Why I am rejoining the Lib Dems (yes you heard that right)

So after three years of flying a little lost and solo, I have decided to once more join the Liberal Democrats​. You may find this surprising in light of last night's events.

In order to understand why I am once more joining, I must first explain why I initially left. I did not leave because I was ashamed of the Lib Dems joining Cameron in coalition. Joining Labour would not have provided enough seats to form a stable government and a rainbow would have been risky, especially in a time of recession. Furthermore, the Tories were the largest party as the electorate willed; would it have been right to ignore this? So yes, we uncomfortably climbed into bed with the Conservatives... And we tempered them in a way I think the country will only now appreciate, when faced with five years of stand-alone Tory government. 

The info-graphic I have attached highlights just a few of the positive contributions we made as a party whilst in government, such as pushing for same-sex marriage, lifting over 3 million of the lowest earners out of income tax, cutting tax breaks for the richest and establishing the pupil premium. Yes we had to break promises, such as that of tuition fees,* but as the junior partner in a coalition, 1/5th the size of the other party we had no choice. Coalition is a synonym for compromise and we were always going to be making more than them. Yet we shouldn't underestimate the simple ‘preventative presence’ the Lib Dems had on potential Conservative policies.   

“If our losses today are part payment for every family that is more secure because of a job we helped to create, every person with depression who is treated with a compassion they deserve, every child who does a little better in school, every apprentice with a long and rewarding career to look forward to, every gay couple who know that their love is worth no less than anyone else’s and every pensioner with a little more freedom and dignity in retirement then I hope at least our losses can be endured with a little selfless dignity too.”

(Info-graphic: http://www.markpack.org.uk/libdem-infographic/ )

The reason I left was not because I disagreed with Lib Dem involvement in government but because of an issue within the party. Very quickly, I, and other local members of the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, perceived that enough wasn't being done by the top levels of the party to reassure our grass root supporters, whether members or non-members, that positive achievements in government were being made. Instead, the media fed the public the story of betrayal, a story that still hangs over the party today. It was essentially a PR failure. We knew that positive changes were being made but the electorate were left oblivious.

As a result, in the 2011 council elections we lost all five formerly safe seats. These were seats long held by hardworking individuals with a strong commitment to improving the local community. These seats were lost because of the unpopularity of the party at the national level. It was hard to stomach especially since I, and others, believed this unpopularity could have been better combated by the central party. Additionally, for me personally, the final blow was the outcome of the AV Referendum in 2011 which sealed my disillusionment with politics generally. First-past-the-post is a painful joke for a country claiming to be democratic and I struggle to see how the majority of the country continually fails to see this.

So why now do I re-join? I re-join because the Lib Dems have always been the party I closest align to in terms of values. It is this that has kept them my vote if not my membership these last three years. I re-join now because last night’s wipe-out gives the party a clean slate in terms of leadership. Tim Farron offers the party a new lease of life; he remains untainted by the party's time in government and attuned to its grassroots. I re-join now because it is time for the party to regain its independence and rebuild trust at the local level where we work best. I re-join now because I want to restore England’s faith in the center left.  

~

* And have we really broken this? In 2010 we had that policy because we didn't want socioeconomic background to become an impediment to young people going to university. Under the new arrangements this is still true, the poorest students are supported by the loan and grant system, enabling anyone to go to University. Furthermore under the new scheme you pay for your degree in line with how much you benefit from it afterwards. And you don't pay anything until you earn over 21,000. To me it seems like a fair and progressive compromise.

The Official Liberal Announcement: KEEP CALM and CARRY ON ?

You'd have to be a hermit of the St.Ossian scale not to have heard about the turmoil of tuition fees...

And now it is the eve of the vote. The spotlight is on.
So, what should the Liberal Democrats do?

1. The Vote Yes Campaign:
So, Clegg and Cable are frantically urging Lib Dem rebels to 'walk through the fire' and support the proposal. And it has been announced, by Clegg himself that all 17 Lib Dem Ministers will vote for the proposals. Obviously, one should do this if he/she believes the proposals will indeed create a 'significantly fairer and more progressive new system', and disregards U-Turning on a key manifesto promise as being a betrayal.

2. Abstain?
Splits weaken parties and sometimes destroy them.
Support for the Liberal Democrats is being undermined, as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
This is the argument that, the real damage to the party comes not from adjusting our course as a result of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place. Both abstaining and deferring the vote do just that.

Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP (North West) describes how...

"In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke. I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive."

So, this argument looks to the fact that, if Liberal Democrats want to limit the damage done, there should be only two options for them to consider. Either they vote for the recommendations, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.

