Nick Clegg speech: Horizon shift

Nick Clegg this morning delivered a speech outlining the need to reform now in order to promote mobility and prosperity in the future.

Read the speech in full below (check against delivery):

Successful governments require a number of ingredients: strong leadership, public support, dedicated ministers, and a good dose of luck, to name but a few.   

But above all they need a clear sense of purpose.  

When governments lose sight of their overriding purpose for being in power, the glue that holds them together dissolves. We saw this in the latter years of Labour’s time in office. A directionless government, without the underpinning of a clear purpose, inevitably ended in factionalism, intrigue and bankruptcy.   

This is a mistake we will not repeat.  In my speech today and a second from the Prime Minister, at a date to be confirmed, we will set out the two animating purposes of this Coalition Government. The first is to bring about a radical redistribution of power – from central government to local communities and people. This power shift will be the subject of the PM’s address.   

The other guiding purpose of the Coalition is to govern for the long term - to take the necessary steps now to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future. Our political culture - and in many ways our society more generally - has become too focused on immediate needs and demands, rather than considering our obligations to the future. We need to look towards a further horizon. It is this second guiding purpose – the horizon shift – that I will address today.  

The challenge of acting over a longer time horizon is not simply one for this Government, or even just for politics. It is an issue for society as a whole. But it is vital that the Government leads by example.  

Today I will:  

1)   illustrate the problem of short-termism in our culture generally

2)   argue for justice between generations and warn that we are in danger of failing the next generation

3)   describe ways of committing to the long term

4)   examine the causes and symptoms of political myopia; and

5)   outline how the Coalition Government is shifting towards a longer-term perspective  

1) A culture of short-termism   

Politicians are often accused of being obsessed with the short term. But it should be obvious that politics is not uniquely guilty here. In commercial and personal life, short-term temptations can trump longer-term benefits, too.  

In firms and in the financial markets, the temptation to drive for short-term profits can sometimes undermine long-term prosperity.  The hunt for annual or quarterly economic returns gives vitality of markets – but taken to excess, the focus on immediate returns can also result in instability and, perversely, to lower returns over a longer time-frame.    

When remuneration packages are tied into the performance of shares over a very short time-span, the long-term result is often a weaker corporate sector. The best companies – the ones built to last – look well beyond quarter-on-quarter profits. In terms of bringing about the horizon shift we need, corporate myopia matters at least as much as political myopia.   

And as individuals, most of us are acutely aware that short-term desires can trump our long-term interests. This is hardly a new problem. Temptation is part of the human condition. John Stuart Mill pointed out that ‘men very often reach for the nearer good, even though they know it to be less valuable’. In a slightly different vein, Oscar Wilde declared that the only way to be rid of temptation is to yield to it.  

It is hard to know, historically, whether we are more myopic than our ancestors. But it is clear that the range of temptations is greater in a world of plenty – just think for a moment about the food and drink being offered for sale all around us, all of the time.   

The range of entertainment available to us has widened beyond recognition – TV, computer games, cinema, social networking sites, music quickly downloaded onto our ipod. According to OFCOM, the average UK citizen now spends almost half their waking hours watching TV, or using mobiles and other communication devices. There is in fact so much available that we are consuming goods simultaneously. The typical citizen crams 8 hours and 48 minutes of media consumption into just over seven hours during the average day. We are no longer simply multi-tasking - we are multi-consuming too.  

Don’t get me wrong: this is also good news. The choice and opportunities of modern life are very great blessings. I do not subscribe to the view that the expansion in our choices of entertainment, lifestyle and consumption is intrinsically corrosive. Choice is good.   

But the question is whether our capacity to balance the immediate with the long-term is keeping pace with the expansion of choice. I think it was a Hollywood actress who said that nowadays, even instant gratification isn’t quick enough for some people.   

And in many areas of life, the importance of investing in the long-term has certainly grown. Saving for our retirement rather than splurging today; controlling our intake of food and drink, and taking exercise in order to be healthy; taking time to be with our children and families, rather than being sucked into overwork or overconsumption.  

In the pure, ideal universe of economic theory, each of us is supposed to be able to rationally calculate the utility value of any action both now and in the future. In real life, people eat donuts, decide not to go for a run, and put off making payments into their pension fund. The economists say this means we are engaged in an “irrational discounting of time”. The rest of us describe it as being human.

So, politicians certainly do not have a monopoly on myopia. The challenge of taking hard decisions in the short-term for the benefit of the long term is a more general one.

2) Generational failure

So far I’ve talked about short-termism in the context of business and personal life. But there is a generational question at stake here too. Many of the decisions we make today will affect the lives of our children, and our children’s children. Social justice is about the relations between classes, nations, races and genders – but it includes justice between the generations, too.   

My colleague David Willetts reports in his book The Pinch that some north American Indian tribal councils judged the impact of their decisions over seven generations. The liberal philosopher John Rawls described how a socially just society was one taken by people unaware of what position they would occupy within it. But Rawls also insisted that the people behind his famous ‘veil of ignorance’ must consider the consequences of their actions over ‘at least two generations’.  

This has not been the ethos that has guided us in recent decades. The Prime Minister and I are from the same generation. And frankly, we know that both our generation - and the one before us - got it wrong. We have run up debts, despoiled the planet and allowed too many of our institutions to wither. For us, the longer-term view we are adopting in government will help to wipe the slate clean, and ensure that future generations can thrive, without being burdened with the dead weight of our debt, and our failings.  

We are absolutely determined that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say we did the best we could for them, even if this means taking some difficult, unpopular decisions today.  

3) Commitment

I’ve talked so far about the tendency to short-termism that characterises too much of our society, and the particular failure of our generation to focus on the future.

But I do not want to sound too pessimistic. Thankfully, as a society we have also retained a wide array of institutions, habits and social norms to keep us focused on shared long-term interests. We are still capable of putting tomorrow ahead of today, using what one academic has called “commitment devices’’. When we sign up for a Christmas savings scheme, or join a running group, or a study class, or a dieting group, we are finding ways to make ourselves do the best for ourselves for the long-term. We know, like Ulysses, that we will be tempted by siren songs, and must sometimes tie ourselves to the mast.  

Institutions like marriage and civil partnerships are profoundly important commitment devices: a way of pledging to work at a relationship through thick and thin, and make a life together. And on a wider scale, schemes of national insurance for unemployment, sickness and old age are effectively large-scale, collective commitment devices.  

