Liberal Democrat Newswire #20 is out, and you can now also read it in full below.
If you would like to receive the next edition of the newsletter direct to your own inbox, just sign up here. It’s free!
You can unsubscribe whenever you want using the link on the bottom of all the emails, and I won’t pass your email address on to anyone else (except if required by law).
And if you are already a reader and like it, why not Like my Facebook page to help publicise the newsletter to others?
Online snooping, an interview disaster, Cabinet plotting…
Monday 30 April 2012
Welcome to the latest edition of my monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.
Please do also let me know what you thought of this newsletter, or discuss its contents, by hopping over to its Facebook page.
Thanks for reading,
In this newsletter:
We need more than just more bank lending
British firms don’t just need more lending from the banks, they need access to a wider range of finance. That was the message in a speech to the Institute of Directors by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
It follows a review carried out by Tim Breedon, CEO of Legal & General, which found that there are significant non-bank sources of financing which could be expanded. This would help close the gap between what firms say they need and what banks are willing to lend.
Three in particular got mentions:
The government is putting £100m into these schemes to encourage their spread and to help firms. Another £400m is available if the initial schemes are a success.
Online snooping: does the Home Office know what it wants to do?
A succession of people working for the big players in the UK’s internet industry, from social network and service providers through to ISPs, have met with Home Office officials to talk about its proposals to extend online monitoring. They have all come away saying the same thing: ‘we still don’t know what problem the Home Office wants to fix’.
The bafflement is baffling, because knowing what problem you want to fix is not exactly an esoteric part of policy-making. It is absolutely central to it. Yet when, for example, big American firms ask for examples of specific scenarios where the government feels it must have access to data and currently can’t get it, they draw a blank.
Skype phone calls has been commonly quoted as an example in the media of how technological change means government monitoring powers need to change. Yet this example does not stand up to close examination. Skype calls made by someone can be monitored if you place a piece of Trojan software on the person’s computing device. Given how powerful (and relatively cheap) such software is when purchased from the sort of security firms who exhibit in London trade shows, it is hard to believe that GCHQ and colleagues do not have such abilities and more. Moreover, those in law enforcement also have the advantage that they can apply for legal permission to secretly enter someone’s premises to place bugging and surveillance equipment and software. They do not have to rely on remote access to someone’s systems.
Moreover, although Skype is often talked as being an encrypted peer-to-peer program, it makes use of super nodes and login servers, both of which provide points of remote access for monitoring. Security experts I have spoken to are convinced that the security services can access super nodes.
So what is actually the problem with Skype calls? Is it that what can currently be done on a small scale by GCHQ and colleagues, the Home Office wants to have available on a large scale to the police? But if that is the case, then this is not about monitoring terrorists, large scale criminal gangs or serious international crime of the sort the Home Office has been talking in public about.
If what Theresa May really wants is powers for mass monitoring of the public, not targeted monitoring of suspects the most serious cases, she should say so.
In the meantime, Liberal Democrat opposition to the proposals has been hardening into a demand that not only is mass monitoring blocked but that existing controls as tightened up. The Interception of Communications Commissioner is particularly under fire. I recently talked to one of the senior Liberal Democrat advisers in this area and their comment was simple. They’ve yet to come across anyone who has a good word to say about the Commissioner and how he regulates the system. You can read more about the Commissioner’s failures in my Six reasons the Interception of Communications Commissioner has failed.
Now, about that sneaky transport method so many terrorists use, namely walking…
The public’s verdict: good for country that Lib Dems in coalition with Conservatives, but not good for Lib Dems
y 40%-36% the public agrees it is better for the country that the Conservatives are having to work in coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than having won an overall majority on their own according to the latest ComRes poll.
Yet by 58%-22% the public say that the Liberal Democrats have sacrificed too many principles since joining the Coalition, and by 49%-35% they agree that the Lib Dems seem to have almost no influence on the government’s policies. (That 35% disagreeing rises to 62% amongst Conservative supporters however!).
Meanwhile, a YouGov poll based on the proposed new boundaries and conducted in both Lib Dem held seats and the most winnable seats for the party, found Lib Dem support down sharply compared to the last general election, even when prompting people to think specifically about the situation in their area.
SHARE THIS: Lib Dem achievements in government
The best message to win Liberal Democrat votes varies from contest to contest around the country as the issues at the top of voters’ minds in one place are not all the same as in another, especially when it comes to local council elections. But with the Liberal Democrats in government, national issues cannot be ignored and there are many powerful messages to get over about what the party is achieving in government, from fairer taxes to banking reform, and from green investment to civil liberties improvements.
You can help get that message out by sharing with people you know the infographic I published earlier this year.
(Note: not all the points are applicable across all of the UK.)
You can also get a full-colour wall poster version of the infographic.
Are we really in recession?
Writing in the Independent, Hamish McRae questions whether the economy has really taken a double-dip. Instead, he says, the record of economic statistical corrections suggests something else:
New report and polling both back Lords reform
Conservative MP mutterings over House of Lords reform may have caught the news headlines, but the report from the Joint Committee of MPs and Peers backed the substantive points of the government’s reform plans: a mostly elected upper house using STV.
They added in some sensible new detailed ideas, such as a minimum required attendance rate in the Lords with those who fall below it losing their seats. The Joint Committee’s report gives the government the green light to include legislation in the Queen’s Speech to implement the proposals.
Some Conservatives have been looking for loopholes in the wording of the Coalition Agreement or their own 2010 manifesto to give political cover for opposing the Bill. What they seem – so far – to be missing is that Lords reform is to Liberal Democrats what Europe is to many Conservatives.
Given the Conservative promise to work towards a consensus on Lords reform (and simply saying ‘no reform’ is clearly not doing that!), and given David Cameron’s own repeated commitments on the issue, if the Conservative Party walks away from the issue now there will be precious few, if any, Liberal Democrats willing to trust the Conservative Party over any deals in future hung Parliaments.
Meanwhile, the public strongly backs Lords reform:
Steve Webb pushes for new pension plans
Liberal Democrat MP and Minister for Pensions Steve Webb has revealed that the government is looking at a new “defined ambition” style of pensions, which would offer a better balance of risk between employer and employee.
Currently, money purchase schemes put the risk on the employee (poor investment returns or a market crash means they get a lower pension) and final salary schemes, quickly going out of fashion, put the risk on the employer (poor investment returns or a market crash means they have to put more money in).
Instead, Webb is talking of a new type of scheme where the size of the cash pot on retirement is guaranteed, but the size of pension that it then purchases is not, so splitting the risks:
Elsewhere from me…
Local Liberal Heroes: Duwayne Brooks
Lewisham councillor Duwayne Brooks is the latest person to feature in my Local Liberal Heroes series:
I don’t want you to read this book
ALDC has just published a new collection I’ve edited. It’s called Top Tips for Local Campaigners and is packed with 160 tips. Here is how my introduction starts:
ALDC members have all been sent a copy for free. If you are not an ALDC member, or if you want to even out the literary balance at home and have one copy for each room, then you can buy further copies for £4 (£3.20 to ALDC members) from ALDC.
Campaign Corner: How not to handle an interview
No commentary needed:
And in other news…
Is this Cabinet plotting against the Prime Minister?
For some lighter relief, enjoy this classic clip from Yes, Prime Minster:
What did you make of this newsletter?