National Liberal Club Annual Dinner

The National Liberal Club is so beautiful – the rooms of great elegance and glorious design – and such a friendly, non-stuffy atmosphere. The Reverend Paul Hunt is in his third year as Chair and was warm, and friendly and welcoming – as is the club itself. It has all the charm, grace and magnificence of a club – with none of the stuffiness.

When I had looked in my diary for my Wednesday night engagements, I had seen ‘Toast to the Health of the National Liberal Club’ at their 127th Annual Dinner. I had met a young man at the remembrance service last Sunday who said to me ‘I am so sorry I can’t come to the dinner next Wednesday with you as Guest of Honour – I would love to hear you speak’. It was at that moment that I realised that ‘toasting the health of the National Liberal Club’ was code for ‘ speaker’ – which when I anxiously telephoned the Club the next day – proved to be exactly the case.

As I scrambled to find what would be the appropriate subject – I decided that despite the sombre nature of the subject – I would talk about Afghanistan and terrorism. It was Armistice Day – and I wanted to make a speech that would voice the views (almost identical to the Liberal Democrats anyway) of some of those in the forces who had spoken to me of their concerns and their views as to our mission.

This is my speech:

Mr President, Chair, Honoured Guests, I am delighted to be here tonight to toast the health of the National Liberal Club.

My instructions were to be short and be funny –

short isn’t the problem

Anyway – they say women aren’t any good at jokes – and I’m not going to prove them wrong – I’m going to leave the gags to Chris (Huhne) tonight – no pressure Chris.

For I want to be serious.

In honour of our forces today on Armistice Day – I want to speak about Afghanistan and terrorism.

And whilst the Sun Newspaper may wish to reduce this to some political row or opportunity to attack Gordon Brown – and although attacking Gordon Brown has its attractions – the fact someone with such poor eyesight can become Prime Minister should be something to praise, not something to belittle.

I have a certain distaste for furore this week and the tape recording of the conversation between him and the grieving mother.

The issues around Afghanistan and our role there should not be trivialised – or used as a political football.

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan.

There were dire warnings that no invading force ever succeeded – beaten back by landscape, tribal warriors, drug barons or harsh, unbearable winters.

But of course we had to go there – to the heart of the world’s crucible of evil where Osama Bin Laden was meant to be hiding.

The West was angry and hurt, scarred by 9/11 – and its author cloaked in mystery – a millionaire, billionaire who forswore all worldly goods and who seemed in control of a network of devotees ready to die at his command.

Terrorist Al-Qaeda members all over the world seemed able to activate anywhere, anytime – a mixture of amateur and superb sophistry and deadly as hell.

So – we had to go and fight to rid ourselves of the scourge of terror. And we Liberal Democrats supported this mission. We believed it was the right thing to do.

And now we have been there for eight years and have lost 232 of our troops and rising. They stare at us from the front of our newspapers.

Every Prime Minister’s Questions the three leaders give condolences for someone’s brother, son or father.

We pay genuine tribute to the bravery of our fallen soldiers – week after week. And as we stare at the unbelievably young faces, boys of 18, who die for Queen and country, only now there is the widespread asking of why and where and how.

Operation Panther’s Claw – made possible the elections in Helmand Province – but I felt absurd using the language of games and comics to describe that push to rid area of Taliban prior to the presidential elections.

To what avail – with a corrupt government unable to command respect or trust?

So up spoke Nick Clegg and put a great big fat question mark over what we are doing there. Not that we shouldn’t be there. But we should be clear about why, what we can achieve and how we exit..

Nick Clegg opened the floodgates as he broke the cozy consensus around our sortie in Afghanistan. From the inadequacy of the equipment for our troops to the need for a strategy that delivers an ending.

Of course – the truth is that in the end the solution will lie not with making war, but with making peace – with restoring enough of a stable government across enough of the country involving enough of the stakeholders so that the future fate of Afghanistan can rest in the hands of those Afghanis who do not see the future as one of perpetual war with their neighbours.

So tonight I want to speak for those in the forces who cannot speak for themselves because they must remain voiceless in this battle.

