A Personal Statement - On Tuition Fees

The following is a personal statement I have issued as the former Liberal Democrat candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the 2010 General Election:



Last night in the House of Commons MPs voted 323 for and 302 against the proposal to increase the cap on tuition fees in England to £9000. If I had been elected on 6th May as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk I would have been joining the 21 Liberal Democrats who upheld the Liberal Democrat party policy not to increase tuition fees but instead to look at abolishing them. This had been stated in our manifesto as well as the personal pledge that many of our candidates in May signed.

The reasons I would have done so are:

• The party had instructed us to do so, not only in the years before the election, but in motions passed since the general election in most of our federal regions upholding that commitment.
•  Because personally the increase on personal debt to students is something I personally have been campaigning against since I was an undergraduate fighting the introduction of student loans when they first came in to replace grants.
•  We would be leaving students with half a hefty amount to pay off when they leave university, which when you take in the interest payments comes to a sizable part of a second mortgage
•  Even though I would have been representing a Scottish constituency I saw that the cut of the teaching budget funded by the increase in tuition fees would have a knock on effect in Scotland were tuition fees have been abolished.

I take exception to some of the comments made by colleagues in the party I have long considered closely aligned to me on the political spectrum.

Steve Webb wrote on his blog:

"I stood on a manifesto that had literally hundreds of policies and pledges."

I thought a lot of that was aspirations, many of those had caveats dependent on the economic situation, one that didn’t no matter what the financial situation was the promise not to increase tuition fees. He goes on to say that he was elected as part of 'Coalition programme for Government', a programme that allowed for Lib Dems to abstain if the findings of the Browne Report were contrary to our beliefs. That was a concession that was made to our party over this sticky issue yet Steve and 27 others not only didn't take that option, or uphold their pledge but voted for increasing the level of tuition fees.

Lynne Featherstone another blogging MP wrote:

"For some one like me – who has always believed that education should be free – it has been a difficult decision. Sadly, my view of education (free through raising taxation) isn't on the table – or anywhere near it. That vision was ended when Labour introduced tuition fees and the principle of free education for all feel."

Thankfully my colleagues in Scotland didn't feel this way and reversed the decision in Scotland and as a result that was the aspiration of our party nationally to repeat that process in both our 2005 and 2010 manifestos. I also think that because of the general benefit to society as a whole of those who go through Higher (and Further) education that this should indeed be funded, if need be, by increased taxation. The fact that it is not on or near the table would be a reason for me to further vote against.

Last night I heard Vince Cable even say that Scotland had failed to take hard decisions, I beg to differ one that Scotland has taken in that tuition fees should be abolished and from what I understand the main parties are agreeing that they should remain abolished. That is a tough decision made in light of the current situation and one that I was signed up to as a candidate this May, that we, no matter how bad things were would phase fees out.

At least in Lynne’s favour she did have the courtesy to apologise for breaking her pledge.

However, I am most proud of the twenty one, who I feel are erroneously listed as ‘rebels’ they have stood up for what the party believes in, and how the electorate who voted for them believed they would vote. Therefore I salute Annette Brooke, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mike Crockart, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Charles Kennedy, John Leech, Stephen Lloyd, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Alan Reid, Dan Rogerson, Bob Russell, Adrian Sanders, Ian Swales, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Jenny Willott and Simon Wright.

However, if Nick Clegg things that those listed above and myself are 'dreamers' because of our opposition to increasing tuition fees, I'm glad that I can still dream of a fairer and truly progressive way of funding Higher and, I want to expand it to, Further Education.

I'll not stop dreaming. I will fight on.

Even though this blog may be remaining silent over the next few months due to the nature of my work, I will be keeping up the fight. Recently I was elected as a Conference Representative for my local Liberal Democrat Party. I will not be ripping up my membership card in disgust, I will be pushing up my shirt sleeves and getting down to the business of upholding the things enshrined in the opening paragraph of the preamble to the party constitution:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

I'll carry on dreaming of achieving the above, but when I'm awake I'll be fighting tooth and nail to achieve it.

