Social Liberal Forum

Oct 22 3 comments

Social Liberal Forum responds to government’s Comprehensive Spending Review

Posted by prateekbuch on October 22, 2010 at 8:11 am.

Having examined the announcements in the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Social Liberal Forum has released the following statement:

“The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review contains a range of measures to reduce public spending, some of which the Social Liberal Forum welcomes. There are however some aspects of the Review that cause grave concern, as many of the proposed cuts will impact on the most vulnerable in society. Others risk deepening the lack of economic demand whilst expecting the private sector to fill the gap left by shrinking the state.

It is heartening to see policies that we as Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for being delivered: the Pupil Premium, the universality of most welfare payments, the creation of a Green Investment Bank, Regional Growth Funds and the protection of spending for schools, the NHS, international development and science. We are pleased to see the levy on banks made permanent and Trident not renewed. These are all to be welcomed as progressive policies designed to make Britain fairer and more prosperous. There can be no doubt that they are all the result of Liberal Democrats’ presence in government.

There remains a significant danger, however, that many of Chancellor George Osborne’s measures will disproportionately affect the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised in society – precisely those that depend on public services the most. The steep cuts to welfare payments – including withdrawing disability benefits after a year and the reforms to housing benefit – are in direct contradiction of the government’s rhetorical commitment to fairness.

Without rigorous, holistic impact assessments of the cuts, there is a serious risk that cuts in one service today may lead not only to greater spending elsewhere but also greater misery for those already under great duress – such an impact assessment will become more crucial as details of specific spending cuts emerge in the coming days.

The deep cuts to local government budgets, only partially mitigated by allowing authorities to raise bonds, will also mean an end to many vital services. As Liberal Democrats, we strongly oppose any reduction in the capacity of councils to provide for their local communities.

There is also a danger that as jobs are lost, tax receipts will fall and a second recession could ensue. The Social Liberal Forum therefore calls on the Government to revive demand in the private economy by investing directly in skills training and small business development, as outlined by the recent Liberal Democrat conference motion Fairness in a time of Austerity .

Finally, the SLF believes that reducing the deficit must not come at the expense of creating a fair and just society. We cannot support a package of measures that will widen the gap between the rich and the poor – and we fear that the CSR is likely to do that. Spending decisions taken today will shape both the economy and society for years to come. We remain unconvinced of the need to seek to reduce the bulk of the deficit within a single parliament. It is vital that Government carefully avoids cuts that hurt the vulnerable and focuses on rebalancing the economy to make it more diverse, sustainable and equitable.”

Oct 19 0 comments

Uncategorized

Concerned about Lord Browne’s reforms to Higher Education tuition fees? Write to your MP

Posted by prateekbuch on October 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm.

The Social Liberal Forum has expressed its concerns regarding Lord Browne’s review of Higher Education funding, and called for a fairer system to be implemented.

In responding to the Browne review, both Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP and Business Secretary Vince Cable MP made it clear that although they ’supported the thrust of the review,’ the government will take into account alternative views before presenting their actual policy. This gives all of us, in particular Social Liberals within the Liberal Democrat party, to lobby hard to ensure that the reforms to tuition fees are fair, progressive and equitable.

The SLF therefore calls on all its supporters to write to their MP, expressing their concern over Lord Browne’s recommendations and reaffirming our belief that unless HE is to be funded through general taxation, any graduate contribution must be fairly instituted without saddling students – particularly those least able to afford it – with more debt. Below is a draft letter, which we would encourage you to copy, amend and send to your MP – using the box below (kindly provided by the folks at mySociety.org via writetothem.com) you can go straight to a website which allows you to write to your elected Parliamentary representative.

Copy and Paste the text from our letter into the form on that site, amend the text to personalise your letter (remembering to add you name, address and contact details as well as you opinions!), and send it to your MP.

Dear [MP’s Name]

I am writing as a constituent to raise concerns over Lord Browne’s proposed reforms to the funding of Higher Education (HE). Whilst I recognise the need to adequately fund HE, I believe that many of the key principles in Higher Education – widening participation, fair access and financial equity – would be at risk if Lord Browne’s proposals were implemented in full. My main concerns are that:

Large increases in fees will lead to even greater debt, which I believe would work against fairness because the poorest students will tend to have the greatest debts.