There is also the fact that abstaining, in this situation, is essentially the nice way of voting for the proposals. ven if all the Lib Dems abstained, the Tory majority would pull the vote through. Abstaining here is pointless and as proven above, signifies weakness to the Lib Dem image.

3. Rejection
They say no-one likes rejection but for once this seems to be untrue.
There was another protest in Lancaster today.
A majority of the public seem to be in uproar. And seeing as politicians are meant to reflect the views of the public, surely this is the sensible option?

Personally I believe, agreeing to the Browne Report, increasing tuition fees, not only by a bit but a ludicrous amount, is one compromise too far. The Browne Report does shine in the fact that it holds specific policies aiming to protect and encourage the poor to attend Universities but this conflicts with the huge increase in tuition fees, meaning now, even those of the middle class will struggle to pay off their debts.
Disillusioned Lib Dem supporters already feel betrayed by the government's involvement with the Tories and the increase in tuition fees does little to encourage disillusioned Lib Dems that the party is still a seperate, independent force within the coalition. Not simply, the majority makers.

Currently, it would appear around 20 Lib Dem MPs intend to vote against the proposals. This isn't good enough.
Here, twenty isn't plenty.
Tomorrow spells complete humiliation.

"Just because you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

At least, Pericles believed so in 430B.C and I believe so now.
And finally, it would appear that the general public are realising the reality of this statement.

"What's the point in politics, it's boring, pointless and doesn't affect me."

It has been rather amusing to see the ignorance of individuals come crashing down, for them to suddenly be plunged into panic, thrown into the frenzy of numerous protests and, God help them, become politically active...

Pericles must be laughing in his grave...

Although, sadly, it would appear at my school this enlightenment is limited, self centered and poorly informed.

Will I lose my EMA?
How will the rise in tuition fees affect me?

Obviously, it is natural to care more about the issues that will affect oneself, as that is the selfish instinct of human nature although some interest is better than none.
However, perhaps if people had a broader political knowledge in the first place they would understand the situation better and perhaps we would not even be in the current situation.

I.e. My parents vote Conservative is not a valid reason for supporting the Conservatives alone.

So, what about Tuition Fees...?

As a Liberal Democrat, I find the proposed changes simply inexcusable.
The Browne Report has many positive points, but these are obscured by the suffocating black mark of the rise in tuition fees - and rightly so. It is humiliating to be a Lib Dem at the moment.

"Say no to tuition fees."

That aim, has now become a distant dream of the Liberal memory, as much as Asquith and the grip of ‘Cleggmania’ during the General Election have become.
The appalling U-Turn on tuition fees was the final push, the acceptance of my status as not a Lib Dem but a disillusioned Lib Dem; I still hold the belief that the 2010 manifesto was, on the whole, an innovative, progressive masterpiece yet I am struggling to support, defend and agree with the recent actions of the party within coalition. I always knew there would be compromises but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Admittedly, scrapping tuition fees altogether within the current economic climate was perhaps rather too idealistic.
However, a promise was made and if the promise cannot be kept, the Lib Dems should certainly feel obliged to prevent the complete opposite from occurring.
Abolishing the cap on tuition fees was just that – the opposite.

Thankfully, that aspect of the Browne report has been altered, nevertheless current plans aim to implement a basic threshold cap of £6000 and an absolute limit of £9000 per annum.

This is both outrageously insane, insanely outrageous and outrageously high.

The result will be a crippling 30-year debt trap for graduates, a decline in the numbers attending Universities and in a typically loathsome Tory-type fashion; the favouring of the rich over the poor.

The new basic threshold of £6,000 is almost double the current fee of £3,290 that students pay each year, that's £17,210 per year or £51,630 over three years. The maximum government loan is likely to be £43,500 and the interest rate would be inflation plus 2.2%...

Any graduate earning over £21,000 a year would be losing 45p for every £1 they earn, how is this fair?

This will be a shattering blow to the 'knowledge economy' which will fuel England's economic future. A devastating blow to the Liberal Democrats. And a humiliating betrayal by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers, in particular Business Secretary, Vince Cable who helped write the proposals.

Students nationwide have embraced their revolutionary spirit, indeed even here, within the sleepy town of Lancaster.
However, even if all the Lib Dems abstain, the small Tory majority will ensure the bill will be passed.
The only hope is that, as Tim Farron has promised, other Lib Dem MPs will join Farron, see sense and outright reject the proposal; perhaps, damaging the coalition but more importantly protecting the generations of the future.
Sadly, this seems highly unlikely.

