And Godsdammit, we should be at the forefront of the fight! Why aren't we?

Where would you put the Lib Dems on the political compass? Because if you want this to be their priority, they'd probably have to be below half-way liberal (instead of above) and left of centre, instead of right. Or at least not as Right as the two mains, which they currently are.

Of course, then they can't physically get elected, so.

If the LDs concentrated on equality and the freedoms in that statement, I would vote for them in a second. In the current climate, I'm sure many would. Keep asking the questions.

Edited at 2008-10-05 05:47 pm (UTC)

Well, I'm bottom left quadrant, and so is pretty much everybody I know who is a member of the party.

Why do you think they are top right?

I don't know exactly where they are, because I'm not up on the latest policies. And I don't trust political compass to get it right, but just for example let's look at the 2008 figures on the second picture:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Would you say LDs are left? Which monetary policies (apart from the recent proposed tax change) do you think would fundamentally change Britain away from centre-right?

That analysis is bollocks. Here's a brief summary why.

Julia Goldsworthy is Lib Dem shadow cheif sec, 3rd most important speaker on economic policy after Vince and Clegg. She's also a friend of mine on Facebook, has completed the Policital Compass app on there, and is at ec:-4.13 soc:-6.21. She, like every Lib Dem I know, is broadly happy with most of the party policy position—those that aren't are either on the 'libertarian' wing who, crucially, accept that they're in a distinct minority, or those on the 'social democrat' left of the party, who aren't as liberal as you and I would like.

I am, however, a bit busy, but I've been asked this before and answered it:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/09/26/why-labour-voters-ought-to-think-again/#comment-21633

Specifically, there are short term policies to move in the right direction, and then longer term plans, such as Land Value Tax (which Vince is in favour of as a longer term objective), which would be very redistributive.

Lib Dems, especially under Clegg, are liberal/left on the compass. That most Lib Dem activists I know are also down there is, and should be, indicatove.

The Compass when testing those who write Lib Dem policies says they're on the bottom left, sometimes extremely so. But in an analysis article, using unpublished methodology which makes no sense to anyone I know who's looked at it, they somehow come up with the LDs being on the top right.

Bollocks.

I like the tool, and I broadly like the results it gives for individuals, and I know how to answer certain Qs to get different results, thus I know how it gets to the results it gives me.

But when they (whoever they are, they still don't say) write analysis articles like that?

I trust it not at all. You shouldn't either.

I wonder why they stick with top-right then? That's just strange.

High-up individuals (as long as they feel the policies represent them) being bottom-left is a very strong indicator for me, thanks for that. Most people I know are bottom-left, but I didn't want to assume that meant the LDs actually followed that closely with policy. And I wouldn't blame them if they went for the magic top-right spot: it's the only way to get elected in fptp. But having seen some of the more recent changes, I'm with you - the PC's 2008 position is just strange, and I don't think it reflects the policies I've seen. It certainly doesn't reflect that mission statement.

Okay, had another look. I like STV in the first year - big win. I also like the nuclear non-prolif etc.

If you're going to be bottom-left, however, surely you'd need big announcements on:

Getting out of Iraq tomorrow?
Less prisons more rehabilitation?
Downgrading any drugs?
Policy on prostitution, euthanasia, abortion?

I'm seeing a lot of "enable people to..." but that doesn't tell me how they'll do it. (The Tories use that phrase as well, meaning that if you take everything away, the people who work hard can rise through their own efforts and we 'enable' them to start from a level playing field. Not lefty.)

I'm not saying they aren't (because I admit right now I'm hazy on the Lib Dems current direction) but I'd be very, very surprised if they were far off the left/right measure PolComp puts them on. (I think it's a little left after the tax announcement, and a little under the mid-liberal line. But still firmly in the right quadrant.)

Iraq: http://www.libdems.org.uk/policies/international-affairs-and-defence
Prisons: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/lib-dems-don-t-send-kids-jail-$1235347.htm
Drugs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1861242.stm
Prostitution: http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-of-the-day/lib-dems-prostitution-strategy-missed-opportunity-$368787$367058.htm

Euthanasia and abortion are both conscience issues, and therefore there isn't an official party policy, but I'd point you towards Evan Harris, who is a front bench Lib Dem and the main parliamentarian who is pro both...

These were all easily found by googling "lib dem policy" and the relevant keyword...

Thanks for those. I started on the lib dem site, and amidst the motions and policy papers I couldn't see them spelt out very clearly.

I am pretty surprised at how liberal some of those stances are!

I guess the next step is to get more coverage on tv and in the papers. Because at the moment, very quiet. With Brown spiralling daily into further depths of insanity (the amazing words "considering Blunkett" shouldn't appear anywhere, not even the Mail) this is the perfect time.

