The culture of resignation is damaging

When I switched on my computer to find that this had been written for the Daily Express. In particular, the comments of Lord Rodger, a Justice of the Supreme Court, were dismaying:

Just as male hetero­sexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically-coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.

This is, of course, an unfair stereotyope and something I fundamentally disagree with. People should not use stereotypes because they perpetuate myths about certain sections of society. They're also usually very incorrect. I don't agree with his comments and he should probably apologise for any offence caused. However, calling for his resignation is wrong.

As a liberal, I fully defend the right to free speech. People should be able to say what they like, though, as someone who also likes politeness, they should probably be considerate of others' feelings. That is still a matter of personal choice, however. But as I support freedom of speech, I cannot then credibly call for someone's resignation the moment I disagree with something they say. It undermines my belief in free speech, even if I have a fine record in defending the right of other people to say what they like. This does not mean, of course, that I cannot disagree with what others say. Of course I can, and I do, frequently. But I disagree strongly that someone have to resign for comments like Lord Rodger's.

Similarly, calls for Theresa May to resign, less than a week after she took office, over her past votes on Section 28 and other gay rights issues, was equally wrong. Furthermore, it wholly ignored the fact that laws - including those on gay rights - are decided by Parliament, not the Home Secretary. It was another case of false choice: say what you want, vote how you think is best, but you'll have to resign afterwards.

Another recent demonstration of this, in America, is the comments of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. He criticised the war in Afghanistan and said that the US should leave. He has now been called unpatriotic by a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, and various conservative figures have called on him to resign, although Senators Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint and John McCain demurred. Yet, as EJ Dionne writes,

Even if Steele was just popping off, he had a right to offer his opinion without being accused of undermining our troops or "rooting for failure".

That is absolutely right. We can't have a political culture in which people are castigated or forced to resign for having different opinions. Even if those opinions are ones we disagree with fundamentally, it undermines our personal record on freedom of speech. More than that, however, it forces out talented people, both by getting rid of people who say such things, and discouraging those who have diverse views. Theresa May is competent, certainly, and somewhat talented; I know little about Lord Rodger but he has a fine legal record. (I would not count Michael Steele in the talented category, however). We constantly call for politicians (and others) who are 'real', who don't tell 'lies'. Yet, the moment they say what they think, we call on them to resign. It is a fundamentally dangerous and damaging foundation on which to build a political culture.

Election, election, election

It's that time again, folks. Yes, Liberal Youth elections are rolling around like a penny in one of those charity things at the supermarket.



I'm running for the position of Liberal Youth England Convenor. This job has, up until now, been a bit of a non-job. It hasn't done much for England, but has been, rather, another GEM. (A Very English GEM, if you will). I want to change that. I want the Convenor to be someone who works to build the regions and local parties, who is focused on England and building the party up in that way - as well as giving a greater operational voice and role to members. I've set out a clear and positive programme to do that, on my Facebook page. I hope you'll support me.

I've also taken the decision to support other candidates in this election. Some have suggested that this is because we are friends (which is undoubtedly true, but that isn't a disqualification for political office). No, I'm endorsing these people because I truly and sincerely believe they would be the best person for the job.

Charlotte Henry

She provides the energy, experience, commitment and drive to take
Liberal Youth to 'the next level'. Her stellar work in the election
campaign shows this, and I believe she deserves to continue in that
role.


Martin Shapland

Martin's impressive record as Branch Chair at Birmingham Uni, a GEM and as Chair of International Committee speak for themselves. His campaigning record and willingness to speak up for Liberal Youth will provide us with a clear and passionate voice at a vital time in the history of the organisation. He also, like me, shares a willingness to devolve power and do away with the system we are stuck with now.

Sophie Bertrand

Sophie's brilliant work advocating for us in all types of media during the general election has been outstanding. She has given her all to the Executive and I believe the hard work she has shown - as well as her commitment to the principles our party has been built upon - makes her very worthy of your first preference in these elections.

Chris Wiggin

Chris has considerable experience in campaigning for us, especially in York Outer - a key marginal for the Lib Dems in May. We didn't win, but that wasn't because of Chris' amazing work. He gave his heart and soul to that job and I know he would do the same for this role. He's also willing to campaign for many of the things that are closest to our hearts.

Sarah Harding

Sarah, at York Conference, passionately argued against the illiberal and authoritarian ContactPoint database. Her precise and clear arguments for the abolition of the database were powerful. I know that she will bring the same commitment to her principles to the Executive, which is exactly what we need on the Executive. Please consider Sarah for GEM.

Those are the candidates that I want to support most strongly. They are all excellent candidates and I hope you will consider supporting them for their respective positions. Please, too, support me for the position of England Convenor. I'm seeking a strong mandate to give power to members, and I can't do that without you. Please support Thomas Hemsley for England Convenor.

Labour isn't working...

Labour finds itself in opposition for the first time in 13 years. Many of its MPs – including five out of six of its declared leadership candidates – have experience of nothing but being the governing party. It is, then, a bit of a shock for them, understandably. They are still finding their feet. We can only hope that they will find their feet soon, and that those feet will be responsible, considered and fair. (Yes, I am aware that I’m taking this analogy slightly too far).

So far, though, they appear to be crass, hypocritical and shameless. This is bad for political discourse and opponents of this government (particularly now there is not a second opposition party). It’s undignified, and if this is the benchmark for their conduct over the next five years, they do not deserve to hold government after the next election. But it is also saddening.

Labour is a party, like the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, with a long and noble history. It has produced some of Britain’s greatest politicians – Attlee (a personal favourite of mine), Morrison, Bevan, Wilson, Callaghan, Castle, every single member of the Gang of Four, Blair, Robin Cook – and has enacted some great changes – the Minimum Wage, devolution, the NHS. It would be churlish not to recognise these significant achievements, whilst also considering carefully the significant differences I have with Labour policy. I respect the Labour Party and its leaders greatly. Yet Labour is in danger of tarnishing a good reputation with an unprincipled opposition.

Take the 55% rule. There are good arguments against this rule. They are founded on a democratic basis – though I disagree with many of these arguments. I believe that if you wish to have a fixed term Parliament – as I do – you need a higher threshold to dissolve Parliament. It is fair enough, though, to oppose fixed terms. But Labour doesn’t. Or, rather, they didn’t in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Nor did they oppose a higher threshold. Indeed, they had an even higher threshold than that proposed by the coalition government – 66%. Labour’s hypocrisy on this is risible. You cannot creditably claim something is an ‘affront to democracy’ when you have implemented something, but to a greater extent, when you were in government.

On the David Laws saga, too, Labour have shown themselves to be a party of shameless schadenfreude. Labour has an enviable record on gay rights. The Civil Partnerships Act, repeal of Section 28 and equalisation of the age of consent are all evidence of this. They, too, have many prominent gay politicians. Yet, when David Laws has used the defence of his privacy, and his desire to keep his sexuality a secret (something we must all respect and understand if we have an ounce of consideration in our body), we have had some Labour figures reacting by saying that this wasn’t a defence, and that Laws should have lost his job. Some, such as Ben Bradshaw (a politician who I used to have some respect for), castigated Laws for not ‘coming out’, an arrogant and disgraceful position to take.

The fact is, as Matthew Parris has pointed out, many other Cabinet ministers, Shadow ministers and Lib Dem Shadow ministers, in 2009, had egregious expenses claims without having to lose their job. Yet when David Laws resigned, Labour was universal – on Twitter, certainly – in its joy. Why? A man has been forced out because he sought to keep his private life secret. A man who was a vastly intelligent, careful, passionate politician, and who was an exact fit for the job of Treasury Chief Secretary. Regardless of whether you disagree with him – and as someone on the mainstream of the party, I am bound to disagree with David, at least sometimes. His departure was a sad event. It should not have been greeted with whoops and cheers.

This cannot, then, continue.

Labour, it seems to me, is living its own version of that famous Dean Acheson quote:

“Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role.”