Will EMA be scrapped?
Yes and No.
You see, if you only listen to the deafening drone of the media then you will believe that yes, EMA is being completely scrapped and thousands of helpless teenagers are going to be plunged into an all consuming writhing pit of poverty.
BUT, if you read the official Comprehensive Spending Review Green Paper, it says this:

"The Spending Review will replace EMA with a locally managed discretionary fund to target support, which will focus the support currently provided by EMA on the most disadvantaged children."

Replacement is not the same as complete destruction.
Instead, the enhanced learner support fund will be introduced...

"Decisions about which young people should receive financial support from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will be made by schools, colleges and training organisations, who are in a better position than Government to determine the needs of individual students. They will target support to those young people who most need it to continue in learning.£26 million has been invested in 2010-11 in a discretionary learner support fund. With the ending of the EMA, this fund will be increased. We anticipate that in 2014-15 this enhanced fund will be three times greater than current funds."

Evidence and recent research suggests that around 90% of current recipients of EMA would have stayed on at school after the age of 16 even if they did not receive EMA, therefore this system is not affordable in the current economic climate.

Instead, the government hopes the new scheme will be more efficient. To achieve this schools and colleges will administer the funds. They know the young person on a personal level and so are better placed, compared to the distant force of government. It will also enable the school more power to remove the funds should a pupil misbehave or lack attendance.

What exactly the enhanced learner support funds will mean on an individual level remains a grey area as schools, pupils and parents remain in waiting for more details from the coalition government.

Receiving £30 of EMA a week myself, I have personally greatly benefited from the allowance as it funds travel, clothing and equipment for school. I am therefore concerned as to what the new scheme will bring, for instance it is not clear as to whether it will take the form of a frequent payment (e.g. weekly or monthly) or whether it will rather be one-off contributions towards school trips e.t.c. or whether I will even qualify for the new scheme.

However, I will admit that in the absence of EMA, it is highly likely that I would have continued in education, although perhaps not as comfortably.

Therefore I can see the sense in introducing a more efficient scheme as a result of the change in the country's financial situation; cuts have to be made somewhere and I would far rather lose that £30 a week to enable the government to continue paying someone who is terminally disabled through benefits.

I guess the point of this post was to prove that politics shapes everything, now more than ever.
You cannot afford to ignore it.

It's controversial. It's complicated. It's sensitive... It's the Spending Review.

"He needed to understand that Daddy might not always be very popular, and that there might be people who don't like Daddy, or the things he has to say. He might even hear it at school, but he's not to worry about it." ~ George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oh! The terrible pain when a Father has to tell his eight year old son that he is about to make 490,000 public sector workers redundant...

I will admit that because of the three reasons stated in the title above, I was considering trying to attempt to blissfully ignore the announcement of the spending review within my blog. However, I then realised that although it may be easier to ignore the spending review; it would be a political disgrace on my behalf.

I therefore attempt to analyse aspects of the Spending Review;  in the words of the Right Honourable Danny Alexander MP "not because it is easy, but because it is right". A phrase he used to defend his involvement in implementing the many cuts contained within the review at the Liberal Democrat Conference.

George Osborne began by reminding us, that as a country, we have the largest structural deficit in Europe at £109bn. Whether you blame Labour or not, this means each year, the country is paying £43bn in debt interest. Each day that is more than £100m spent on servicing our debt; enough to build a Primary School every hour.
To carry on like this would simply be unsustainable.

The predominantly Labour-pro media were always going to exaggerate the apparent 'horrors' of this Spending Review but undoubtedly the loss of 490,000 jobs over 4 years will have a damaging, catastrophic, social and economic impact. However, we have to think about the long term.

Would it really be fair to leave the growing debt, we are responsible for, for future generations to solve?
I am sure the majority would agree that no, it is not. The cuts need to happen. It is the speed and the extent of these cuts which is to be debated.

A 19% average cut (which was considerably lower than the 25% cut expected) will be made across the 4 year length of the budget. He has also sensibly decided to exclude certain departments from the 'brutal' cuts; most noticeably Education, Health and International Development.

The Education Department has been allocated an annual budget of £57.6bn, this is the second largest budget. The Review will see a 3.4% real term fall over 4 years and the abolition of 5 Quangos but direct funding to schools will be protected with budgets rising from £35bn to £39bn.

As a Lib Dem, it was particularly pleasing to see that a Pupil Premium of £2.5bn will be implemented for teaching disadvantaged pupils; a key Lib Dem manifesto pledge. Osborne also announced that 15hrs of free early education and care for 2 year olds, would also be offered to those from poorer households.
Clearly, education on the whole has thrived from this Spending Review.
 However, I still fail to understand why we are wasting £1.3bn on the Academies Scheme which simply makes the elite schools the uber elite... But I have ranted sufficiently over this on a previous post...

