Posts Tagged ‘Liberal Democrats’
Electoral reform
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 7th, 2010
There has been plenty of comment recently deriding Gordon Brown for suddenly discovering electoral reform. The naive part of me allows me to believe that the expenses ’scandal’ may have influenced his opinion slightly, but the alleged comments by Blair to Ashdown about Brown’s veto of electoral reform does make one wonder…
I have deliberately kept posts light of late because there are plenty of people commenting on these topics, and my lone voice would not normally add too much. In this case, though, I think it’s important to comment because the stakes are so high.
I am delighted that a more proportional system could be in place after the next election and I am delighted that, despite appropriate reservations (like that the proposals are not the best system and don’t go far enough), the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the proposals.
One thing does trouble me though. And it’s nonsense articles like this from the Times. There’s no way people would vote in the same way if there was ATV.
I suspect, for example, that more first votes would go to smaller parties like UKIP and the Cannabis Alliance. I suspect second choices would not follow the patterns that experts expect; as far as I am aware, pollsters do not actually check on second preferences routinely at the moment.
There are many people, I am sure, who do not bother to vote LibDem in Tory/Labour seats. And many people who don’t bother to vote Labour in LibDem/Tory seats. But there are probably a similar number who don’t vote for the smaller party because there’s no hope of them getting in. It is simply wrong to extrapolate from FPTP and add some unsupported assumptions RE: second-choices.
But electoral reform needs to happen before I can be proved right. Which I am 
Statement to Council
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on December 8th, 2009
The Liberal Democrat Party
I will post again soon with some radical proposals that I personally believe are long overdue and desperately necessary.
But on with what I said:
“When I requested an opportunity to make a statement to this meeting, my intention had just been to explain my reasons for leaving the Conservatives in favour of the Liberal Democrats. I will still do that, but afterwards, I would also like to address some specific accusations levelled at me.
“Over the last year or so I have been struggling with my conscience: At the next General Election could I go and ring on the doors of residents of Adur and Brighton & Hove and explain to them why they should vote Conservative?
“Since it became clear to the media that the next government would be Conservative, more and more honest policies have been released. So the Conservatives will set an arbitrary limit on the number of immigrants allowed into Britain. Regardless of the fact that immigration from outside the EU is very difficult in any case, there will now be a limit set by politicians for political rather than economic or cultural reasons. Now, presumably someone’s husband will be told he cannot come to the UK; or the next Director of a large UK company will be denied access because he is that one person over the limit.
“The Conservative Party has been at sixes and sevens over its policy on the European Union promising referenda on treaties that would be illegal under international law and then, when realising this, making no decision at all about what to do about the supposed problems with EU membership. To be clear I have, in the past, been critical of the EU because like most institutions, it is imperfect, but it is better to have a policy of positive engagement than no policy and be isolated by hostility.
“A Conservative government would remove Stamp Duty for first time buyers, but this tax slows movement in the housing market at all levels and it is extraordinarily non-progressive to tax one group just because you can. The Liberal Democrats have a coherent taxation policy that will favour those who most need lower taxes.
“For the last six months, the Conservatives have been publicly confused about their stance on the Financial Services Authority. The FSA currently plans to introduce tough qualifications to try to improve the skill-level of this country’s financial advisers. The current hoo-har over Structured Products backed by Lehmans and likely future crises are the fault of advisers who do not understand how these products work resulting in poor advice being given. A Financial Stability Committee with the FSA left alone to continue where it has expertise is the Liberal policy and the right one.
“Finally, the Conservative Party website describes its policy for National Security thus: “we must defend and make the argument for our shared liberal values” while it intends to continue the fight in Afghanistan where recent laws have stripped womens’ rights back to a Taliban-level of liberality. I quote from the charity Human Rights Watch “[The law] allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying ‘blood money’ to a girl who was injured when he raped her.” A new law also allows men to deny their wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands. If these are our shared liberal values…
“I could go on about national and international politics but I shouldn’t ignore the local arena. Our Council has argued for a long time that interference by Whitehall is the one major reason that we are unable to make real, significant and valuable changes to the way we run things. The Liberal Democrats have issued strong words in this respect at a national level.