The challenge here is to find ways to encourage people to act in their own and in society’s long-term interest, while respecting individual freedom. There are various ways in which the state can support a shift from short-termism to long-termism. The plans outlined by the previous Government to automatically enrol people in workplace pensions are a good example. Individuals can still choose to opt out, of course. But by changing the ‘default’ setting to being in the scheme, millions more people are likely to save towards their old age. The Government’s new behavioural economics team, based in Downing Street, will be looking at ways in which, in a range of areas, the better choice can be made the easier choice.

4) Political myopia  

I now want to turn to the specific issue of short-termism in politics and government.  I have already argued that myopia is not a problem restricted to SW1. But it is also clear that politics is often poisoned by short-termism. This is, after all, a profession in which a week is said to be a long time. Politicians stand accused of being incapable of thinking beyond the next election, the next parliamentary session, or even the next 24-hour news cycle. Sometimes the accusations ring true.   

Again, these are not entirely new problems. The Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is reported to have said: ‘A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman thinks of the next generation.’ Now, I don’t think we should be under any illusions about the fact that Disraeli was as keen to be re-elected as any of his predecessors or successors! But his point nonetheless stands.  

And I think there is some evidence that politics has become more afflicted with short-termism in the recent past. In part, this is because communication, both international and national, becomes faster by the year. The sheer scale and velocity of the news media has undoubtedly altered the way politics is conducted.   

When you read, today, the diaries of Winston Churchill or William Gladstone, spending weeks travelling to conduct diplomatic missions, or on preparing a single speech to parliament, it is like entering a different world.   

Nobody wants to turn back the clock, of course. But given the pressures of modern politics and government, we do need to work very much harder to keep our sights on the long-term consequences of our decisions.

This is especially true, given that many of the problems we face have a longer-term dimension: climate change, pensions and social care, and international economic development are just some of the more obvious examples. Our horizons have shortened as the timescales of our problems have lengthened.

I think there are three principal symptoms of contemporary political myopia:

First – A tendency to confuse good headlines with successful reform. Professional, effective communications are of course a vital part of good government. But there is an ever-present danger of mistaking external perception for reality. Governments can easily fall prey to initiative-itis, announcing, almost daily, new policies or ideas to convey an impression of activity and progress.   

It is clear from the rash of recent memoirs from senior Labour figures that the Labour governments fell frequently into this trap. To be fair, most of them now admit as much. And I don’t think we should for a moment claim that this is a temptation unique to Labour politicians; none of us are immune.   

The truth is that real reform – of public services, of our political system, of our economic system – takes many years of patient execution of a strategy. Much of this progress will go unreported. Successful reform is rarely a generator of daily headlines, and it is vital to understand that from the outset.   

Second – the increase in the turnover of government ministers. The average tenure of a government minister in the last Labour Government has been calculated as being just 1.3 years. Junior ministers were moved on a virtually annual basis. Particularly among junior ministers, the level of churn has been so great in recent years that very often, by the time the minister has got close to understanding their subject, they are moved on. Chris Mullin, in his excellent diaries, records the view of Janet Andersen, a former Labour whip and minister, on Tony Blair’s attitude to junior ministerial posts: ‘He regards them as sweeties to be handed out to keep the children happy’, she said.  

Of course, it is dangerous just four months into government to raise the question of the rate of ministerial turnover. Just to be clear, I am not making any commitment today for a target average ministerial tenure. But I can say that this Government recognises that constant reshuffling of the ministerial deck – often to generate the headlines I mentioned a moment ago – is not conducive to good government, and that we will aspire to greater stability in the way ministers are allowed to govern.  

The third - and most important - symptom of political short-termism is the failure to confront long-term problems requiring uncomfortable short-term solutions. Climate change; pensions; social care; social mobility; fiscal deficit; welfare reform – the list is long.   

Let me stress again that I am not trying to score party political points here. The accusation of short-termism has to be levelled at the political class as a whole. And while the previous Labour governments failed in many of these areas, it is important to note that there were some positive steps, too. Granting independence to the Bank of England, for example – a policy first advocated by the Liberal Democrats - was a bold investment in long-term economic success.

Similarly, the previous Government’s introduction of a statutory commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the Climate Change Act of 2008 was an important step towards a greener future.

So the previous Government did introduce some reforms for the long term, even if, especially at the end, there was no energy left to tackle the long-term challenges like political reform, public services reform, or welfare reform. This Coalition Government is determined to break that pattern and to keep our own focus on the long term challenges we face.  

5) A Coalition Government horizon shift

The proof, of course, will not be in what we say but in what we do. And in the four months since the Coalition Government was formed, I think we have begun to show that we are serious about a longer term approach to policy and politics. Let me take seven areas by way of illustration:  

First, the public finances. We have set out a five-year plan to put the UK back in the black. The details of our spending plans will be published in October, and, as you can imagine, there is plenty of discussion going in Whitehall at the moment. But our starting point is simple: a thriving economy cannot be built in the long term on the shifting sands of debt. The Office for Budget Responsibility will issue independent assessments of the public finances: this is an institution specifically intended to improve long-term financial planning, and which will help not only this Government but future governments to remain on the fiscal straight and narrow.

2)   Second, the environment. The Coalition Government is pushing hard to get the whole of the EU to sign up to tough targets for reducing carbon emissions – 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. We are under no illusions about how difficult these targets will be to meet. Our Green Deal, Green Investment Bank and our strategy for low-carbon energy production are the first steps in an ambitious programme to meet our pledge to be the greenest government ever.  

3)  Third, investing in future economic success. Despite our tough plans for cuts in public spending, we have stuck to the previous Government’s commitments on capital investment, apart from some small savings made in May. Our Regional Growth Fund will target resources on areas most in need of economic development. A renewed and reformed commitment to Higher and Further Education, and especially to world class research and science, are also essential to our long-term economic success – as Vince Cable argued in a speech earlier this week.

4)   Fourth, taking a long-term view of the UK’s role in the world. We are investing in our relationships with emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East, even as we play a fully committed role within the EU and maintain our traditional alliance with the United States. It was not an accident that the UK’s delegation to India in July 2010 was the largest ever. Both bilaterally and working through the EU, we want to put trade at the heart of our relations with emerging economies and our diplomacy more broadly. We are also strengthening our commitment to help the poorest countries participate fully in the global economy. Our commitment to ring-fence the budget of the Department for International Development, and meet the target of spending 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013 on foreign aid, are founded on our conviction that the issues of development, security and trade are intertwined. Our commitment to a fairer and more prosperous world cannot be put on hold because of our own domestic financial pressures.    