I want to give voice to a young, handsome, navy officer who came to me on Remembrance Sunday and said please speak for me as I cannot. I put their case – which is all but identical to the Liberal Democrat case.

There is a pressure now, since we Liberal Democrats spoke out about the need for a strategy, not just for a government of national unity, not just for an end to corruption, not just for better equipment – but a real pressure to sound the retreat – and to be frank who would not be tempted by that scenario.

Memories of our position on Iraq encourage those thoughts – but unlike Iraq – we did not vote against this war.

The forces do not want us to go so far so fast. They beg us to find a political solution. So – if a political solution is the way forward then it has to happen in the Afghan way.

Last time in December 2001, in the midst of the US-led rout of the Taliban, the United Nations brokered the so-called Bonn Agreement – creating a roadmap for the development of a new government in Afghanistan.

Central to the process laid out in the agreement was the convening of an Emergency Loya Jirga, the traditional Afghan Grand Council.

That spawned the first President and Cabinet – post invasion of Afghanistan.

That government no longer commands respect or trust amongst the many many leaders of local tribes and communities.

So we need once again to devolve power down to those local leaders – that is why we need another emergency Loya Jirge – to chart an agreed pathway acceptable to all the players.

As Ed Davey, our Shadow Foreign Secretary said at our autumn conference, it is time for us to talk with the Taliban.

And we need to understand that the continuation of civilian casualties – where we only report our boys dying – there are thousands of Afghani casualties that undermine the legitimacy of fighting terrorism and the credibility of the Afghan peoples’ partnership with the international community.

And then we wonder why their population is so angry with us.

And we need to look at what it will take. If we need to buy loyalty – then let us buy loyalty.

If the Taliban pay £10 per day – then let us pay more. Of course – that is too easy to be the answer on its own – there are no easy answers, no magic solution that fixes everything whilst keeping all our morals purer than pure – instead we have to choose between sometimes uncomfortable options, and the least worst is to pay for time to build stability…

We must pursue an end to the killing and to 30 years of war in Afghanistan, and the start of a regional peace process, not contingent on ‘Western’ forces ‘having the upper hand militarily’ – and the pursuit of a ceasefire, leading to a political & constitutional settlement within Afghanistan.

Our Government must press the US government to end its ‘military first’ approach, and shift priority to the economic, political and social development of Afghanistan.

Our stated purpose is – that we are now there – to stop terrorists here.

But the terror of terrorism is not only the deaths on our streets in 7/11 but that terror removes our civil liberties.

One of the recruiting drives of Al Qaeda and its ilk has been its calls to cleanse the world of corruption and immorality.

Just the sort of corruption and immorality that results in governments, for example, turning a blind eye to drug cultivation in their territory because some are being bribed and others are ensuring a tax-rake gets taken off the drug payments.

Only – the government I am thinking of in this case is Al Qaeda’s own top favourite, the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, with Osama Bin-Laden not just letting the drug trade take place under his nose – but benefiting from it too.

It shows a remarkable degree of ineptness that this actual record – sordid, corrupt and immoral – is so little known, giving those same extremists a free hit in claiming to be different, better and purer.

With terrorists and extremists attracting support for opposition to corruption, our own activities to tackle it need not just to publicise this hypocrisy, but also to fight corruption itself. Too often the UK drags its feet on international anti-corruption standards.

In conclusion – as we wait for President Obama to decide what to do with regard tot General McChrystal’s demand for 40,000 extra troops for counter insurgency – I welcome Obama’s long pause for thought.

I take some hope and inspiration from the fact that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.

He is going away tomorrow and it is very doubtful that a decision will be taken before he goes – but I hope that the conclusion he reaches delivers a strategy that understands Afghanistan. That understands the impossibility of continuing to act as some imperial force imposing democracy, that respects the Afghan ways and delivers a way ahead that let’s us leave that country.

And to the handsome naval officer who is due to go to Afghanistan on counter insurgency operations in 2012 – I hope I have given you a voice here tonight – on this day – on Armistice Day.

Mr President, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentleman, can I ask you to charge your glasses and please be upstanding

The Health of the National Liberal Club

Afghanistan – end game?