Note: This statement is made in a personal capacity due to the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat candidate in the General Election in May. It is not a statement on behalf of either the West Lothian Local Party, who very graciously selected me, nor the Northern Irish Local Party of which I am now a member, nor of my current employers. 

Guest Post: Andy Williamson: Mid-Terms of Engagement

There is nothing that a blogger more that somebody giving them stuff to put on their blog. Yes, even if that blogger is as prolific as I can be. Therefore earlier today I received an email from one of my Edinburgh friends and fellow campaigners containing his overview of the American mid-term elections and how it relates to us in the coalition. I am therefore of course happy to share it with you all.

The US midterm results are in, and the results seem bad for Obama. Even though the Democrats held the Senate, many of the Senators who survived the Republican onslaught did so only by standing as anti-Obama Democrats. Joe Manchin, elected Democratic Senator for West Virginia, produced a campaign ad showing him shooting the President’s ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation. But whilst partisans in the US are spinning the results faster than an Ann Widdecombe polka, it remains to be seen what the impact will be for UK politics. However, the lessons that can be learned by the UK coalition government must not be ignored.

Firstly, however, we must put the result into context. Yes, it was a clear bloody nose for Barack Obama, as a galvanised Republican party led a vociferous, and successful grass-roots campaign against him. However, government split between president and Congress is extremely common in US politics. In the last twelve years, Republican and Democrat presidents have had both hostile and friendly Congresses to work with. Indeed, the US public seem to regard a partisan division between President and Congress as a strengthening of the separation of powers.

Although the success of the ‘Tea Party’ should not be downplayed, we should also not read too much in the resurgence of the right in the US, particularly given the relative nadir they reached in 2008. Global trends do not seem to suggest a rise of the right. The French regional elections this year saw a victory of the Parti Socialiste (the Socialist Party), and despite the victories of the right in Hungary and mixed messages in Italy, there does not seem to be an overarching global trend towards the right as there was in the 1980s. In Britain, the inability of the Conservatives to gain a clear majority is indicative of an absence of a rise of right-wing vote.

What must be understood is that many Democrats and swing voters who backed Obama in 2008 feel disillusioned with the President’s consensus-based approach. Despite the passage of health care reform, the President has not used his Congress majority to his full advantage, even before Scott Brown and the Republicans ended the filibuster-proof Democrat majority.

Obama, more than any world leader in recent history was given a personal mandate for boldness. In this he has failed, or at least is perceived to have failed. (In politics perception is nine tenths of the law). As Machiavelli wrote:

"it is better to be bold than too circumspect"

Obama is guilty of giving the people consensus, when they wanted audacity. He has managed, not led.

The lesson of last night for David Cameron and Nick Clegg is simple: play to your mandate. Cameron and Clegg have exactly the reverse mandate to Obama – in Britain, consensus reigns. The mandate of consensus is a difficult one, although it suggests that policy should be aimed at the middle ground, rather than the core voters. Obama has paid the price for ignoring his core supporters. It is the dilemma which faces every executive upon gaining power – whether to govern for your supporters, or for the country. Ultimately, this is the decision which must be made. Machiavelli again provides the words, “it is better to be feared than to be loved, if you cannot be both”. Obama is neither.

Time will tell for Cameron and Clegg, although the nature of the coalition suggests that they should strive to be ‘loved’. They will underestimate the mandate at their peril.

Where are the Answers Nick?

I see that my friend and colleague Michael Carchrie Campbell has taken to task one of the email Lib Dem members received last night. I'm going to take to task the other.