Using differential interest rates rising with earnings is less progressive and less fair than a graduate tax, a graduate contribution or general taxation because those from wealthy backgrounds will have smaller debts if their families can afford to pay up front or soon after graduation.

Any benefits of higher repayment thresholds would be lost by the introduction of commercial interests rates, and low paid and women graduates would be faced with the prospect of rising debt through their twenties and thirties.

In responding to Lord Browne’s report, Deputy PM Nick Clegg MP and Business Secretary Vince Cable MP have made it clear that government policy need not follow the Browne’s recommendations in full – that they are willing to consult with MPs and the public over the bet way to fund HE in a fair way.

I therefore request that you press for a system that ensures the abolition of student tuition fees, the reduction of student debt and their replacement with a graduate contribution, varying progressively with income and set at levels which do not deter students from taking less well paid, but socially beneficial, post-graduate employment. Structural reform of HE – including but not limited to shorter degrees, greater emphasis on non-academic training and technology-driven distance learning – should be considered to avoid costly increases in fees.

Prior to the General Election many Liberal Democrat MPs signed a pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. The higher student debt proposed by Lord Browne would be a serious threat to fair, merit-based access to Higher Education, not to mention a threat to the Coalition.

I urge you to meet with Business Secretary Cable and present my concerns to him, and to contact me once you have done so; this will help ensure that government institutes a fair graduate contribution, with repayments that reflect graduates’ ability to pay, as it is the best policy to help the UK’s HE sector remain world-class without placing a burden of debt on young graduates. I look forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

As and when you hear back from you MP we’d also appreciate it if you could update the comments section below!

Oct 15 1 comments

Announcement, Debate

Social Liberal Forum asks candidates for the Liberal Democrat Party Presidency to share their views

Posted by prateekbuch on October 15, 2010 at 12:55 pm.

Following Baroness Ros Scott’s decision not to seek a second term as Party President, the race is on to become the Liberal Democrats’ first new President under the Coalition government – a role that is increasingly significant given the Party’s participation in said Coalition. The experience and calibre of candidates standing for election – itself signifies just how crucial this election could be, which is why the Social Liberal Forum is inviting all candidates to answer the following questions regarding their candidacy:

Are you committed to helping the party develop policies which are as distinctive, radical and progressive as possible as the basis of our next manifesto? If yes, how will you do this?
What is you view on the question of:
a) electoral pacts with other parties
b) specifying a preference for future coalition partner at the next election?
Will you help create and communicate a distinctive Lib Dem position on some Government policies and their implementation (ie the record of the Government) well before the next election? If so how?
Are you prepared to oppose the adoption of any non-progressive or illiberal policies by the Government? If yes how do you propose to do this?
a) Are you committed to maintaining the internal democracy transparency and vitality of the Lib Dems as an independent political party? If yes how will you do this?
b) Do you feel that there is sufficient consultation with the party or its elected committees before our ministers agree a new major Government policy which is at odds with policy?
What do you think our priority policies should be for this parliamentary term and why?
Do you have any “red lines” in terms of a coalition policy which would be unacceptable? If so, which, and what would be the consequence of them being crossed?
What should the coalition do to ensure the gap between rich and poor is substantially reduced by the time of the next general election?

When the candidates have replied (which they can do by e-mailing admin@socialliberal.net), we will post their answers here – so do keep an eye out, and remember that ballots for the Presidency (together with those for the various federal Committees) close on November 10th.

Oct 12 5 comments

Announcement

SLF Statement on Lord Browne’s review of Higher Education funding

Posted by prateekbuch on October 12, 2010 at 12:32 pm.

“In his report on the financing of Higher Education (HE), Lord Browne has made several recommendations that, if implemented by the government, would put at risk the key principles in Higher Education – widening participation, fair access and financial equity – that must remain at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy.

Business Secretary Vince Cable has recently sought to reaffirm the Liberal Democrat commitment, and that of the Coalition government, to the principle of fairness in Higher Education.

Large increases in fees will lead to even greater debt, working against fairness because the poorest students will tend to have the greatest debts. Using differential interest rates rising with earnings as a means of providing for a more progressive system is less fair than a graduate tax, a graduate contribution or general taxation because those from wealthy backgrounds will have smaller debts as their families can afford to pay up front.

