the widow's world

Why I will #VoteLayla

2020-07-29T23:26:00.000+01:00

Another year, another leadership election, another leadership election blog. Indeed, my first blogpost since last year's election. (I've purposefully not read that, or the 2015 one, before writing this - I shall do a compare and contrast afterwards!)

Last year, I voted for Jo, although had Layla stood my decision would have been more difficult. In the final analysis, I would probably still have voted for Jo at point. Likewise, had Daisy stood this time, my decision would have been equally difficult: I think Daisy is hugely impressive for what she has done in St Albans and that she definitely has the makings to be a future leader (a fact tacitly recognised by one of my friends who waspishly said "young cardinals vote for old popes" when they learned that she was backing Ed in this campaign.)

Personally, I would have liked a three (or more!) cornered contest which could have provided for more debate about the party's direction, rather than contest of personalities (or, for some, of who they disliked least). Wera's campaign never really took off, though, and so we are where we are.

It would be easy to characterise this contest as a re-run of last time: a young, charismatic women with media nous versus a middle aged, serious man with cabinet experience. But that would be a lazy analysis for two key reasons: Jo had more experience, having first been elected in 2005, and the fact that she wasn't a cabinet minister is down to Clegg's failure to promote her (or any woman) to cabinet. Indeed, if I recall correctly, one of her roles did entitle her to attend cabinet. The other reason is that Jo and Ed were much closer both politically and in their approach to the coalition than Layla and Ed have been. This contest is, in many ways, much more like that of 2015: a coalition sceptic against a coalition knight*.

Policy is made by members (although, of course, the leader can influence that) but it needs to be sold by the leader. Laying aside feverish press reports of Layla wanting to take us to the left of Labour (she actually said we should be more "radical" than Labour - hear, hear, I say!), for me the key difference is one of presentation. And in leadership elections this is one of the deciding factors for me: who, in my judgement, is going to get media cut through, and build a relationship with the public?

A perk of being involved in politics is getting to see and meet MPs in the flesh but millions of "ordinary" people don't have this privilege. I remember the first time I saw Ed in person, at a conference fringe in, I think, 2012, I was impressed at how warm and engaging he was in person. I have since met him and always found him friendly and humorous. But my prior experience as an armchair supporter was not one of someone who excited me or left a particularly lasting impression - and in this election he has been worryingly prickly when asked about the coalition, both in hustings internally, and in the media externally.

My first impression of Layla wasn't great either - she spoke at conference rally and seemed somewhat robotic reading from the autocue... but later the same week in an Education debate, she spoke with passion and conviction. Since, I have seen her bring that passion to other topics - and when I see her on television that passion still shines through. It is this Layla that people will see - indeed, it is this Layla that people have been seeing throughout this leadership election, with hundreds of media appearances.

As well as passion, Layla also has a compassion for people. When several members of the LGBT+ Exec left the party last year in the wake of Phillip Lee being admitted, Layla made a point of coming to the pub in Bournemouth to sit with them and listen to their reasons and to check they were okay. She has empathy in spades, and that will be a valuable tool in connecting with the public and selling a revitalised Lib Dem brand.

Which brings us on to her vision for us to be radical: advancing Liberal values whilst connecting with the concerns of that fabled beast, the "real voter"... of course many people are interested in the bread and butter issues, and want easy policy solutions that will make their lives better, but people also want to feel like they understand what you stand for: and that's where taking distinctive Liberal positions comes in - like Paddy on Hong Kong or Charles on Iraq. Now, as so often before, those issues are in the fields of civil liberties and human rights, and we must not be afraid of them. This contrasts with Ed's approach which has been to major on policy solutions rather than values - for me it needs both.

And finally (and this is where I think I may be echoing something I said last year), the party is changing, but we have much still to do to make it truly representative of the country at large. One of Jo's legacies, though, is a parliamentary party (in the Commons) which is more diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, and sexuality than ever. In many ways, Layla embodies that diversity: a pansexual woman with Palestinian heritage (although she downplays this latter element, acutely aware that she passes as white) - electing her as leader would would reinforce that our commitment to equality did not begin and end with Jo.

Once this contest is over (and there's still a month to go) we will all have to come together again and fight for the future of the party. I hope that if Layla wins the party establishment, who have largely backed Ed, will respect that and engage constructively with her and the membership - just as I will support Ed if he wins. That's not to say there won't be moments when I'm critical - whoever wins. Indeed, Liberals should always be critical of leaders: hero worship doesn't come easy to us. I already don't agree with everything Layla says or argues for...

This is the fourth Lib Dem leadership election I've voted in - my previous three votes were for Charles, Tim, and Jo. All had their flaws, all of which proved, ultimately, fatal - but given the choices again, with the knowledge I had at the time, I would make the same decisions: leaders are the public face of the party, they need to set the tone, and they need to get cut through. For me, Layla meets those criteria, and more:

Layla has the vision, the passion, and the compassion we need if we are to stand a chance of getting out of the business as usual rut and rebuilding the Lib Dems as a party of Liberal values with real-life solutions to the problems faced by individuals and communities across the country.

*OK, so Lamb wasn't a knight at the time, please forgive my use of poetic licence.
**Please accept my apologies for inconsistently in referring to Charles, Jo, Paddy, Ed and Layla but contrarily to Clegg and Lamb. I think, though, that those are reasonably common usages in the party.

Why I'm backing Jo Swinson to be Lib Dem Leader

2019-07-01T02:09:00.000+01:00

The Independent this week suggested that the Lib Dem leadership election hadn’t caught light. Well, perhaps not; but that’s an indication of the quality of candidates, and the fact that the vast majority of members would be as happy with either Jo or Ed in the role. Readers are invited to compare and contrast this to both the current Tory or past two Labour leadership elections…

I don’t mind admitting that I’m a long time Jo Swinson fanboy – from winning her seat at the age of 25 when she was the “baby of the Commons” (how infantilising is that?), to her campaigning on body-positivity, to her work on shared parental leave and promotion of women in boardrooms, to her book “Equal Power” (a primer on practical feminism), to her regaining her seat in 2017, her tenure as Deputy Leader, and now, as potential Leader of the party.

Over that time, I’ve seen her perform in hostile environments: on Question Time, in the Commons, and across the news and television media, as well as in less hostile environments such as Conference. She conducts herself with grace, dignity and humour, whilst fighting her – our – corner hard, and seeks to connect with people. For me, when it comes to reaching out and getting cut-through in the media, Jo has the edge. Indeed, in my pre-activist, Conference-going days, when all I knew of Ed was from his TV and radio appearances, he had never made much of an impact on me. He is much more personable in, well, in person than on screen: but we can’t get him on every doorstep! This for me is the major role of our leader and, as with our last leadership, it’s the single most important factor.

Many suggest that Ed has been stronger on policy in the campaign although suggestions that Jo’s campaign has been a “policy free zone” are laughable. However our leader does not set policy and whilst they can give a direction and steer, Conference can vote this down. Our departing leader found this out over the more unwise aspects of the Supporters Scheme proposals, and Conference repeatedly voted against Clegg’s attempts to water down our opposition to new runways at London’s airports. So the test with regard to policy is not “what policies will you implement?” but “how will you respond when Conference supports something you don’t?” On this, I have more confidence in Jo, as I do on her willingness to work within the party’s structure more widely: our committees and our (Specified) Associated Organisations.

It has also been commented that Ed’s campaign has been slicker. This would appear to be true – he was first off the mark, he (or, more likely, his team) slipped into people’s Twitter DM’s to canvass support early-doors, he produced region-specific literature for hustings, and managed to issue two pieces of addressed literature to Jo’s one. The second of these was a bit of a “wall of text” and landed at the same time as Jo’s magazine-style leaflet, which had the benefit of being un-enveloped. Whatever, we’re not hiring a campaign chief, and it is to be hoped that the skills and talents of those organiser for Ed will not be lost to the party.

One of the things that may have livened up this contest would have been Layla Moran* running. It seems she came close before deciding not to. For many in the party she would have marked a break from the past: a post-coalition MP without the baggage of having been a minister. I think, in some ways, the public are ahead of us in moving on from the coalition: our vote in the European Elections was over double that of 2015. On its own I might not put too much weight on that, but Westminster poll after Westminster poll is now suggesting that the local and European election results have caused people to re-appraisal how they view us at national level too. It should be remembered too, that most of our members are post-coalition. All that said, some of our opponents will hold Ed’s record as Secretary of State for Climate Change against him: specifically, his past support for fracking and the Hinkley Point Nuclear deal. Jo has fewer such controversial decisions to defend, and has outlined how we need to make clear that we did make mistakes in some of the concessions we made to the Tories.