Nick Clegg, after the announcement of the Browne Report inviting comments to be sent to him. Apparently according to last nights email the special email address that was set up received over 1000 responses. Yet only five points were raised in the response all carefully worded to sound supportive:

• concern that the proposals would result in a free market in higher education
• some key progressive elements of Browne’s report, particularly the repayment system similar to the concept of a graduate tax, and highlighted the need for Liberal Democrats to emphasise the positive aspects of the report, while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected
• suggestions we should make savings elsewhere and increase taxation to fund higher education
• need to focus on Further Education and apprenticeships as well as higher education
• concern that those from disadvantaged backgrounds wouldn't be able to go to university under Browne’s proposals

I'm amazed that in those 1000 emails there wasn't a response to the unrest amongst many candidates like myself who raised the promise from our manifesto (emphasis mine):

"We will scrap unfair tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part time, saving them over £10,000 each. We have a financially responsible plan to phase fees out over six years, so that the change is affordable even in these difficult financial times, and without cutting university income. We will immediately scrap fees for final year students."

and how this grinds instead with an increase in the tuition fee cap. If we were promising responsibility with our financial account how can we say we have allowed for even these difficult times yet are doing the opposite. It wasn't just a NUS pledge than many of us signed it was a manifesto commitment that "even in these difficult financial times" we would not need to burden our students further.

All we got under the question of making savings elsewhere was the same old drivel we were hearing from Cameron pre-Election not the bold, fairer, progressive language that the issue of tuition fees has raised through every conference debate we have had on the issue down my 22 years within Liberal Democrat circles.

I for one not am not going to be a shrinking violet on this one. Nick if you are going to be writing to members cut the drivel and actually answer our concerns. As Jennie Rigg put it so eloquently the other day "it would help if it was not worded as though giving a lecture to the hard of thinking".

Sheffield Hallam Man Speak with Forked Tongue

In the run up to the general election the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said this about the Liberal Democrat manifesto:

"The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top."

Obviously we as a party were jumping up an down with delight with such a judgement in the week before the election. The great and the good of the party Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and of course Nick Clegg were all over the headlines expounding the wise judgements of the analysts at the IFS.

The IFS has called the comprehensive spending review "more regressive than progressive" and "unfair" saying the poorer families with children would be the "biggest losers" of the cuts. Excluding the wealthiest 2% of the population, who the IFS assesses will be the hardest hit, it says the poorest 10% of the population will, on average, lose about 5.5% of their net income compared with roughly 4.5% for the top 10%.

So these very sage like analysts from April/May should obviously be taken seriously by Nick Clegg. Not a bit of it, in today's Guardian he says:

"It goes back to a culture of how you measure fairness that took root under Gordon Brown's time, where fairness was seen through one prism and one prism only which was the tax and benefits system. It is a complete nonsense to apply that measure, which is a slightly desiccated Treasury measure. People do not live only on the basis of the benefits they receive. They also depend on public services, such as childcare and social care. All of those things have been airbrushed out of the picture by the IFS."

Yes Nick. But we are making fundamental cuts that are going to affect some of those other services to if we are not careful.

Elaine Bagshaw's response to Nick's tuition fee email

Elaine Bagshaw a former Chair of Liberal Youth posted her response to Nick Clegg's email on Facebook. I felt it deserved a wider audience and therefore with her permission I am publishing that response below.

My response to Nick's tuition fee email

Dear Cowley Street staffer/poor intern that's been given this job,

Thanks for your email. I note it's the exact same one you sent to MPs last night, that many had already seen and reacted to. The fact that you haven't acknowledged a single point about debt and trust and the hundreds of others that have been made by people since we all saw that email, shows how little you now respect the membership of this party. If you want an "open dialogue", start by opening your ears and listening.

You keep referring to this dire financial mess argument. The problem here is that we had a fully costed and affordable manifesto - I know, I helped formulate the thing in FPC, in which a 6 year plan to scrap tuition fees was included AND costed. I have to ask whether you will now be using this as an excuse to drop all of our other pledges? Have you started a review of our manifesto and the policies in the coalition agreement, to see if we can afford them? Have you started a process internally to make sure we never produce a manifesto that, in hindsight, contains pledges we simply can't afford? No, didn't think so.

You may not have made any detailed decision but you and Vince both publicly endorsed the broad themes in the proposal. Vince did so on Tuesday morning before the ink on the Browne report was even dry. It is not an open dialogue when you have already decided privately and said publicly what you are going to do.