5)   Fifth, acting now to put our political system on a sustainable footing. The Bill currently in parliament, equalising constituency sizes and paving the way for a referendum on the voting system, is part of a package of measures including reform of the House of Lords, cleaning up party funding and lobbying and allowing voters to recall MPs. In themselves, they will not provide an antidote to public despair about politics after the expenses scandals. But in the long-run, they will restore some faith in our political system and make politicians more accountable to the people.  

6)   Sixth, our plans for a decentralisation of power. This is the power shift David Cameron will be speaking on. But it is a long-term measure too. It will take time to shift responsibility away from our over-centralised, bureaucratic state. We will need time, for example, to reform our excessively centralised tax system which stifles local autonomy and innovation. And we know that it will take even longer for people to realise that power is being wielded at a different level. Ministers standing at the despatch box will continue to be held responsible for local decisions over which they no longer have any control. This will feel uncomfortable, to say the least: responsibility without power, the curse of the decentralising minister. Fear of this scenario has been an obstacle to decentralisation in the past. But we know it is coming, and we are ready to stay the course.

7)  Seventh, this Coalition Government’s long-term commitment to fairness. The overriding priority for our social policy is improving social mobility. For too many people, the circumstances of their birth shape their chances throughout life. In recent decades, social mobility has flat-lined. We know that improving social mobility is by definition a long-term enterprise. Our pupil premium will be a downpayment on better future for the poorest children. Our support during the critical early years, especially for disadvantaged families through an improved Sure Start programme, is explicitly intended to have an impact on future fairness. There is no more potent investment in the future than investment in the early years. Similarly, in the emergency Budget we began the process of rebalancing the tax system to reward work and ensure fairness, by cutting income tax for the lowest-paid and increasing Capital Gains Tax.   
 
Conclusion  

I have today set out the defining purpose of what we call a horizon shift – a fundamental alteration in the timelines of our decision-making.

We know that decisions taken for the long-term are, in the short-run, difficult, painful or unpopular – or all three. The need to tackle our inheritance of debt is the most obvious case in point. I knew before the election how difficult it was going to be just to sort out the public finances. I remember being roundly criticised for spelling out the scale of the cuts which would be necessary to balance the budget. I am under no illusions about the significant political risks both parties in the Coalition are now taking by now facing up to these difficult decisions in government.

But I also think people will see, even through these tough times, that the Coalition Government is acting in the interests of a better future. I am encouraged that a panel of citizens convened by the Institute for Government called for two clear priorities to govern the spending review: encouraging people to take personal responsibility, and giving the country a long term future.

Denying the need to sort out the public finances would lead to bigger problems in the longer term, and would be a betrayal of the prospects and prosperity of future generations. We have had a budget for the future; our spending review is aimed squarely at the future too.

I did not come into politics to pore over the government’s budget figures like a beady-eyed accountant. But balancing the books is something we have to do today, so we can go on to do the things we want tomorrow: create a sustainable, balanced economy; provide the best life chances for all our children and young people; and build a society of growing opportunities and social mobility.

It falls to our political generation to take the necessary steps now for a better, fairer future. Reform and change today is necessary if we want mobility and prosperity tomorrow. That’s the horizon shift we need. That’s what the Coalition Government is about.

Liberal Democrat MPs vote on electoral reform referendum

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg will lead the debate in Parliament in favour of the referendum.

MPs will be debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on their first day back from the summer recess.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat deputy leader, Simon Hughes said:

“We have a unique opportunity to overthrow our archaic voting system and replace it with something fairer and better.

“Liberal Democrat activists, alongside those from other parties and none, have long campaigned for a new voting system.

“The Alternative Vote is a system that accommodates more choice while making sure no MP is elected without 50% support from their consituents.

“It will also make MPs work harder to win and keep support. Good MPs will have nothing to fear from AV – only bad MPs will want to keep the current system.”

To sign up for the Liberal Democrat campaign for fairer votes, visit www.libdemsforfairervotes.org.uk."    

Nick Clegg visits Afghanistan and Pakistan

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg visited Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this week. On returning from the trip Mr Clegg said:

"Earlier this week this week I went to Afghanistan and Pakistan to see for myself the problems and challenges that those countries face. The coalition government is committed to playing our part to helping ensure that the region has a peaceful and prosperous future.

It was my second visit to our armed forces in Afghanistan, where I saw again the bravery and professionalism of our troops. Whilst the situation in the country is still difficult, I believe that we are beginning to turn the corner. As the Prime Minister has made clear, British combat troops will leave Afghanistan by 2015 and it is important that by then we have a full political settlement to take the country forward.

Yesterday I was in Pakistan where I saw the almost unimaginable impact of the terrible floods. It is almost impossible to appreciate their scale — the affected area is approximately the same size as the UK.

I was deeply moved as I witnessed the flooding from the air. It is sadly clear that it will take years for life in Pakistan to come back to normal. I met with President Zardari and aid agency workers to discuss aid being delivered to Pakistan and what role Britain and the international community can play.

I’m proud that the British people and government have together contributed over £100m to assist the aid efforts. If you would like to donate to the DEC appeal for Pakistan, as I know many people will have done already, you can do so here: www.dec.org.uk"

New 111 service will be better than NHS Direct - Burstow

Corus deal will get Teesside's heart beating again, says Swales

Corus and Thai steel company SSI have signed a Memorandum of Understanding for SSI to buy the Teesside Cast Products plant from Corus.

Liberal Democrat MP for Redcar Ian Swales said:

"This is absolutely terrific news and something I have been tirelessly working towards since being elected in May.

"I am thrilled this deal has been done and that we will be bringing steel making back to Redcar. This will get Teesside’s heart beating again.

"This deal is the culmination of thousands of hours of hard work by Corus and SSI, with great support from both the trade unions and politicians.  Vince Cable and his team have done all they could to help facilitate this deal coming to fruition and I am grateful for their support.

"When I visited SSI in Thailand this May, I was impressed with their operation and people and saw the clear need that they had for the TCP output. Since then my regular contacts with SSI, Corus and Tata made me quietly confident that this day would come. However, such deals are complex and it was always going to take some time to agree the many issues involved.

"This is fantastic news for the area and will bring back the much needed jobs. When added to recent announcements and other potential projects, it looks as though Teesside has at last turned the corner from a very long period of industrial decline."