Any benefits of higher repayment thresholds would be lost by the introduction of commercial interests rates, and low paid and women graduates would be faced with the prospect of rising debt through their twenties and thirties.

The Social Liberal Forum now calls upon Dr. Cable, and all Liberal Democrat MPs, to continue to press for a system that ensures the abolition of student tuition fees, the reduction of student debt and their replacement with a graduate contribution, varying progressively with income and set at levels which do not deter students from taking less well paid, but socially beneficial, post-graduate employment.

In particular, we call upon all Liberal Democrat MPs to honour their pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. The higher student debt proposed by Lord Browne would be a serious threat to fair, merit-based, access to Higher Education, .

The abolition of fees remains central to Liberal Democrat education policy and the Social Liberal Forum believes that unless HE is paid for through general taxation, a fairly instituted graduate contribution, with repayments that reflect graduates’ ability to pay, is the best policy to help the UK’s HE sector remain world-class without placing a burden of debt on young graduates.”

Oct 08 2 comments

Announcement

Social Liberal Forum responds to proposed Child Benefit reforms – Position Statement and Guardian letter

Posted by prateekbuch on October 8, 2010 at 8:53 am.

Following Chancellor George Osborne MP’s announcements regarding child benefit, the Social Liberal Forum has released the following Position Statement:

“The Chancellor’s announcement of the end to the universal payment of child benefit will have both welcome and regrettable consequences. The recent Liberal Democrat conference voted overwhelmingly to support a Social Liberal Forum policy motion that called for the Coalition government to ‘Ensure that any cuts to welfare benefits are progressive in nature: reducing benefits enjoyed by the most affluent before cutting benefits for the poorest and most vulnerable.’

There is little doubt that those earning higher incomes should bear the greatest burden of any cuts to benefits, protecting those who rely on the payments the most. There is real concern, however, that the breach of the principle of universality of child benefit could erode the public’s trust in the welfare state. In addition the government’s clumsy approach creates inequities due to the individual nature of taxation, as the government’s own analysis indicates the single-parent (or single-earner) families earning just over the 40% tax threshold would lose their entire child benefit payment, leaving two-parent families earning up to £86,000 with theirs intact.

Coupled with progressive taxation, child benefit should remain universal to ensure the inclusive nature of the welfare state is protected even as the overall cost to government is reduced.”

The Social Liberal Forum Motion also called on government to ‘safeguard universal child benefit in conjunction with progressive taxation in order to provide a reliable source of income protection throughout childhood.’ We therefore call for the evaluation of proposals such as those put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research, whose figures demonstrate that if subjected to progressive taxation child benefit can be kept universal, with those who need the payments the least forgoing some of their allowance and lower earners retaining theirs. Such an option avoids the unacceptable means testing of child benefit, whilst ensuring that payment is directed towards those who need it most.

The Guardian has also published the following letter from Chair of the Social Liberal Forum, David Hall-Matthews:

The virulent media reaction to the proposed reforms to child benefitshows how hard it will be for Liberal Democrats to persuade the Tories to target cuts towards the rich rather than the poor. Defending the rights of households earning over £44,000 a year does Labour little credit. The deficit has to be reduced as fairly as possible.

But the fuss also shows why it is a bad idea to end universal benefits except as a temporary measure. As long as those on “middle” incomes are there to defend child benefit, it will remain an important form of welfare support. If they are cut out, who will stop it being eroded to nothing, via disgraceful rhetoric against the “undeserving” poor? Lib Dems overwhelmingly voted at our conference for universal benefits, paid for by progressive taxation. Those just above the threshold would lose out less and, crucially, the public’s support for a universal welfare state would not be diminished. Such an option would also avoid the miseries and inefficiencies of means-testing, while ensuring that payment is directed towards those who need it most. As soon as the deficit is under control, we must push for the rapid restoration of the universal principle.

Dr David Hall-Matthews

Chair, Social Liberal Forum

Oct 05 0 comments

Announcement, Article

Social Liberal Forum at Conference – Part I – Fairness in a time of Austerity

Posted by prateekbuch on October 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm.

