New Statesman article – The stubborn survival of Clegg may be more significant than the noisy arrival of Farage

May 22nd, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

By Rafael Behr

Clegg’s team are not as disheartened by the results as the other parties think they ought to be. They know that Labour strongholds are beyond reach and that a governing party cannot be a receptacle for protest. Hope resides instead in evidence that their support survived in parts of southern England with a local Lib Dem MP. The Lib Dems are also encouraged by the failure of Labour and the Tories to neutralise public doubts that might deprive them of a majority. Milliband is not winning trust on the economy. Cameron is being dragged to the angry fringe by his party’s UKIP-fanciers. In theory, that opens up space for Clegg to present his party as more careful with money than Labour and nicer than the Tories.

…The Tories can either be the kind of party that does business with Clegg or be the kind that craves congress with Farage. They look ridiculous trying to be both.

For Lib Dems, the distinction is between two styles of politics. There is the managerial one, laden with compromise, made necessary by coalition. Or there is the chase after protest votes and none-of-the-above outrage that they know well but had to abandon on entering government. Add a history of being pro-European, relaxed about immigration and socially liberal and Clegg starts to look like the anti-Farage, a weary denier of popular solutions. As a country, do we want the fantasy “close your eyes and wish it all away offer from Grinning Nigel?” is how one senior Lib Dem strategist puts it.

In the current climate it might not be the most enticing proposition: Clegg as the continuity candidate of bloodless Westminster technocracy. Only the Lib Dems insist that the centre ground is where it has been for a generation between an expensive social conscience and flint-hearted frugality. They are also alone in wanting a hung parliament, which remains the likeliest general election outcome in 2015. The real disruption to the established way of doing politics may yet turn out to be not protest votes but coalition; not the noisy arrival of Farage but the stubborn survival of Clegg.

 

 

Ed Davey – Eurosceptic Tories are damaging the national interest – and their chances of winning the next election

May 21st, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Posted May 20, 2013
Published on Liberal Democrat Voice By Nick Thornsby | Thu 16th May 2013 – 3:54 pm
Over at the New Statesman, Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey has a rather perceptive and interesting piece on the Conservative Party’s implosion over Europe.

Here’s Ed’s take:

The Conservative Party hasn’t won a general election for over two decades and its latest infighting on Europe suggests that this trick may get repeated. Internal divisions on Europe haven’t been the sole cause of the Tories’ poor record. A big reason has been the growth of multiparty politics: Liberal Democrats in government in Westminster; the Scottish National Party in power in Holyrood. And with Ukip moving from a single issue party to a party of right-wing protest, Britain’s multi-party politics looks even more daunting for the Conservatives. How they respond to the strongest UKIP threat ever may well determine the next election. Do they appease Ukip or confront them?

So far, Conservative appeasers are winning. Talk of pacts with Ukip and even more hostility to Europe and migrants is leaving the Prime Minister’s modernisation strategy rather ragged. Yet that strategy was informed by analysis showing that for every vote they gained on the right, they lost one on the centre. The votes they will gain by aping Ukip will almost certainly be in the wrong places, pushing an overall majority further way. For Liberal Democrats, a Conservative rightward shift replacing their past strategy of “love–bombing” seems like a return to business as usual. It also underlines how we, in this coalition, are preventing the right taking control of the government tiller.

What the Conservatives haven’t understood is that Ukip’s new trick has not been to talk more about Europe, but to talk less about Europe. Its recent focus is on immigration and crime. With the economy and jobs top in voters’ minds – and Europe low – the Tories are repeating their 2001 and 2005 mistakes.

And Ed tells us a little about his experiences of reforming the EU constructively from within:

Is there another way? My experience in government suggests there is. Britain’s interests can be served by reforming the EU from within. As a business minister, I became frustrated with the slow pace of economic reform in the EU – despite conclusions from European Councils saying the right things. So I set up a new ginger group, working with fellow EU Ministers who share the British view that the EU needs to boost competitiveness.

This informal like-minded group – the EU Group for Growth – quickly attracted 16 member states. We went on, among other things, to secure the most significant shift in EU regulatory approach for decades: default small-business exemptions from all new EU regulations; a review of the most burdensome regulations for business; and the ability to drop pipeline proposals that could pose excessive costs. You won’t have read about it, but it’s the beginnings of real EU reform.

You can read Ed’s full piece here.

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

Surgery next Thursday

May 17th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

My next surgery is taking place on Thursday 23rd May at Winehala Court between 7pm & 8pm. Come along if you want to chat & I’ll see if I can help you!

The location for the surgery is:

Winehala Court, Sandbeds Road, Short Heath, Walsall, West Midlands WV12 4GA. Just ask at the Reception desk for Cllr Dan Barker’s surgery & they’ll direct you to where I’ll be waiting.

