- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. by Tabman
- Latest Comment: Anonymous on The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
Ming Campbell: "We are certainly not going to discourage ambition, or work, or achievement."
Excerpt:
After the speech and the interview with Sky and the BBC, the bloggers had their turn. Andy Darley, Will Howells and myself got our chance to put our questions to Ming.
We've just left - and I've been lent a computer to write my report. I'll concentrate on my questions - and leave the others to reveal their own scoops on their own blogs.
Ming meets the bloggers
The message is - to paraphrase - that Ming's leadership really starts now. The machinery is swinging into place to turn the Liberal Democrat Party into an effective campaigning movement. Liberal Democrats will build on their strengths, yet move on. The internet is going to be part of this. Ming told us that "66% of the population have access to the internet and only 60% of the population voted at the last election. We must combine the reach of the internet with the power of our local elections. And we must turn our local support in cities such as Newcastle and Liverpool into Parliamentary seats."
When Thatcher won in 1979 and Blair in 1997 people believed that they had policies that would improve public services. I asked Ming what our offer to the British people would be at the next election. His answer was straightforward:"Localism. We must put flesh on the bones of our ideas on localism . We have to demonstrate how this will work in practice."
He is determined that we should fight on values, and was passionate on the importance to liberalism of both human rights and the rule of law. "This is why I raised crime as a liberal issue. If you break the law, if you cause suffering, punishment should follow. I've dealt with cases of murder, of rape and of armed robbery. I have seen what happens to the victims of crime. Human rights and the rule of law together are at the heart of liberalism."
The speech he had made offered a great deal to people who were interested in green issues. It also offered a great deal to the disadvantaged. Did it offer enough to people who simply wanted to be a bit better off? "Two pence off the basic rate of tax and raised thresholds to take people out of the tax system altogether," Ming replied. "We are certainly not going to discourage ambition, or work, or achievement.
"Part of that is education. We remain committed to abolishing tuition fees. My parents did not go to university. They were determined that I should. Education should be one of the great drivers of opportunity. And I still believe that early-years education - which we stressed at the last election - is extremely important."
Ming's view was that the election may come much sooner that people expect. "Jack Straw has done his best today. Blair may well decide to move on once he has been in power for ten years. People may see a new leader as a change in Government - especially if the personnel of government is reshaped significantly. The new leader may well get some sort of bounce and go to the country in the autumn of 2008. We need to be ready for an early election."
Was he worried about David Cameron? "David Cameron has been going around making a speech every week about nothing at all. He seems to get some of his ideas from Ken Dodd. Frankly I think people are beginning to notice."
My impressions? Ming came over as warm and fluent. The feeling around the event - and as far as I can judge - around the party seems very positive. The party is swinging into action. And the immediate priority for Liberal Democrats? "Go to Bromley," said Ming."We have an excellent candidate. I'm going there to campaign and I hope all Liberal Democrats who can will go there too."
As Rob has pointed out on the Editor's blog, you can put your own questions to Ming here.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Cracking stuff. Reminds me why I voted for him!
It was indeed excellent - I'm glad I went. While the tax measures have - unsurprisingly - had top billing in the papers, there was lots more about the need for smaller government and more devolved government, Labour's public service failings, civil liberties and unacceptable poverty levels. Forthright, full of conviction and a decisive put-down for anyone who still trots out the 'Lib Dems can't decide what they stand for' line.
Very pleasing that he said localism is such a priority.
When he says:
What we need is smaller government and an end to bloated Westminster and Whitehall. Fewer Ministers, Fewer MPs, fewer special advisers, fewer civil servants, fewer Departments, fewer quangos – electoral reform for the House of Commons and local government and at long long last an elected second chamber.
it's really all just verbiage unless he tells us what areas he intends the state to withdraw from. He can cull some ministers, MPs and special advisers without denting public expenditure at all.
There's a clue in the speech when at one point he says:
"The Liberal Democrats will not propose any spending increases without identifying savings. We will move from tax and spend to save and spend. I see no reason for any increase in the overall tax burden."
This apparent contradiction with the first quote above suggests to me that the intention is not to shrink the tax take (and public expenditure) at all. At best he intends to have fewer people spending the same amount of money. The two quotes suggest that he is still talking to two different audiences with radically different desires.
An elected upper chamber would be a huge mistake. It is only the fact that it has been appointed or hereditary that has given the Lords the freedom to oppose the government. If we have an elected upper house we could hand over one of the very few checks we have on the executive.
A proportionally elected house (as an example) would not have a government majority - barring some party polling a historically exceptional 50%+ of the national vote. There are ways of doing it without falling into the trap you outline.
"A proportionally elected house (as an example) would not have a government majority - barring some party polling a historically exceptional 50%+ of the national vote. There are ways of doing it without falling into the trap you outline."
Exactly. Also, you could *not* re-elect the whole chamber every election, but instead have regular elections where you re-elect part of it. The Americans (in the Senate) have a third elected every two years for six year terms, but I'd be inclined (in order to keep it more like the House of Lords) to say a fifth elected every two years for ten year terms.
That way, the makeup of the second chamber will reflect the peoples' long-term views over the recent period, while the first chamber can continue to reflect their immediate, current views.
On the upper house, Bishop makes a reasonable comment.
Ten year terms and no reelection would be the minimum requirement for an elected second chamber imo
IMHO an upper house of members appointed by local government assemblies is a possible answer - something similar to the US before the seventeenth amendment. Ten year terms would be about right.
For Lib Dems this offers some sort of a guarantee of the localisation that you support. Any centralising bill can be blocked by the upper house. If we get another directly elected chamber we risk getting more of the same.
Or the Fourth republic (or Fifth come to that)?
It has its attractions. But hardly speaks for diversity etc.
Peter
http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/
I am, as I frequently find, agreeing with Bishop Hill (again). Not keen on a directly elected House of Lords; I much prefer the German model of the next layer below sending representatives to the Bundesrat. For at least part of the membership.
I also like the idea of adopting the Athenian lottery for a proportion, a mixture of the two with maybe a small number of (possibly non-voting) appointees, retired or semi retired political leaders (such as Paddy) as well.
Much better than direct election; besides, if we go for proportionally elected HoL, then we may lose the argument for fairer elections to HoC, do we really want to risk losing the chance of STV for out MPs?
Also; good to see Jonny commenting here; Rob! give him a guest slot...
It partly depends on the depth of changes we want though. Switching to a directly-elected HoL would require relatively few constitutional changes.
A locally-nominated one would be very difficult, because it's not entirely clear what the lower level of government is. Is it local councils? What about councils which are far larger in terms of population than others? What about the GLA, or the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly for that matter?
To be honest, I personally think that this adds to a case for a fundamental re-thinking of how we "do" democracy in Britain. Wiser heads than mine will probably be required to provide substantive answers to the questions raised though.
I think that's right. The question of the make-up of the Lords needs to be resolved alongside many other issues like, for example, over-centralisation and the West Lothian question.
I agree with Rob. We need to fundamentally re-order how we do democracy. We need less Government and more democratic accountability. Frankly, we need more elections at every level. British conceit about the superiority of our own democratic systems often misses that in the United States (where national turnout is approximately the same as in the UK), there is a far greater degree of democract accountability and involvement in policy - there are elections for school boards, fire boards, police boards, city councils, city mayoral elections, gubnatorial elections, state legislature elections, senate and house elections, all in addition to the Presidential elections.