Health care will also be protected from cuts and has been allocated a budget of £106.4bn - the largest budget of all the departments. The NHS will receive a 1.3% real term rise in funding by 2015 and an extra £2bn will be provided for social care by 2014-2015. A new cancer drug fund will be provided and the budget will rise above inflation each year from £104bn this year to £114bn over the next 4 years.

This year's International Development budget has been set at £7.7bn, this is due to rise to £11.5bn over the next 4 years to meet UN aid commitments. All overseas aid budgets have been protected from cuts except for aid to China and Russia which has been stopped entirely.

However, other departments haven't been so lucky...

The Business, Innovation and Skills department has been allocated a budget of £21.2bn with an annual cut of 7.1%. For me, this is perhaps one of the cuts I find most worrying, partly through personal interest but also in terms of the public interest. The department is key in providing the facilities, skills and research which help boost our economy through employment and education.

However, Osborne has promised that there will be funding for 75,000 adult apprenticeships and thankfully the Science Budget has been frozen; instead of cut as feared.

There is of course The Browne report taking place into reforming tuition fees.
Much of this report I can agree with e.g. making students pay according to their income following University. If you go on to a high income job as a result of University, of course you should contribute more to the cost than someone who received a low income job. The calamity is of course taking the cap off tuition fees. It would be completely unfair to remove the cap as naturally the more prestigious Universities e.g. Oxford or Cambridge will take advantage of their excellent reputation by making students pay higher fees to attend the University meaning students from relatively poorer backgrounds would be disadvantaged.

The Cabinet Office faces a £55m cut in budget.
The Queen will also be practicing her patriotic duty; the Civil List funding will be frozen next year and the total Royal Household Spending will fall by 14% from 2012-2013. This would suggest we really are all in this together! However, she is temporarily taking £1m to fund her Diamond Jubilee - is this really necessary, would a trip to the cinema to celebrate not suffice?

Within my household, the big worry has been the Communities and Local Government Budget.
The Budget has been set at £33.6bn with a fall per annum of 7.1% which may naturally lead to the unemployment of council staff. However, changed rental agreements and the aim to build 150,000 new affordable homes add a brighter tone to this budget.

The Army will lose 7000 jobs.
The RAF and Navy will lose 5000 jobs each.
And the MOD will lose 25,000 civilian staff.
Yet still we seem to be fighting a seemingly 'checkmate' war in Afghanistan which is costing us billions to run each year...
The Defence Department will face cuts of 8% over the next 4 years and has been allocated a budget of £46.1bn. The Harrier Jump Jets and Ark Royal Aircraft are to be axed alongside the planned Nimrod spy planes, whilst the spending decision on Trident is to be delayed until 2016.

In amongst the 'doom and gloom' there is some good news, especially for fellow Lib Dems...
£1bn in funding has been set aside to start a Green Investment Bank; this is a key idea straight from the manifesto of the Lib Dems. Also, within the Energy and Climate Change Department, £200m in funding has been set aside for Wind Power development. However, the 5% annual budget cut means that the Tidal Barrage on the Severn Estuary has been scrapped.

During this year's election, do you remember the vital word?
FRONTLINE SERVICES.
So, we've had the health care and education, now time to look at policing...
The Home Office budget has been set at £10.2bn with a cut of 6% per annum. This has resulted in a 4% cut to the Police Budget however, it has been stressed that these cuts are focused on the bureaucracy rather than front line services - let's hope they are right...

And the criminals?
The plan for a new 1500 place prison to be built has been scrapped and it has been estimated that 3000 fewer prison places are to be expected by 2015.
However, there will be a £1.3bn capital investment in prison estate helping ensure we have a more efficient juridical system with fewer re-offenders.

The Transport Budget is due to fall by 21% over 4 years, which is perhaps amongst the highest cuts in budgets. However, the department will receive £30bn for capital spending, including £500m for Tyne Wear Metro and Tees Valley bus network. The cross rail project is to go ahead in London and £14bn is to be spent on improving railways.

The Treasury has the highest budget cut, aiming to cut its budget by 33% over the next 4 years.
The Banking Levy will be made permanent, £900m will be put towards targeting tax evasion and £1.5bn will be given in compensation to the Equitable Life Policyholders who were hit by near collapse. There will also be a 15% cut in funding for revenue and customs.