There are some good points in the Browne report, the extension of support to part-time students is an excellent move, but all it proposes is to tinker with the system. I agree that major reform of the system is needed, but Browne simply isn't it. It was a narrow review that hasn't tackled many of the major issues in HE, and hasn't looked widely enough at the alternatives.

But the biggest issue here is trust. I have been a proud member of this party since I joined at Uni because we are not like Labour and the Tories. It was us who could during the expenses scandal could hold our heads high and say that not a single on of our MPs had flipped their homes or overclaimed on a mortgage. Now, we sit in the same ditch as every other politician and political party that said one thing to get votes and did another once in power. I believed that over the next five years we could get a lot out of the coalition, and that we wouldn't be wiped out at the next election. Now, I'm not so convinced. You and Vince over the past two days have shown yourselves to be just like every other power grabbing politician, and frankly you have treated the membership with disdain. I supported you in the last leadership election, but if happened again today I wouldn't be able to. I am seriously reconsidering whether to stand for any publicly elected position whilst you are leader of my party.

You have let thousands of party members and voters down. You may be enjoying government now but it is us who will have to pick up the pieces of this party when you are gone. The legacy you are leaving us is not one I will be proud of.

Yours,

Elaine

Nick Why Aren't You Listening to Us?

I've just received an email from Nick Clegg, one which I am rather disappointed to have received. It is one to general members and not to the various PPCs like myself who signed the NUS pledge on tuition fees. Therefore it is addressing me as an ordinary member not someone who with the confidence of our funded manifesto, was confident we could honour our pledge not to increase the student cap no matter how bad the economy was. Who stood before various meetings, on numerous doorsteps and wrote many emails telling people we would and we could honour this pledge no matter what.

He starts (there are bits of Fisking in red by me):

I am painfully aware of the pledge my colleagues myself included and I made to you and to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career it is one that after 22 years of struggling on this issue I still will not depart from. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice but our assumptions were to reduce it over 6 years before the election, now we are looking to increase. Surely the next logical assumption, a middle ground, is to hold off the reductions a bit longer. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

He carries on saying:

We have broadly endorsed them but this is an enormously complex issue and we will take the time needed to get it right. Yet with the report announced at 9am we had Vince Cable fully endorsing it at 3pm. This despite it being a complex matter that we needed to get right. Even the coalition agreement allowed our Liberal Democrat MPs time to gauge what the Browne report said and to take action (admittedly only abstain) if it went beyond what we believe in. I think that applies to all our MPs up to the level of Deputy Prime Minister.

But I'm glad that part-time students are included in funding in the same way as full time students, that is a manifesto pledge delivered. I'm glad that Vince Cable still disagrees with a graduate tax as that is not progressive and discriminatory against graduates who fail to find graduate level employment.

However, I do have concerns about the final remarks:

The overriding principle for Liberal Democrats is that any system of higher education funding is fair I agree wholeheartedly. It should increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds Still agreeing; it should increase social mobility agreeing again; it should ensure fair access for all and not put anyone off attending university agree; it should increase the already world-class teaching and research at our universities agree; and it should ensure that those who earn more pay more agree.

Yet I agree with all this but it is not achievable under the Browne recommendation. The payments to some Universities will be higher to the prestige Universities will be higher. The number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be put off my fees which may be as high, or higher, than the family income. Social mobility will not be enhanced a the poor students will have to deal with the extra amount they have to pay back, at a commercial rate of interest. They'll be even more hogtied than the current graduates are. If penalising our students to increase world-class teaching and research is involved that is wrong. We pledge it should be free to all at the point of entry. As for those who earn more paying more yes. However, with lifting the cap all will be paying more to pay it back.

Yesterday there was a growing groundswell from MPs, PPCs other elected positions and ordinary members against the endorsement of the Browne report by "our" party. Linda Jack at conference asked Nick could we trust him with our party. Our party has told the leadership time and again down the years that we will not bend on tuition fees. Our party is telling him that again now, yet somehow he seems to be ignoring that, or the fact that we have a get out if we disagree with Browne, and is actually endorsing rather that saying we cannot support this and abstain.