The centrepiece of Social Liberal Forum’s Conference programme was the debate on Motion F34: Ensuring Fairness in a time of Austerity. Below are the highlights from the excellent discussion that the Motion inspired – full versions of the speeches can be found on our Conference Speeches page, including my own speech that I was unable to deliver given how over-subscribed the debate was – Chairman Geoff Payne had to apologise to the 25 people he was unable to call on!

Martin Tod’s excellent speech outlining the Motion’s key policy objectives began the debate. Martin argued that

Our ministerial team is doing great work across all these areas, but this motion unambiguously seeks to strengthen our commitment to tackling the evils of poverty, social injustice and inequality. Hard to do at the best of times. But even harder in a time of austerity.

Martin went on to tackle the issue of wealth and inequalities:

We still live in a country where the richest 20% own nearly 2/3rds of the country wealth. And the poorest half, only have 9%.

Wealth taxation isn’t just right. It’s responsible. A recent OECD report made clear that wealth taxes are the least harmful to growth compared to other ways of taxes.

But it’s also not straightforward. Transitions can be difficult – particularly on land taxation.

But if we’re thinking differently. Thinking for the next election. Thinking before the next election. We need to start now – and this motion calls upon our ministers to get the work done to get the cool, dispassionate look at taxation on wealth – instead of other taxes – as a way of closing the deficit and paying for our public services.

Following Martin’s speech three Amendments were tabled; the first addressed the acute shortage of social housing, and in particular the need to protect vulnerable groups from changes in housing benefits; the second sought to protect the universality of child benefit, proposing to subject the payments to progressive taxation as outlined in a study by the Institute for Public Policy Research; and the third called on benefits for the wealthiest to be scaled back before those for the needy are cut.

Naomi Smith, member of the SLF Council, spoke with real passion on policies that addressed the financial service sector – asserting

at the outset that in promoting fairness as a principle of party policy, we must be very specific in terms of the details. “Fairness” is a weasel word if it is not rooted in specifics.

Naomi went on to call for the separation of high-risk investment banking from high-street services, whilst ensuring that the Coalition government takes action that

strengthen[s] and nurture the other end of the financial spectrum. As the motion states: mutual benefit societies, credit unions and regional stock exchanges must be encouraged and fostered.

Naomi’s full speech is available here.

Lines 38-41 of the Motion proved the most controversial of the debate, with impassioned speeches and one-minute interventions arguing both for and against their retention in a separate vote. Liberal Youth National Chair Martin Shapland made a strong case against any form of graduate tax or contribution, as did Dr. Julie Smith, but in the end Will Hawkins’ well-delivered intervention won the day – the Motion as drafted simply called on Liberal Democrats to

possibility of building cross party support around replacing tuition fees and student loans with a graduate tax system

and Will’s plea to allow our Ministers the space to explore graduate co-payments was re-iterated by David Hall-Matthews in his summing up, convincing Conference to retain the lines calling for an exploration of a graduate tax to replace fees and loans.

David also emphasised that when the Social Liberal Forum submitted this Motion, our

aim was not to embarrass the party leadership or our hard-working ministers – it was to help them, in their negotiations

with the Conservatives over future government policy.

David continued, telling Conference that ensuring fairness in a time of austerity is surely what we are there for. We accept the need for cuts – but the Conservatives don’t need us to tell them to do it – some of them positively enjoy it! But they do need us to tell them how to do it. So it isn’t, to quote a phrase, savage. So that those in the greatest need are still protected – or in fact better protected against the chill winds of Labour’s recession.

The point of coalition government is that two parties start with different priorities. Then they negotiate hard. In a civilised fashion, but trying to win battles for what they believe in. And if there’s one word that sums up what Lib Dems believe in, it is Fairness. Freeing people from poverty, not just from the over-centralised state.

This last point was, in effect, the overriding theme of the debate – that just as government has a duty to devolve political power to the lowest feasible unit, there is also an onus on the State devolve economic power too – implementing policies that alleviate poverty and economic hardship, raising the capabilities of the worst off. This Social Liberal Forum Motion, passed as Amended, could see the beginning of just that.

Tags: conference, economics, equality

Sep 08 1 comments

Announcement

Social Liberal Forum Announce New Governing Council

Posted by James Graham on September 8, 2010 at 2:17 am.