The streets today were filled with middle aged grumbles, as it was announced the state pension age would reach 66 by 2020 and that there would be a reform of public pensions to save £1.8bn by 2015, with employees likely to contribute more. However, for the lucky few already there; the Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and TV licenses for the 75+ will all be kept.
Cuts will be made to child benefits for higher rate tax payers to generate £2.5bn (hooray!) and couples on working tax credits must work 24hrs between them. It was also announced that a further £7bn in welfare savings have been planned, on top of the £11bn already announced.
And finally, a 12 month time limit has been implemented for the one million people on employment and support allowance; find work... or face a benefit cut.

Nick Clegg has described the review as being "thoroughly a coalition product" whilst the IFS have described its as being "more regressive than progressive". Clearly, there is some debate as to the success of the Spending Review. Only one thing can be for sure; only time will tell...

P.S. I would briefly like to apologise that this post is rather factual.
I personally don't feel informed enough to fully understand the impact of the Spending Review and so have refrained from voicing my opinion as much as possible, as I would not want to base it on inadequate or false reason. I would appreciate any comments or debate as to whether the Spending Review has been a success or not and am always willing to listen and analyse other people's viewpoints.

Another day in 'Libdemdom'...

By Sunday, I had just about got used to finding myself stood just metres away from Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes, Vince Cable or someone of equal epicness from the party...

As a result of a delayed breakfast and the added distraction of the Andrew Marr show on in the hotel lobby, I sadly missed most of the speech by Tavish Scott which I had aimed to see that morning.

Therefore, my first full session was the Consultative Session on Strategy from 10.40am-12.10pm.
Don't be fooled by the name - this was actually really interesting...
It was a discussion as to how the Lib Dems should alter their strategy to recruit support and new members following the coalition. Key points explored included:

1. We MUST separate ourselves from the Tories and reiterate that this is a coalition NOT a merge.
We can still keep our deal through passing Tory policies but show we don't necessarily agree with them. It was suggested that as Mr.Cable has done, more coalition key players need to reassure members that just because we've agreed to help pass them; we don't solidly agree with them.
There was also the idea that we need to 'shout from the rooftops' our successes in government, so the public knows who has done what. One person raised the idea of including Lib Dem achievements in editions of local focus papers; I thought this would be a particularly successful way of raising and keeping support.

2. Liberal Youth needs to be acknowledged as a vital, precious resource; the future of the party.
Liberal Youth wasn't mentioned at all within the first half of the session, I was rather concerned about this, so much so; I was considering making an intervention at half time. However, luckily I wasn't confident enough to do so as it was then focused on within the second half.

3. Activists need to be valued more.
Instead of just being handed a stack of leaflets to deliver.
Luckily, I have not experienced this as my local party have been extremely welcoming and appreciative but I can understand that this could be a problem elsewhere.

There were many other points made, but sadly I didn't take notes during this discussion - too busy listening!

After the Consultative Session, conference filled up rapidly with party members and much to my annoyance, the all consuming sprawl and chaos of the media...

Because Danny Alexander was due to make his first conference speech.
His speech centered around the cuts and he explained why they are being carried out; "Not because it is easy but because it is right."

With regards to the coalition, he described how; "One party at war with itself has been replaced by 2 united parties."And impressively pointed out how the Lib Dems have achieved key policies e.g. Increasing Capital Gains Tax and taking 900,000 low earners out of tax; all in 13 weeks. Labour had 13 years; and they failed to achieve this. He also pointed out how Labour shamefully promised money to communities when they knew there was "no money left" and how last year they spent £150 billion more than was payed by tax.

He reinforced the idea that efficiency savings alone will not solve the deficit, hence why cuts have to be made. He then proceeded to the tackling of tax avoidance and described how it was unacceptable at the best of times but now more so than ever. He therefore promised a fivefold increase in prosecutions, which would gather £7billion to help conquer the deficit.

After a truly inspiring, impressive, cleverly linked and worded speech...
He ended promising fairness was in his mind every step of the way; an outright promise to remain close to the values held as a Liberal Democrat within this coalition.

Next followed the Welsh Liberal Democrats presentation...
Much to my embarassment now; rather foolishly and in a typically English way, it had never occurred to me that Welsh Liberal Democrats even existed!
Therefore, I found this presentation particuarly interesting and informative...

Similarly to Danny Alexander, the Welsh Liberal Democrats talked about the betrayal of Labour and also Plaid Cymru through their current coalition. The coalition had promised the establishment of a daily Welsh newspaper, 6.5 thousand new homes, the recognition of Welsh as a language and to halve child poverty.
All of this hasn't yet been achieved.

Kirsty Williams, as a fairly new Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats has been making a huge impact already; it was explained how she condemned the coalition for waste; over £1 billion in health.