Rise in obesity operations shows Labour failed on public health

Commenting on the 10-fold rise in the number of obesity-related surgeries carried out on the NHS in less than a decade, Liberal Democrat health minister Paul Burstow said:

"These are procedures that can transform lives, save lives and save money for the taxpayer.

"The 10-fold increase in less than a decade shows the last Government failed to get a grip on public health issues.

"Obesity is a serious issue in this country. Over the last 13 years we've become the country with the highest rate of obesity in the whole of Europe.

"We are committed to a real drive to consistently deliver public health messages about changes in lifestyles that people can make, both in diet and exercise, that can significantly reduce the need for these procedures."

Nick Clegg delivers speech on social mobility

Nick Clegg said:
Check against delivery

As of today, the new Coalition Government is 100 days old. Inevitably there is a plenty of discussion about our performance to date. Everyone will have their own view about the start we have made.

I am proud of our achievements so far, from civil liberties, to political reform, to steps to reshaping our public services. And of course, our first Budget, which set out our plans to repair the public finances.

Our critics characterise us as being solely defined by our public spending cuts. So let me be clear: tackling the deficit is our immediate priority. But is it not our be-all and end-all. This Government is about much more than cuts.

This Government is committed to the long term – to making decisions today that will promote a better future: a more prosperous economy, and a fairer society. Our determination to fix the deficit is matched by our determination to create a more socially mobile society.

Today I will set out:

1)    How we are a Government focused on the long-term;

2)    Why our long-term social policy goal is social mobility;

3)    The key obstacles we face in promoting social mobility; and

4)    The next steps we will be taking as Government to overcome them.

Let me start by outlining what it means to be a government for the long-term.

My colleague David Willetts in his book, The Pinch, focuses on the theme of intergenerational justice. In the book David explains that the Tribal Council of the Iroquis, a North American tribe, believed that all tribal decisions should be considered in light of their impact on the next seven generations. The contrast with modern politics – in which, famously, seven days is seen as a long time – could not be greater.

I am not going to promise the introduction of a 7-generation rule into the British legislative process. But I am going to argue that the Coalition government’s approach to politics, and to policy-making, is moving beyond the short-termism that has disfigured politics in recent years.

Governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next.

In economic policy, this means taking the difficult decisions to tackle the deficit and provide the conditions to create the jobs and opportunities of the future. There is no doubt that many of these decisions are painful. But let me tell you, there is nothing fair about saddling the next generation with our debts.

That is why we have set out a five-year trajectory for the public finances, and established an independent Office for Budget Responsibility. These are evidence of our determination to put economic policy - as well as the economy - onto a more sustainable footing.

Decisive action to address the deficit is what we have to do in order to do what we want to do. And what we want is to build a fairer nation. This means, in particular, creating a more socially mobile Britain. And this, by definition, is a long-term goal.

I am acutely aware that it is very much easier to declare political support for social mobility than it is to improve it. If social mobility were improved every time a politician made a speech about it, we’d be living in a nirvana of opportunity.

This is a complex and contested area of both research and policy. And action to improve social mobility will take many years to take effect. In policy terms, it is like turning the wheel on an oil tanker.

Promoting social mobility is a long-term business. And it is precisely for that reason that it is vital to establish now, at the beginning of our time in office, that promoting social mobility is at the top of our social agenda.

Given this commitment, it is very important to be clear about what we mean by social mobility, and why it matters so much.

As a term, social mobility has a more than slightly wonkish feel. It sounds – with apologies to my kind hosts – very much like a think-tank phrase.

And yet I think social mobility is the mark of a good society, the badge of fairness. My particular focus is on inter-generational social mobility - the extent to which a person’s income or social class is influenced by the income or social class of their parents. Social mobility is a measure of the degree to which the patterns of advantage and disadvantage in one generation are passed on to the next. How far, if you like, the sins of the father are visited on the son.

There is of course plenty of argument within the social science community about precise measures, international comparisons and preferred metrics. But I think inter-generational social mobility speaks to most people’s definition of fairness.

Fairness means everyone having the chance to do well, irrespective of their beginnings. Fairness means that no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth. Fairness demands that what counts is not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did, but your ability and your ambition.

In other words, fairness means social mobility.

And social mobility matters for both ethical and economic reasons. For me, an important strand of liberal ethics is that opportunities are detached from origins. As a liberal, I am optimistic about the capacity of people to shape good lives for themselves and deeply committed to tearing down the barriers – whether they are barriers of class, attitude, wealth or bureaucracy – that stand in their way.
Liberal optimism is founded on a conviction that children have unimaginable – unpredictable – potential. A socially mobile society is one that is waiting for them, open to their talents, ready for their determination.

As things stand, the evidence on social mobility is not encouraging, either historically or internationally.

There is some evidence of a worsening in rates of social mobility between income groups for people born in 1958 compared to 1970.

Other studies show that, at best, social mobility rates have flat-lined over the last two or three decades.

Data collected by the OECD shows that, of 12 developed countries, the UK is the one where the earnings of individuals are most strongly related to the earnings of their parents.

Every minute, another baby is born in this country. The question is: what future lies ahead of them? What will their lives be like? We should not already know the answer to this question. But, tragically, we can already predict the likely fortunes of too many of these children, because of the clear influence of social background.

For too many, birth and destiny are closely intertwined.

This is not to say that everybody’s life is determined from day one. But it is clear that the odds are stacked against some of those newborns, and in favour of others. And when that is the case, we are not just talking about inequality, but about what amounts to social segregation.

Social segregation occurs when inequalities become frozen across time, when people are trapped in the position of their birth.

As well as this clear ethical demand for social mobility, there is also an economic argument for action. If a talented person is unable to rise because of the barriers to opportunity, it is not only their life which is damaged, but the prosperity of the nation.

The Sutton Trust, for example, estimates that if we could narrow educational inequalities to the levels of countries with a better record on social mobility we could add significantly to the size and dynamism of the UK economy. 

The relationship between social mobility and a high-skill economy cuts both ways. One of the main engines of upwards social mobility is the creation of more professional and highly-skilled jobs, creating what social scientists call ‘more room at the top’. And this, in turn, increases the opportunities for people to move up.

It is also important to be clear about our objectives in social policy, and the difference between, for example, poverty reduction and the promotion of mobility. The goal of improving social mobility overlaps with other objectives for social policy, such as reducing poverty or narrowing income inequality. But it is not the same.