There are other considerations, but I have generally omitted where their qualities, in my judgement, are balanced. I have also tried to avoid the type of endorsement that says “candidate X has the credibility to lead” or “the NHS would be safe under X as PM”. We should be above framing endorsements this way when the same could be said about either candidate unless we really do want to imply that candidate Y lacks credibility or wants to sell off the NHS.”

There is one major difference between them, though; something the Independent suggested was a bonus: Jo is a woman. Now, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not supporting her *because* she is a woman. I’m supporting her for the reasons outlined above and others, and for me she has the qualities I want in a leader, irrespective of gender. However electing Jo would mark a break with the “male and pale” history of our leadership: are we to have our third Knight as leader before we have the first woman?

60!

2019-01-04T19:34:00.000+00:00

As previously noted, one of my aims of last year was to read 40 books from a more gender balanced range of authors.

How did I do? Well, thanks to a couple of other changes in my life, I actually managed 60, and did indeed make sure I read more female authors.

Here's how the figures broke down, in line with previous posts on the subject:

Of the sixty books, 29 were by men and 31 by women - a 48% to 52% split. In terms of authors, this too was balanced, with 18 men and 23 women; 44% to 56%.

This year, I'm not sure I'll make it to 60 again, but am committed to retaining this gender balanced.

If you want to see more of my book reading habits, you'll find my goodreads page here.

My Hustings Speech

2018-08-19T11:45:00.000+01:00

So, the PPC selection for Bristol South was yesterday and... I beat RON. The hard work starts now!

This was the script of my speech. I'm afraid nerves and some technical difficulties with the iPad's teleprompter app means it reads better than it was in delivery.

Firstly, thanks to all for coming: I’m sure there’s lots of other things you could be doing, even on a dreich Saturday afternoon like this one.

Well, the script says dreich, but it looks like it may have improved out there.

An especial welcome if you’re here from Bristol South.

Thanks for your support unless your here intending to vote for RON, in which case I hope that I’m able to change your mind.

For those of you who haven’t already met me, as you can tell I’m not a native Bristolian. But I’ve lived in the South West for over 12 years, and I’ve been in Bristol for the last 8 – so I’m quite settled here.

Like many people, I moved to the city for work, and discovered it’s a great place to live, so ended up staying.

And it was here that I finally got involved properly with politics: from joining with the intention of delivering some leaflets, to standing in local council elections and losing by seven votes, to being involved with the local party as Membership Officer amongst other roles, and nationally with the LGBT+ Lib Dem exec.

But it all began in a hall not unlike this one at the South and East Bristol Lib Dem AGM in 2010.

Politics has become my life, but why am I standing in this selection?

Someone asked me the other day if I would actually like to be an MP.

Well, I would. Because I would like to be in a position to make a positive impact on people’s lives, both through dealing with individual casework and through championing Liberal causes in Parliament.

But if that was all I wanted, then I wouldn’t necessarily be standing here seeking selection for a seat that’s been Labour since 1935.

So, I’m really here because Bristol needs Liberal Voices, and Bristol South especially.

I’m here because the Tories are failing the country at Westminster and Labour is failing the City.

I’m here because our MP is failing to represent the interests of her constituents on the biggest issue of the day, and a myriad of other issues.

Indeed you may have seen her constituent survey asking for people's priorities, that completely fails to mention Brexit.

I’m here because I want us to Demand Better for Bristol South, and because Bristol South Deserves Better.

Nationally, Brexit is tearing the government apart, and we are hurtling towards the prospect of leaving the EU with no deal in place.

Now, I’m not in favour of the type of politics that consistently predicts Armageddon – that reminds me of the story of the Boy who cried Wolf – but the long term prospects of a no deal Brexit are bleak and we are right to point that out: and to give argue that people should be given the chance to reconsider.

But Labour’s - and our MP's response has been to concede to the government at every turn: on triggering Article 50 before they had a negotiating plan in place, to refusing to make staying in the Single Market or Customs Union a red line, there is nothing to choose between May’s Brexit and Corbyn’s Brexit.

But Brexit isn’t the only long term issue we face – indeed part of the problem is that whilst everything is focused on Brexit, day to day government suffers.

We need to build liberal policies and messages that appeal beyond this issue, important as it is.

In my literature I highlighted three issues that I feel will dominate the future of politics in Britain : Brexit, Inter Generational Fairness and the Environmental.

I’ve mentioned Brexit already – so, briefly, “Inter Generational Fairness”, as the jargon would have it, is about addressing the inbalance between the benefits that the post-war generation has derived from society and the experience of those now in their 20s and 30s.

Speaking in generalities, the former have benefited from generous employer sponsored pension schemes, home ownership, and enjoy a range of universal benefits regardless of personal circumstances. The latter have less generous pension schemes, higher barriers to buying homes, and may not be able to rely on the same levels of support in eventual retirement.

Of course, this does cite the problem crudely, and we shouldn’t forget that there are some very poor pensioners, but it serves to illustrate some of the nettles we need to grasp as a party and as campaigners.

As a whole, Bristol South has more young people and fewer older folks than the national average – and I want to see us develop messages that respond to their needs and aspirations.

Environmentalism, Green policies, and Sustainability issues, should be at the heart of everything we do. Brexit may be dominating the political agenda, but this is the biggest challenge facing the world. And at a time when nationalist and protectionist politics is growing in popularity, Liberals need to be shouting even louder.

On the doorstep, people are more likely to be concerned about “Austerity”, the NHS or Education, and we need better messaging around our policies on these: the need for greater investment in infrastructure and public services, a penny on the pound for the NHS and creating a Health and Social Care Service, and an end to a target driven culture in schools – but all these issues play into the three themes as well.

We need to recognise that our society is, if not broken, fractured. There are people who feel left behind and have lashed out at politicians, and the EU. These are people who have been failed by globalisation and a move to a service economy.

And these are the people that the right wing have stoked up to blame immigrants and other minorities rather than failures of planning and provision at all levels of government.

I grew up on a council house and have lived and worked amongst working class folks – my life may have become middle class, but I can understand where people are coming from. Our task is show them that Liberalism, and the Liberal Democrats, have answers to their problems. We have a different diagnosis and a better prescription than that offered by Johnson, Farage, et al.

At a city level, the Labour administration has proposed, and backtracked on, cutting Council Tax relief for our poorest residents. Proposed, and backtracked on, cutting libraries. And is shilly-shallying on the development of the Arena. Despite his manifesto commitment to “Complete the Arena”, it’s clear he’s going to backtrack on this too.

Meanwhile, Bristol South continues to be left behind in the city’s plans. Laying aside the Arena, which would have been (just) in the constituency, we have metro bus deciding not to run between Hengrove and Ashton Gate, we have no plans for a Park and Ride to relieve the Wells Road, and we have a number of ill-thought through housing developments proposed that don’t take account of the amenities required, or the need to build communities not just tower blocks.

So, if selected, what do I propose to do?

I will work with councillors and council candidates to support their campaigns in the run up to the next *scheduled* elections in 2020.

I will work with others of like mind on campaigns that promote Liberal Democrat policies and values.

I will commit to taking part in two action weekends each month as well as weekday activities.

I will engage with the press and council processes to raise my, and the party’s profile in the city.

I will utilise my various social media outlets to share my thoughts on current topics and to create shareable content for others to use.

We have opportunities to extend the reach of our messages – not just in the Remain voting areas but other areas as well. I want to grow our membership, including amongst minority groups, activist and financial base, and will use this role to seek to achieve that, so that we can fight harder, smarter and more successfully.

We’ve come a long way since that AGM meeting in Knowle in 2010 – the party has grown, but our number of elected representatives has shrunk, we lost a Brexit referendum, and have seen two party politics reassert itself. But the tide is beginning to turn, and with your help and support, I hope to be able to help lead a revival of fortunes, South of the River.

Some thoughts on the environment

2018-08-14T22:05:00.000+01:00

This is the third of my series on "Policy Themes" in which I'm sketched out some thoughts on some of the big issues facing the country - and world - in connection with my selection campaign in Bristol South. The original can be found on my Facebook Page for those who do Facebook.