Liberal Democrat achievements in Wales include:
1. A complete review of overseas investment.
2. The separation of infertility and maternity patients in hospitals.
3. Guaranteed healthy eating in schools across Wales.
4. 40% CO2 reduction target.
5. Regeneration of Swansea; including the building of a huge leisure complex.
6. Passing of the "green dragon" law, a law which promotes eco-friendly behaviour.
7. Success in education; Wrexham has been Lib Dem territory for 6 years and 47% of grades are now between A-C at GCSE as a result of education strategy.
8. The regeneration of Cardiff.

Although perhaps slightly biased, the Welsh Lib Dems described how they were bringing new hope to the people of Wales.
From their extensive list of achievements, it really does seem that way.
In many ways, their presentation was just as inspiring to that of Danny Alexander's; it was brilliant to see such dedication, enthusiasm and team spirit.

Those who spoke at the conference were:
1. Kirsty Williams (Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats)
2.Councillor Aled Roberts (Leader of Wrexham Council)
3. Veronica German (Assembly Member for South East Wales)
4. Wyn Williams (Welsh Assembly Candidate for Montgomeryshire)

Next followed my final conference session but it was certainly a good way to end the whole experience;
Nick Clegg's Questions and Answers.
Managed to 'bagsy' some front seats, although this did have the disadvantage of media attention...
A lot of notes taken... 3.5 A4 sides to be precise!
Ideas explored included...

1. Could Nick still be trusted with the party?
Clegg replied yes and outlined some of the key Liberal Democrat policies that were being passed in government. For instance, taking 900,000 low earners out of tax, implementing a banking levy and a pupil premium. He acknowledged that the cuts weren't easy but pointed out it was unfair to leave our debt for future generations to deal with.

2. Many FE colleges are not fit for purpose, how will this be sorted?
Clegg promised the millions of pounds were to be injected into the FE budget and unlike Labour, this promise of funding would be kept. He also stressed the importance of more promotion of FE colleges as more often than not University is made to appear as the only option.

3. Pakistan Floods: Although 1.5million people have been covered by aid, this is not enough - how are the government helping?
Clegg talked of his own personal visit to the country and described how shocking it was, explaining how you cannot capture the unimaginable vastness on the small TV screens we have at home. He acknowledged that over 20million people had been displaced by the floods, a total which is equivalent to 1/3 of the UK. In response he declared that that very day the government had increased upon the £60million already issued to Pakistan to help provide temporary education and financial support for farmers.

4. When will the detention of children end?
It will end; Clegg reiterated this several times. He described how detention was only used prior to deportation, but that the government were looking for an alternate solution, describing the current system as a "barbaric" part of our asylum system.

5. Why are the Lib Dems being blamed for cuts but the Tories praised for our policies?
He pointed out that it was only 5months into a 5year parliament and therefore it was early days and that the mark is clear to see, we just need to explain. He agreed that ministers should express some dislike towards Tory policy, but obviously being in coalition can often be a very fragile situation. He then explained that we cannot cross the 't's and dot the 'i's of the Lib Dem Manifesto because we didn't win the election.

6. How can we maintain our independence within the coalition?
Clegg instantly replied with "we are left, they are right; we stand firm in our ideological views" and that you can share power but still keep your values. He described how we need to keep internal democratic debate alive and how we are currently being "beaten up by Labour pro media who are indulging themselves in the betrayal myth", whilst it is they who have betrayed the public; they didn't even have the decency to announce their planned cuts.

Regrettably, the Question and Answer session marked the 'beginning of the end' of my conference experience...

After buying a Liberal Democrat mug, one very reluctant Emma departed from conference...
The rest of Sunday and most of Monday was spent in a solitary, silent, reflective, blissful world of yellow...

Regrets?
... Perhaps not taking enough notes and not attending enough fringe events.

But it has to be said, conference was an absolute... SUCCESS.
Great experience; Great debate; Great people.

It was an honour to be surrounded by people who have the same passion for politics as me and also who share some of the same political values as fellow Liberal Democrats.
 So...
             Bring on the Spring Conference!

And when you pass security for what feels like the 100th time; it finally hits you. You're at the Liberal Democrat Conference. And we're in Government.

Conference... Conference... Conference...

"Initially daunting, then it becomes interesting...
        ...and surprisingly right wing."
 Art Malik (Actor and supporter of the Liberal Democrats) on his first experience of conference.

Daunting? Yes.
Interesting? Definitely.
Right wing? Not so sure.

This blog will differ from the usual style.
Unlike usual, I'd like to talk about my own experience; my experience as a first-timer at the Lib Dem Conference last weekend.

Saturday morning; I wasn't really sure what to expect.
Having registered in my trade mark style (on the last minute), I had only been sent a brief letter and my conference pass by post. The rest had to be collected on site.
Therefore, I really had no idea what I was letting myself in for.

