Peter Hain in trouble – Young Liberals/LDYS across the generations rejoice

Many Lib Dem bloggers have commented on the story of Peter Hain and his undeclared donations, but I have yet to see any comment, (I am sure someone will now correct me), about the double-downfall of these two defectors from our party – Peter Hain and Phil Taylor (the aide who was allegedly responsible for the ‘chaos’ of his campaign for Deputy Leader of Labour).

I know it was a long time ago, but youth and student politics can often lead to harbouring grudges for a long time. You only had to see some of the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour in the 1995 Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election to know that. In that campaign Labour candidate Phil Woolas was a former president of NUS, and many of the people leading the Lib Dem campaign for Chris Davies were contemporaries of Woolas’ from NUS. So this latest story about Peter Hain should be music to the ears of any of the people who were involved in youth and student politics in the Liberals/Liberal Democrats, as Peter Hain was a President of the Young Liberals in the 1970s, and Phil Taylor (or Phil Jones as he was then) was a Chair of the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students in the 1990s. Not long after they held their respective positions, both defected to Labour.

So I know that it isn’t admirable, it isn’t pretty and it isn’t nice. But don’t worry it is OK to take just a little bit of smug satisfaction from the trouble that they both now find themselves in. I am sure they would do the same for us if it was the other way round.

Nick Clegg on public services

I couldn’t attend yesterday’s Liberal Democrat manifesto conference (I was at another Lib Dem event in Harrogate), and so like many people I have had to rely on the copy of Nick Clegg’s speech that is posted on the party website and various comments by other bloggers (I recommend James Graham and Paul Walter).

I admit I am a bit of a lefty when it comes to public services, and so my instinctive reaction to the proposals by Nick Clegg to reduce the influence that the state has over schools is to throw my hands up in horror. But it is far more complicated than that. My gut instinct is that public services should be provided by local, national or devolved government, rather than us handing money over to private companies, trusts and organisations. It’s a variation on the saying “no taxation without representation” – if the state is paying for it then they should be involved in running it. However I also accept that there are already huge numbers of public services that are privately run with local government overseeing their operation, and many public services that, in my view, don’t have enough state involvement, such as energy provision. So that means I can’t be quite so purist about it.

But if I have major doubts about the proposals, it is more because I wish that services provided by government or councils were more integrated so things ran more smoothly and actually on a more cost-effective basis. I would like to see schools as being the base of local community services and activities, rather than being closed half the time. For example, I would like to see school libraries becoming a community resource rather than just being there for the school, with the local area having to house the library in a separate building or not have a library at all. There are many other services for which they could also be used. If the provision of schools is to be more fragmented, such as under Nick Clegg’s proposal, then I do not see how this can be done effectively.

It is a cliche, but the devil really will be in the detail, and despite my reservations I hope it won’t be fudged to get it through conference. I am sure work will be done on how this can be of benefit in rural areas where people have to travel much further to get to a school and so creating choice may be very difficult. I would also be interested to see how this benefits less well off areas, (a recurring theme in Nick’s leadership campaign, and so there must be a clear answer to this already), as community and parental involvement in those areas is already more of a struggle, and I suspect that the reason trusts and companies are investing in those areas at the moment is purely because the government is not allowing any other options and is throwing money at them to do it. Would these organisations have the same motivation under this system, and would the community come forward with any other option?

All my concerns are far more about how this system would work in reality and on how I think services should be provided based on what is the most effective form of delivery. It cannot be counted as a principled objection and so for that reason I am happy to be persuaded by Nick’s proposals. I feel far more strongly about selection in schools (something that Nick has ruled out) and faith schools (something which I have had to temper as abolishing Church of England and Roman Catholic schools would be so unpopular, no government would ever do it), than I do about these proposals. I also think that his proposal to scrap the lowest GCSE grades is a good one and will play well with many people, even if it will give me one less GCSE.

I see Nick’s proposals on the NHS as far less controversial. I don’t want to see public money being spent on private healthcare. But what we are talking about here is a backstop. If the NHS is being run well, then we won’t be spending the money that way anyway, as it is only if someone is waiting too long on the NHS that they will be treated in a private hospital anyway.

I always knew Nick would propose stuff that I didn’t initially agree with, but I supported him because I believed he would be the most effective leader. I didn’t expect proposals like this so soon, but I am glad he has done it as it sets down a marker as to where we are going and means it is clear the party is moving along quickly and appears more dynamic. Some of these proposals may lose some activists (who I think do tend to be quite left wing, although that is changing) but I think it will go down well with many armchair members (who I think are a bit more on the right) and the general public.

(This posting is written by Anders Hanson in a personal capacity)

Nick Clegg: an apology

I had always made a rule that I would never blog about anything to do with my current employer.  Basically, it’s so I don’t inadvertently undermine them or say something that can be used against them, when it wasn’t them that actually said it.

Working for the Liberal Democrats has made it difficult at times, but when I worked for Chris Huhne I didn’t blog about him, and that had largely been the case now that I am Constituency Organiser for Nick Clegg.  Until the last couple of months of last year, the only exceptions had been one or two completely innocuous comments, which would invariably being in praise (you can check by searching tags: nick clegg).  The leadership election changed all of that. How could I, as a Lib Dem, not write about the most important thing that was happening in the party at that time?  Fortunately as I was backing Nick anyway, and I wanted him to win I could easily make sure that all I wrote was positive and I left out any of the negative comment.

So to my apology.  With Nick Clegg as leader it is impossible to sustain that rule forever.  So if you are reading this Nick, (and I know that you occasionally do read my blog), please accept that whilst I will usually stick to my old policy of omitting negative comments, where there is something that is a major deal for the party, I will write what I really feel.   My next posting is going to be a good example of that – largely positive, but with one or two slight disagreements.

+ the 84th most read blog post on the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator