Posts Tagged ‘Liberal Democrats’
Electoral reform
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on July 2nd, 2010
“At no point in the last X years has anyone approached me and said: ‘We must have electoral reform’”.
This was a near verbatim quote on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Unfortunately, while it is a good way of suggesting that those of us who are in favour of electoral reform (replacement of our current voting system with one that reflects the people’s choices) are out of touch, it is a little dishonest.
For in that same period, he must have had people approach him and ask “Why did Labour get such a large majority of seats in government if they only received thirty-something percent of the votes?” Because if he hasn’t he must also be unique!
Electoral reform is a phrase that will miss most voters, so instead we must refer to next year’s referendum as an election on Fairer Votes. And who would like to cast a ballot against fairer votes?
I am pleased, incidentally, that Nick Clegg is about to announce the referendum date. It would have been easy for this to have been done later in the term, leaving insufficient time to implement the changes before the next general election. And if that were to happen, one could imagine the momentum being lost. Once more, a win for the coalition.
Welcome, Prime Minister Cameron
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 11th, 2010
According to the BBC, the Conservatives have agreed to increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 and to scrap their tax breaks for married couples. These are two extremely positive first steps as is the agreement to have a referendum on the alternative vote system.
These are exciting times.
For those who are curious, the alternative vote system requires voters to rank the candidates in order. So, for example, you may have seen the following for the Shoreham and East Worthing constituency:
| Candidate (Party) | Rank |
|---|---|
| Benn, Emily (Labour) | 5 |
| Board, Susan (Green) | 4 |
| Doyle, James (Liberal Democrat) | 1 |
| Glennon, Mike (UK Independence Party) | 6 |
| Loughton, Tim (Conservative) | 2 |
| Maltby, Clive (English Democrats) | 3 |
with numbers entered truly at random.
If the candidate with the most first choices does not receive more than half of the votes, the second choices are then applied. The affect that this would have on the result really, really cannot be known.
On 6 May, Tim Loughton received 48.5% of the vote which means second choices would have been needed. Assuming that all the UKIP candidates had put the Conservatives as their second choice, that would be enough to make Tim the winner in any case… But we just may not know for sure! And this is a reasonably safe seat — the results elsewhere could change extraordinarily!
Election night!
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 7th, 2010
An interesting day and night so far. Time for bed now but I think I need to tell you more about today at length! Stay tuned.
The first debate — confirmation
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 17th, 2010
I have delayed posting since Thursday’s debate because I did not want to accidentally get caught up in any over-excitement I felt at the clear result.
It was agreed unanimously amongst some friends and myself who all watched it live, that Nick Clegg ‘won’ (I am uncomfortable with that word, but it’s what the media are using), Gordon Brown came second, and David Cameron came last. David Cameron’s placement was a genuine surprise to me as I retain some sympathy for the supposed underlying ideology of liberal Conservativism.
While, obviously, I am delighted that Nick Clegg’s performance has received such widespread publicity, and while I am delighted that this means (at least for now) that we may achieve greater success than ever before, I still have concerns about how this is being covered.
I heard, on Radio 4 and BBC News, several commentators suggest that the debate has caused the public to treat the pollsters as X Factor voting lines and to give Nick Clegg their support because of his polished performance. The reason “confirmation” is in the title of this blog post, is because I believe this change in support for the LibDems is fundamentally about more than personality.
During the last year, I (a political anorak compared to Joe Public) was doing some soul searching. I knew that Cameron was no longer making sense to me and that there was a need to change my allegiance. I also knew that I had changed a little under the surface and that I recognised problems with the pure free market view of the world that I had previously held. You could find, if you were minded to, evidence of this in the archives of this website.
So I researched in detail the options available to me. This process eventually led to me approaching the Liberal Democrats and my subsequent defection.
What the debate on Thursday has done, is share with a much wider audience, the good common sense that liberal ideology and Liberal Democrat policy makes. Where before people considered themselves Labour or Conservative, all people have now had to question whether the party they support because they always have done, now delivers what they want it to.
I have, you will not be surprised to hear, had strong conversations with friends, family and colleagues about Thursday’s events. One of these conversations descended into name calling by the other person in frustration at not being able to justify in his own mind, his support for David Cameron; and one conversation ended in failure to persuade only because the taxation policy, while fair, hurt this particular person more than the vast majority.
The overriding result of my entirely unscientific, personal conversations with people in my life, is that the Liberal Democrats’ policies are right for almost everyone and will definitely improve the lives of absolutely everyone — they will make the lowest paid better off, they will help those trapped in a cycle of crime, they will clean the souls of those who currently do not pay their dues and they will make everyone who currently complains about the fundamental unfairness of X or Y happy by their resolution.
I failed, as it happens, to stop being excited about Thursday’s debate when writing this, but I think you can forgive me that. The bottom line? I was right to switch parties, and my reasons for switching can now be seen by so many more people — those people who now make a graph show 51% Liberal Democrat support on the Guardian website, now understand my decision in November last year!
Vote Liberal Democrat at all levels on 6 May 2010
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
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