I believe these three themes (brexit, "inter-generational fairness" and the environment) will dominate politics for the next decade and more... but this obviously isn't the extent of my policy views, or that there aren't other issues that will pre-occupy voters. However, these themes will cut across the issues voters will raise - health and social care, education, jobs - and they will inform my thinking and responses on these issues.

BIG ISSUES 3 : The BIGGEST

Yes, yes, I know I said Brexit was the biggest issue, but climate change and the environment will have a much bigger, and wider, impact in the long run. And Brexit makes it worse - impairing our ability to be part of an internationally coordinated response, and potentially putting us at the mercy of those who argue for lower standards.

The science is undeniable (unless you're Lord Lamont) - and the future without systemic change is bleak. Science, innovation and engineering have been the drivers of economic development since the Industrial Revolution: they must now be the drivers of environmental protection.

The challenges that the world faces: reducing carbon emissions, feeding an ever growing population, generating and distributing energy, all require significant political will, research and investment to manage. Building a sustainable future is a problem for the planet - but we require national, local and individual policy responses too.

As well as increasing energy from renewable sources, we need to explore electricity storage techniques. As well as encouraging recycling, we need measures to drastically reduce, and reuse, the materials we use. Investing in research and development aimed at solving these problems will benefit the economy as well as the environment.

There are all sorts of ways to achieve change but I believe it is best done through education and (collective) behavioural changes, rather than coercion. Likewise, we must be wary of solutions that would seek to put the brakes on economic development. Reducing people's living standards, regardless of good intentions, will be counterproductive to the aim.

Politically, and economically, the answer is to change the direction of progress, not reverse it.

More from the frontline in Bristol South...

2018-08-08T19:42:00.002+01:00

This is the latest in a series based on posts on my Facebook Page for those who don't do Facebook, but are interested in my selection campaign for Bristol South.

If you're a member in Bristol South, you should have had your PPC mailing - if not, then please contact the Returning Officer! (Send me an email at andrewcbrownukATgmailDOTcom if you need his details). Please read the mailing carefully, particularly the arrangements for postal votes. If you can't make the members' meeting on the afternoon of the 18th August, please arrange for a postal vote instead! Please also note that, although you will receive two manifesto documents, the other candidate has withdrawn.

As I noted in my previous post, I'm going to try and flesh out some of the ways in which I view the big issues facing Bristol South and the Country over the next couple of weeks - but your questions are also welcome.

BIG ISSUES 2: Building a Fairer Future for All...

...or, to use the buzz-phrase, "Inter-generational fairness".

We've come a long way from "we've never had it so good" and in many respects it the current generation of young adults is the first in a long time to suffer a dip in living standards relative to their parents.

Yes, they have iPhones, Smashed Avocados, and huge flatscreen TVs (but so do their parents). What they don't have is access to affordable homes, should they choose to buy, or a rental sector which works to the benefit of tenants. Meanwhile, pensioners receive a range of universal benefits, the triple lock for pensions, and are often fortunate enough to have accumulated substantial private pension benefits from "Defined Benefit" schemes that are no longer available to younger workers.

At least, that is the way that this issue is normally presented, reflecting a very middle-class view of the world. And the solutions normally presented do little for those whose outlook is even more bleak. However, there are a number of valid issues here: and there are several nettles to be grasped.

Amongst other measures, I would be in favour of abolishing the triple lock in the next parliament, linking pensions solely to average earnings and inflation - and would review the scale and scope of universal benefits provided to pensioners. We need to reform the private rental sector, with longer leases and greater rights for renters. We need to make pension savings more attractive, and more rewarding - I would favour a flat rate relief that provides a bonus for basic rate savers, whilst reducing the relief to higher and additional rate payers.

And we need to build more homes: not just flats, but houses too: for ownership, private letting and social rent. But we need to build more than just homes - we need to build communities, and to ensure that relevant amenities are provided: schools, doctor's surgeries, dentists, parks, shops - not just for the big developments, but for those where multiple smaller developments amount to the same things. We need to build on brownfield sites, and we will need to build on greenbelt too, and we need to think very carefully before we consider building up as the answer.

More radically, we need to seriously consider the development of a Universal Basic Income - to provide people with greater flexibility of income - and the implementation of some form of Land Value Tax, and a shift to the taxation of unearned income and wealth, and away from Income and Consumption Taxes.

In all of this, though, we need to consider not just the needs of the middle classes, who shout loudest, or the young professionals lunching on North Street, but the folks in Hartcliffe or parts of Bedminster that estate agents don't call Southville.

An announcement

2018-08-06T21:40:00.001+01:00

This is a version of two posts made over on my Facebook Page. For those who don't do Facebook, I'll be posting here regularly over the next couple of weeks.

After a bit of a false start, I was able to announce on Saturday that I am a candidate in the selection for a Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol South. Unfortunately, due to a late withdrawal, I'm now the only candidate (other than RON: "Re-Open Nominations")

Nevertheless, we are now in a two week campaign period - messages of support or volunteers to help are welcome! If you are a Bristol South resident and message me here, you may save yourself a phone call or three later in the campaign!

Over the next few weeks, I'll try and flesh out some of the ways in which I view the big issues facing Bristol South and the Country - but your questions are also welcome.

BIG ISSUES 1: The BIGGEST

The first of my policy position posts deals with the biggest issue in British politics: Brexit.

It will come as no surprise that I oppose Brexit: I campaigned against it in 2016 and believe that re-applying for EU membership should be part of the Liberal Democrat's policy platform should it not be averted. Indeed, a commitment to the European Community (as it was) is part of the preamble to the Party's constitution.

It should also come as no surprise that I regard Labour's attempts to face both ways on the issue as not just disingenuous but damaging to the country's interests. Had Labour committed early on to retaining membership of the Single Market and Customs Union, and sought to work with like minded Tories, then we might not now have been staring down the barrel of a "no deal" Brexit.

And if I were an MP, I'd have been voting against this government at every turn.

But we are where we are.

If selected, I will be an advocate for an "Exit from Brexit" - and will work with others to this end. Whilst I would gladly never participate in another referendum ever, I support having a "people's vote" on the pragmatic grounds; having started this with referendum which (in part) played on a perception of politicians being disconnected the people it would be dangerous, and fuel for the populist fire, for those same politicians to overturn the result. [Unfortunately nuanced debates about non-binding referendums and the meaning of representative democracy would be lost in the resulting uproar.]

I will challenge our MP's record on Brexit: supporting Article 50 and opposing a number of Brexit Bill amendments that would have sought to retain SM and CU membership.

More widely, I will highlight the other damaging effects that Brexit will have on the Constituency, City and Country: whether economic, social or cultural.

Reading Habits: Mid Year Update.

2018-07-07T19:03:00.001+01:00

It is (over) halfway through the year and I thought I'd do an update to this post in which I outlined my intention to read more books by women this year... So, how am I doing?

Well, I think I'm doing well.

Dialling the stats back to how they stood at the end of June, I had read 29 books - well ahead of target, which was 40 for the year.

Last year 64% of the books I read were by male authors. This year, to date, that's been 45%. In terms of individual authors read, just 41% have been male.

In absolute terms, I have read 16 books by 13 female authors - outstripping the 15 books by just 6 women read over the course of the past year by some way. Many of these have been authors I've read for the first time, some as a result of recommendations both here and on Facebook: Jeanette Winterston, Naomi Alderman, Maya Angelou, Mary Shelley, Val McDermid, Jane Harper, Mary Beard, Susan Hill, Natasha Pulley, Jessie Burton.

So, while I still have huge piles of books by men to read, I've been making efforts to buy and read additional books by women. Much of this has been virtual or audible stockpiling: I'm trying to resist adding too much to the physical piles!

Should you be inclined, you can follow my progress on my goodreads page.

IDAHOBIT

2018-05-20T12:09:00.002+01:00

Last Thursday (17 May) was International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia*. Here's a piece that I wrote for Lib Dem Voice on behalf of LGBT+ Lib Dems, of which I am Secretary. The original piece can be found on Lib Dem Voice, and on the LGBT+ LD site.

On this day in 1990, the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of ‘mental disorders’. Since 2004 the anniversary of this has been used to promote awareness of the legal and cultural discrimination LGBT+ people still experience around the world.