As I disembarked the bus in Liverpool city centre and headed vaguely in the direction of the ACC; I started to notice strange splashes of yellow amongst the typically urban grey surroundings...
Serious looking suited persons passing by; and that glimpse of yellow again, again, again...

I am of course referring to the yellow lanyards worn by conference members. With each passing lanyard, I found myself walking faster and faster as the excitement kicked in. Eventually, having dodged people, cars, buses and protesters I found myself standing outside the ACC. After a brief salute to the Lib Dem flags outside I stepped into the chaos of the security tent.

After receiving my own precious lanyard and having got through security without any bomb scares, I then proceeded to pick up my brick sorry conference papers from the designated desk.

Bewildered, and with an hour or so to pass until Conference was formally opened, I explored the maze of stalls on the ground floor, fighting off the woman at the Womens Liberal Democrats' stall who had a worrying obsession with Eleanor Rathburn...

Eventually, it reached 2.30pm and I excitedly entered the Conference Hall. Baroness Walmsley formally opened the conference by making a short speech with as much boasting of "we're in Government now" as possible which of course, was all good stuff.

From 2.35-4.15 I intermittently sat through three different reports; The Federal Conference Committee report , The Federal Policy Committee report and finally the membership subscriptions report. To be brutally honest, these weren't exactly enthralling but perhaps this was because I was too overwhelmed by the whole concept of conference it was hard to concentrate.

Then followed a debate on 'Transactions Transparency and conflicts of interest in Government' which was interesting although hard to follow.
However, having looked back at the Agenda when at home and having studied the topic in more detail it made much more sense.

The debate looked at imposing a Civil Service Law which prevents public servants from being appointed when they are involved in (e.g. through shares) or even outright own the companies and services they are dealing with.
Another key area of concern was public servants leaving their posts to take up highly rewarded roles with suppliers or government organisations, as a result of these organisations benefiting from the decisions made by such public servants.

The debate, was fast moving and raised a number of issues for instance what exactly counts for ownership? It was pointed out that many people invested their pensions in a company, therefore, most people would be excluded.
Eventually, the idea of passing a Civil Service Law was favoured by conference and it was pointed out that it was strange that we didn't already have one as so many of our European neighbours did.

Later followed my first and most regrettably my only fringe event; The AV Rally...
The place was heaving.
This was to be expected though as of course the AV referendum is crucial to the Lib Dems as a party.
There was also the small matter that a certain Nick Clegg would be making an appearance...
Other speakers included;
Art Malik (Actor and Supporter of the Lib Dems)
Jo Swinson (Lib Dem MP)
Tim Farron (Lib Dem MP and always a good laugh!)
Martin Bell (Former Independent MP)
Pam Giddy (Leader of the Yes to AV campaign)

AV Balloons filled the air and it was rather ironic to see serious looking politicians batting them about like 5 year olds at a Mc Donald's party...
There was a good atmosphere; the rally was exciting, passionate and unifying but with a serious undertone as Nick Clegg warned coalition doubters;
"Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
No, this isn't Proportional Representation but it's better than first past the post.
Although, personally I think anything, even a  'put your heads down and hands up' school style voting system would be more democratic that first past the post...

And that was Saturday.
I have decided to split my conference write-up into two days as I feel each day was a separate experience on a variety of different levels. For instance; Sunday was much more settled and therefore I paid more attention to the content instead of the atmosphere of the conference.

The New Lib Dem Party Anthem?: We're on a Highway to Hell...

"This is the first time a Liberal leader has stood at this dispatch box since Lloyd George in 1922."

As Clegg announces this from the unfamiliar territory of the dispatch box, the Chancellor, George Osbourne wears that all too familiar smug Tory-look which seems even more exuberant than usual...

'And after this five years of Tory hell it will be at least another 92 years until you stand there again...'

- Perhaps that's why.

Support for the Liberal Democrats has slumped to an all time low of a mere 16% since the beginning of the general election as voters feel the Lib Dems have lost their voice within the coalition government.
Whilst, it is feared almost a third (17/57) of the Lib Dem seats in Parliament could be at risk in the 2015 election as Labour support begins to recover.
Furthermore, the seats under threat include those of the Deputy Leader (Simon Hughes) and the Energy and Climate Change Secretary (Chris Huhne).

However, I think many Lib Dem supporters were simply expecting too much from the Lib Dems.
A coaliton was always going to involve comprimise and the Lib Dems were always going to have to give up more being the smaller party.

