court of Human Rights, a separate body to the European Union.

There is also far less enthusiasm for the EU than the media would have us believe amongst Lib Dems. Although there is general agreement that we should retain our membership, there was much disquiet about the budget, the amount we pay to the EU, and the level of immigration caused by open borders. However, there was also concern about the dangers of David Cameron leading us into the slow lane and, to repeat Ed Miliband’s point, that the PM is thinking more about the concerns of a few dozen MPs rather than pursuing the country’s interests.

My fellow Euro candidates have also been busy – we are frequently bumping into each other in our tours around the capital. Just over a week to go before voting closes. I have an inkling of how the result is shaping but will just say for now that the turnout will be bigger than that of the Police Commissioner elections! The campaign continues!

My MEP Candidate Hustings Speech

2012-11-08T13:09:00.002+00:00

Below is my speech given to the London Liberal Democrat Hustings for MEP candidates on Sunday 4 November.
------

My message to the voters of London would be twofold. Firstly, the European Union is important to our country’s prospects and well-being. There is a lot of negativity about the EU and I expect you have found, as I have, that on the doorstep, the EU is rarely mentioned and it’s importance is little understood. I would explain the benefits in simple language. Trade – investment – growth – business – jobs.

Secondly, the Liberal Democrats are the only major pro-European party. We have seen yet again this week how the Conservatives are more interested in fighting each other and that Labour change their position, when they have one, on a weekly basis. Only the Liberal Democrats put the UK at the heart of Europe and would put the UK’s interest first. I want this message on the streets of London. From Enfield to Sutton, from Hillingdon to Havering, when it comes to Europe, the Liberal Democrats are on your side.

So why me? What have I got to offer?

Eighteen years experience of working in London in both the public and private sectors
Ten years experience of living in London although I am currently a commuter
Vast experience of leading, organising and participating in teams – in both political and non-political activities
Parliamentary candidate at the last general election getting one of the highest Lib Dem increases in Kent
Fifteen years experience of being in positions of helping the public through my employment history – helping, advising and dealing with people from all backgrounds
Academic qualifications in European history, politics and law
A regular writer and campaigner using Twitter, Facebook, blogs and media
A genuine love for our city and its people and the enthusiasm to conduct a good campaign across the city to get our message out.

And what is my vision for Europe?

If elected as an MEP, I would see my role in both promoting London within Europe, and promoting Europe within London.

I want Londoners to recognise the opportunities there are across the continent for our people to visit and learn and for businesses to expand.

We often hear about people from Europe coming to the UK, usually in a negative sense, but we never hear about people from the UK going to live and work in other countries. Those that do find it a worthwhile experience.

As MEP I would aim to visit as many schools in London as I can, to encourage the study of languages and encourage our younger people to give serious consideration to other parts of the EU. Once people see things for themselves, once they get away from what the Daily Mail is telling them, I have found that people are enthused by Europe and the different cultures and experiences on offer.

And I would promote London as a place for world businesses to invest. The Olympics was a chance, which has so far been missed, to promote, not Boris, but instead our wonderful city as a home for business. I want to welcome world companies here, to invest, and develop.

As for the EU itself, I would campaign for the extension of democracy. I want to see an elected President – which I feel was a chance the EU missed. You may remember Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were considered for the job. If the candidates campaigned across all 27 states, that would increase knowledge and legitimacy of the EU’s process. I would also like to see our Commissioners elected instead of being a consolation prize for failed politicians.

And, yes, an in-out referendum. I think this continual dithering and speculation is harmful to our interests in Europe. While we argue with each other, the other EU governments are getting on with things. Let’s have the referendum, let’s win it, and then we can commit ourselves towards campaigning for the type of EU we want to see.

Those are my policies in simple language. An active positive pro-EU campaign, jobs and business for Londoners, a city to advertise to the world, an EU which is streamlined and democratic and something of which we can be proud to be a leading member.

If you select me as your candidate, those are the principles I would be working hard for – select me and I will not let you down!

My MEP Campaign Part Three - Fireworks, Hustings and Socialists

2012-11-05T13:31:00.003+00:00

On Saturday 3 November, I met some Lewisham and Beckenham North Liberal Democrats for a firework supper. There I chatted to several members while munching a delicious lamb curry before we all went up to Blackheath. This was the first time I had seen the Blackheath fireworks and I was mightily impressed by the colours and display on offer. I was also surprised by the thousands of people who had come out on a cold November night to be present.