In the UK that we have come a long way towards achieving equality – and yet we know that, for many, there is still a stigma around their sexuality or gender identity. Imagine being a teenager struggling to reconcile same-sex attraction with the teachings of their parents, or religion. Think about why you may not know many people who are openly bisexual, or those who have multiple partners in consensual polyamorous relationships. Consider the workings of the “spousal veto” which insists a trans person’s husband or wife must consent in order for them to gain gender recognition.

IDAHOBIT is about celebrating the diversity of human sexual and gender expression and challenging the barriers to people living their lives as openly as their cis, straight peers.

In the UK, this year’s day takes place against a backdrop of the current media storm over self-ID for trans people. This is the proposal to reform the Gender Recognition Act such as to reduce the hoops that trans people have to go through to replace their birth certificates. Despite what you may have read, it’s not a licence for any man who wants to perv at naked women to walk into the female changing rooms at the local swimming pool. There are, after all, already rules against that sort of thing. It is merely the UK catching up with such notoriously socially liberal states as Ireland.

This year’s theme for IDAHOBIT is “alliances for solidarity” – and that, to us, sums up what we’re about as an organisation: solidarity with all under-represented, discriminated and persecuted groups. LGBT+ Lib Dems believe that you can’t build equality on the back of another minority or under-represented group. This is why we are vociferous in opposing those who hide their transphobia beneath a cloak of “feminism”. It is why we insist on referring to Same-Sex Marriage as just that – it’s not “Equal Marriage” whilst the spousal veto remains. It is also why we strive to ensure that we do what we can to give additional weight to the L, B and T+ in LGBT+: in a society that has become more accepting of gay men, there is much that remains to be done.

Tackling discrimination in all these forms, and others, is not just an LGBT+ fight, but a Liberal fight. After all, as the preamble to our party constitution has it, “No one [should] be enslaved by … conformity.”

*IDAHOBIT in the UK and Australia, IDAHOTB in the rest of the world. An explanation of this can be found here.

On Nigel Farage and a deal referendum

2018-01-12T01:32:00.001+00:00

Two posts on consecutive days? That's not something that's happened for a long time! Although this is, essentially, a re-hash of some thoughts I posted on Twitter earlier.

There was much excitement amongst "Remain"* campaigners today when Nigel Farage announced he was beginning to come round to the idea of a second^ referendum. His thinking being that a second** "leave" win would kill off any further thoughts of re-entering the Union "for a generation". On this last point he is right - just as it took dissenters^^ from the 1975 result over a generation to reverse that decision.

(Of course, for all his talk of the finality of the 2016 vote - the day democracy stopped, folks - we know that his campaign would have continued had the result gone the other way by, well, by any margin.)

Anyway, lots of people jumped on this news - arch remainers*** Ian Dunt, AC Grayling and Nick Clegg, amongst others, made hay whilst the Lib Dem Press Team and prominent spokespeople went to town on the news.

But why? Or, at least, why the lack of trepidation?

#RulesOfPolitics Number 53. When your opponent appears to adopt your policy, stop and ask "why?". Their agenda may not be your agenda.
— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

I mean, it's not as if Farage hasn't a record of being disingenuous, is it?

Whatever your view on a #Brexit Deal Referendum, there's a disturbing lack of circumspection about #Farage's contribution to the debate today. 3 quick points:

1. With Farage it's all about Farage
2. He, presumably, thinks any ref winnable
3. More of this: https://t.co/UpsQjTvlHo
— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

Now, I know that the polls are showing a lead for remain over leave now - and that is welcome, as far as it goes. But for the majority of the population, the matter is settled, so the question is considered moot. If it were to be reopened, whether on the nature of the deal agreed or otherwise, the numbers would rapidly change - and the narrative and tone of debate would be even worse than before.

Now, this isn't intended as a council of despair - but it is intended as a dose of realism. It's also not intended as an argument against having a deal referendum. That's a policy I support, albeit I would have liked the party to have also adopted a line that categorically said election of a Lib Dem majority government^^^ prior to actually leaving would be a mandate to reverse the process. Would such a policy have made a difference at the last election? I doubt it, but I'm not about to second guess when the next election may be, the role Brexit may or may not have in that, or the outcome.

No, I support the policy on the pragmatic grounds, outlined in part in this exchange:

Farage will say anything for publicity, but Liberals have to ask themsleves how we would win a second referendum when we had no idea how to win the one on AV or the first Brexit vote
— Jonathan Calder (@lordbonkers) January 11, 2018

Absolutely. I'm not sure whether it is naivety or complacency that leads to the view that another referendum is the best way to get out of this mess. It would surely be just as unfair a fight as the last one.
— Alex Marsh (@ShodanAlexM) January 11, 2018

Yes - disturbing lack of circumspection from l/Liberals on Farage's intervention. I do support the Deal Referendum, but on pragmatic grounds: The referendum genie has been let out of the bottle, reasserting Parl Sov on this topic at this point would, to my mind, risk more (1/2)
— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

... than a referendum would. In addition, I really can't see parliament rejecting deal - at most I see Labour's official position to be to abstain, albeit with a significant rebellion amongst their ranks. (2/2)
— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

Of course we don't know how the 'meaningful' vote will be structured. But I'd assume you're right. It will come to Parly at the last moment & will be take it or no deal - and by then the consequences of not taking it will be so apparent Parly will vote not to go over the cliff.
— Alex Marsh (@ShodanAlexM) January 11, 2018

Put simply, I think the restoration and exercise of Parliamentary Sovereignty followed by the throwing out of Brexit would plunge this country into a much greater level of turmoil than another referendum. I'm not suggesting war, but there would be substantial civil unrest and political instability. In addition, the forces of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism (not to mention other forms of hate and discrimination) that the Brexit vote has given licence to would then be unleashed in a way we have not seen in a century.

So, back to Farage. He has his own agenda, and we ought to be very, very careful in the way we react to his pronouncements. Rather than reacting with glee, his words should give us pause.

*One of the things I bitterly, bitterly despair about is the way Brexit colours *everything* in our political debate, and huge swathes of people identify, or are identified as, "Remainers" or "Leavers" without either side seeking to engage with the other. There is a lot of speaking in echo chambers, or slinging mud, insults, sneers and jeers at the "other side" and not a lot of anything constructive. And, before anyone else says it, I don't consider consider myself blameless in this regard, although I do try to avoid sneering: that's just not a pleasant, or Liberal, thing to do.

^Shorthand. I prefer to call it a deal referendum. Or "a first referendum on the facts." But as far as a choice between staying in or leaving the EU/EC is concerned, we've had two of those already.

**in short order.

^^Farage himself would have been only 11 at the time when 67% of those who voted opted to secure a brighter future for themselves and future generations.

***Gah, even I'm doing it now.

^^^I know, I know.

A few words on Tim Farron.

2018-01-10T23:28:00.000+00:00

(Note: This wasn't meant to be a post - I merely intended a few words on my Facebook page, and repeat of the LGBT+ Lib Dem line... but it sort of grew arms and legs.

Tim's been at it again - picking at the scab which never quite healed following his failure to give a good response to Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News on his day after election as leader.

Having defended Tim, despite his unpreparedness for the question then (and, as it transpired, continued unpreparedness in 2017), his repeated pronouncements since (beginning with his resignation statement) have become increasingly frustrating.

When. You're. In. A. Hole. Stop. Digging.

Especially when it has an impact on others, who are busy trying to climb out of that hole.

I still like Tim*, but every time he pulls this sort of stunt it becomes harder to do so.

I had hoped that Tim could play a role in the recuperation of the party's reputation. He seemed to have found his mojo again on social media, and could have continued to be an asset on the telly, particularly the softer media opportunities which Vince may not be so cut out for.

But now he really needs to take a break from Making. Pronouncements. Whether on the issue of gay sex, or the nature of Liberalism, a period of quiet is now well overdue.

Today's video caused much anguish on the LGBT+ Lib Dem exec: particularly as we had had his back during the General Election. There is a distinct feeling that this is not the way to pay us back. (This is putting it mildly. Some of my colleagues might not be so polite as I.)

Accompanying Tim's statement comes a fresh media circus.

Lib Dems in the headlines! Hurrah.

For all the wrong reasons. Boo.