Nick are you listening? We don't agree! We shouldn't endorse. Many of us are angry not with the Browne report but the way in which our leaders are rebelling against the will of the party on this. We are democrats it is the party that decides policy.

In Which I Disagree With Nick a Lot

Over on Lib Dem Voice there is a letter which Nick Clegg has sent to all MPs on the subject of Tuition Fees. In it he writes:

Like you, I am painfully aware of the pledge we all made to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

Actually NO Nick I don't agree with you. The Browne report is looking at removing the cap on tuition fees. This means that only the wealthiest of our young people, those from a privileged back ground will be able to go to our finest institutions of learning. This is not the fairness for students that we stood for.

As well as promising not to increase tuition fees we did say we would seek a fairer alternative. One thing we suggested in the past to do it was a penny on income tax. Income is a fairer way of paying for University education than tuition fees (which now will be paid back at commercial rates of interest). It is also fairer that a graduate tax, expecially as some graduates will be working alongside people in the same payscale who will not have a degree, though the graduate will be paying 9% more.

The Browne report is not seeking a fairer alternative laissez faire pricing of education does ensure that our brightest get a fair deal. The rich already pay to ensure their young go to the best schools, to get the best results, to go to the best universities. To then ensure that we also price smartest A Level students from the state sector out of the course of their choice, which meets their abilities, is not liberal and is not democratic.

Those who manage to get to Oxford or Cambridge from the state sector already do so at a great disadvantage. To place them at a further disadvantage as the Browne Report allows, is not why I stood for election. This is battle I have been fighting since the Thatcher Government of my undergraduate days moved to bring in loans rather than making the maintenance grant a fair and workable system. The campaign for fair student finance is one that runs through my political veins as deeply and any Lib Dem policy thread, if not deeper.

I signed the NUS Pledge as did every Lib Dem MP. I am standing by my promise to the students of Linlithgow and East Falkirk and I will continue to ensure that Liberal Democrat MPs do the
same.

The Browne report far exceeds what was envisioned when the coalition deal was signed. A lifting of the cap on tuition fees was one thing, a removal of it all together is not what we envisioned. The goalposts have moved and with it the game. Our Lib Dem MPs should take this on board and do the right thing and vote against allowing the removal of the cap. This is how we show we mean to give a Fairer Deal for Students.

There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, in which I have joined other PPCs, AMs and others.

Blogged Elsewhere #LDNI

Nick Clegg was visiting Northern Ireland yesterday. Me and Mícheál were a bit perplexed that our invites to join him for tea were clearly lost in the post. But he did invite Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness to see him which is probably more important*. Over at the Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland blog I've written about the statements made by Nick and Peter yesterday, go have a look at what I said about it.

"Over time we clearly need to try and create a NI economy which is more diverse..."

Nick Clegg, Stormont Castle, 7 October 2010

* Though a future invite wouldn't go amiss.

There's No Future For...Hang On a Minute...There Is #IAgreeWithNick #IndyFail

This is the front page of the Independent that caused a stooshie around about the time of the 10 o'clock news bulletins and Newsnight. Quite a little bit of mischief was being created from all sorts of quarters. But that isn't the full quote indeed it isn't a direct quote at all. It is a headline truncation of this from an interview Nick Clegg gave:

"There were some people, particularly around the height of the Iraq war, who gave up on the Labour Party and turned to the Liberal Democrats as a sort of left-wing conscience of the Labour Party.

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with Labour. There is no future for that; there never was."

Now that does not say no future as a party of the left merely not as a receptacle of dissatisfied members from a party of the left. Which is true. I've always seen myself as a left leaning member of a centrist party, but never as left leaning as the Labour party of my youth. (Younger readers may shocked to learn that once upon a time Labour were a party of the far left in this country, the years BT [before Tony]).

Now I've always described myself as socially liberal with economically liberal tendencies some of my Lib Dem colleagues describe themselves as the reverse. That is neither left nor right over all, but certainly aims to be progressive. Progressive both for business and for individuals. Not hindering one for the benefit of the other as both the Tory and Labour parties tend to do.