“So I left the Conservative Party in my heart earlier this year. And then I found my natural home in the Liberal Democrats.
“I had hoped to work with the Conservative administration until May for the benefit of the people of Adur District and I believed, perhaps naively, that the Tory leadership was honest and, like me, here for the benefit of the residents. But it seems holding onto power is more important.
- “Rather than issue a press release that suggested that Cllr English had missed many meetings, when he had in fact missed one;
- “Rather than issue a press release that suggested I had been deselected when actually I had not sought reselection for the reasons I just gave,
“they could have spoken of their personal disappointment in the decision Cllr English and I had taken and reassured the public that they were a steady hand to run the Council.
“I made this decision on principles and I hope, despite this bad start, we can work together in a constructive and positive way in the future.”
Conservatives’ attempted smear
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on December 4th, 2009
I was called by the Argus this afternoon unfortunately while I was at work in my day-job so sadly I was not able to speak to their reporter in time for it to be certain that my response will be included in a story that will be published shortly.
I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative leadership have decided to take this path as I had every expectation that we would be able to work together in the future for the betterment of Adur District in a friendly way. In fact, in my letter to the Leader of the Council I made it quite clear that my reasons for leaving were not in any way a reflection on the Conservatives as individuals. The following is an extract:
I have had my differences, since 2006 when I was elected, with a few people in the party locally, but none of these differences are the cause, or even contributed to my change of heart.
I have found it an extraordinary culture shock, actually, since joining the Council as there’s a lot more ‘politics’ than I have experienced in the real world. At my usual place of work the vast majority do not gossip or insult their colleagues behind each others’ backs and if there’s a problem that needs resolving, people tend to have a chat with the appropriate person. Not so in local politics it seems!
The friendly chap who answered the phone at The Argus read me the Conservative press release and in the absence of an opportunity to respond in the paper, I have drafted the following response:
The Conservative press release suggests that I was deselected as a Conservative Councillor and rather than choosing to leave the party I was compelled by the potential of losing my seat to seek alternatives. I would like to make it quite clear that I have had no interaction whatsoever with the Conservative Party locally in relation to seeking to defend my seat as a Conservative. At around the same time as I decided to switch parties, for idealogical reasons, I also spoke to a Conservative colleague who had expressed an interest in representing the Buckingham Ward and told her that she would have my personal support (she’s a very likeable person as well as being a great Councillor and a hard-worker).
I will be the first to admit that I have not put the hours into being a Councillor that some of my retired colleagues have been able to, but I believe I have represented my constituents’ interests well where I could, and I have provided valuable input to meetings that I have attended.
One of the comments in the press release attempts to associate the amount of allowance that I have claimed to the number of meetings I have attended. This is extraordinarily spurious and should never be the way these numbers are used. It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that the amount of allowance a Councillor ‘deserves’ should be related to how many meetings they have attended. I did miss a few meetings this year but I have responded promptly and in a helpful manner to my constituents’ requests for information, assistance and advice.
The constituents of Buckingham are fortunate to have Councillor Kennard represent them and she does work very hard for them — I hadn’t previously chosen to shout about the number of people I have helped — I think it is more appropriate to respond to the question and move on!
Since the representatives on each committee were decided earlier this year, I have only been a member of the Constitution and Audit Committee aside from Full Council meetings. This has reduced, significantly the opportunities that I have to be present at Council. This allocation of committees is carried out by the very ‘inner circle’ that was criticised in the press release announcing Carl English’s decision to represent the more reasoned, Liberal Democrat party.
Earlier in my term, however, and before the Cabinet system was adopted, I was welcomed onto the Policy & Strategy Committee for the very reason that I was able to apply intelligence and calm consideration to complex issues at Council. I was vice chair on the Housing and Central Services committee I believe for those same reasons.
So I find it shocking that the Conservatives would now suggest that they would not have chosen to retain these, sadly rare, qualities in one of their own. I believe, if the party wants to be judged on the record of its Councillors (again, according to the Press Release), it should look carefully at some of the people that have passed their supposedly stringent criteria. There are a few highly competent Councillors in the Conservative ranks at Adur and I could name them if I didn’t think that that would be rude. This reliance on a few, though, is not good for the health of Adur Council and reflects strongly on their new criteria given some of the people that I understand have been reselected.