Here’s my latest column from the Ham & High, which appeared earlier this month:

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan. There were dire warnings that no invading force ever succeeded – beaten back by landscape, tribal warriors, drug barons or harsh, unbearable winters. But of course we had to go there – there to the heart of the world’s crucible of evil where Osama Bin Laden was meant to be hiding.

The West was angry and hurt, scarred by 9/11 and its author cloaked in mystery – a millionaire, billionaire who forswore all worldly goods and who seemed in control of a network of devotees ready to die at his command. Terrorist Al-Qaeda members all over the world seemed able to activate anywhere, anytime – a mixture of amateur and superb sophistry and deadly as hell. So – we had to go and fight to rid ourselves of the scourge of terror.

But, did we learn the lessons of history? Did we heed the awful stories of death and loss from previous sorties into this harsh, unforgiving terrain? Of course not.

And now we have been there for seven years and have lost 187 soldiers. They stare at us from the front of our newspapers. Every Prime Minister’s Questions the three leaders give condolences for someone else’s brother, son or father. We pay genuine tribute to the bravery of our fallen soldiers – week after week. And as we stare at the unbelievably young faces, boys of 18, who die for Queen and country, only now there is the widespread asking of why and where and how.

It is as if the country has suddenly woken up from a reverie as, instead of one or two deaths per week, the dying now coming in threes and fours and fives and sixes. And, now we all know a lot more about this mysterious country where the men appear to have the wisdom of centuries in the wrinkled faces with eyes that stare out knowing how it works – whilst we Brits try and win their trust.

We are winning we are told. There is Operation Panther’s Claw – but I feel absurd using the language of games and comics to describe this latest push to rid the Helmund province of Taliban prior to the presidential elections.

So up spoke Nick Clegg and put a great big fat question mark over what we are doing there. Not that we shouldn’t be there. But we should be clear about why, what we can achieve and how we exit. And whilst we are there we cannot expose our young men to death because we don’t give them proper transport in helicopters.

We felt proud of ourselves – that we went boldly bringing freedom from the evil of the Taliban – especially for women from their feudal, misogynist rule. But, as with Iraq, the Government’s stated purpose in Afghanistan has been a moveable feast – from searching for Osama, to ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban, to curbing the poppy industry and drug trade, to bringing democracy and to freeing women from their hideous destiny with no education and no rights. The reasons keep moving, weaving and wafting – indefinable.

Nick Clegg opened the floodgates as he broke the cosy consensus around our sortie in Afghanistan. David Cameron suddenly piped up as did many other groups as we railed against the deaths of those young men staring out of our newspapers.
In the end the solution will lie not with making war, but with making peace – with restoring enough of a stable government across enough of the country that the future fate of Afghanistan can rest in the hands of those Afghanis who do not see the future as one of perpetual war with their neighbours.

Helicopters again!

Gordon Brown in his statement to the Commons on the G8 – which was mostly about Afghanistan – re-iterated the same exact statistics on helicopters that Harriet gave at PMQs. He said that we had increased them 60% in the last two years as well as increasing the flying time capability. Many members referred to the need for helicopters – but the Prime Minister just repeated the mantra again.

I managed to get called myself to ask him what percentage of that 60% increase were helicopters that can transport troops. Once again he re-iterated the figures he had now given a number of times. I can understand he didn’t want to give numbers – but percentages should have been alright.

He went further than Harriet in that he did say that both types of helicopter were in that 60%. What is so difficult though without a proper answer – is to know whether the Government is hiding the fact that so few of the helicopters in that additional 60% could actually carry troops or whether it is a military secret.

Helicopters in Afghanistan

Listening carefully to the row over helicopters – the provision of which (if adequate) would stop our troops having to be transported in USA reject land vehicles over mines and bombs that blow up and kill our young soldiers – I remembered Harriet Harman’s words last PMQs:

Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must do everything possible to ensure the greatest protection for our troops in the field, and there is no complacency about that. We have increased the number of armoured vehicles that have been procured for and made available to our troops, but we are not going to be complacent and there must be more. We have increased the number of helicopters by 60 per cent. over the past two years, but we recognise that we should do more. We want to do more not only for their personal protection but in recognition of the importance of their mission in Afghanistan, not only to that country but to the region and to the security of this country.