‘Rana Plaza horror: retailers must act’ by Phil Bennion MEP

May 16th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Multinationals must protect their Bangladeshi workers
As the death toll from the collapse of the Rana Plaza clothing factory passes a thousand, I am stepping up efforts to use this appalling disaster as a spur to win a step change in the way workers in these sweatshops are treated.

So many of these factories have sprung up to supply cheap clothing for western brands. Endemic corruption locally and a lack of enforcement of safety standards down the supply chain mean that we cannot just wash our hands of this situation and call for the Bangladeshi government to shoulder the burden. The companies who include these factories in their supply chain must take their share of responsibility. I should stress that I do not share the view that multinationals are intrinsically evil. Properly run and regulated they can be a force for good, channeling investment and jobs and raising standards in developing countries.

I joined a demonstration with Bangladeshi campaigners outside the Primark store in Birmingham last weekend, and am writing to Primark and four other firms seeking a meeting to discuss what action they intend to take – compensation is all very well but really as customers we demand a lot more pro-active action to stop this avoidable disaster from happening again. 

It is important that lobby groups get involved too, so I would support Avaaz in calling on H&M and GAP to  sign a ‘Fire and Building Safety Agreement’ to pay for regular independent inspections and safety upgrades for supplier factories. But I am also using my role on the European Parliament’s South Asia Delegation to encourage co-ordinated action at EU level. I welcome the recent Joint Statement from Cathy Ashton and EU Trade Commissioner De Gucht encouraging European and international companies to promote better health and safety standards, but it is important we do not simply ban these goods, which would cause mass unemployment and even worse poverty, the key is to raise standards across the board.

Plans to build 32 homes in Pennine Way, Short Heath

May 15th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Posted May 15, 2013
We have just been informed of plans to build 32 dwellings, 15 Private and 17 Affordable Rent, on land where the former high rise blocks Bannington and Pearson Courts once stood in Pennine, Way Short Heath.

Because this is a large development in today’s terms it will be determined in public at the Planning Committee. The date has not been set yet.

You can view the plans on the Council’s website at www.walsall.gov.uk by going to the Planning Link. The application number is 13/0580/FL

Brown Jug – Further attempt at Retail – Plans received….

May 14th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Posted May 14, 2013

 

We have just received notification of a planning application which has been lodged with Walsall Council to replace part of the existing façade of the Brown Jug pub with a shop front.

 

A previous attempt to convert this empty pub was refused a couple of Planning Committee meetings ago on the grounds that it was outside of the sub district centre of High Road Lane Head. At the same meeting permission was granted to convert the “British Oak” pub into a retail outlet on the grounds that it was within the sub district centre and would act as an anchor for the existing businesses.

 

As the new application threatens the business stability in the area and is situated outside of the sub district centre and is of considerable community interest. The application will be “Called In” and will have to be determined by the Planning Committee.

 

It’s early days yet and no date has been set for the plans to go in front of the Planning Committee. We will let you know once a date has been set.

The application can be viewed on the Council website www.walsall.gov.uk by going on to the Planning link. The application number is 13/0546/

Vince Cable talks sense on immigration

May 12th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Posted May 12, 2013
Published on Liberal Democat Voice By  | Sat 11th May 2013 – 10:34 am

Vince Cable has spoken up for the economic benefits of immigration in the Queen’s Speech debate, challenging the half truth and hyperbole in the illiberal rhetoric that’s doing the rounds at the moment. He reserved much of his ire for the Labour party:

I was hesitant about raising the subject because it is essentially covered by the Home Office, but substantial economic issues are also involved and it is important to refer to them. I was provoked into feeling that we should debate the issue in this context because a couple of days ago I was on the radio on the “Jeremy Vine” programme. I was following a female voice that was ranting on about millions of illegal immigrants and the negligence of the Government in letting them all in and not deporting enough people. I thought at the time that it was some fringe party that regarded Mr Nigel Farage as a sort of soggy, left-wing liberal, but I then realised it was the Labour shadow Home Secretary, and I tried to understand where she was coming from. It says quite a lot about the Labour party’s current values that it feels it necessary to apologise for letting in foreigners, but is still reluctant to apologise for wrecking the economy.

He then described how he had calmly debated the issue of immigration with a constituent who had expressed concerns:

I vividly recall a conversation I had with a constituent, shortly before the last general election. She was taking me to task for what she said were millions of illegal immigrants in the country and, rather recklessly perhaps, I decided to debate the subject with her. I asked, “How do you know?”, and she said, “Well, I see them in the high street the whole time.” I said, “Okay, but how do you know they are illegal?” She looked at me and said, “Mr Cable, why are you being so difficult? You know exactly what I mean”, and pointed up the road to the Hounslow mosque. Unfortunately, beneath a lot of the arguments about numbers, that is the prejudice we are trying to confront. We must, I think, make the case—I certainly intend to make it—for managed immigration that has a positive impact on the country, while at the same time providing the necessary level of reassurance.