That is what being a liberal is all about, however it appears that the front page designed of today's Independent didn't understand that and took their own slant on the quote out of context and changed the meaning entirely.

The result. I still agree with Nick.

Endorsement of the Day

This morning I had a debate with John Prescott on Twitter regarding NHS Direct. I reckon we both fought our respective corners and fought them hard. Figurative punches were being thrown much to my relief. Me pointing out the lack of money to do everything and the rational for looking at what was essential and therefore needed to keep being funded was what was important.

The fact that nurses currently on the NHS Direct lines will be returned to front line duties and actually treating people. At one point John seemed to suggest that NHS Direct nurses in their current number were essential as "It's about the quality of service - the reassurance and knowledge that saves lives." But NHS Direct isn't where lives are saved that is through the diagnosis and treatment by Doctors and Nurse Practitioners in our surgeries and hospital.

Anyway we got to a point where the entrenchment was shifting, John said, "In case you hadn't noticed, YOU'RE the Government now. Enjoy!"

To which I replied "Sadly John I didn't get elected. But yeah I know that. At least this Government has realised there is a fiscal hole unlike you"

That led to this:

While I'd obviously welcome such a ringing endorsement for my debating skills from an ex-Deputy Prime Minister from a former Government. I'm sure I can could on the endorsement of the current Deputy Prime Minister in the current Government and leader of my party Nick Clegg.

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

Going to be a Reformation

There will be a great smile that comes across my face every time I drink a cup of Earl Grey tea today. The reason being that Nick Clegg is about to outline the biggest wholesale reform of our politics and liberties since the Great Reform Act of the Prime Minister after whom that blend of tea is named.

He will use the phrase:

"for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few"

Which I know will grate with some Labour listeners as it is lifted from Tony Blair's Clause IV speech. He also said yesterday while talking to leaders of voluntary groups:

"What I'm discovering is we've been using different words for a long time – it actually means the same thing. Liberalism, big society. Empowerment, responsibility. It means the same thing."

So wake up to the liberalism that is about to return come to us including:

• scrapping the identity card scheme and second generation biometric passports
• removing limits on the rights to peaceful protest
• a bonfire of unnecessary laws
• a block on pointless new criminal offences
• internet and email records not to be held without reason
• closed-circuit television to be properly regulated
• new controls over the DNA database, such as on the storage of innocent people's DNA
• axeing the ContactPoint children's database
• schools will not take children's fingerprints without asking for parental consent
• reviewing the libel laws to protect freedom of speech

Now that is delivering on promises. That is delivering liberalism.

Image of the Day

Well here's something I've always dreamed off. Seeing a Liberal Democrat sitting on the Government front bench.

Well as Parliament reconvened earlier and got on with the job of re-elected John Bercow as speaker there was the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the dispatch box not over the aisle on the opposition side of the House.

We are truly in a period of new politics.

Unfortunately that message doesn't seem to have stretched north of the border. The SNP are using the news that the promise to get children out of the detention centre hasn't been acted upon yet at Dungavel after just 7 days of the new Government.

Here's an idea Christina McKelvie and the rest of the SNP at Holyrood how about working with us to provide somewhere for them to be housed safely and properly immediately while the review into the alternatives is actually taken.

Where is the Labservative Substance this Week?

At the weekend both David Cameron and Gordon Brown said more or less the same thing this election is about substance not personality.

This morning Nick Clegg talked about radical reform in our schools, yesterday he talked about banking reform as well as fairness for rural Britain and on Monday he was talking about stimulating the green economy.

Now I may be wrong but all I've heard from the Labservatives is how they are all about change, or that they are the progressives. Unlike Nick they haven't been putting any substance behind those claims all week. Indeed the Labservatives have been talking about negative issues, usually part truths about the Lib Dems all week. Come on Gordon and Dave where is the substance? Or is that lacking because there isn't any real change, progressiveness or radicalism in what you have to offer?