I have requested an opportunity to speak at the next Full Council meeting on 8 December and I would encourage members of the public who are interested, to come along. The meeting starts at 7pm at the Civic Centre on Ham Road (Google Map) and if you enter the main entrance, a friendly person will let you know where the public seating area is.
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
Second Adur Councillor Joins Liberal Democrats
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on December 3rd, 2009
Carl English says
LibDems offer real democracy for residents
The ruling Conservatives in Adur have been rocked by a second defection in a fortnight, as Southlands Councillor Carl English has followed colleague Gavin Ayling in choosing to cross the floor to the Liberal Democrats.
“Since my election in 2006, I have found it increasingly difficult to defend Tory policies, locally or nationally,” said Councillor English. “On the doorstep, when people have attacked the Tories, I have found myself agreeing with them more and more that Adur is being let down by the Conservative administration. When you are asked to put party ahead of people; when you’re told what to think and say by an inner circle: then democracy goes out of the window. I felt that as the electors of Southlands ward had elected me as a Conservative then I should serve as much of my term as possible as a Tory, but I also wanted to have time to explain on the doorstep my reasons for leaving a party that has no interest in serving the community.
“Now it’s time to go, and I look forward to being able to campaign and fight freely for the residents against unjust plans and policies. I’ve joined the Liberal Democrats because they offer a chance for real change; the Labour party have nothing to offer and no chance of winning in Adur.”
Cllr English was elected for Southlands ward in 2006. With Carl on board, the LibDems have now become the official opposition to the Conservatives on Adur District Council.
Councillor James Doyle, leader of Worthing Liberal Democrats, said “Carl has made this decision because he believe in putting the residents of his ward first, a belief at the heart of Liberal Democrat philosophy, and a principle apparently sadly lacking in local Conservatives. Like Gavin, Carl sees the ongoing merger plans being pushed through for Worthing and Adur as undemocratic and unfair to Adur. I’m delighted that Richard Burt and Gavin Ayling have another colleague so soon, and I look forward to working with them to increase the number of Liberal Democrats on Adur Council, and increasing the real representation for Adur residents.”
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
On European Rule
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 28th, 2009
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
The totalitarian regime that has “subverted our freedoms” is the failed constitution we have in the UK which allows those powers to be handed over without intervention by referendum and without insisting that, when those powers are handed over, they’re handed over to a democratic alternative.
If you want to be picky, of course, the sovereignty of the UK has never existed — since the UK was formed in 1707 sovereignty has remained in the hands of the monarch. At no point has that constitutional reform taken place which would have placed sovereignty with the people.
Personally, I blame the Conservative, Labour and the Liberal Democrats for this. And it is no good David Cameron thumping his chest when, actually, he hasn’t put together a coherent alternative to treaty after treaty after treaty.
What is needed is a vision for Europe setting out appropriate democratic reform of its governance (an elected Commission or at the very least an elected President of the EU who could appoint that commission).
But with constitutional reform on our side of the channel, the EU would seem more democratic in any case. Why, for example, should an MP for one constituency, be able to act like a President and appoint not only his entire cabinet but also the policy-maker for Europe who happens to come from these countries (the UK)? Wouldn’t it be much better to have an elected head of the government who could then appoint a Commissioner? If our electoral process, for this head of government, were as robust as the French presidential election system, a majority of the people would have voted for that person!
Reason number 1
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 23rd, 2009
Constitutional and societal reform is required in the UK. This is an unsupported assertion that I hope I have covered to some extent in past posts and that I hope to polish in later posts. I have an imaginary UK and Europe in my mind that we could create given the public’s buy-in.
In my opinion, the only party that is brave enough to make those changes and that is sufficiently free of the lobbyists is the Liberal Democrats. In fact, even individual parliamentary Conservatives who have supported some more radical constitutional reform in the past, have since shied away.