It has lost government, but has not found a role. It needs to discover it quickly. It can do this. It has a very talented parliamentary party - much more so than the Tories did in 1997 (due to the sheer number of retirees at the election). It needs to do so for those opposed to the coalition government, and for those, as democrats, who seek an opposition to hold the government to account (as I do). Labour has a great history. They need, now, to rediscover it and not wallow about in petty point-scoring.

Blanche Lincoln for Senate

Something that the British media seem unable to do (understandably, perhaps) is to report on the details of foreign elections. There are exceptions, of course – the coverage of the 2008 US elections was excellent, in my opinion, and provided some wonderful moments (Vidal v. Dimble, anyone?) But if the BBC hadn’t done that, it would have been highly irregular.

But individual contests are not reported so much. (US papers aren’t amazing at this, either). Yet there are very interesting contests which could prove crucial for the future of the Democrats and Republicans. The Arkansas Senate race is one of those. It’s fascinating. Because, of course, of the primaries system in the US, not only is there the Democrat-Republican fight but there is also the intra-party fight. This is done for the Republicans – John Boozman, Arkansas’ only Republican Congressman, won with over 50% of the vote. But for the Democrats, it is much more complicated.

Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent Senator, only came ahead of the Lieutenant Governor, Bill Halter, by three percent, and it therefore goes to a runoff in a week’s time. Yet what’s remarkable is this: Bill Halter is, by American standards and certainly by Arkansas standards, a liberal. Blanche Lincoln is not only the incumbent, she is one of the most centrist Democrats in the Senate. Yet she is in trouble. 2010 will not be a great year for Democrats any way, as the US electorate turns against incumbents. Yet, according to Politico, Arkansas hardly ever kicks out incumbents, and it seems bizarre that conservative Democrats would choose a liberal as their nominee. Blanche Lincoln should be reasonably safe, at least in the primary. But she isn’t.

But if I was an Arkansas Democrat – an occurrence only slightly more likely than me being named Best Actor at the Oscars – I would cast a vote for Blanche Lincoln next Tuesday.

I’m not going to pretend that we’d be close ideological bedfellows. Nor am I going to highlight her work on the financial regulation bill – mainly because I don’t understand it. Nor, indeed, do I believe anyone from Arkansas will read this, or take note if they do. But Senator Lincoln’s victory is important for the Democratic Party. There is of course the arithmetical reason: she’s another warm, mostly loyal Democratic body in the Senate chamber. But she is also important for another reason: there is a worrying trend in US (and to an extent British) politics. A backlash against ideological diversity has been gaining steam for some time. Look at Joe Lieberman, for whom I have little regard, but who was a moderate voice in the Senate Democratic caucus. Look at Charlie Crist. Look at Lincoln Chafee, the moderate’s moderate. Unions and MoveOn.org on the left and Tea Party/Club for Growth on the right are forcing out centrists who work together. America – like Britain – is in dire financial straits. Arkansas, in particular, has significant problems – it is, for example, the seventh poorest state and has the third lowest median income. The US needs legislators working together in the national interest – a phrase heard a lot of late in Britain (it’s something we’ve needed for a long time, too). The health care debate shows that. Only one Republican – Olympia Snowe of Maine, a state which went for Obama with 58% of the vote – really sat down and tried to compromise. Other Republicans – and some Democrats – refused to compromise. Instead, a debate occurred which fired up dangerous sentiment and in which many legislators felt threatened.

That’s not how government should be done. That’s why we need more centrists. That’s why we need more consensualists. That’s why we need more bi-partisans. People who actually work to solve problems – huge problems – which face us today. That’s why Democrats of Arkansas should vote Blanche Lincoln next Tuesday, and that’s why all Arkansans should vote to re-elect Blanche Lincoln in November.

And so, it begins...

I've decided, at long last, to start blogging. I don't expect it to be wildly popular. What I'll aim to do is to be a calm and polite voice of Liberal Democracy at a time when the Twitter/blogsphere cacophony is increasingly loud. But I'll also blog on television (Doctor Who, Mad Men (when it's on), and anything that takes my fancy) and US politics, which is what my first proper post will be about.

Enjoy!