It seemed rather brief, about 20 minutes, but I was later informed that this was because one of the two councils next to the park (LB Greenwich) had withdrawn their funding and hence the organisers had to cut their costs. However there were no complaints from the crowd who all appeared to be in high spirits and enjoying the spectacle.

Sunday 4 November was the Members’ Meeting – the Hustings for all the London European candidates which was held in Euston Road.

We each had to do a five minute presentation followed by five minutes of questions. My speech seemed to go down OK and I was glad to have timed it perfectly by getting the 30 second warning as I entered my final paragraph. I will publish this shortly but touched upon my policy for the campaign, my attributes as a candidate, and my vision of the EU.

While the EU is far from perfect, there are many positive benefits of UK membership which we do not push enough. The Liberal Democrats are the only positive pro-EU party, the only party to put the UK’s interests first at the heart of Europe, and this is what we should say again and again.

There was a question on education, and another on why I am running for London, before I was floored by two on the Middle East. How do I propose to solve the Arab-Israel conflict? (answer in thirty seconds!?!) and do I agree with the EU’s policy on Iran? (thinks: what is the EU policy on Iran?)

Much of this day was spent in a hallway chatting to the other candidates while waiting our turn, and this experience only emphasised my comments from an earlier entry. We are blessed to have such an effective and capable line-up of candidates to put before the party’s members. However, this makes it a lot more difficult for me! But whatever happens, the end product will be a very strong team of eight to campaign for the Lib Dems across London and that can’t be bad.

It was interesting to eavesdrop on the Socialism 2012 rally being held in the same building in a large and packed hall. They had a number of speakers who each shouted loudly about a general strike and each getting a very warm reception. The bits I heard were complete nonsense, of course, and it is safe to say that Ed Miliband would not have been very welcome, but I’ll say this for the socialists, the souvenir stands were fascinating with some very interesting publications and papers on display. Tempting as it was to buy a couple of books, I thought better of it.

After the individual presentations, there were panel sessions whereby the candidates were each asked submitted questions. My only criticism of this process was that the chairman asked the questions instead of the questioner. I understand the need for questions to be approved but I felt that if the member read out their own question, and we could answer directly to him/her, it would have increased the interaction in the room, instead of the audience listening to the top table all the time.

Overall, a tough but enjoyable day. The London Liberal Democrats have all been sent their voting papers and our manifestos and have three weeks to think about it – so the campaign goes on.

Two Speeches For Two Events

2012-11-02T09:46:00.002+00:00

On Friday 26 October at 10.50am, Adam Rowe, my best friend since our days at university together, died at the age of 42 after a long battle with liver disease. We have known each other for 24 years and it has been heartbreaking to see how he has struggled with his health over the last few years.

So, in case you were wondering why my blog has not been updated, despite being in the middle of a campaign, then this is the reason. It has put things into perspective.

This week I have been preparing for two speeches at two important events. On Sunday 4 November, the candidates for the London Liberal Democrats MEP nominations will all be attending a hustings. I have been preparing my presentation and there will be questions and discussions afterwards.

I generally enjoy these sort of things – such as participating in the debates at the last election. Unfortunately we don’t get to hear the presentations of other candidates (which I would have found interesting as they are a talented bunch) so I am looking forward to the panel discussions. Although I have plenty of ideas, I am always keen to hear others.

The other speech I have been preparing is with a considerably heavier heart. I have been asked to speak at Adam’s funeral on Friday 9 November at Kettering Crematorium.

Two different types of speech for two different events. One speech is to promote myself, the other will be to pay tribute to a lost friend. One speech I shall try to deliver with positivity and passion, the other I shall try to deliver without breaking down.

I hope both will be received well.

My MEP Campaign Part Two - Contacts and Conference

2012-10-21T13:31:00.001+01:00

An enjoyable and busy first week to the campaign despite an initial setback. It had been my intention to send out an introductory email to all London Lib Dems as soon as the starting pistol had sounded. Unfortunately I did not know that Hotmail limits the numbers of people you can email each day to 300 with the admirable aim of combating spammers. After kicking myself for not having thought of that, I am now sending them out in batches, so it will take several days to reach everyone.

I have already received some generous invites to AGMs and social events from London local parties in my aim to meet as many London Lib Dems as I can in the weeks ahead. A special mention to Sutton who hit the right buttons with the words ‘fish and chips supper’ and ‘quiz night’ – no hesitation in accepting that one. Generally, weekend events are no problem. Those in the weekday evening depend on my ability to get the last train home – but I am working things out so far.

My email messages have resulted in a few interesting questions on a variety of topics which I am always happy to answer.