He then had a bit of a go about the “logical absurdity” of setting policy in terms of net migration:

In order to clear the decks for an honest discussion of this problem, we must confront the reality that some of the facts, or factoids, used in this context are deeply unhelpful. All parties and commentators use the concept of net immigration as a way of measuring what is happening on that front, but at the heart of that concept lies a logical absurdity. One reason net immigration rises is because fewer British people emigrate—one would have thought it rather a good thing that people feel comfortable living in this country and want to stay here. Net immigration declines if more British people emigrate, which one would have thought is rather a bad thing. We often operate, therefore, with a concept that gives us misleading and unhelpful conclusions.

While I expressed concern the other day about the immigration proposals in the Queen’s Speech, I am reassured that our lot are saying the right things, both in private and in public and it’s not just the usual suspects, either. Ed Davey took Nigel Farage’s immigration rhetoric apart in a little watched conversation on the BBC News Channel, telling him that if we put up our drawbridges, there would be retaliation from the rest of the EU. He pointed out that most EU citizens were in fact working here and paying taxes.

I heard excerpts of Vince’s speech on last night’s Today in Parliament which is well worth a listen, not least because it also has our Lords Chief Whip Dick Newby talking about his costume for State Opening of Parliament. You can read the rest of Vince’s speech, which includes details on comsumer protection, intellectual property and reducing NI costs for businesses, in Hansard here.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron’s Musings

Article by Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph – This Queen’s Speech proves that the Coalition is still going strong

May 10th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

The footsoldiers may be squabbling, but those at the top are determined to see the job through

This year’s Queen’s Speech was guided by a moral and philosophical idea, the clarity of which is an achievement for Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg

This year’s Queen’s Speech was guided by a moral and philosophical idea, the clarity of which is an achievement for Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg Photo: AFP/Getty Images
 
 

‘Coalitions can have a solid basis in war,” noted Robert Blake, the master Tory historian, “but in peace they tend to be uneasy, nervous and insecure after the situation which produced them has been solved or has gone away.”

For the most part, as Blake demonstrated, coalitions are unnatural and short-lived. They tend to run into trouble after two or three years (the fate of the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-8) and often well before.

The key moment of danger in modern coalitions comes when the original objectives that bring the parties together have been achieved or exhausted. Once this happens, it becomes essential for the partners to produce a fresh document setting out a new set of objectives. Only this can provide the necessary sense of purpose and commitment.

Without it all is lost: the coalition partners descend into bickering and open disagreement. The best they can hope for is pointlessness, the worst open civil war, and at all times they face the likelihood of yet another humiliating defeat in Parliament.

But producing this new document is not easy. Very often agreement is impossible to reach, and all is lost. This seemed to be the situation in which the Cameron/Clegg administration found itself last autumn.

In turn, the Lib Dems responded by withdrawing support for constituency boundary changes aimed at redressing anti-Tory bias in general elections. Lib Dem and Tory ministers openly argued with one another. For a few desperate months the Coalition lost all sense of definition, and it was very hard at times to see how it could survive.

Emergency repairs were, however, going on behind the scenes, where David Cameron and Nick Clegg were supervising a programme that would sustain their rickety government for a further two years in office. Doing so took nine months’ hard negotiation, and involved many difficult moments and stops and starts. Their work first bore fruit with the Mid-Term Review, published in January. This rather overlooked document contained the seeds of the sharp, dynamic and purposeful legislative programme announced in Parliament yesterday.

To put matters clearly, the Coalition has put to an end all remaining mystery about its continued existence. Pretty well any government can come up with a worthwhile Queen’s Speech in the first year of a parliament. It is almost unknown to produce a strong Queen’s Speech in year four. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have achieved the near impossible, and in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The key point to grasp is that not one of the major measures read out yesterday by Her Majesty were in the original Coalition Agreement thrashed out by the Conservatives and Lib Dems in May 2010. Every single one of them – new funding for carers, a pensions revolution, a fresh look at immigration, the dramatic new attack on business red tape – has been generated while in office.

But this year’s Queen’s Speech is far more than a collection of dubious initiatives cynically designed to keep the show on the road. It is guided by a moral and philosophical idea of incomparable significance. It sets out to restore the importance of personal saving.

For the bulk of the 20th century, British wage-earners took it for granted that it was virtuous to set aside money for their retirement and for a rainy day. This notion has vanished. Gordon Brown looted or ruined British pension schemes, while creating a perverse system of financial incentives which made it sheer madness for ordinary people to set aside money for old age. The more they saved for themselves, the less they got from the state. Some think this system was based on calculation: Labour may have preferred voters to be dependent on state benefits rather than standing on their own two feet.