LGBT+ Lib Dems were asked for contributors on LBC - including on Nick Ferrari's show tomorrow a.m.. No one was available for interview, but we did issue a line - composed by yours truly and intended to be diplomatic and brief, but also pointed:

"Tim speaks for himself and has no brief for the Liberal Democrats on these matters. LGBT+ Lib Dems represent members of all faiths and none, and campaigns for equal rights for all, irrespective of their personal morality."

The not so subtle message?: We're campaigning for your rights, Tim, please don't undermine us when we do so.

*this is because I couldn't give two hoots as to whether he thinks gay sex is sinful.

Recommendations Sought: Women Authors

2018-01-03T20:09:00.001+00:00

I still need to do a proper New Year post but in the meantime, I have a favour to ask: recommendations for women authors.

One of my (as yet to be finalised) aims for this year is not just to keep up my reading, but to increase the number of books by female writes I read.

To put this in perspective, and because I'm sad enough to have kept track, last year I completed 44 books. Of these, 28 were by men, 15 by women and 1 was an anthology; in percentage terms this breaks down as 64%, 34% and 2%. When it comes to different authors, I read books by 19 male authors and just 6 different female authors - a 73% to 23% split. (The difference is down to the fact that I'm reading (listening to) a number of book series, including the Miss Marple and Ripley books.)

So, this year, a supplementary aim to that of reading 40 books is to achieve gender balance overall, and to improve that secondary split as well.

There are a number of good candidates already on my list - but I've always operated on the basis that a book list can never be too long...

P.S. If you want to see more of my book reading habits, you'll find my goodreads page here.

Sunday Sounds 82 - One Way Or Another

2017-12-17T22:28:00.003+00:00

Now that Sunday Sounds is back, one way or another I'm going to try and post every week:

My 2017 in 775 words

2017-12-12T12:16:00.000+00:00

As the year wends its way towards its denouement, I find myself in a position of feeling really hopeful and confident for the future, moreso than I can remember for a long time. This might have felt odd, considering that for much of the year I was in a bit of funk; professionally and politically, if not personally. But as we reach the end of 2017, things really do seem to be looking up – and I feel much more able to grab the opportunities that present themselves.

Indeed, I feel like I’m generally – and literally – walking taller these days. (I’ve lost a bit of weight, and I’ve sought to improve my posture.) As various things have fallen into place, this has become easier – although it brings with it a paranoia that my trousers are not long enough for my stretched-out frame.

Professionally, I am in the situation of moving jobs. Again. My current role, which (by coincidence) I started a year ago today, didn’t pan out in the way I’d hoped, and I reached the conclusion that I was better to move on than try and make a silk purse out of what had become a sow’s ear. I wondered, as I have before, whether I just needed out of Financial Services, and I explored some other options However, in the end I got an offer from another company with which I was happy. Having spent last Friday with my new colleagues at their Christmas do, I am confident that this new company will be a much better fit for me.

That said, a good thing to have come out of my current tenure has been the sitting – and passing – of two more CII exams. One of these helps towards the “gap fill” required to upgrade my existing Diploma in Financial Planning to the newer Diploma in Regulated Financial Planning standard. Both contribute towards the learning path to the Advanced Diploma – and I now only need three modules to complete that. So that’s what I’ll be doing during the OU holidays over the next few years! (Gaining a distinction in my first OU module was another highlight of the year.)

The alternative jobs I alluded to above were both with local Lib Dem parties – in Organiser roles. These would have entailed a complete change in lifestyle, and possibly location. (Un)fortunately I failed to get either of these – on reflection I think that’s for the best.

Which brings me on the political aspect of life. It’s been a busy year – with two election campaigns in which I was relatively heavily involved. Neither of these were successful – and the national picture arising out of the General Election was depressing as well. The ongoing backdrop of Brexit has been wearing – and I fear that it will be for a long time to come.

But adversity is grist to the Lib Dem’s mill, and I never quite gave up. As we approach the new year, I really do feel like my campaigning mojo is on its way back: the party may have a mountain to climb but I am ready to help. And ready to help lead too… Finally, two and half years after downloading the application pack, I recently completed the process to become an approved candidate for the party. This means I can now apply to selections for parliamentary candidates. There are many aspects of the role that I will need to work on and develop but I recognise what those are and will be addressing accordingly. In the meantime, I will continue with activity in my local ward, constituency and city. I also want to give more time and energy to the LGBT+ Lib Dems, and have taken on the Secretary’s role for 2018.

Going through the experiences of this year has really helped me personally: I feel like I have grown more self-aware, and that the votes of confidence (being offered a job on the spot in the interview, and passing the approvals process) have really perked me up. I’m also lucky to have an understanding housemate with whom to talk things through, and seek second opinions on when doubts set in.

More broadly, my personal life is the best it’s been in years – debt accumulated over my late 20s and 30s has all but been eliminated, bringing about a much better quality of life with regular trips to concerts, comedy gigs, and sporting events, and Glastonbury. A large network of friends, both within the party and outside, is also appreciated, even if I don’t always say so.

There is much else I could say but I’m going to stop at a round 775 words.

Sunday Sounds 81 - Grace (We All Try)

2017-12-10T09:00:00.000+00:00

One of my highlights of Glastonbury this year was seeing Rag 'n' Bone Man. It was Sunday afternoon, the weather was nice, and the Other Stage was mobbed for the man who has had the biggest selling debut album of the year, and the decade's fastest selling.

His overnight success has been a long time in the making, and prior to Humans he has had two album almost-album-length-EPs. Which is by way of saying that he had enough material to fill that hour long slot. Two things - other than the amount of love the crowd had for him - stand out in my mind. One was his willingness to acknowledge where he had come from by bringing doing a number with a Hip Hop Collective he used to perform with. His music may have taken a different direction and he may have gone stratospheric but he still seemed grounded. The other is related: he genuinely seemed overwhelmed by the size and reaction of the crowd.

Anyway - here is a special performance of Grace (We All Try) that he did for the BBC Review of the Year in Music show. This is gorgeous - turn it up as loud as you can get away with.

On O'Mara, Social Media, and being invited on to Newsnight.

2017-10-24T01:34:00.000+01:00

So, following the Guido* revelations earlier about Jared O'Mara's online comments concerning Michelle McManus winning Pop Idol in which he called her "fat" before launching into a rant about "fatties", I wrote a Twitter thread, that spawned this post, and also prompted an invite (unfilled) to go on Newsnight. No really.

Now, before we go any further, let me be unequivocal: the remarks were lamentable and are to be condemned. In addition, they seem to fit into a pattern of misogynistic and homophobic comments that give a great deal of cause for concern despite the time lapse. Given the quantity and nature of these, I think it is right for him to have resigned from the Women and Equalities committee today. He now has a job of work to do to convince people he no longer holds the views reported. That being said, though, I think there is an issue to explore here with regard to the use of social media, the permanent record it generates, and what should count as "fair game" for attacking those who become public figures.

This blog is an attempt to unpack some of my views expressed on Twitter earlier, and to address the responses to them. You can see these on this storify.

My first point was that the McManus remarks were 14 years ago, when O'Mara was a 22 year old. At that point he may not even have envisaged a career in politics, and his views may well have matured and developed since then**. He wasn't an MP or any other type of public figure at the time. So is it fair to trawl someone's social media history for past indiscretions, or for inflammatory or controversial comments? And how far back do we go?

In my Twitter thread it was at this point that I moved from considering O'Mara to an hypothetical MP, mainly on account of already being aware of questionable views disseminated by the member for Sheffield Hallam even before all of today's revelations. But there are other real life cases we could look at. Take Mhairi Black, for example, elected at the age of 20 in 2015, she had several years of tweeting behind her, and on record. This included several featuring "parliamentary language" and a number which were subsequently deleted.

Hers, though, weren't on issues of substance - although maths teachers and Celtic fans might disagree - so should we treat the youthful indiscretions of a teenager differently than opinions of someone in their early twenties?

Some of my Twitter respondents suggested that 18 should be considered a cut off point - and pointed out that "I was younger then" isn't a good excuse. Personally, I'd take a more nuanced point of view - I've met teenagers more mature than folks in their mid twenties, and people whose views (particularly on issues of equality) have changed and developed well into adulthood. That's not to say that I don't think age should be a factor when making a judgement on whether something is in the public interest, in addition to being in the public realm, but I do think that someone's more recently expressed views should be given greater weight. I also think remarks made by those once they are seeking public office deserve a more intensive examination that those from before that point.