Now I just need to get over the instinctive urge to slap Clegg whenever I see his face! (Don't worry, I get that with most politicians).

Yeah, the big stumbling block is that (as you prove) people just don't KNOW what we stand for, and we have approximately a tenth the budget of the other two big parties to spend on bludgeoning people over the head with it. And it SUITS the MSM to ignore us because they LIKE a two party FPTP system - it makes it easier for pundits.

(I get the urge to slap Clegg too. But I get that with most pretty boys.)

We’re not focusing on equality, but I would say that out of the three main parties we are the ones that have the most policies that equate to equality. For equality to become more prominent with the non members it needs to be more prominent with our elected members. Now is the perfect time for Nick to reshuffle the front bench team, and put someone in charge of equality policies for the party. And then the job is to get that person on the news, in the newspapers or on the radio talking about why the Lib Dems are the party of equality.

Being the least awful is not something I aspire to ;)

Lynne Featherstone is our equalities spoke; I agree that she needs to be more central in the party and vocal in the press, but she does talk about equality a lot on her blog.

I don’t aspire to be least awful, either but comparative speaking that is what we are. And at least we don’t have a ppc who says homosexuals have a duty to vote conservative.

When I've been out and about leafleting, handing out flyers etc, members of the public do know that were for equality, but unfortunately that isn’t the first thing they know about the party; instead they know about Charles Kennedy or Lembit, or whatever is in the weeks newspapers.

I’m not saying being least awful is perfect – it clearly isn’t. Yes we should be doing more and the best way to do that is to get the message to the public at large.

Yeah, media presence is something we need to work on in all areas. Mark and Will and the other folks at Innovations are doing their bit in that regard, I think. And Lib Dem Voice being consistently top ten politics website. We are getting to the point where it's harder to ignore us. But we need to keep pushing.

well as for equality - here is an example of why life isnt perfect - http://irfanahmedblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-cabinet_05.html - or more specifically these two quotes from Irfan's blog
"The Labour Party are getting more gay day by day"
"I think the Conservatives could only beat the Labour Party in having a more gay Cabinet!"
I now feel like i should retract what i earlier said (about Margot James)- were clearly not an equality party if one of our activists talks like this

* shuffles feet *

* looks embarrassed *

I don't read Irfan's blog. I have him muted on Lib Dem blogs. His syntax bugs me enormously, and I get the urge to do violent things to him for that reason alone, before I even take in the substance of what he's written. So I limit my exposure to it.

i normally do the same, but saw Mark’s post and wondered what he was talking about. And then I read it, and now I’m angry.

I have edited a couple of links in towards the bottom of my post, and commented on Mark's. Mark's hasn't appeared on my feed reader yet, else I would have commented on it sooner.

Suffice to say, I share your anger.

How in the name of John Stuart Mill has Irfan's incoherent wibbling got into Dale's Top 50 LibDem blogs anyway?

* shrug *

He's young and enthusiastic.

The noble Lord Greaves thinks his is the only blog worth reading.

Thus proving a rule of thumb I was told to always use for Tony--if's he's in favour, being against is probably a good option until you've time to think about it...

Hi there! Just got back from a weekend away in Telford for a wedding – we spent the reception flirting with the gay cousin and strategically being as shocking as possible in front of the more upright Methodist bits of the family (absolutely not on the groom’s instructions), and eating too much, of course – so I’m a bit pooped, but here’s my take on it:

Equal opportunities has always been something the party prizes, sticks up for when it’s unpopular… And, like ‘Freedom’, doesn’t know where to put in manifestos. We always have this problem of what sort of heading to put stuff under, which is a bit daft considering how good our policy and our record is when you look for it (and, yes, in a party of 70,000 members you can always find someone being a stupid, careless and / or bigoted git, as evidenced today, but you can’t have an inquisition, can you?).

On the bright side, people can usually find stuff when they want to attack it; I was rarely prouder than when some of the gay stuff I’d put in the 1997 Manifesto was singled out for opprobrium as one of the three worst policies from such an appalling party by the Daily Torygraph. On the down side, equal opportunities got lost somewhere in the drafting process for Make It Happen, which was a pain, as it was one of the things FPC definitely called for (and I wasn’t the first, nor even the loudest, this time). The main manifesto will be much longer and in less of a rush, though, so I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t plenty in the next one (though I’m afraid other people’ll have to be pressured on that as, unlike the last three, I won’t be on the FPC for it).

Right now, the party’s policymaking process, under the latest two leaders, has shifted its focus on equality to economic inequality – particularly on tax and education. And that’s just about Nick’s highest priority. I happen to know, though, that the party’s got a fully-fledged paper on policies for women being worked on, so watch that space.