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
Liberal Democrat Councillor
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 22nd, 2009
Sincere apologies to those of you who are not able to read my comments on Facebook — I have been busy and then sick over the last few days hence the failure to update you all (following my last post).
On Tuesday I joined the Liberal Democrats. I would love to go into detail but I’m not feeling up to it but I welcome your comments — maybe its better to discuss my reasons than for me to write a long essay (which I could do).
Freedom under grave threat
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 12th, 2009
I was once described, by the leader of Adur District Council, as a right-wing anarchist. And he may be right — much of what government and Councils do I consider an imposition on freedom.
I have expressed, to the dismay of the Conservatives, my distress that civilian-enforcement of parking restrictions will be introduced in Shoreham, Lancing, Sompting and Southwick. I express, publicly and often, my dismay that there is no party that promises to repeal or amend the Road Traffic Act 1991 and to remove charges for parking on public roads.
But these concerns are nothing — less than nothing — when we, as a country, support the oppression of freedom of speech.
Geert Wilders made some unfortunate comparisons between the Qu’ran and Mein Kampf. Now I cannot pretend to have read either but that does not matter to me. The principle here is that a man of conviction, who criticised a religion not a race, has been stopped from entering this country.
Worse, the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats support this ban (Chris Huhne’s quote).
As I said in 2006, we are under attack by people who would rather control our thoughts and our actions. It’s not enough that we must respect those who do not respect us by law; we must now not say anything against a book written 1,100 years ago. Presumably if I said that the writings of the Ancient Greeks were nonsense, I would not be roundly assaulted by the machines of state, but if I dare criticise a more modern religion I must be censored by the Orwellian machinery?
As I say, I have not read the holy book of Islam or the full-text of the frightening witterings of Germany’s most famous mass-murderer, but some points should be made about Geert Wilder’s claims.
- The Old Testament could safely be described as fascist if taken literally
- The principles of Islamic Finance that I have recently studied are about fair trade and commerce — fairer trade than the Western fiscal model
- Islam is a religion that, unlike Judaism and Hinduism, can be practised by anyone who manages to find faith in the God of Muhammed
- Criticising a religion, and especially Christianity or Islam, is not the same as criticising a race
I suspect that none of those points could be competently criticised as they are not opinions (okay, maybe the first one but then read Leviticus and Exodus and come back to me), but facts.
Some people accept, and I have to say, I have some sympathy here, that there are things people can say that can manipulate people and endanger other peoples’ lives. It is possible, but to criticise a religion (no matter how specifically) is not to tell people to attack any group or individual. Of itself I can see no way that comparing the Qu’ran to Mein Kampf (or by showing video of appalling atrocities committed in the name of Islam) has placed any individual or group in danger (except maybe Geert himself — from his government, ours and the misguided Muslims that he shows).
I know some Muslims (not many, I grant you, and surely not enough to make any statistical sense) and they are not, as a group, different to any other group. You could find, within any organisation, people who would do bad things or twist the meaning or exaggerate and in this respect Islam is no different. In the same way, a group of people who would normally be expected to be in favour of free speech (the Liberal Democrats) have amongst them the mealy-mouthed Chris Huhne.
Having watched a part of Fitna, Wilder’s video, the quotes he gives are not dissimilar from quotes you would find in the Old Testament of the Bible. If Wilder is guilty of anything, he is guilty of suggesting that it is only Islam which, if its Holy Books were taken literally, could be used to commit atrocities.
It is not news that the verbatim words of some religious texts could be used to commit acts of violence. I don’t have the answers but I do know that blocking freedom of speech is not the answer to greater understanding and liberalism in those Islamic countries that we, as a nation, do not count amongst our friends.
I don’t know how much we can trust the claims of the BBC’s Science and Islam programme but if we can, then we must know that Fitna is over the top; that Islam allowed other religions to live alongside it; and that the aggression in the passages that Wilder quotes (and that could be quoted, as I said, just as easily from the Old Testament of the Bible) was not acted upon even shortly after the Prophet passed on his message.
But it is key, is it not, that I can only make these comments, only criticise Wilder, only criticise Islamic extremists, only criticise people who believe in God (any God), only question people who would do something only because their Rabbi, Mullah, Priest, Vicar or whatever tells them to… I can only make these comments, if the other side is available. We cannot debate without hearing all sides.