But my main concern in all of this is that such intensive media scrutiny could further damage diversity in parliament and amongst those seeking election. We already, rightly, lament the rise of identikit politicians moving from PPE degree to Special Adviser to Safe Seat***. If we declare open season on everyone's Social Media, then we'll discourage those who haven't spent their formative years being conscious that anything they type could come back to haunt them. (Or, alternatively, have spent all their time being so on message it hurts.)

Like so many issues, this partly comes down to education. O'Mara's generation embraced the internet and Social Media with little acknowledgement of its permanent nature. The current and future generations need to be taught that online security extends to being aware that once something is online, its online for good. Don't go posting something you couldn't comfortably say to someone's face might be a sensible rule of thumb to start with.

So... that's the extended version of the Twitter thread... but between conceiving this post, and actually writing it, I got an email:

Unfortunately, I sat on it for 40 minutes before replying, which is clearly too long in telly terms... What would I have said? Probably along the lines of the above! And now it's online, its here for all to see.

* Note to self: you maybe should stop responding to Guido articles.
** Like I say, this remains to be evicenced
*** Apologies if this describes you - I don't want to suggest that you have nothing to offer, but if this becomes an even more well tread path to parliament, we will lose out on talent from other walks of life.

For Your Consideration.

2017-10-12T22:44:00.000+01:00

Picture the scene:

It’s 2020 and Oscar season is upon us. Film studios, directors and producers are busy touting their wares to the members of the Academy, offering up their prize films to the electorate and soliciting interest – and votes – with adverts, direct mail and parties.

Campaigning is in full swing, and you’re flattered to be invited to an exclusive screening of the highly rated “The Hat”, hosted by the studio chief and followed by a private party with some of Hollywood’s finest actors and directors.

As costume designer, your part in the making of “The Hat” was small, but crucial. As a member of the Academy, though, your vote is worth as much as Spielberg’s or Streeps’. Naturally, you were going to vote for the film in all of the relevant categories – but the invitation was still flattering, and you’re going to make the most of it.

As you get ready, you reflect on how much you had enjoyed working on the film, and what a contrast you feel in your career now to when you were starting out. Having climbed the ladder as far as you have has given you a unique viewpoint as you observe the industry, and your place in it. You shudder at the memory of some of the people you have encountered along the way – the power-games and manipulation you had to deal with, not to mention the “favours” expected and unwanted advances rebuffed.

The evening progresses and, after seeing the film, you move on to the function. And then it happens. As you enter the gilded function room you see him: Harvey Weinstein. He’s schmoozing academy members, working on behalf of the studio chief, the director, you(?), to get votes for the film. You can’t believe it; after everything that emerged in 2017, it beggars belief that he should be here, pressing the flesh, and continuing to wield influence.

Sound unlikely? I hope so. But it wouldn’t be without precedent, or application as an analogy.

Earlier today, Guido Fawkes published a story about a certain peer of this parish attending an event in Brussels with our Acting Chief Executive, various of our MPs, our MEP and others. Like all good Lib Dem photos, all the women were at the front, promoting diversity and an (almost) gender balanced group – and at the back was Lord Rennard. A further photo showed him campaigning for Vince in Twickenham in June.

Laying aside Guido’s agenda, the inference is clear: Rennard wishes to exert any and all the influence he can. Vince should resist any moves in this direction, and seek to suppress the Baron’s ambition. As I noted when our Lords elected him as their representative on the Federal Executive: “It's time Lord Rennard … realised that if - and for as long as - he is seen to hold influence, he holds back the ambitions of the party.”

Just as Harvey Weinstein’s continued presence as a manipulator of Oscar voters seems unconscionable, so should the reinstatement of Lord Rennard to any positions of influence and power within the party.

On Labour, their conference, and #Brexit

2017-09-24T22:08:00.001+01:00

It's not often that I would share Labour Party graphics, but bear with me on this one...

Tonight, via the machinations of the Labour Party byzantine internal processes*, delegates to their conference opted NOT to discuss the party's #Brexit policy**.

So on the single biggest issue of our time, Labour's much vaunted internal "democracy" has ensured that it won't be discussed. Of course, this will suit the leadership in its continuing quest to face both ways on the issue: supporting Brexit whilst doing just enough to keep pro-Europe supporters on board. In this regard talking about "Austerity", the NHS, Schools and Inequality is the right approach for Corbyn.

And they are all important issues - and should be talked about: but it's hard to see how Labour's approach to Brexit will not have an adverse impact on all these areas. Corbyn's long term Euro-scepticism, and antagonism to pluralist politics, put paid to any prospect of Labour leading a coalition to mitigate the impact of Brexit and push for, say, the Norway solution.

But what of the picture? Well, surviving pro-Europeans such as Mike Gapes MP and Richard Corbett MEP are circulating it as proof of what Labour's policy is, decided at their last conference. Of itself, the wording of the policy may give heart to those who see Labour's approach as playing a long-game - but their actions since the referendum have not suggested that they have such a long term strategy.

Indeed, the policy itself was "clarified" just hours after to state a referendum didn't form part of their approach, and since then Article 50 was invoked with Labour support and a general election. In that time, Labour have disabused those of us who hoped they might argue for the Single Market and Customs Union. At best they have remained agnostic on these, at worst they have abandoned them altogether (other than in a transitional period.) This lack of clarity was enough to see them gain left-of-centre votes in a two-party contest. What remains to be seen is how long this anti-Tory support will weather a pro-Brexit policy.

*on that point, this is instructive: https://medium.com/…/how-they-stitch-up-conference-8a6727cb…

**in contrast to the Lib Dem conference where hundreds of delegates turned out first thing on Saturday morning to force a suspension of standing orders and a debate on a motion, rather than just a consultative session.

(This post first made on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WhatAndrewThinks )

Book Review: The Handmaid's Tale

2017-07-29T14:13:00.001+01:00

According to Goodreads, 5 stars mean I found this book "Amazing"... in reality my feelings are much more mixed.

I've been a fan of Atwood for years, but have somehow only read a handful of her works and I was prompted into reading The Handmaid's Tale ahead of watching the TV series which I've been recording.

It *is* in so many regards an amazing book - but it is, in many many places, a deeply uncomfortable read. Some of that is in the power of what is unwritten - the brutality of the salvagings is hinted at, but these showcase executions are conducted in a surprisingly civilised fashion, right up until the moment of "particicution".

Atwood's vision of a dystopian near-future, is fascinating in its attention to detail: not just in the construction of the alternate society, but in how such a society could come about, and how quickly it could be adopted as the "norm". In this respect, this is a book about human nature: what drives individuals to dominate, and others to submit. Do you resist the imposition of a different- and brutal - set of rules? And, if so, how?

Despite the presentation of Gilead as a fiction, it is not unlike other societies that the world has known - with elements reminiscent of medieval times, as well as totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Indeed, in the "historical notes" which conclude the book, looking back on the events described by Offred in her narrative from the the safe distance of 2195, reference is made to a study entitled "Iran and Gilead: Two Late-Twentieth-Century Monotheocracies as Seen Through Diaries."

The Handmaid's Tale is often held up as a "feminist" novel and a statement on the treatment of women in society and, in part, it is. But the presence of the "Aunts" and they way they, too, partake in the brutality of Gilead suggest this is about more than the male/female power dynamic.

For me, the power of the book is not how alien the environment it presents is, but how familiar. What we take for granted as "civilisation" is shown to be fragile - something to be worked at and built on, or else human nature will out - and who can tell if you will be a Commander, a Wife, or a Handmaid, or worse?

P.S. The latest edition of the book, released to tie in with the TV show, has a new preface by Atwood herself. If your copy doesn't have this, it is worth looking up - it can be found on Google Books.

P.P.S. This is a copy of my review from Goodreads, which you can find here.

Some words on #IndyRef2

2017-03-14T00:50:00.000+00:00

From over on my Facebook Page.

On the morning of the 24th June last year, as I lay in my tent at Glastonbury in shock at the referendum result, I thought to myself: "there goes the union".

No, not the EU - it will survive in some form without us - but the UK.

Today we could have seen what could prove to be another significant step on the road to the break-up of this sceptred isle (or these sceptred isles, to include Northern Ireland in the equation).

Back then, in the midst of my despair, I said I would prefer a Scotland in the EU but out of the UK, than a UK out of the EU. Over time, my thoughts mellowed, although I still (largely) hold by that opinion. However, I fear that the result of Scotland leaving the Union, would be a Scotland out of both Unions; and that would be in the interests of no-one.