Generals Back Clegg Over Trident

What do Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley have in common? Well today they have all written to The Times backing the Liberal Democrats policy on not replacing Trident, that's what.

They say that the next government would threaten both front line Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the billions required to replace the fleet of submarines. They also express "deep concerns" that Trident has been omitted from the Strategic Defence Review scheduled for after the election. They argue that any review should look at the questions:

"Is the UK's security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?"

The best defence the other side comes up with is this from Paul Beaver, a defence analyst:

"This is not a military programme. This is a national programme. It is about Britain’s place in the world. It is about our relationship with the United States most of all."

So there you have it folks Trident isn't military. If we do away with our nuclear Tridents America who is threatening countries gaining nuclear capability will no longer be our friend. I'm still trying to get my head round any logic in that statement, I've given up.

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank however adds weight to the Generals' case saying:

"Do we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War? There is quite an argument to say we do not."

I seem to remember Nick Clegg using almost that form of words last Thursday.

Nick Clegg Raging Against the Labservative Machine

You may have stumbled across a Facebook Group We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office!.

The Group wasn't set up my Lib Dems on their page the founders say:

"the group wasn't set up by lib dems, it was set up by Ben Stockman. He sent Jon Morter (creator of the RATM group) an email asking if he would mention the group. Jon liked the idea... and that's how it started - now we're growing at over 35% a day and rising!"

And raging against the machine of the Labservatives is a pretty good metaphor for what the Lib Dems are standing up for this time. The two other parties have been blocking reform, as Gordon Brown announced yesterday he was no better than the Tories in giving in to what the Banks wanted without considering other soundings.

See the following video for just what a task Nick Clegg is up against. If you want change on May 6th you know where to put your X next to the name of your Liberal Democrat candidate.

Nick Clegg Says Fair Tax

Did you know that the poorest 20% of the population are paying a higher proportion of their income in tax now than in 1997?

Did you know that the richest 20% of the population are paying a lower proportion of their income in tax now than in 1997?

So when Gordon Brown attacks the Tories for giving tax breaks to the rich he should look at his own record.

That is why today Nick Clegg is talking about a fairer tax for Britain. Lifting the personal allowance threshold to £10,000 putting £700 into the pockets of low to middle earners. Lifting 3.5m out of tax altogether. In a tax switch that will be paid for by closing loopholes that exist, cutting down on tax avoidance a mansion tax on the value of homes over a £2m threshold and aviation taxes.

Hey if everyone else is going back to the 80s with election material, I think we need these T-shirts.

Dave Only Has One Shaped Peg for Our Diverse Families

The Lib Dems are going to cut taxes for all working and middle class families not just the few. This comes as the Conservatives announce their marriage tax break.

The Tories are giving only £150 a year for couples who are married, the Lib Dems of course are promising £700 a year tax break to each individual who works and earns over £10,000 by raising the personal income tax allowance. Nick Clegg said:

"Modern families come in all shapes and sizes. One-size fits all policies like tax breaks for married couples are just not right for our times.

"Liberal Democrats will give all mothers and fathers the support and flexibility they need to spend time with their children.

"We will cut taxes for all working families on low and middle incomes, not just a select few.

"Following the birth of a child, we will allow parents to share leave between them.

"We will help fathers to share parenting, giving them the right to time off for antenatal appointments. And we will change the way tax credits are paid so you can rely on them and you don’t face the nightmare of having to pay back thousands of pounds when the government messes up your payments."

So as well as the tax breaks the Lib Dems are offering in our policies for families:

• flexible parental leave between the mother and father as they see fit
• free and universal childcare provision for children aged 18 months – five years for 20 hours per week, when resources allow
• fix the payments of tax credits for six months at a time so payments are stable and predictable for families
• set up an independent commission to agree a fair long-term solution to the problem of providing quality care to those who need it in their old age
• provide affordable homes for the 1.8m now on the housing waiting list by bringing the quarter of a million empty homes back into use by offering grant or loans to those willing to move in and renovate them for their own use
  

So while Dave wants to shoehorn us all into the same homogeneous family type the Liberal Democrats are dealing with the reality of the flexibility of the UK situation, giving real solutions that are fair to all, at whatever stage of live.