How could I convince someone on a doorstep in Crawley (as I did at an election in 2006) that the BNP is not for them if the things that the BNP believe and promote are not public knowledge, if what they say cannot be criticised? The same would be true of Respect, if their version of political insanity was under threat of state-censure.
We need free speech in order to ensure all other forms of freedom and I demand it. We must all demand it. We must all vote tactically at every opportunity, to ensure that this Labour government does not continue on its path.
See also montanareddog’s comments on the Guardian.
Final thoughts “A spokesman for the Conservative Party said it did not wish to comment.” according to the Daily Malice.
Liberal Democrats, England, Scotland and the Conservatives
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 9th, 2009
A lot of what a party is, is in its supporters.
The UK Independence Party, for example, is supposedly a libertarian party which also believes in withdrawing from the EU. The Liberal Democrats, apparently, are a partially libertarian party that believes in social justice and support EU membership with mild reform.
The Conservatives believe in many things being a broad-[cough] church but mostly it is the free market and (currently, in any case) liberal attitudes to how people live their private lives. And the Labour party traditionally believes that the solution to everything that needs a solution is to take state control.
But these descriptions — which may be debated, I admit — do not tell the full story. For example, the local Liberal Democrats here in Lancing and Shoreham-by-Sea appear to err when it comes to telling the truth (Beach Green, Adur and Worthing Council Services) and appear not to have any opinions on anything else (at least not cogent opinions that they feel able to debate in meetings).
The UK Independence Party locally fielded a candidate at the 2005 elections whose performance at a hustings would have marked him as a BNP candidate if it wasn’t for the ‘UKIP’ sign in front of him.
And the Labour party… well, they actually have a man who stands by his convictions locally and means what he says even if, inevitably, I don’t agree with him most of the time.
So the local parties and members do not reflect the nation-wide parties and what they claim to stand for. Rather than being about politics, actually, local party membership appears to be tribal and party-preference down to the party their friends and family belong to. It is, if you like, as if everyone whose Dad supported Manchester United supports Manchester United despite preferring everything about Manchester City.
I like to think I have thought deeply about my political convictions not only in the last three years as a Councillor, but also before-hand when I chose to join the Conservative Party in 1996.
But since 1996 I have changed my convictions quite strongly. In 1996 you would have spoken to a bigoted and not-entirely, but mostly, unpleasant (politically) Gavin. It is curious to me now that I had such strong opinions that I believed I could defend with argument. And it is mostly by argument and debate (with myself and with others) that I believe my opinions have softened and become, as a friend said earlier of me, “wetter”.
But some things do not change. Take, for example, Scotland’s preferential treatment by the British Parliament. Today four stories were pointed out to me:
- More clarity over free elderly-care in Scotland
- Free prescriptions in Scotland
- Scottish crime scenes clean-up funding
- British government rejects EU subsidies for England
In all these cases English taxpayers have either lost out or not gained to the same extent as Scottish taxpayers.
For some reason, when I mention this topic, I always have to make a disclaimer as I get attacked by an offended Scot. To be clear, I don’t blame the Scots as a group or, with the exception of Gordon Brown, as individuals. Scotland benefits from devolution not because the Scots have done something wrong, rather because the English do not have devolution and no-one actually sees fit to offer them a referendum on the subject.
Now nationally David Cameron has not endeared himself to supporters of an English Parliament but he has at least indicated that the Barnett Formula would go. The Liberal Democrats, with many seats in southern England, are currently taking a great risk by continuing to ignore the problem in favour of the status quo plus English Regional Assemblies. The UK Independence Party solution is interesting but I doubt practicable.
And Labour’s opinions are not really in doubt: the Labour Party do not support an English Parliament because they would be unlikely to run it and, more importantly, it can be supported as a solution using logic.
Moving to the left
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 9th, 2009
It appears I have moved to the left!
My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Right: 0.44, Libertarian: 5.6
Political Spectrum Quiz
I think this test is actually a little more accurate than the one I completed in June 2006. James Hellyer, where are you?