So today's news has depressed me deeply. As far as I can tell, the SNP now intend to spend another two years campaigning for independence, and using Brexit to hammer a wedge between Scots and the rest of the UK.

And this is where I have a problem. Self determination is a right and proper principle, and there is no doubt that Brexit is not popular in Scotland. However, most recent polls have indicated that Scots still back the union, or at least don't back independence. Are we to have yet more time spent on an independence campaign when there are more pressing issues at hand?

If Brexit is so bad (which it is) and the Scots so opposed (as 62% were) then won't they come round to this viewpoint anyway - without the need for the SNP to campaign when they could be dealing with Schools, or the Scottish Health Service?

Of course, these questions are moot: the SNP have never stopped campaigning for independence: this day has been inevitable since 19th September 2014.

(And on this, I have to confess I've had cause to reflect since the Brexit vote, given my own view of that, and my urge to continue campaigning. In that case, though, I'm seeking to respond to a live political issue, rather than make live an issue that people had thought was put to bed.)

In the last campaign, Salmond spent two years seeking to take advantage of the unpopularity of the coalition government. This time, May's pursuit of Hard Brexit gives Sturgeon bumper ammunition. Her gamble is that May will help her succeed where Cameron and co failed.

For her part, May says she wants the country to unite - and she could probably have achieved an approximation of this if she had opted for a soft Brexit. But her reckless policy has exasperated divisions, and made the SNP's task easier.

Labour's position on Brexit has also made this all the more easy for the SNP. They could have laid down some red lines, and led a campaign for soft Brexit. They could have worked to get the remaining Europhile Tory MPs onside in an effort to soften Government policy. It may not have been successful, but it would have given an alternative vision of a post-EU future. Instead, they have opted to chase a collapsing UKIP vote - the one form of nationalism that hasn't gained traction in Scotland.

Having utterly capitulated to the "will of the people", Corbyn made the lives of his Scottish colleagues even tougher. When asked about another independence referendum, he may as well as shrugged and said "Whatever".

And the Lib Dems? Well, I find myself in disagreement with Willie Rennie and the Scottish Party leadership on this. Whilst I think he is right to oppose this at Holyrood; I don't think our Westminster MPs should then vote against, if Holyrood has voted in favour. The technical power to call such a vote may reside in London, the moral right surely lies in Edinburgh.

So that's it. Brexit. Trump. Scotland. 2017 continues where 2016 left off. No matter how the SNP dress it up, their brand of "civic" nationalism is, ultimately, just as divisive as those that preceded it. Sadly, this time, I fear it may win - but not before tearing Scotland, and the UK apart.

P.S. I would also make an appeal to English friends who feel the Scottish party is somehow illiberal in its support of the Union. Self-determination cuts both ways: the people of Scotland should be entitled to determine whether to be part of the Union or not, and the Scottish party, within the federal structure, should be entitled to its own view on the matter too.

Cross post from Lib Dem Voice: How the West can be Won

2017-02-08T09:00:00.000+00:00

This post, like it seems all of them these days, was first published on Lib Dem Voice, here.

In May, eight “Metro Mayors” will be elected across England. Whilst the precise details vary between authority areas, each mayor will inherit a city deal providing them with money and powers over infrastructure development in an area covering multiple local authorities.

Given the generally urban nature of most of the areas it is anticipated that Labour will win many of these. (Although given recent results in Sunderland and Rotherham such old certainties no longer feel quite so axiomatic.) In the “West of England” area, though, we anticipate the fight will be between us and the Tories.

The area covered by the new mayor will be Bristol, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset. The latter two authorities have a mixture of urban and rural areas, contrasting with the sprawling metropolis* that is Bristol. As things stand, the Tories control South Glos and BaNES whilst Labour is in power in Bristol. In parliamentary terms, the Tories hold six seats to Labour’s three in the region.

As we’ve seen with results in Witney, Richmond Park and Sleaford, though, the results in 2015 are looking increasingly anomalous, particularly against the backdrop of Brexit (and Labour’s response to it.) Looking further back then and the picture was different: in 2010, Labour held two seats at Westminster, whilst we held three and the Tories held four. At council level, the Lib Dems were the administration in Bristol in 2010, and have historically been strong in both South Glos and Bath, where we took control in 2011.

The Supplemental Vote system means that there are two key tasks: first, ensure people know that the contest is between us and Tories. For those in Bristol, it may be strange thinking in these terms, where the battle lines have historically been drawn differently. Second, gain sufficient second preference votes to overhaul the Conservative candidate.

There is, of course, no magic bullet in doing this but we have three key weapons: our candidate, our members, and our renewed energy.

Our candidate is Stephen Williams, whose credentials for the position are vastly superior to any of the other candidates. He is a former Councillor, Lib Dem group leader, MP and coalition Minister. He knows the city of Bristol inside out, as well as much of the rest of the area, and his experience of both local government and the workings of Whitehall will be invaluable.

Over the past two years, our membership in Bristol has more than doubled, just as it’s increased across the country. With these new members come fresh ideas, and a rejuvenating enthusiasm. The result of the General Election, Brexit and Trump have motivated new members to take action, and this has helped energise those of us who are longer in the tooth.

Online and offline, there is a real enthusiasm for action within the party. This is one of the main drivers for our success in council by election after council by election all across the country. Week after week, we demonstrate that we can take seats from all comers. The West of England Metro Mayor presents a high profile opportunity to underline that point.

We can give the Tories a bloody nose, challenge May’s pursuit of a hard and harmful Brexit, and remind them that despite the result in 2015 they cannot take the West Country for granted. We are up for the fight, and up for delivering a famous victory.

You can follow and support Stephen’s campaign via his Facebook page and you can follow him on Twitter. Members and supporters can also join an online virtual HQ. Finally, you can donate here.

*some poetic licence may have been employed here.

My week on Twitter - the #Brexit edition

2017-01-19T22:32:00.001+00:00

Cross post from Lib Dem Voice: Brexit means... Keeping Mum

2017-01-12T10:00:00.000+00:00

The following was first published on Lib Dem Voice, here.

Brexit means Brexit… The oft repeated mantra has become as synonymous with Theresa May as Major’s “Back to Basics”, Blair’s “Education, Education, Education” and Cameron’s “Compassionate Conservatism”. Like those, the phrase has become something of a joke – not helped by the assonance of the words “Brexit” and “Breakfast”, and the trap this has provided to ministers and commentators alike. So far, so funny, so harmless. Well, not harmless, but there is a world of difference between soundbites and actual policy. Originally “Brexit means Brexit” seemed designed to simultaneously pander to those who want a hard Brexit, whilst leaving the government leeway to work out what to do.

Of course, the official explanation of a lack of policy is that we cannot “reveal our hand” in advance of negotiations. There can be no escaping the whiff of sophistry about this answer – particularly when you consider the conflicting signals from the various departments charged with coming up with some form of coherent plan for those negotiations, preferably before Article 50 itself is triggered. It is patently obvious that no such plan yet exists, and all the while the clock is ticking towards the government’s self-imposed deadline.

If taken at face value, then May’s approach shows a shocking disregard for parliament, and the people. Her original desire to exercise Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 was but a symptom of a wish to retain control over every aspect of Brexit. I doubt those who voted to “Take Back Control” meant “take back control and hand it to the whoever is selected to lead the Tory party to do with as they wish”. Nonetheless in a few short months we have gone from having a government elected on a manifesto in which they said “yes to the Single Market” to a situation where the new Prime Minister will not now categorically repeat that affirmation.

This desire for control was evident in the advent of “Red, White and Blue” Brexit. Back me, or be unpatriotic was the message. Brexit is British: if you don’t get behind it, then your loyalty and even national identity is suspect. Get with the programme or get out… I exaggerate, but there is a serious point here: Brexit has given licence to those whose idea of Britishness is ethnic rather than civic to voice their opinions in ever louder and more aggressive ways. The tone from May, and from elements of the press, add fuel to the fire. It’s all very well to call for unity, but you need to act like you want it.

It is impossible to shake the suspicion is that the government, or parts of it, is intent on withdrawing from the single market whatever their public pronouncements, or lack of them, say. Certainly, having already gained the upper hand once, Tory eurosceptics will now press for “Maximum Brexit”. In building their coalition of support the Leave campaigns deliberately obfuscated on whether we would (or could) remain a member after a Leave vote. Now most of the leading campaigners tell us that Brexit means complete extraction not just from the EU but from all its institutions.

