Tag Archives: nick clegg

The Sky News poll results are in…

Posted on by

Thanks again to the team over at Sky News at this year. – I come in at number two in their Valentine’s Day ‘Most Fanciable MP’ (and they’ve used a photo that is one of my favourites – not always the case!). Despite the methodology used by Sky – possibly the most unscientific in world history – they have made an old, valentineless woman very happy. What I want to know though – is if I’m so fanciable – where are my suitors?

Sky Press release:

Andy Burnham Voted ‘Most Fanciable MP’

Andy Burnham, Labour MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Saturday 14 February) is preparing for his letter box to be inundated with romantic cards and gifts this Valentine’s day – after being voted the ‘Most Fanciable MP’ by Sky News’ Boulton & Co blog, www.skynews.com/boultonandco

The poll was compiled by Sky News and first time entrant into the list Burnham, has gone straight to the top of the love chart.

Andy Burnham, 39, told Sky News:

“I am very flattered to receive this accolade but if I can win it clearly shows people are not spoilt for choice and that politics really is show-business for ugly people. However, I have to say I am not looking forward to seeing the size of my mother’s phone bill, I just hope Ofcom won’t be launching a vote rigging enquiry.”

Last year’s winner, Conservative MP for Surrey South West, Jeremy Hunt, has dropped off the Top Ten list altogether. The highest ranking female is Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, who comes in second, up three places from last year. Other female entries include Liberal Democrat MP for Falmouth and Cambourne, Julia Goldsworthy, Labour MP for Don Valley and Minister for Europe Caroline Flint and Labour MP for Redditch, Inkberrow, Feckenham and Cookhill. Home Secretary Jacquie Smith also gets a Valentine’s day treat, as a new entry in the chart at number 10. Nick Clegg is the only party leader to make the top 10, with Gordon Brown and David Cameron both absent from the list. The list was compiled by Sky News political producers and correspondents.

Lynne Featherstone is one of only three MPs to survive last year’s list – Julia Goldsworthy has dropped two places to fifth with Nick Clegg remaining in eighth position. Last year there were no cabinet members on the list, this year all five of the Labour MP’s listed are members of the cabinet.

Here is the final list (last year’s rankings in brackets) for ‘Most Fanciable MP’ 2009, which includes five Labour MPs, three Liberal Democrat MPs and two Conservative MPs.

1. (-) Andy Burnham, 39, Labour, Leigh
2. (5) Lynne Featherstone, 57, Lib Dem, Hornsey & Wood Green
3. (-) Adam Afriyie, 43, Conservative, Windsor
4. (-) Ed Vaizey, 40, Conservative, Wantage
5. (3) Julia Goldsworthy, 30, Lib Dem, Falmouth & Camborne
6. (-) Ed Miliband, 39, Labour, Doncaster North
7. (-) Caroline Flint, 47, Labour, Don Valley
8. (8) Nick Clegg, 42, Lib Dem, Sheffield Hallam
9. (-) David Miliband, 43, Labour, South Shields
10. (-) Jacqui Smith, 46, Labour, Redditch

Are you a techno wizard?

Posted on by

This article appears in this week’s Liberal Democrat News:

Since the news that Nick Clegg was proposing to the Federal Executive that I should chair the party’s new Technology Board (a proposal the FE agreed to last Monday), the internet fraternity have been keen as mustard to give me their ideas – and I am keen to have them!

So this is great, but what’s become clear to me – other than the need to publicise that the Board’s work will be about technology in the sense of e-campaigning, computers and the internet, rather than technology in the sense of scientific research – is that there is a huge pool of untapped potential.

Because almost nobody whose conversation or email or Facebook message started, “I work in IT and I’ve got some ideas for how the party can improve…” and who clearly has a bundle of useful IT skills is actually using those skills very much to help the party at the moment. I want to enable that skilled army to employ its talents to the max.

One or two get it totally – and are wonderfully valued for that. A good few more are doing things like looking after their local party’s website (though, frankly, these days that usually doesn’t require much technical IT skill – skill yes, but not technical IT skill). But generally – there is a large pool of people with technical talent that we’re hardly tapping.

Yet looking at the tools the party currently has, and the resources we have available to improve them, there clearly is a lot of very valuable work which such people could be doing. So as I’m beginning to map out the whats and hows of the Board’s work, I have three clear priorities in mind.

First, really getting the most out of the opportunities the internet offers isn’t really about the technology – it is about how we use it – and getting those online opportunities embedding into our activities. As the writer Clay Shirky puts it, “The revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools. It happens when society adopts new behaviours.” That’s why Nick suggested me for this position – because I use what the internet can offer – but in techno terms am an infant.