As you can see – Harriet claims increased helicopter numbers by 60% – but she is being disingenuous – because the sorts of helicopters she is talking about cannot transport troops – they are attack helicopters. It is the Chinooks that we need to carry our troops safely.

I do not understand how a minister of the state like Harriet can think that such an answer is acceptable. She knows perfectly well that she is avoiding a proper answer which would have been: ‘we have increased our attack helicopters by 60%, but the honourable member is right, we have not provided any more of the type of helicopters that can transport troops – or we have provided x more troop carrying helicopters.’

Bad karma Harriet!

Having traction on foreign affairs

Managed to get to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Cyprus chaired by Peter Droussiotis – my former colleague (albeit Labour) on Haringey Council. MPs turned up to say their few words to the assembled audience – and it is great to have the opportunity to show those who care so passionately about Cyprus and its prospects for prosperity and re-unification that as an MP with lots of Greek and Turkish Cypriots that it matters.

What I tried to put across in my few words is the frustration when the motions which are part of the democratic process (lobbying your MP, raising matters in the House, writing to Ministers, attending events etc) don’t seem to lead anywhere. For me the question then is what is it that I can do to find the right angle, the right moment to make change and progress more likely?

It is the frustration I often feel about foreign affairs – about situations like the Middle East or Cyprus or Afghanistan – where the democratic process is all we have – but it sometimes just doesn’t seem to have the traction to make those with the power to effect change.

Why the number of female MPs matters

The Christmas edition of the Electoral Reform Society’s magazine, The Voter carries this short article from me:

Houses of ParliamentSadly, I am one of only 126 female MPs in a Parliament of 646. Parliament remains an old boys club, with its adversarial style of politics where bully-boy tactics are the norm; any of you who’ve watched PMQs will be fully aware of this.

And this feeds a political system that is so busy being adversarial that it forgets to be effective. This lack of representation is repeated throughout our political system. In local government, women make up just over a quarter of local councillors, whilst with MEPs it is a similar story: just one quarter female.

The quality of our government suffers from these imbalances – an impact which therefore affects us all, men and women. Women need to be there, with men, making these decisions, to ensure that public services and policy are relevant to all people and are capable of having a real effect on the lives, not just of women, but of everyone in society.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the allocation of resources, where the macho boys culture so often summons up the massive project and neglects the important details. When I was chair of transport at London Assembly it was starkly clear. Why is it that an obsession with boys-toys – the macho game of who’s got the biggest airport or the longest train – delivers multi-billion pound budgets for massive transport infrastructure projects yet not even a fraction of those budgets were spent on so called ‘soft measures’, such as making sure you can fit a double buggy through the door of a bus and making sure that local shopping centres and services are easily accessible – really easily accessible – through using public transport?

But it should not be a question of either or – it should be a matter of both. Some of our Nordic counterparts are light years ahead in terms of female representation, and we can see the practical effect on policy and resource priorities. Take Finland – with its childcare allowance for women who stay home and look after children under the age of 3 and its municipal care for children who are below the school age of 7.

We have come a long way in 90 years. It’s not enough, but we are constantly pushing, and constantly forcing change. I hope that within the next decade we will able to celebrate the achievement of equal and proper representation of women in politics, as another 90 is far too long to wait for this change!

It isn’t enough that women have the vote, and it isn’t enough that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan all rank above us internationally when it comes to women’s representation. Equal representation and involvement in politics is our right, and it is the women today who will bring about change tomorrow, by demanding the equal representation they deserve and by working together to achieve it.

Women and the vote

Tonight I gave a speech at our party conference at a fringe meeting to mark the 90th anniversary of women’s suffrage:

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this reception. It is an honour to be here celebrating 90 years of women and the vote. I am always still shocked to remember that there was a time – in fact a majority of the time – in history when we didn’t have the vote.