But Liberal progress in government has been made;
There will be a referendum on fairer votes (May 5th), Labour's ID card scheme will be scrapped, a Freedom Bill will be introduced, the Income Tax threshold will be raised by £1000 and a Bank Levy will be introduced; these are just a few of the major changes the Lib Dems have helped bring about within the Coalition.

In the words of Clegg, I still hope and believe "that this country will be more fair, more free and more liberal in 2015 as a result of us being part of government", and deserters must remember that ANYTHING is better than an all Tory government.

Just for the record, I can't stand ACDC but it does seem as though the coalition government could be the Lib Dems downfall if support continues to fall and therefore "I'm on a Highway to Hell..." springs to mind...

Classic Hypocrisy...

"VAT will NOT be increased to 20%, instead other less damaging, tax cuts will be made."
- Stated by David Cameron on the subject of the then forthcoming emergency budget in his first interview as Prime Minister with Andrew Marr.

He also stated within the same interview how Labour had made some "outrageous" spending decisions.
Well, is it not just as "outrageous" to lie to the public? Or have we simply neglected the 'restore trust in politics' attitude so frequently displayed during his election campaign?

'Dave' also claimed to be "burying old Conservatism" within the interview but how does the decision to rise VAT from 17.5% to 20% reflect this?
This will devastate the poor and leave families over £500 a year worse off.
Forget the Robin Hood Tax - this budget does the complete opposite.

It seems like the same old Tories to me...

Whilst the smug and smarmy Sheriff sits in his castle, poor Vince Cable struggles to explain the non-exsistent good of the budget to the bewildered peasants in the realms of Question Time...

If I'm struggling to continue encouraging the coalition, it makes me wonder how much longer the Lib Dem MPs will pledge their support to corruption...

Hypocrisy; the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold (see also, David Cameron P97)
- Perhaps I should submit this as the new definition for hypocrisy in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary?

The Academy Bill...? Well, it's not going to make anything any worse....

I was hot and tired after 2hours of being couped up in an exam room.
As I entered my house there were two things on my mind; Food and Sleep.

A letter from my school telling me they were seeking academy status was certainly not on my mind. And wasn't welcome.

Fair enough, perhaps this will benefit my own school but what about those less fortunate?

The "Every Child Matters" initiative will become;

"A child only matters if they happen to go to a school which is performing well, too bad if they go to a school in a deprived area with poor exam results and falling numbers"

Surely at a time when we are recovering from a global economic crisis we should be supporting those worse off, instead of increasing the gap between the good and the bad; the rich and the poor?

That's exactly what fast-tracking 'Outstanding' Schools to Academy Status is doing - It's the same old Tories.

It seems to me, that the only argument in favour of this policy is that it won't make anything any worse. And make the 'elite' schools the 'uber elite'.

To me; this is not a valid reason to spend lots of parliamentary time and considerable amounts of money especially at a time when the OBR have just announced that economic growth is not going to be as rapid as expected and with millions still unemployed.

Cheered up though after I received an email from the Lib Dems urging members to support a petition against the Academies Bill and reassurance that it was not a policy included within the coalition agreement.

Just 17 days in....

The Coalition has met it's first hurdle; David Laws.


It's the 29th May 2010.
And the Chief Secretary of the Treasury; David Laws has resigned, after admitting he claimed £40,000 in expenses to pay rent to his partner.
Already I can hear the Tory back benchers laughing...

The occurance has caused great embarassment for the Liberal Democrats who had taken high moral ground on the expenses catastrophe, arguing they were in a better position than the Tories and Labour after the uncovering of expenses in 2009.

Not only has the crisis bestowed embarassment upon the Lib Dems, but also the loss of a key member of the cabinet described as "exceptionally abled" by Vince Cable the Business Secretary and "good" and "honourable" by the Leader of the Tories and Prime Minister; David Cameron.

Although this situation has no doubt weakened our Cabinet's infrastructure with David Laws being replaced by the 'slightly less experienced' Danny Alexander, it has also shown the strength of this coalition - here we have a Conservative calling a Lib Dem "good" and "honourable".
The Leader of the Tories to be precise.

Have we really reached 'new politics'?

The Conservative and Liberal Coalition has been an incredibly exciting moment in British Political History and has certainly defaced 'ancient politics'.

However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?

Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.

Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?

It is quite frankly embarrassing.

Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.

We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.

Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?

Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.

How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?

David Clegg and Nick Cameron: The Happy Couple?

Yesterday marked an important landmark in British political history; the first coalition government since 1945. Hopefully the beginning of a new political scene...

After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.

Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...

The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.

With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.

The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...

I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.

However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.

The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?

But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.

I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.

'The Big Three'

1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.

2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.

3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.

I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.

Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.