Second, we need to build on our efforts to give individuals – whether members or not and living in a target seat/ward or not – the opportunities through the internet to campaign on behalf of the party and to spread our message both online and offline.

Third, where we have tools that should or could be improved, we need to tap into the volunteer skills of members and supporters. We will in part do that by setting the right standards and frameworks for the party overall. But we will also only achieve this if we open up more of the code the party has acquired so that more people can contribute to it.

For example, our email list server is based on open-source software and is used by hundreds of people to run email lists, some of whom are expert programmers. And yet the only changes to the code that happens are those the party does or pays for centrally. Likewise, many of our other tools – such as the petition engine that we frequently use in my constituency – and indeed the party’s www.libdems.org.uk website – run on code the party owns.

So with the help of Richard Allan, I’ve put together a brief online survey asking people to volunteer information about the technical skills which they have – whether it is the programming or software development management skills to help us get more and better code written without having to rely solely on the stretched resources at the centre.

The survey is at http://www.libertyresearch.org.uk/take/505 – and please fill it in if this sounds like something for you, and let others know about it too.

MPs expenses and freedom of information

Posted on by

Well – this is back in the news! The latest proposal in the on-going saga of MPs expenses is to exempt us from freedom of information rules, and so avoid having to publish full details.

My view is that we MPs should have the same rules as everyone else: same sorts of evidence required for expense claims as in a normal workplace, and same transparency rules as others.

I don’t see why the House of Commons administration should not be the body to whom all expenses are submitted and then they check that it is all bona fide. And nor do I see why MPs should have some special freedom of information exemption.

Glad to say that opposition to the suggestions that MPs should be exempted from these freedom of information rules is shared by David Heath and Nick Clegg! My colleague Jo Swinson is also putting down a motion in Parliament against the exemption idea. I think it would be madness for MPs to be exempted.

More on the campaign at MySociety, Matt Wardman and these two Facebook groups.

Heading up the party's Technology Board

Posted on by

I am so excited about fronting the new Technology Board for the Party. Clever move by Nick Clegg I think as I think / hope this will be a good match between me and the need for a non-geek, non-nerdy human being to lead the way (vital and lovable though geeks and nerds are!).

I have always used the internet to campaign – and to communicate with all the different people that I have wanted to reach for different reasons, different issues and to achieve a variety of outcomes. And behind the scenes, I’ve always appreciated the importance of technology to make both campaigning and casework efficient and manageable.

Now Nick is unleashing me formally on the wider world. And I will have his backing to take the party where no party has gone before – not exactly his words – but my interpretation!

Seriously – this is the new frontier and is still in its infancy. The Lib Dems have already been ahead of the game vis a vis the internet with an army of bloggers and e-campaigning enthusiasts pushing the envelope already – now is the time to continue and expand our operations. So – priority obviously will be outward facing – but the internal e-campaigning at the grassroots will also be expanded.

Nick acknowledged that my ‘technical’ technology knowledge wasn’t the reason for wanting me to be the image of a modern, cutting edge Lib Dems (thank goodness) – but it is the way to bring it on!

So – Obama schmama – watch this space. Of course – the Board itself is not yet in existence – so much to do and so little time to do it!

Rest of mini ‘reshuffle’ is over on the party website.

Credit anti-crunch!

Posted on by

We are all worried about how deep and how hard the recession will bite. Our jobs, our homes and local businesses: who will be hit and how can we best survive?

Our high streets in Highgate Village, Archway Road and Muswell Hill are full of shops that we all depend on – and they too will be wondering whether they can survive the economic downturn. So we need to try and bring our custom to our high streets even more. If what money we have we can spend locally, then we all can play a part in saving our local parades and high streets.

Turing to the bigger picture – I’m not sure that the political slanging match about who was to blame between Labour and Tory is much help in the current situation. So – I thought I would ask you to let me know your personal concerns about your life, your home, your business and your job as the downturn hits. That way I can report that back into the parliamentary debate so that we can press hard for action to mitigate and alleviate where possible.

The thought of a major financial institution collapsing all so easily captures centre stage – but those should not be the only concerns in our minds. The effects on people’s lives matters and should not be squeezed out.

That’s why the four-point plan launched recently by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and his deputy Vince Cable focused strongly on people’s day to day lives:

1. Cutting taxes for struggling families so people will have more money in their pocket. We would cut taxes for people on low and middle incomes – the money for this coming from closing tax loopholes for the super-rich. It’s only right that the tax system treats us all fairly, especially at times like these.