Labour, despite 13 years of government, billions of pounds of investment and a plethora of initiatives, schemes and credits, appears to have failed to move the needle on social mobility.

I think this was for two principal reasons:

First, they were confused about what they were trying to achieve. Sometimes social exclusion seemed to be the focus, sometimes poverty, occasionally income inequality. Social mobility only gained prominence towards the very end of Labour’s period in office – and by this time it was too late.

They were confused about their ultimate aims in social policy, which meant a diffusion of effort. It was stop-gap policy-making in an area where absolute consistency and a relentless focus on the main goal is required if the long term changes are to be delivered over time.

Second, there was too much reliance on standardised, centralised, universal solutions rather than putting power and resources in the hands of those who need them most. Draw a line here, set a target there, tick boxes everywhere. All with good intent, but too often, with precious little long-term effect. 

We saw this in the approach to targets for exam results, where, all too often, disproportionate emphasis was placed on  getting borderline cases over the Whitehall-determined 5-GSCE line, rather than on releasing the potential of all young people.

But it was visible in Labour’s approach to poverty, too. Poverty in the sense of current income levels can be tackled through the transfer of cash. And of course reducing poverty, at any particular point in time is hugely important in building a fairer nation.

This Government has made clear its commitment to tackling poverty. And I am delighted that Frank Field is working with the Government on the way that deprivation links to life chances.

But we also recognise that poverty reduction is not enough in and of itself.

Under Labour huge sums of money were spent pushing low-income households just above the statistically defined level of household income – sometimes by just a few pounds a week - but with no discernible impact on the real life chances of the next generation.

Tackling poverty of opportunity requires a more rounded approach. Welfare reform, for example, should be based on the need to improve people’s lives, not just raise their incomes. And I know this is what is animating the work of Iain Duncan Smith at the Department for Work and Pensions.

So the result of the last thirteen years has been lots of government activity, but too little social mobility. An important CentreForum report on this issue in 2006 concluded: ‘the rate of intergenerational social mobility has stabilised at levels in the UK that are unacceptable’. I agree.

Of course, no single political party should attempt to claim the moral high ground on this issue. This is not an area where any party or political philosophy can claim a monopoly of wisdom. But I do want to argue today that this government will take a distinctly different approach.

That means, above all, understanding the nature of the problem we face. Our national failure on social mobility, in spite of years of economic growth and investment in public services, has to be properly understood in order to be reversed.

I am not today going to offer you any definitive answers to the complex questions that have exorcised social scientists for decades. You would be rightly sceptical if I did. But I will identify what this Government believes to be five key sources of social segregation.

First, the diverging paths of different children in the early years. We now know a good deal about the widely varying rates of development for children, long before they hang up their coat for their first day at school. This is again an area where CentreForum has produced excellent analysis.

Early years investment also illustrates the distinction I made earlier between anti-poverty and pro-mobility measures. High quality pre-school education will not alter the statistics on income distribution or household poverty levels. But it will change the lives of the children who benefit.

Second, the different degree to which different parents invest in and engage with their own children’s development and progress. Parents are in the frontline when it comes to creating a fairer society, in the way that they raise their children.

According to one study, the amount of interest shown by a parent in their child’s education is four times more important than socio-economic background in explaining education outcomes at age 16.

This is not an area where the state can simply pull a lever or two and put things right. These are also potentially perilous waters for politicians. But at the same time we must not remain silent on what is an enormously important issue. Parents hold the fortunes of the children they bring into this world in their hands. All parents have a responsibility to nurture the potential in their children. 

I know, like any mother or father, how difficult it can be to find the time and the energy to help, for example, with your children’s homework at the end of a busy day.

But the evidence is unambiguous: if we give them that kind of attention and support when they are young, they will feel the benefits for the rest of their lives. 

Third, the impact of parental background on educational attainment in the school years. Formal educational outcomes remain profoundly shaped by the socio-economic backgrounds of young people.

A young person from a household in the top fifth of the of the income distribution is three times more likely to get 5 GCSE’s between grades A and C than a young person brought up in a household in the bottom fifth. Our education policy is squarely aimed at reducing these inequalities.
 
Fourth, the roles of Higher and Further Education.

The expansion of Higher Education has brought many benefits to the nation, and to those individuals who have become graduates.

But there is evidence, from Jo Blanden and others at the Centre for Economic Performance to suggest that – contrary to expectations – increased levels of attendance at university have not translated into higher levels of social mobility.

This is for two important reasons:

One: a disproportionate number of university students come from the middle and upper classes.
Two: higher education remains the primary entry route to high-quality jobs.

This is why I feel so passionately that we need to attack the educational apartheid that currently exists between vocational and academic learning in general, and between Further Education and Higher Education in particular. It also graphically demonstrates the need to reform the funding of Higher Education in a way that promotes greater social mobility.
 
Fifth, the closed nature of so many professions. We know that professions such as medicine, law, journalism - and yes, of course, politics - have become narrower in their social representation.

David Willetts writes that in the professions, ‘the competition for jobs is like English tennis, a competitive game but largely one the middle classes play against each other’.

Again, this an area where it is up to the professions themselves to get their houses in order, supported by appropriate government action. I therefore welcome the involvement of the expanded Gateways to the Professions Collaborative Forum, in which a considerable number of professional bodies have come together because they have realised that for too many professions, the dial is going the wrong way.
 
In each of these areas, there is a huge amount of work to be done. We are in the process of formulating a comprehensive social mobility strategy for the government.

But I just want to pick out two particular areas of reform that already make clear our direction of travel.

First: Tax reform. We are determined to reform the tax system so that it encourages social mobility, rather than entrenches social segregation. That means a tax system that rewards work and makes fairer demands on unearned wealth.

We took a first step towards that tax system at the Budget by raising the personal threshold for income tax by £1,000. This will remove 880,000 people from income tax altogether. At the same time, Capital Gains Tax has risen by a full ten percentage points to 28 per cent. And we are looking hard at the case for a General Anti-avoidance rule to ensure that large companies and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax.

Now as I said earlier, raising household income is not the same as raising mobility. But the income tax reform is targeted at those who are in paid work, which is the surest route out of poverty. Given the strong relationship between parental employment status and social mobility, the income tax reform should be seen not only as a measure to boost fairness today, but also as an investment in fairness tomorrow – in other words in social mobility.
 
Secondly: in education, we are committed to focusing resources on the most disadvantaged, both in the early years and during schooling.