Yesterday I attended the London Liberal Democrats Regional Conference in Croydon and had an interesting day there.

The day included a Question and Answer session for the European candidates – unfortunately with only 40 minutes and nine of us present, there was just time for three questions: on our message to the voters, EU partnership arrangements, and what would we change. I gave what I thought were concise answers putting my views across. That my message is to promote the EU and the fact that the Lib Dems are the most-pro-EU party, and hence most pro-UK party - that partnership arrangements strengthen this argument, especially with states such as India where we have historic links and more likely to invest here to give access to the EU market, and that the thing I would change would be to make the EU more democratic with an elected President and elected Commissioners.

I’ve been criticised in the past for giving answers which are too brief, but once you’ve got your point across, I fail to see any reason for going on. At least, this will be an asset if I am ever invited to do BBC Question Time.

A more detailed scrutiny of the candidates, and more time for us to put our views, will be available at the hustings on 4 November.

There was also a chance to do some work for the parliamentary by-election in Croydon North, which was an excellent idea when you have so many Lib Dems present at the right time and place. Our candidate is Marisha Ray, who I had a brief chat with. She is a very impressive candidate, has done some great work in London over the years and I hope she does well.

Sadly we have to admit that we are unlikely to win the seat. It is an ironic fact that the party with the most impressive candidates has the greatest difficulty in getting them elected and vice versa. Just one look at the Conservative backbenches strengthens this point.

The rest of the conference saw speeches and reports, a fascinating guest spot from the writer Elif Shafak, and the chance to network where I had the chance to talk to some local party delegates and the other candidates. All in all, a very satisfactory day.

My MEP Campaign Part One - 'For London, For Europe'

2012-10-12T10:32:00.000+01:00

I am delighted to announce that I have been successfully placed on the shortlist for the London Liberal Democrats’ candidates, European Parliament elections in 2014. It was a tough selection procedure and interview but the campaign has now started.

There is some serious talent on the shortlist, which just shows the depth of quality we enjoy in the Liberal Democrats amongst our candidates. Alongside members of the academic and financial profession, my role as an administration manager in local government seems very humble. It will be a difficult campaign but I will give it my best shot, and hope I can encourage as many of the good Liberal Democrats of London to give me their consideration.

If you are looking at my blog for the first time – then you are very welcome. As you can see from previous entries, I always have plenty to say on plenty of topics.

I have worked in London for 18 years, and for almost every one of those working days, I have been helping and advising members of the public. Whether it is guiding nurses through their training requirements, or advising people on their complaints against local councils, I have enormous experience of talking to and helping ordinary people. Knocking on thousands of doors over the years has further developed my people skills.

Must also mention my organisational skills – leading a team to provide a service to professional colleagues, participating in local campaigns such as road safety and anti-social behaviour, local party campaigns, fundraising/organising church activities, editing and writing the newsletter in my role on the parochial church council – and of course running in the last general election where, despite a tiny local party, we increased our vote. I enjoy being busy.

I want to be a MEP, for London, for the Liberal Democrats. I can help and advise, I can run campaigns, I can organise, lead and participate in teams, I am always insufferably cheerful!

And what about Europe? As a keen student of European history, and traveller to a number of states, I have a great interest and love of the continent and the role Britain could play there. I have a degree in European history, a Masters degree in international politics and a law degree as well to add to my interest and knowledge.

I have written a number of articles on this blog on the topic – but in a nutshell
(i) the EU is a bureaucratic monster in dire need of cost cutting reform
(ii) we in the UK need to be more active in the EU both to further our interests and work towards these reforms
(iii) there should be more democracy within the European Union (see my last blog entry)
(iv) I find the Con-UKIP-media Eurosceptism view frustrating and holding the UK back – for this reason I favour an in-out referendum – I believe it can be won and would then neutralise the anti-EU brigade
(v) the Liberal Democrats are the most pro-European party – and pro-Europe means pro-UK – we should not be afraid to say so.
A simple slogan – job and business, jobs and business, jobs and business.

As an MEP I would campaign primarily for the interests of Londoners, but also to increase democracy and drive down bureaucracy within the EU.

Now the campaign has started, I have begun to receive invitations and hope to meet as many London Liberal Democrats as possible, including at the regional conference at Croydon next week. And those I don’t get round to meeting, I hope will be in touch on keithnevols@hotmail.com and give me their consideration.

Keep reading here and follow me on my campaign over the next seven weeks.

Away we go! 'Keith Nevols – For London – For Europe!!'