Campaign Diary: The Leader, The Press and The Poster

Today was one of those days that will be easier once the Bathgate to Airdrie extension in completed later this year. The word had gone from Andrew Reeves for us all to available at 9:30 this morning for the launch of the Scottish campaign for the general election. For me that means either going into Edinburgh and out or hoping on the X14 bus at 7:20 to head into Buchanan Street. I took the first option, it is quicker, even the time for mishap is smaller. So I planned on the bus hoping the M8 wasn't too congested this morning.

Last night while many of us were out campaigning we got the details sent to us. We were to turn up at Pacific Quay, Glasgow. For those of you who don't know that is the location of the new headquarters for both BBC Scotland and Scotland Television; in other words the hub of the Scottish television world. We were to be joined by Tavish Scott, Charles Kennedy and the leader Nick Clegg himself. The event was to unfurl the new poster campaign.

And what a campaign it is. Yeah a little bit retro but hoisting the Tories by a petard of their own previous making.



The Tories are actually going to increase your tax burden by £389 in VAT. Because of course George Osborne’s great idea, possibly while in the bathroom, on the eve of the chancellors debate was to half Labour’s future increase in National Insurance. He's going to have to pay for it somehow. No doubt in another of his trips to the bathroom he came up with that eureka moments.This is against the Liberal Democrat promise to rise the personal allowance for income tax to £10,000, lifting 3.5 million of the poorest paid out of tax altogether and giving people £700 back.

The Liberal Democrats tax cut is paid for by closing many of the loopholes that allow the richest to pay proportionately less than the cleaner in their offices on minimum wage, green taxes on polluters. The other thing about National Insurance and VAT is that they are regressive taxes which affect the poorest far more than the richest. Income tax being a progressive system an be made fairer to the poorest by differential tax rates or raising the limit at which they start paying it. Currently you get taxed on the £6746th pound you earn. Something that Alistair Darling didn't increase in his budget last month. Something that the Conservatives didn't notice until long after Nick Clegg had mentioned it in the debate; if only they’d been bothered to stay in the chamber to listen.

However, back to the event, before his arrival the press core that was travelling with Nick turned up, including that other Nick, Mr Robinson. Then from around the corner Nick and Charles headed towards Tavish who greeted him. Then with a parting of the press core the trio strode towards where we candidates were waiting next to the billboard. Nick said a few words and there were press questions to him often as one on ones at various locations around the area. The first journalist to actually come up to the hoard of Scottish candidates for Nick Robinson, his opening words were you’re just standing here getting ignored. He then went to grab his overcoat, while he joked about him being a soft southerner. Of course Nick Robinson is from the north, just the north that is south of Scotland.

There were a few press pictures as Nick came back to us to wish us luck and say his goodbyes, for now, then by the time our commitment was over, I’d missed one X14 back to Bathgate but had time to do a delivery for Katy Gordon in Glasgow North before catching the next bus. See even when your transport arrangements get messed up there is still a time, a place, a fellow candidate who is more than willing to use your services.

So home for a quick lunch before heading out unto the streets of Linlithgow.

Scottish Lib Dem Campaign is Lauched

Speaking before today's official launch of the Scottish Liberal Democrat election campaign, UK Party Leader Nick Clegg said that the Liberal Democrats are offering real change for Scotland on the 6th May.

Nick Clegg said:

"In this election, the choice for Scots is clear.

"Vote for Liberal Democrats who will bring about real change and build a fairer Scotland.

"Or stick by a failing Labour Party that long since abandoned you.

"The SNP cannot make a difference at Westminster, and in Scotland the Tories aren't in the game.

"But the Liberal Democrats are set to make gains across Scotland.

"We start this election second only to Labour and we have them in our sights.

"Fairer taxes, political reform, a sustainable economy. This is the change we offer Scotland."

As for me I'll be through at the launch now (Yes this blog post has been post dated) look out for me on the news coverage.