Now, the arguments made against extending the franchise to women 90 years ago seem preposterous to you and me today. I looked at the old Parliamentary archives of the debates around giving women the vote and I was taken with Sir Frederick Banbury’s comments on why women should not be allowed to vote. He said:

“Women are likely to be affected by gusts and waves of sentiment…Their emotional temperament makes them so liable to it. But those are not the people best fitted in this practical world either to sit in this House… or to be entrusted with the immense power” [Hansard, 19 June 1917; vol. 94, c. 1645]

He was talking about the power that the vote would bring. Thankfully, he was in the minority, and, luckily and happily, I am entitled to be full of as much sentiment as I care to be.

But the role of women in politics and our representation seems to have stalled at giving us the vote and electing a few of us to Parliament, when it needs to move beyond that.

Sadly, I am one of only 126 female MPs in a Parliament of 646. Parliament remains an old boys club, with its adversarial style of politics where bully-boy tactics are the norm – any of you who’ve watched PMQs will be fully aware of this!

A small but telling example of the Parliamentary mindset: there was no objection to David Blunkett joking about his sexual exploits, but when I asked if all the fuss might be distracting him from doing his main job – oh no, that was inappropriate and not the done thing.

All very old boys club. And this feeds a political system that is so busy being adversarial that it forgets to be effective.

This lack of representation is repeated throughout our political system. In local government, women make up just over a quarter of local councillors, whilst with Euro-MPs it is a similar story: just one quarter female.

The quality of our government suffers from these imbalances – an impact which therefore affects us all, men and women.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the allocation of resources, where the macho boys culture so often summons up the massive project and neglects the important details.

When I was chair of transport at London Assembly it was starkly clear. Why is it that an obsession with boys toys – the macho game of whose got the biggest airport or the longest train – delivers multi-billion pound budgets for massive transport infrastructure projects yet not even a fraction of those budgets were spent on so called ‘soft measures’, such as making sure you can fit a double buggy through the door of a bus and making sure that local shopping centres and services are easily accessible – really easily accessible – through using public transport.

But it should not be a question of either or – it should be a matter of both.

Women need to be there, with men, making these decisions, to ensure that public services and policy are relevant to all people and are capable of having a real effect on the lives, not just of women, but of everyone in society.

Some of our Nordic counterparts are light years ahead in terms of female representation, and we can see the practical effect on policy and resource priorities.

Take Finland – with its childcare allowance for women who stay home and look after children under the age of 3 and its municipal care for children who are below the school age of 7.

But I don’t want to concentrate on the negative aspects of this issue today – after all we are meant to celebrating!

We have come a long way in 90 years. It’s not enough, but we are constantly pushing, and constantly forcing change. I hope that within the next decade we will able to celebrate the achievement of equal and proper representation of women in politics, as another 90 is far too long to wait for this change!

I would encourage every woman here tonight to at least consider taking the plunge and get involved in formal, elected politics, and for the men to support and encourage them all in doing so.

It isn’t enough that women have the vote, and it isn’t enough that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan all rank above us internationally when it comes to women’s representation.

Equal representation and involvement in politics is our right, and it is the women in this room today who will bring about change tomorrow, by demanding the equal representation they deserve and by working together to achieve it.

Why does it matter how many women are in politics?

Downing Street road signLast weekend I talked at a conference about empowering women to play more active roles in different countries to help bring peace and to take part in democratic processes. There’s no doubt that we’re relatively lucky in the UK compared with many – in fact most – other countries around the world in terms of how women are treated by men and by society’s structures.

There is though work to be done, and as one of the thoughts I think lurking at the back of the minds of some people I talk to is “women have equal rights in the UK, so why bother with all this stuff about gender balance here?” I thought I’d expand on what I said on that topic at the conference.

I was listening to the radio a little while back and Bob Geldof was on. Bob apparently believes that it is wonderful to come home to his wife in the kitchen doing womanly things probably with food or curtains – so feminine, so warm!

It’s the sort of view that makes me want to throw up usually – but then I thought about it. What he was extemporising was actually not that different from my view – because I think women make the world a better place too – it’s the place we differ on.

I think women’s virtual absence from high level decision making both in politics and in business has meant that the world we live in has been skewed to one gender’s bias. And we know that diversity is what gives life its richness and its balance and for too long it has been out of kilter.