2. Lowering energy bills so people can afford to keep warm this winter. As wholesale fuel prices fall – they have dropped 28% since August – utility companies must lower people’s bills too as quickly as they raised them!

3. Keeping people in their homes, so you don’t need to fear unfair repossessions. We must ensure that banks only ever repossess people’s homes as a last resort. This is the one that the Government has now agreed with us and has promised action on.

4. Lower mortgage payments and cheaper business loans through big interest rate cuts. People and businesses need help paying off their mortgages and loans, so we need substantially lower interest rates.

These four steps would make a real difference to our well being, but to really represent everyone whatever your situation, it’s crucial that I understand exactly how people’s lives are being affected here. So please, get in touch with your stories about how the credit crunch affects you and yours.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

The brittleness of British politics

Posted on by

Although on the surface, British politics appears to have settled down a little in the last few months (Conservatives ahead, Gordon Brown in Michael Foot territory), underneath it all there is still a huge brittleness about it all.

You see it many weeks in council by-election results, where the Liberal Democrats often notch up dramatic swings from the Conservatives in by-elections in the southern-half of England.

You see it in research such as Newsnight’s focus group comparing Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. At the start – few very had heard of Nick – but by the end – he was by far and away the most popular.

This brittleness is also there in the underlying dynamics of the big issue – the economy. Many of the most vocal and extreme exponents of the virtues of free markets, removing regulations and letting the financial markets roam free, have had their words turn to dust – and now want us, the taxpayers, to pick up the bills for their blunders. This discrediting of the deregulation zealots, added to the unappetising sight of managers crashing their firms into the ground, expecting the taxpayer to pick up the pieces – but still themselves personally walk away with large bank balances and pension pots – should be manna from heaven for those in political parties challenging the zealots.

Yet – here in Britain it is the Conservative Party riding high in the polls despite their policy proposals being so at odds with the reality of the times. Only last year – and after the turmoil in the world’s financial systems had started – the Conservative Party published an official policy review from John Redwood saying that, “We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance.”

Wiser heads in the Conservative Party may well now wish to back away from this – indeed, when I appeared on Question Time and Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman quoted these words at Conservative MP Alan Duncan, Alan denied any knowledge of where the words had come from!

But this gap between what our country needs – effective regulation, not blind faith in deregulation – and what the Conservatives want offers the Liberal Democrats an opportunity. It is the same story with tax – where our policies would focus on helping the least well-off, asking polluters and the extremely wealthy to pay more, whilst the Conservative tax cuts (in as much as they are willing to give any details) would focus on giving the most help to the most well-off.

Someone recently joked to me that just as in the US it is near-obligatory for Presidential candidates to say “God Bless America” in every speech, it is now near-obligatory for Liberal Democrats to bless Vince Cable every time – but there is a reason for this! Because Vince has helped steer the party to a very effective treble-response to these challenges: regulation where necessary (as with the banning of short-selling on financial stocks), efficiencies where possible (as with axing ID cards) and putting our priorities on helping the least, not the most, well-off.

That approach is one which I think not only commands very broad support within the party – as we saw in the votes at conference on parts of it – but also begins to give us that overall narrative which makes our policies hang together in a coherent and easy to follow way.

So – as we end our conference and wait to see how the rest of the conference plays out – I’m in a very optimistic mood!

This piece first appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

TV advertising aimed at children

Posted on by

It’s a topic I’ve written about before – how the pressures from TV advertising can pressure and commercialise our children’s upbringing – so interesting to see Nick Clegg in today’s Telegraph:

Mr Clegg, who is due to become a father for a third time, said young children were being bombarded by advertising and their innocence needed to be protected.

He said he had become acutely aware of the commercial pressures on children.

“There is a channel of cartoons that my children watch in which they are bombarded by advertising every 15 minutes. I don’t like it.

“I’m increasingly, as a father and politician, thinking we have not got the balance right.”

Mr Clegg said there was a failure to properly “nurture” children in Britain.

He said: “We fail to protect thousands of children, either by not giving them support when they need it, or by almost wilfully pushing them into the criminal justice system.

“I want to live in a society where we nurture and protect that innocence of children, particularly those crucial years where people’s potential, talents and self-confidence really takes shape.”

You can read the full piece here.