So, we have three possible, and overlapping, reasons for the government’s silence on their vision for the future: 1) a lack of a plan for the negotiations, 2) a certain control freakery, driven by May and 3) an unwillingness to admit that leaving the single market is an aim of at least some of our leaders, if not the settled goal of the government as a whole.

But is there a fourth reason?

Traditionally uncertainty has been the enemy of the markets – and this was evident as the currency markets tumbled following May’s refusal to admit that her aspirations to control migrant numbers would inevitably mean a hard Brexit settlement. But it was more than this, it was a window on what will happen if, or when, it becomes clear that we are leaving the single market. May can ill afford a further sustained devaluation of the currency, the attendant monetary and fiscal measures that would accompany this, or the potential backlash that the resultant cost of living might bring against her and the road she has embarked on.

Perhaps uncertainty is better than certainty, if the latter is suitably grave. Perhaps that’s why, for now, mum’s the word when it comes to Brexit plans.

Cross post from Lib Dem Voice: Is a Progressive Alliance the way forward?

2016-12-20T00:08:00.000+00:00

The following was first published on Lib Dem Voice, here. It has given rise to a number of comments which, whilst I've not been able to address them individual, I'm sure I will revisit in further pieces.

Is a Progressive Alliance the way forward?

Since the last general election - and even more so since the EU Referendum and the election of Donald Trump in the United States - there has been talk of a need for a "Progressive Alliance" between Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, in an effort to beat the Tories.

Much of this talk has come from Green Party members, with Caroline Lucas being a prominent voice in favour, but there are those in Labour and the Lib Dems for whom this would seem to be a beguiling idea. Indeed, former leader Lord Ashdown has long hankered for a realignment of the left.

Personally I'm a sceptic; for all sorts of reasons.

First, just how do you define "progressive"? To me it's one of those political phrases that gets thrown around a lot, but means so many things to so many different people it has lost any real meaning. There are, for example, many in Labour who are perfectly happy with its authoritarian tendencies (evident in its internal organisation as well as in many of the policies it pursued in office) who would describe themselves as progressive, whereas I would not.

Many of these same people would be vehemently against any form of alliance with the Liberal Democrats: either because we are their natural political enemy in their locality or because we committed the "sin" of entering a coalition with the Tories in 2010. There are those in the Green Party who also feel this way too, despite such a pluralist approach to politics being a natural result of the PR electoral systems both our parties support.

Tribalism exists across all political parties and is fostered in the First Past the Post environment. For me, though, true progressive politics has to be pluralist in its approach: something that many on the left, with its many factions, find difficult.

So much for pragmatism, what about the pragmatics of any alliance? What, say, do we concede to the Green Party for their help in Richmond Park? Do we stand down in the successor seat to Brighton Pavilion? What about Bristol West, which is often mentioned in these terms despite the fact it has not been Tory since 1997 (having been held by Labour from then until 2005, then Lib Dem and, since last year, by Labour again.)

Given the scarcity of seats that the Green Party has a realistic chance of winning, and that their top two targets (Bristol West and Norwich South) are both held by Labour, after a spell as Lib Dem seats, you rapidly move away from the idea of a "Progressive Alliance" and towards pre-election pacts with seats, and presumed results, being horse-traded in the backrooms of Westminster.

Once such an alliance or pact has been made between parties, there is no guarantee that the voters will follow. Indeed, many voters may be turned off by the "alliance" candidate, or they may turn away and vote in precisely the opposite way from that intended. They may well resent the removal of choice, whatever the intention of the parties involved.

So, where does this leave us? Well, I'm not completely shut off to the idea of some form of an alliance, but for me it would have to have a very specific aim. Seeking a mandate to stop Brexit could have been one, but that ship appears to have sailed as far as Labour are concerned. The next big prize for an alliance would, to my mind, be electoral reform. A unified ticket of a short, time-limited parliament specifically to remove FPTP (and the Lords) and replace with PR (and an elected second chamber).

Sadly, I can't see this happening either which leaves two remaining possibilities (other than the status quo). One is a more informal arrangement of parties running "soft" campaigns so as not to cannibalise the progressive vote. The other is the approach of More United, where a member-led third party effectively endorses a candidate who subscribes to its values and seeks to rally support for them.

I understand there are moves to launch a progressive alliance body in the new year, but I fear that they are on a hiding to nothing. In the meantime, we Liberal Democrats have a distinctive message to tell on the key issue facing our nation today. In the absence of a broader movement for a more open, tolerant and united Britain, and for a continued role for the EU and its institutions, then we must keep flying the flag for what we regard as progressive politics.

Castro, Trump, Brexit and Liberalism

2016-11-26T21:21:00.001+00:00

The original version of this post can be found on my Facebook Page. This version has been expanded to incorporate my response to a comment on the post, and one or two musings elsewhere.

Much has been written about the rise of the populist right lately. With the advent of Brexit, and the election of Trump, the left is being challenged in ways it hasn't been for decades, and certainly not in the era of post-war politics.

For some, the answer is to retreat further to the left: the left of class war, the left of opposition-ism, the left of intellectual purity. So we have the spectacle of a Leader of the Opposition paying tribute to a dictator who ruled for 40 years.

I've jokingly said on the past that the reason that Corbyn's opposition is so lackadaisical is because in the societies he admires dissent isn't allowed. It's not, however, a laughing matter to have a Leader of the Opposition that lauds a leader of a state where no opposition is allowed, and not acknowledge the fact that he's speaking from a position of political luxury that Castro never extended to his critics.

Or we see people comparing the stability of Cuba with a cycle of crises attributed to capitalism. "Look at their health service!" is something I've seen a few times in relation to Castro. But this isn't about the relative merits of capitalism and communism/marxism - it's about the tendency of extreme left and right to totalitarianism, and - in the UK - of parts of the left and right to authoritarianism. Capitalism has its flaws - as do democratic systems - and Cuba and North Korea are, largely stable on a civic level. But if the price of stability in a society is to be supportive of the repression of dissent, then count me out.

For others the response to the right is to talk of a "progressive" alliance: although to me this falls down on a) differing definitions of "progressive" and b) practicalities. (I wouldn't rule out a joint-ticket committing to a short parliament to implement electoral reform - but that is complicated by Labour's approach to Brexit, and their innate tribalism*.)

Today's news on the death of Fidel Castro reinforces where, for me, the fault-line of politics really lies: between liberalism and authoritarianism, open societies and closed ones, internationalism vs isolationism and freedom of speech vs the routine imprisonment of dissenters. It matters not if threats to liberal ideals come from the right or the left.

If, a fortnight ago, you were spitting feathers at the Daily Mail's "Enemies of the People" headline, or suggestions from prominent UKIP members that the government should have more control of the judiciary, and you are now acting as an apologist Castro and Cuba, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself - and the Amnesty International summary of the situation in Cuba. (Click here for the full report.)

I know the world is complex, and Cuba may be far from the worst offender. But an offender it is. I'm happy to criticise America's record on human rights: both within CIA rendition programmes and it's use of the death penalty amongst many other things. There are also many things I am concerned about here in the UK - not least the recent passing of the Investigatory Powers Bill, with the acquiescence of Labour.

In addition, it's notable that in the Amnesty report both the UK and US have longer entries than that for Cuba. But that, of course, is not least because much of the information that Amnesty report on is freely available in those countries... whereas Cuba hasn't allowed AI access in over two and a half decades.

The job of Liberals is to shine a light on authoritarianism in whatever manifestation it presents itself. And to remind people that the answers to our problems have never been met by those at the extremes where left and right meet totalitarianism.

Where that aligns with others on the left - and right - we should work together for a better future. Where it doesn't, we must take a stand.

Ultimately, though, my point is that Human Rights abuses of the left are no different from those of the right. If you're on the receiving end of state-sponsored torture or human rights abuses, or your freedoms are restricted in some other way, I doubt you care much for the ideological purity of the perpetrator, whether fascist of communist. So I will call out those who have a tendency of some to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed in the name of their favoured ideology. The right did it with Pinochet, the left now with Castro.

* Labour's tribalism is alive and well in Richmond Park where their candidate seems to have forgotten that the defending MP - the so-called "Independent" Zac Goldsmith - is the primary opposition.