Following internal elections over the summer, the Social Liberal Forum are pleased to announce a new Council which will govern the work of the organisation over the next couple of years.

The following people will serve as members of the Social Liberal Forum Council 2010-2012:

Our governing council is as follows:

Prateek Buch
Theo Butt Philip
Gareth Epps
James Graham
David Hall-Matthews
Simon Hebditch
Linda Jack
Paula Keaveney
Stephen Knight
Peter Kunzmann
Geoffrey Payne
Geoffrey G J Payne
Mary Reid
Amy Rodger
Naomi Smith

(Yes, you did read that right and it isn’t a typo: we do indeed have two Geoffrey Paynes!).

Congratulations to the new team!

Link: election results

Aug 20 5 comments

Announcement

Conference Motion: Ensuring Fairness in a Time of Austerity

Posted by James Graham on August 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm.

We are delighted to have got this motion onto the agenda of this autumn’s Liberal Democrat conference in Liverpool. It will be debated during the morning session on Tuesday 21 September.

F34 Ensuring Fairness in a Time of Austerity

34 conference representatives
Mover: James Graham
Summation: David Hall-Matthews

Conference notes:
i) The fragile state of the global economy.
ii) That the poor, the young and the vulnerable have historically suffered during periods of austerity.
iii) The crucial role the Liberal Democrats must play in government to ensure that during this downturn, those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden, that the most vulnerable are protected and that the economic recovery is both sustainable and leads to greater fairness.

Conference welcomes the Liberal Democrat policies secured in the June Emergency Budget, including:
a) The £1,000 increase in the Income Tax allowance, freeing 880,000 low paid workers from Income Tax altogether.
b) A new tax on banks, ensuring that they help to pay to clear up the mess left by the financial crisis.
c) Ensuring that top earners will pay a full 10% more in Capital Gains Tax.
d) Ensuring that pensioners get a fair deal with the ‘triple lock’, raising state pensions every year in line with earnings, inflation, or by 2.5%, whichever is the highest.
e) Establishing a regional growth fund to ensure that regions, towns and cities that depend heavily on the public sector will not be forgotten, getting meaningful support to help create jobs and opportunities for all.
f) Cutting child tax credits for those who can most afford it, whilst increasing support for the poorest families.

Conference also welcomes moves to put the Office of Budget Responsibility on a statutory footing, siting it outside the Treasury and subjecting the appointment of its Chair to approval by the Treasury Select Committee.

Conference calls for Liberal Democrats in government to continue to work to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are not disproportionately affected by the government’s austerity measures and to ensure that the wealth and inequality gap does not widen. In particular, conference calls for Liberal Democrats in government to:

1. Ensure that the Office of Budget Responsibility is genuinely independent of government by having its committee appointed directly by Parliament, and expanding its remit to include assessing the socio- economic impact of Treasury policy, as stipulated in the Equality Act 2010.
2. Insist that Liberal Democrat ministers are given the freedom and resources to commission research to fully assess the viability and practicalities of increasing taxation on wealth – including land values.
3. Prevent the emergence of a ‘lost generation’ by fostering a strong economy and adequate investment in post-16 training, education, employment schemes and youth services. In light of the crucial role higher education will play in assisting the economic recovery, the party should explore the possibility of building cross party support around replacing tuition fees and student loans with a graduate tax system.
4. Promote jobs, sustainability, good health and social mobility by introducing strong incentives to encourage private investment in affordable, green housing stock and renovating empty homes.
5. Encourage the establishment of credit unions, mutuals and regional stock exchanges to revive the fortunes of the small and medium enterprises that have suffered as a result of the recession.
6. Ensure that the banks that remain dependent on public support increase direct lending to viable businesses.
7. Work towards ending child poverty in this Parliament.

Applicability: Federal, except 3, 4 and 5 which are England only.

Jul 09 1 comments

Opinion

Why the Tories need to review the teaching of History

Posted by John Howson on July 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm.

Anyone would have thought that Mr Gove was the first Secretary of State to have taken an axe to school building programmes. In the great devaluation crisis that played out during the final months of 1967 and early 1968, school building was savaged just as now, along with the raising of the school leaving age from 15 to 16. Here is what Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, said to the House of Commons on the 16th January 1968:

31. Education. Next education, one of the biggest and most rapidly expanding expenditure programmes. Total expenditure is estimated this year at £1,989 million, an increase at current prices of 42 per cent since 1963–64. Here again it is a question of priorities. We have decided we have no alternative to deferring from 1971 to 1973 the raising of the school leaving age, a postponement of two years. I need not tell the House how difficult, indeed repugnant, this decision has been to my right hon. Friends and myself.