We have learnt from other nations, like the Netherlands, that by targeting investment at disadvantaged children, especially when they are young, we can improve social mobility.

So we are introducing a Pupil Premium – explicitly designed to channel greater investment to the children and the schools who need it most.

The level of the premium will be announced as part of the October spending review. And we are currently consulting on how best to operate the premium, including which deprivation indicator to use. The outcome of that consultation will determine the number of children to benefit from the premium.

Schools will be able to spend the money as they see fit –  like, for example, on catch up classes and one-to-one tuition, the things we know can make a difference – but under the clear proviso that its purpose is to help pupils overcome the accidents of birth.

We are also committed to taking Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention, increasing its focus on the neediest families. 

These policies will not have an instant impact. We know that they will have to be carefully implemented, and that the results of these investments will take years, perhaps decades, to bear fruit. But as I said right at the beginning, we are a government committed to the long-term.
 
The depth of this Government’s commitment to social mobility should, I think, be clear both from what I have said today and from our actions to date. But clearly what matters most is what we do from now on.

To drive the social mobility agenda across Government, I will be chairing a new ministerial group, devoted to social mobility, which will have as its first task the development of a Social Mobility Strategy.
 
We are also taking steps to ensure that we are held to account on the progress we make, as well as the progress made by other institutions. For the benefit of anyone who was on their holidays over the weekend, I can formally announce today that I have appointed an independent, expert reviewer. And I am delighted that Alan Milburn – respected across the political spectrum for his tireless work on social mobility – has accepted this role.
 
Building on the enormous contribution he made in his report for the last government on fair access to the professions, Alan will now be holding the coalition Government’s feet to the fire.

Each year for the whole of this parliamentary term, Alan will consider our success in delivering that strategy, as well as identifying other work that needs to be done, and assessing the contribution being made by business, the professions and civil society.
 
Beginning in September 2011, Alan’s wholly independent findings will be laid before Parliament and will, I hope, form the basis of an annual social mobility debate in the House of Commons.

Alan is someone for whom the questions of fairness in general, and social mobility in particular, run very deep. I am in no doubt of his personal commitment to this cause, or indeed of his fierce independence in its promotion. I don’t think Alan will mind me saying that he is not somebody you appoint to this kind of role if you are in search of a quiet life! 
 
To conclude: we are a government taking measures for the long-term. I believe that the governments that are most effective in the long-term know what they are about from the outset. And in social policy, we are about promoting a fairer, more open, more mobile society. That, for us, is the long game.

So when the history books are written, we want them to say that we successfully paid down Britain’s budget deficit and that we restored stability to the economy. That while we acted decisively to restore the public finances, we also acted in a way that laid the foundations for economic prosperity in the years to come.

But in five years time we also want to be able to look back and say that the children born in 2015 are less constrained by the circumstances of their birth. 
We want to be able to say that true progress was made in making opportunity a right of the many, rather than a privilege of the few.

Thank you.

Coalition bans cowboy clampers

The Coalition Government has announced that car clamping on private land is to be banned.

This long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and manifesto commitment will be introduced as part of the Freedom Bill this Autumn.

The Bill is designed to roll back the previous Labour Government’s intrusive and illiberal laws and curb the excesses of the surveillance state.

The announcement was made by Liberal Democrat ministers Lynne Featherstone and Norman Baker.

Home Office minister Lynne Featherstone said:

“The Government is committed to ending the menace of rogue private sector wheel clampers once and for all.

“For too long motorists have fallen victim to unscrupulous tactics by many clamping firms. Reports of motorists being marched to cash points or left stranded after their car has been towed are simply unacceptable.

“A ban on clamping and towing on private land will end this abuse and companies who decide to flout new laws will face severe penalties.”

Transport minister Norman Baker, who campaigned to ban private wheel clamping as Shadow Transport Secretary before the election, added:

“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.

“Cowboy clampers have had ample opportunity to mend their ways but the cases of bullying and extortion persist.

“That is why we are putting an end to these outrageous practices once and for all to ensure that drivers no longer have to fear intimidation from rogue traders, allowing the parking industry to begin to restore its reputation with the motoring public.”

Chris Huhne delivers speech on Labour’s legacy

“Labour were once a serious party.

“Whatever our disagreements, Labour wanted to tackle the real problems in our society. Independence for the Bank of England. Devolution to Scotland and Wales. A minimum wage.

“Labour once wanted to prove they could run the economy successfully. They said no more boom and bust.

“But over the 13 years of Labour’s government something changed.
“The need for a balanced economy gave way to the needs of the city of London. And when the global economic crisis struck, Labour seemed paralysed.

“A decade of spend, spend, spend meant Labour hid their heads. And they are still hiding them.

“Labour’s leadership candidates say that spending was not the problem. It was taxes. Nonsense.

“In just two financial years up to the election, public spending rose by 10 per cent in real terms. That’s a rise after inflation of £59 billion.

“Spending went from 44 pence in every pound generated by our economy in 2007 to 51 per cent in 2009. Taxes went down by 1 pence in the pound.

“The truth is that Gordon Brown tried to buy the election. Labour’s big spender went on a hell of a bender.

“It was goodbye prudence and hello hangover.

“The man who built his reputation on the strength of the economy saw his legacy in tatters.

“It is no wonder Brown could not face the problems he created. But it is inexcusable that Labour’s next leaders fail to face the problems.

“They are in denial about their role in creating this mess. They should take responsibility.

“But more important still, they should tell us how they would fix it.

“In 1979 the winter of discontent saw Labour lose power for a generation because Labour would not face up to the need for change.

“Unless Labour now face up to the challenge of fixing our nation’s finances, they won’t deserve power for another generation.

“Today, we face the biggest budget deficit in peacetime history.

“Bigger than any other country in the G7.  Bigger than any other nation in the G20. Bigger than every other EU country except Ireland. Half as big again as France. Nearly four times as big as Germany.

“We face the consequences of a housing bubble Labour failed to control and an economic boom built on unsustainable personal debt.

“It gives me no satisfaction that Labour are not willing even to talk about tackling the deficit. But they know what we know: the unavoidable cuts that are coming are Labour cuts.

“As Labour’s Liam Byrne said when he left the Treasury, there is no money left.

“Now I did not come into politics to make cuts.

“As a Liberal Democrat my top priority is a strong and fair economy – caring for the vulnerable, protecting the environment.