Most of the decisions that affect women’s lives have been made by men – not just in politics but in the wider world of business too.

Now I love men. I value their input. I’ve even consorted with them on occasion – but the paucity of women in politics has a real and detrimental effect on the quality of decision making and policy.

It is 90 years since women were given the vote in the U.K. and 80 years since female voters were granted exactly the same rights as men. But the U.K. still has a long way to go to ensure that women have equal status in the political process.

Currently only one in five MPs are women, and in 2007 we were joint fifty-first internationally on the number of women in Parliament. Beaten by Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as some of our European partners such as Sweden, Germany, and Finland.

Even our devolved governments of Scotland and Wales fare better on representation: a third of the Scottish Parliament and just under half of the Welsh assembly are women.

Women have to be properly represented in Parliament to ensure that they have a say on issues that affect them. When Parliament voted a few weeks ago on whether or not the abortion limit should be reduced, 80% of those voting were men. Whilst the limit was not reduced, it is a measure of how far we still have to go that the vast majority of the chamber which is able to restrict a woman’s right to choose is populated by men.

Women have an important and positive role to play in politics. Having more women involved in politics inevitably ensures that issues faced by and relevant to women, take a prominent place on the political agenda and can be dealt with more effectively due to the positive input of women. If you look at some of our European counterparts, you will see the impact that the involvement of women has made – the way that, for example, in Finland far more attention and resources is given to childcare issues than in countries where it is the males who dominated such political decision making.

These days just about everyone talks about how consultation and involvement and other such phrases are important. But whilst we’d be up in arms if – say – a bus route was determined with only a tiny say being given to the users of the bus route, far too often there is a little burst of blindness that says it’s ok for issues that hugely effect women to be overwhelmingly decided by men.

Now, as to why there aren’t more women elected as MPs and to other political posts … that will have to keep for another day!

Introducing Father Christmas

Off to the YMCA Annual Christmas Show at St Mary’s in Hornsey earlier today. Children of all ages perform ballet, tap, modern and gymnastics – and it is so gorgeous. Watching the little ones beaming outwards into the darkness that is the audience – hoping to catch sight of their parents. And when they do – a little shy wave. All ranges of ability – all shapes and sizes – and every faith or culture imaginable. That is integration in action – far more effective than any legislation. When people have a common bond – differences fade into the background.

I get to go up at the end and make a speech. Given there were about 150+ children standing on the stage behind me having taken their bow – I thought brevity might be appreciated! Especially as at the end of my speech I was introducing and welcoming Father Christmas.

I just congratulated everyone and then basically – given our good fortune in Hornsey & Wood Green where we of different backgrounds can live together in peace – sent our thoughts to the people of the Middle East – of Palestine, of Lebanon, of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan and of course, Darfur, to wish them peace on earth at this time of peace and goodwill.

90 days detention without charge

Dash up to do live Sky interview for 8.30am. But due to breaking news – Tony Blair in Afghanistan, with a live feed – they say can I stay for 9.00 live, and then after that I do a pre-record on 90 days detention without charge, why prisoners shouldn’t be able to claim working tax credits and the billions spent on the Iraq war.

Lord Goldsmith’s pronouncement that the Government should not go back to Parliament to ask for 90 days extension to detention without charge without compelling evidence is very welcome. And whilst the media term this a split within government ranks – I welcome it as a breath of fresh air. The Government has being playing politics with the terrorist issue – and it is far too serious an issue for them so to do.

No politician, whatever their persuasion, would deny that in extremis our usual patterns of life and rights would warrant abeyance and disruption for the duration. What is not acceptable is a Government who seeks to rattle sabres without sound basis – and then criticise opposition politicians for questioning their demand.

10 out of 10 to Lord Goldsmith.

Meanwhile – someone emails me that I have made it to the top of the weekly round up of blog postings collated by Tim Worstall. I go and check it out and am really pleased as (a) the piece he picked is quite long – and it shows that people actually are willing to read quite long pieces of text in this sound-bite world, (b) that the piece is being read as intended and (c) Tim says some nice words about me! So – thank you Tim.