42 days, David Davis and Nick Clegg

Posted on by

I am truly sick of the Westminster Village sneering attitude to David Davis. Quite frankly – I don’t care if David Davis is doing this for truth, justice and liberty or because he was never going to get Home Secretary, is a loner, egomaniac or because he hates David Cameron – all doing the rounds as explanations.

What I do care about is the issue – and if his actions help secure the same outcome that I want, then good for him – and I don’t see why I should have to pretend that I don’t really agree with him – or have to pretend that him helping to achieve what I want too isn’t a good thing – just because we are in different parties or disagree about 1,001 other issues.

Why does the issue of 42 days detention without trial matter so much? Quite simply – because locking an innocent person up for a month and a half is an awful, ghastly thing to do. Imagine it happening to yourself. How it can wreck jobs, pull apart relationship and leave a deep and abiding sense of anger and hostility.

And we know that when the police and other authorities think they know that someone is guilty – they ain’t always right. That’s why people get acquitted. Even with the best will in the world, mistakes are made. And we know too – the best will often is missing. We’ve seen in the fight against Irish terrorism how some police were so convinced they knew who was guilty that evidence was forged – to frame people for crimes they didn’t commit. We know we can’t just assume that all involved in security matters follow the rules and do their job properly – look at the repeated incidents of secret documents being lost!

So locking anyone up for any protracted period of time without a trial should only be a matter of very last resort. That’s not the situation we’re in. The government has left a whole host of other approaches untouched – such as changing the rules on what can happen pre and post charge. Or indeed taking the obvious step to deal with the extra complexities of terrorism investigations these days (involving many computers and many countries and so on) – that of giving extra resources to the police and security services.

If the problem is investigations taking too long – put more resources in I say. Double win if that’s done – not only are you able to keep to the current timescales – but if you’re investigating an outrage or would-be outrage, the quicker you do it the more chance there is of stopping other outrages too through what you discover in the investigation. Let’s not forget, Labour managed to whip up some extra billions just before a by-election polling day to attempt to deal with the political fallout from their 10p tax policies. So do we really think they’ve exhausted every avenue to fund quicker investigations into terrorism?

Go back to imaging your life. If you’ve got a diary for the next month or two take a look at it. And then imagine being locked up for 42days without being told why you’re being held. And think of the impact it would have on you. And then remember how very many of the people held at the moment end up being released without charge or being acquitted in court.

That’s why this issue cuts to the very core of the point of having elections and Parliament in the first place. If MPs aren’t there to protect people from the almost inevitable demands for greater and greater powers over them from all parts of the state, what is the point of much of what we do?

That’s why I agree with David Davis on the issue, and why I have a sneaking admiration for the insight or bravery or zaniness or call it whatever you will that he showed in forcing the 42 days issue to stay at the centre of political debate by forcing a by-election.

I don’t envy Nick Clegg and others having to make the quick judgement about how to react to his resignation. I think Nick and they got it right – there really are some issues which are more important the inter-party disagreements. And events so far have shown his judgement to be much surer than that of many of the critics.

No, Davis’s resignation on the issue didn’t hand Cameron a media bonanza – just look at all the coverage of splits in the Conservatives.

No, it wasn’t a pointless resignation – just look at the way those in the Conservative Party who wanted to back down over 42 days have instead themselves been backed into a corner.

No – it wasn’t a one-day wonder – just look at the continuing attention being given to the issue.

And above all – yes, it has been possible for David Davis to keep this attention on the civil liberties grounds on which we agree with him. (Imagine if there were a Liberal Democrat candidate against him – by necessity they would be having to campaign on a whole range of other issues in order to give people a reason to vote for them rather than for Davis – and that would have taken the attention away from that very civil liberties issue).

On each of these points, Nick and other’s judgement so far has been proved right – and events are offering us the opportunity to make a major step forward in the fight for our civil liberties. Real protection for our civil liberties doesn’t just come from electing Liberal Democrats – it comes from moving the terms of debate for all political parties. Civil liberties are part of the very Liberal Democrat DNA and to me helping make that happen matters far more than the usual instinct of”must fight every election, must fight every election, must fight every election.”

David Davis, three days on

Posted on by

So the nasty Tory party is back in full force turning its briefings in vituperative fashion on (or rather – against) David Davis. Much of the Conservative Party’s establishment seems to wish to infer that he is mad or sad or bad.

I think he is none of these things and take it on face value – he really does feel passionately about this issue and felt something dramatic was required. The issue of detention without charge is of such high import in terms of the fundamental values we hold dear in this land that it is worth taking a stand on. I hold no brief for David Davis. I don’t agree with him on almost anything else – but on this (like Nick Clegg) I do.