“Yet we cannot deny the facts on the ground.  There is nothing progressive about a bankrupt economy.
“We inherited a record budget deficit. Add in the debt coming due that had to be refinanced, and we needed to borrow £185 billion from the financial markets this year.

“And in May Europe faced a sovereign debt crisis.

“The Greek government now faces a cost of borrowing twice its pre-crisis level. At the beginning of April – and our election campaign - the Greeks paid 7 per cent. 

“By the Friday after our election they paid 12 per cent. And in just those few days in which we were negotiating our coalition, Europe’s finance ministers had an emergency meeting to staunch a crisis spreading beyond Greece to Spain and Portugal. They announced a 500 billion euro rescue package.

“But we were different, say the Labour leadership hopefuls. No we were not.

“Spain had a lower budget deficit. And lower public debt. Yet it was swept up in the crisis.

“If we had not acted, the risk would have been to our financial markets, our interest rates, and our recovery.

“We cannot hide from these facts, however unpalatable they are. Labour has become so disconnected from reality that it thinks that if it simply refuses to face up to them, they will go away. They won’t.

“The fact is that we were borrowomg one pound for every four pounds the British government spent.

“We really could not afford to sit back and see our cost of borrowing double.

“Our choice was simple. Take swift action to stabilise the economy, or lose control and hand the job over to others to do it for us.

“That was Labour’s way when they had to call in the International Monetary Fund in 1976, imposing the biggest post-war spending cuts by far.

“Labour ducked the tough choices and lost the right to choose. That is not our way.


“It only took one party to create this mess.

“Now our two parties – the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives – have come together in the national interest to clear it up.

“Sayeeda Warsi will say more about what we are doing over the coming weeks to shine a light on Labour’s legacy.


“Labour’s candidates cannot go on pretending that the budget deficit doesn’t exist. It does and it is the single greatest challenge facing Britain.

“They must take responsibility.

“You cannot keep spending when the money dries up. Write cheques you know will bounce. Put party advantage before the national interest.

“Labour’s last budget planned cuts of £50 billion, so why are they unable or unwilling to admit where they would fall?

“It is too easy to stand on the sidelines and criticise.

“The Labour candidates owe it to themselves and to the country to offer constructive solutions. I hope they will.

“I hope that Labour will come to terms with the truth of their legacy.
I hope they will come up with ideas to help lift Britain out of their economic slump.

“Where they do, we will listen.

“But until they come up with a credible economic plan, they are irrelevant to the biggest debate in our country – the future of our shattered economy.

“To be a credible leader of the Labour party, let alone leader of the country, they must show how they would plug the enormous hole in the nation’s finances.

“We must start with the world we are in, not the world we wish we had. In this world tough choices have to be made.

“This Government is willing to make them, with care and with a heavy heart.

“Labour must take responsibility for the legacy they have left and the damage it has inflicted on so many.”

Chris Huhne has called on councils to kick-start a local power revolution

At present only 0.01% of electricity in England is generated by local authority-owned renewables, despite the scope that exists to install projects on their land and buildings.  In Germany the equivalent figure is 100 times higher.

At present local authorities are able to put any renewable electricity they generate to local use, and to benefit from the associated feed-in tariff for projects smaller than 5MW.  But they are restricted from selling any excess renewable electricity into the grid. 

The steps that are now being taken could mean up to £200m a year in income for local authorities across England and Wales.

In advance of a visit to Woking Borough Council’s clean energy projects, Chris Huhne said:

"For too long, Whitehall’s dogmatic reliance on 'big' energy has stood in the way of the vast potential role of local authorities in the UK’s green energy revolution. 

"Forward thinking local authorities such as Woking in Surrey have been quietly getting on with it, but against the odds, their efforts frustrated by the law.

"I've taken the early step of overturning the ban on local authorities selling renewable electricity to the grid.  

"This is a vital step to making community renewable projects commercially viable, to bring in long-term income to benefit local areas, and to secure local acceptance for low carbon energy projects."

Controversial children's database ContactPoint to be scrapped

Liberal Democrats opposed ContactPoint from the start. At the last Lib Dem Autumn Conference a motion was passed calling for an end to the database and to invest the money in alternatives to help staff more effectively.

Commenting, Baroness Walmsley said:

“It is very important that we improve our child protection services and make sure that no abuse or neglect can fall through the cracks. However, ContactPoint was not the answer.

“We have campaigned against this database for a very long time. It was a waste of time and money that staff neither wanted nor needed. The privacy and security implications of such a large collection of personal data were another headache that those working to protect vulnerable children could have done without.

“Now we need to look for ways we can help the professionals do their jobs properly.”

RBS must use profits to help struggling businesses, says Williams

Commenting on the £1.1bn pre-tax half year profits announced by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) today, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Treasury Policy Committee, Stephen Williams said:

“RBS is almost entirely owned by the taxpayer, so these huge profits must be used for the national interest and not just to pay massive bonuses to senior staff.

“There is no excuse for RBS not to loan to good British companies that are struggling to get credit. We cannot simply allow banks to go back to business as usual while viable British firms are suffering.”

Vince Cable announces large investment in low-carbon jobs in the North East

Of this package, £1.3m will help develop Carbon Capture and Storage technology, which will be vital in reducing carbon emissions while ensuring Britain's energy supply.

Before and during the General Election campaign, the Liberal Democrats made clear that one of the party’s absolute priorities was to help the economy recover and make sure Britain builds a secure, sustainable economy, creating new green jobs for those who have suffered in the recession. Now in Government, Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, have announced ambitious plans to ensure this happens.

Vince Cable said:

“Continued investment in the North East is extremely important as we rebalance our regional economies, but this needs to be the right kind of support. It’s vital that any grants will garner real benefits for businesses and communities by growing local economies and skills.

“That’s why I am delighted to announce this funding, especially for Carbon Capture and Storage, which the North East is well placed to capitalise on. These projects will create a wealth of opportunities for local businesses and create new highly-skilled jobs.”

We need to make girls feel confident about their own body, says Swinson

Commenting, Jo Swinson said:
 
“I am delighted that Girlguiding UK is taking up this issue. I co-founded the Campaign for Body Confidence out of concern that people of all ages are feeling so much pressure over their body image - especially young girls.

“There is plenty of scientific evidence that being exposed to so many unrealistic images in the media can be harmful to people's health and wellbeing.

“We need to make girls feel confident about their own body and to help them realise that manipulated images are unrealistic and untrue. Girls need to stop being encouraged to aspire to the unreachable as they will only become more and more unhappy in the process.”

Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone added:

“The Girl Guides have done an incredible amount of work over recent years with their annual 'attitude surveys' and their most recent survey showed that girls as young as ten are worried about their weight. I have sent them a message of support.”

Liberal Democrat Party Elections 2010

Under the Constitutional Amendments passed at the Spring Conference in 2006 the Party Committees elected this autumn will serve for a two-year term of office (2011-2012). The provisions of article 2.4 of the Federal Constitution regarding gender balance apply to all of these elections.




The Federal Executive (FE) is responsible for directing, co-ordinating and implementing the work of the Federal Party, including overall strategy, campaigning, organisation and staffing. The Federal Finance and Administration Committee, Campaigns and Communications Committee and International Relations Committee all report to the FE.

The FE has 29 voting members: the Party President (who is the chair) and three Vice Presidents; the Leader and two other MPs; one peer; one MEP; two councillors; three state party reps; and fifteen members directly elected by conference reps.


The Federal Policy Committee (FPC) is responsible for developing policy and overseeing the Federal Party’s policy making process. This includes producing policy papers for debate at conference, and drawing up (in consultation with the relevant parliamentary party) the Federal election manifesto for Westminster and European elections.

The FPC has 29 voting members: the Party Leader and four other MPs; the Party President; one peer; one MEP; three councillors; three state party reps; and fifteen members directly elected conference reps. It must be chaired by one of the five MP members, and is currently chaired by the Leader.


The Federal Conference Committee (FCC) is responsible for organising the two Federal Conferences each year. This includes choosing the agenda from amongst the policy and business motions submitted by conference reps, local, regional and state parties, specified associated organisations and Federal committees, and also taking decisions on topics such as venues, registration rates and other administrative and organisational matters. It works with a budget set by the FFAC.

The FCC has 21 voting `members: The Party President: the Chief Whip; three state party reps; two reps from the FE and two from the FPC; and twelve members directly elected by conference reps. It elects its own Chair (currently Andrew Wiseman) who must be one of the directly elected or state party reps.


The International Relations Committee (IRC) of the party is a sub-committee of the Federal Executive. It meets 4 times a year, and acts as the consultative and co-ordinating body of the party regarding its activities on the international stage. Additionally, meetings are called to prepare resolutions for Liberal International and ELDR Committee meetings and Congresses in conjunction with the Party's delegates to these occasions.

The committee consists of representatives of Federal Committees, relevant international bodies, parliamentary representatives and co-opted experts, and is led by a Chairperson elected by the Federal Executive. Five members of the Committee are elected by conference reps.


The European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) is the European Political Party to which the Liberal Democrats belong. Since its beginnings in 1993, the party has grown, with current membership from 48 European Political Parties with common liberal, democratic and reform ideals and is the forum for member parties to develop a co-ordinated policy. Within ELDR, we have 11 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The membership of the ELDR Party is composed of member parties, affiliate parties and individual members, and also incorporates LYMEC, the youth movement, which brings together more than 170,000 young liberal Europeans.


People are elected to the panel for four years therefore everybody who was elected in 2008 remains a member of the panel until the 2012, also the Federal Executive has extended the term of office of those elected in 2006 until 2012 and therefore both these groups will be ineligible to stand in this election. All former Liberal Democrat members of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are automatically members of the list and shall also be ineligible to stand in this election. Candidates are expected to answer the following questions as part of their election address:

1 How would your experience enable you to fulfil the role of a working Peer?

2 What would you aim to achieve as a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords?

3 To which policy areas would you wish to contribute?

4 How would your work as a Peer help the party in general?


Nomination Papers and further information will be available at Conference from the Membership Services and Information desks and they will be available on the Party Website.

They can be obtained prior to Conference and after 1st September by e-mailing Returning.Officer@libdems.org.uk or calling 020 7227 1339.

We must consider if Trident can be justified, says Campbell

“This confirmation of what had already been predicted makes it essential that the case for like-for-like replacement of Trident should, as the Liberal Democrats have agreed, be part of the Strategic Defence Review.

“How can you possibly take on such a large financial commitment as Trident without considering the military and political implications?

“If fierce cuts are to be made in Britain’s conventional forces, surely we have to consider whether replacing Trident can be justified.”

Give workers freedom to choose retirement date, says Minister

Commenting, Ed Davey said: “With more and more people wanting to extend their working lives we should not stop them just because they have reached a particular age. We want to give individuals greater choice and are moving swiftly to end discrimination of this kind.

“Older workers bring with them a wealth of talent and experience as employees and entrepreneurs. They have a vital contribution to make to our economic recovery and long-term prosperity.”

ASBOs are a failed policy, says Brake

Commenting on today’s speech by the Home Secretary in which she said  it was ‘time to move beyond’ Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Justice, Tom Brake said:

“The Home Secretary has listened to Liberal Democrat concerns. 

“With more than half of ASBOs breached in 2008, this was a policy more about posturing than effective policing.  Local communities know that other measures, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts can nip problems in the bud before they escalate. 

“Resorting to ASBOs was a sign of failure.”

Labour opposition to AV exposes staggering hypocrisy, says Hughes

Commenting on Labour's decision to oppose legislation for a referendum on the alternative vote, which was a commitment in their manifesto, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes said:

“This is staggering hypocrisy from Labour.

“Labour's shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism.

“With most of their leadership contenders claiming to back AV for a fairer voting system, it is astonishing they now wish to block the legislation to make that happen.

“Each and every Labour MP campaigned on a manifesto committing to a referendum. Now they have the opportunity to make this happen but have chosen to say no for opposition's sake.

“Labour can no longer claim to be the party of reform. It is now the party of vested interests and shameless self-interest.”

Evidence released shows Labour neglected Armed Forces, says Tim Farron

The documents show that Labour ministers were formally warned that the military needed an alternative to the Snatch Land Rover in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a reaction to the revelations, Tim Farron said:
 
“This is yet another damning sign that the Labour Government ignored advice from its top military officials on their equipment needs.

“As we long suspected, generals told ministers that they needed better equipment to protect their troops and to prevent more casualties. For years the Army had to make do with adding extra protection to their existing, unsuitable vehicles.

“This is unacceptable in any situation and led to unnecessary casualties. I look forward to working with my Coalition colleagues to put these kind of indefensible practices behind us by making sure our brave soldiers are properly equipped.”

To read the full document, please visit the Iraq Inquiry's website.