The distortion was very similar to the double jeopardy Brown created for those returning to the job market, where he made it financially rational to remain on state benefits rather than to take work. Iain Duncan Smith has devoted the first three years of his time as Work and Pensions Secretary to undoing this obscene abuse of the welfare system.

Now Steve Webb, his pensions minister (an unassuming Liberal Democrat who has turned into one of the outstanding ministerial successes of this government) is taking an axe to the Brown system. Just as Mr Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will make it impossible to lose out financially by returning to work, so Mr Webb’s pension reforms will guarantee that those who do the right thing and save are not then hammered by the state. Jeremy Hunt’s Care Bill, which caps social care costs for the elderly at £72,000, sends out the same message.

Taken as a whole, the significance of the Queen’s Speech is therefore enormous. Yesterday, the Coalition Government reinvented itself. Most coalitions come together to confront (in the words of Gladstone) “a great and palpable emergency of state”, then swiftly fade. This one has shown that it possesses the capacity to keep going.

This underlying momentum is frequently invisible because of the hostility between Lib Dem and Tory activists and MPs. At Westminster this can often be vicious beyond belief, and an impediment to progress.

For example, Mr Cameron cannot give in to recent pressure from Right-wingers and legislate for a referendum on Europe because Lib Dem MPs simply wouldn’t let him. Meanwhile, Tories talk contemptuously of the “yellow peril”: many harbour something close to hatred for their Lib Dem colleagues on the government benches.

This hostility obscures the excellent relations at the very top of the Coalition. The key to yesterday’s formidable Queen’s Speech lies in hours and hours of painstaking negotiations between the Conservative minister Oliver Letwin and his Lib Dem counterpart, David Laws, over nine months last year.

While Tories and Lib Dems blasted each other publicly, Laws and Letwin were designing a serious programme for government. In due course their work expanded to include David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and Danny Alexander (the so-called Quad, where Government business is agreed and driven through, has in many ways become a group of six). Finally their work was signed off by Cabinet.

A poor Queen’s Speech yesterday and the Coalition might have been doomed. It simply would not have had the ballast to confront the inevitable turbulence over the parliamentary year ahead, which starts with a poisonous negotiation over the next spending review, due to conclude in July.

In 12 months’ time, with only a year to go – at the most – before election day, it will be impossible to repeat the trick. Legislation takes ages to take effect – a year to go through Parliament, two years to be implemented, perhaps another decade to bed down genuine and lasting change.

Nevertheless, yet again this Coalition Government has defied logic and refused to be brought down by the weight of its internal contradictions. With this brilliant Queen’s Speech, it has bought itself another year.

 

Labour prepared to put massive boost to jobs in Walsall at risk

May 9th, 2013 by danielbarker
2 Comments

On Tuesday Walsall’s councillors assembled to discuss a proposal for Walsall Council to intervene financially to secure the redevelopment of the Old Square Shopping Centre.

This project will initially lead to the creation of at least 150 jobs and will bring Primark into Walsall Town Centre. Whatever one thinks about Primark, had they not shown an interest in coming to Walsall both Argos and Lidl would have taken their business elsewhere, leading to job losses within the Borough – that’s how significantly other retail outlets view the potential footfall that Primark will bring.

Walsall needs major employers. Without them the Town Centre will die and getting jobs will become so much harder. That simple fact pushes back arguments about the problems of globalisation to be debated another day when the economy is more prosperous.

The Chief Executive stated that contracts securing this project were scheduled to be signed the following day, and spelled out in no uncertain terms that any delay would increase the risk of those companies involved pulling out.

Despite this the Labour group chose to vote against the proposal. Thankfully, there was enough councillors of other parties and of none to out-vote Labour and ensure the motion was passed.

Yes one could argue that we didn’t have all the details of the deal, that the proposal brought with it some financial risks and that the way it was brought to councillors’ attentions was not ideal.

But how any councillor could look their constituents in the eye and tell them they were prepared to put Walsall’s financial survival at risk because of such qualms is beyond me.

Maybe its time Labour councillors put the interests of the people who elected them first instead of slavishly towing the party line. I for one am getting sick and tired of seeing political games being played with people’s livelihoods – Walsall deserves better.

Hidden successes for Liberal Democrats

May 8th, 2013 by danielbarker
Comment?

Hidden amongst the results of last week’s elections was some good news for a number of Liberal Democrat candidates (plus the good news that we lost fewer seats we were defending than in the previous two years).

Well done to the teams in Cornwall (winning a massive 36 seats), and in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire and Wiltshire who all made net gains.

Furthermore, a few areas stand out who made noticeable multiple gains including Pendle, Cotswolds, Ryedale and the Vale of White Horse.

Walsall Liberal Democrats say – well done!

Previous

Daniel Barker

13 Greaves Close
Walsall
West Midlands
WS5 3QT
T: 01922 634413
E:

Administration