As to where it all fits… ‘Better Government’ is a daft place, though as I said we have problems knowing where to stick it. Of the current list that we now seem to be sorting policy areas by, though, ‘Justice and Crime’ – the ‘Justice’ bit, obviously – is where I’ve argued for adding some bits on equality, though they’re more usually stuck into ‘Communities’ when the Manifesto comes round.

But, no, it’s not good enough, so keep prodding.

we spent the reception flirting with the gay cousin and strategically being as shocking as possible in front of the more upright Methodist bits of the family

*Mr Burns Voice* Excellent!

We always have this problem of what sort of heading to put stuff under, which is a bit daft considering how good our policy and our record is when you look for it

I honestly, truly think that equality needs it's own heading - we can't prize the individual if the individual starts off with an automatic handicap for completely senseless reasons. I think Justice is the home for it if you're insisting on keeping the current headings, but people are not going to realise how serious we are about it until it's there in yellow and black.

(you are standing down voluntarily from FPC?)

hello,

Alex W is right when he says we have a 'women's' policy working group working away at the moment and I look forward with anticipation (!) to the consultative session.

However, I think the web GUYS are a bit slopey shoulders. Message doesn't have to equate to policy papers. We could, for example, in the web tag cloud start tagging some of the press releases as women and equality - of there is something in it for under represented groups.

We don't because, I think, despite our constitutional preamble, we are rather...how can I say it...impotent when it comes to anything around identity politics (and that's how I'm going to describe looking at groups like women and ethnic minorities).

I think liberalism as a philosophy really struggles with it, because if the most important level of analysis is the individual it will be a struggle to start to analyse by demographic.

But we have to get over it and move towards where voters are, rather than where we would rather they were.

We are missing such a big trick, losing out on attracting supporters AND votes as a result.

Jo Christie-Smith

I think liberalism as a philosophy really struggles with it, because if the most important level of analysis is the individual it will be a struggle to start to analyse by demographic.

For my personal Liberal philosophy, it's central. You can't begin to assess an individual on their merits if they are hampered by all sorts of pointless discriminatory social baggage. That's what I think anyway, said Pooh.

Ah, but you're not the one not noticing or thinking it's all right not to have anything about equality, diversity or women on the website.

If you were in charge of the website then you might have done something about it by now (or not let it happen in the first place).

That's why I witter on about it so much - because very few people in the Lib Dems do. The guys don't because on the whole they either don't notice or don't think it's there place and the women think they will get pidgeon holed or thought to be a bit rad fem if they do.

Anyway...getting back on track and to the matter at hand - I think the response that has come from the web site guys is technocratic and all a bit Yes, Minister to me.

Perhaps there should be some more women involved and some more ethnic minorities involved...if not in actually doing the stuff then a sort of editorial board to ensure that we are making an attempt to speak to all parts of society and not just the bits like us?

Jo Christie-Smith

Well, apparently Helen Duffett is getting more involved in the webby stuff, although I don't know the details. But it's a step.

I agree with all of this, but I point out that this is why I am more impressed with Lembit's web site than with Ros's. Yes, he took an off-the-shelf site and she wrote one from scratch. But this meant that he got an acceessible site, and she didn't. That's one problem with writing your own site from scratch: a lot of accessibility issues that have been solved for you with an off-the-shelf site are issues that you suddenly need to put time and effort into solving.

And that's time and effort that Ros's campaign still hasn't put in. Which isn't good enough, and I'm angry about it, for just the reasons you list here on other equality issues.

And the response shouldn't be 'Oh well, Lembit doesn't get any credit for making his site accessible because he just bought an off-the-shelf site that already had accessibility built-in'. Because as Lib Dems, we should be all about encouraging solutions that already have accessibility built-in.

Yes, Ros has a great site - better than Lembit's in some ways . But creating a site like that shouldn't be at the expense of accessibility.

*gets off own personal hobby-horse*

But yes - loud, forceful 'yes!' - to everything you say.

You have contacted Ros's website guy about this, right?

I'm not actually sure - I made a fuss about it around the time of conference (I wasn't the only one) and the site changed a bit, but at the time I wasn't sure who was running the site. I e-mailed a few comments to Mat because he'd offered to pass on my concerns, but I'm aware that he's not actually running the site.

I'll e-mail them directly. You're right, I shouldn't just whinge on your journal.

One of the first things I did was email him - Keith, I think? - and pick holes, and he sorted them in fairly short order.

That's good to hear.

It definitely needs to be on the website, given how many so called liberals I've seen that are completely clueless about this sort of thing and get butthurt when you point it out to them.

Its one thing for we as a party to take equality more serioulsy, but what is the government doing about this.

So to that effect, how many people (without looking it up online), can name the Minister for Equality?

It's someone like /harperson or Blears, isn't it?

nope :)