32. This decision will mean a saving of about £33 million in 1968–69, and £48 million in 1969–70, principally in the school-building programme. But the basic school-building programmes will be increased by extra starts of £8 million both in 1968–69 and in 1969–70 to ensure that comprehensive reorganisation is not held up, and to provide additional resources beyond the extra £8 million starts in each of these years announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House last year, for improving conditions in educational priority areas.¹

Mr Gove might have done better had he been aware of the lessons of history. Firstly, he would have recognised that even in an age of austerity it is better to give as well as to take, as it helps disarm potential critics.

For comprehensive re-organisation one might substitute protecting early years’ education. Here’s how Mr Gove might have phrased part of his speech.

Education is a key priority for this government. My over-riding duty is to ensure that every child has a place available to them when they start school at age five. Indeed, this government recognises the need for places below the statutory age limit, and will do everything to ensure those over the age of three can access early learning facilities where possible, especially in our most deprived communities. Members will also be aware figures released recently by my Department show that pupil numbers are falling in the secondary sector, and will do so in most areas to 2015 and beyond.

To ensure no child goes without a school place, I have today decided to call a halt to the secondary school building programme, except in cases where local authorities and academy sponsors can show that there are insufficient school places locally for secondary age pupils. The programme will not restart until I am satisfied that primary age pupils will not be taught in over-sized classes or even turned away from schools because of insufficient places. Once we have dealt with that issue, we can return to making all secondary schools fit for the 21st century. During the next few months I expect local authorities to provide me, in cooperation where appropriate with local dioceses and academy sponsors, plans to remove surplus places from the secondary education sector and to consider what effect this will have on school building plans.

In making this announcement I can also say that I have been made aware that a few schools expressing interest in academy status are part of re-organisation schemes resulting from falling rolls in their locality. While this government is fully committed to parental choice, it cannot afford to spend money that it does not have, and the creation of new academies and even ‘free schools’ cannot be allowed if they are to be ‘prejudicial to the efficient use of resources’. We have to cut our cloth according to our means.

This will only be a temporary setback, as once the economy returns to growth, we can return to upgrading our secondary schools. Before members opposite rush to judgement, they may wish to reflect upon how the abandonment of the Further Education capital programme was handled last year.

Such a speech would have passed the difficult decisions to local authorities, recognised the priority of primary education, and prevented any back bench revolt.

Perhaps Mr Gove needs a special adviser with a sense of history. Youth has its advantages, but sometimes a bit of experience doesn’t come amiss.

Either way Mr Gove is looking clumsy, not only did the BSF list have mistakes, so too did the list of schools expressing interest in academies. There is a well establish process for checking PQs within departments that recognises that the person who starts work on a PQ may need their work checking, and this happens all the way up the line. What happened here merits inquiry; more haste, less speed might be a useful maxim for Private Office to whisper in the ear of any Secretary of State.

Is Mr Gove fatally flawed? Not yet, but he is accident prone: never a good sign in a minister. To paraphrase something Ian Fleming once wrote, ‘one is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times becomes a habit’. Mr Gove must now negotiate the tricky summer results season and ensure no child is without a school pace in September if he wants to survive beyond the end of the party conference season. That’s assuming he can make it beyond the end of next week.

Professor John Howson is President of the Liberal Democrat education Association, but writes here in a personal capacity.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/jan/16/public-expenditure#column_1578 retrieved 8th July 2010 [↩]

Jul 09 2 comments

Announcement

Richard Grayson on the Liberal Democrat Journey

Posted by socialliberalforum on July 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm.

Former Chair of the Social Liberal Forum Richard Grayson writes:

Check out an e-pamphlet I have written called The Liberal Democrat Journey to a Lib-Con Coalition – and Where Next? which is published today by Compass. A shorter version of it is published in the New Statesman available from newstands in London today and everywhere else in the UK from tomorrow.

The full pamphlet can be found on the Compass website.