Manchester Withington’s John Leech submitted the Early Day Motion and said people should sign an online petition protesting against Turing’s conviction. The gay computer pioneer was convicted for gross indecency in 1952, when homosexual acts were illegal in the UK. Mr Leech said his persecution “by the state for being gay is a scandal that shouldn’t be allowed to stand”. Alan Turing worked as part of the team which cracked the Enigma code at Bletchley Park in World War II and directed the computing laboratory at the University of Manchester, where he helped to form the basis for the field of artificial intelligence.

You can sign the e-petition here;
You can see the Early Day Motion here.

Anti-gambling campaigners have blasted Robbie Williams for starting a poker site. The Robbie Williams Poker community, to be launched online this year, says the main focus is “fun” but some of the games cost money. Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt said the Take That singer, 37, should know all about addiction as he was once dependent on prescription drugs. She added: “I’m outraged by this. It directly targets his fans, including children. The money he makes should go to addiction charities.”

Health researcher Rebecca Taylor, who grew up in the town, has been installed as Euro MP for Yorkshire and the Humber. … Her father Dr Michael Taylor, who still lives in Owlers Walk, Todmorden, is a former Todmorden and Calderdale councillor and her mother Elisabeth Wilson is an ex-county councillor and her grandparents are also committed Liberals. She said: “It is a great privilege and honour to serve the people of Yorkshire and the Humber in Europe as a Liberal Democrat MEP. It is why I stood for selection in 2007 and my commitment to the region has not changed.”

Sir Bob was unrepentant. He said: “If people write seeking my views, I give my views. If he wants to think it’s insulting, that’s his point of view.”

Former Liverpool council leader Warren Bradley was today facing a perjury charge after a police inquiry into electoral fraud allegations. … At the time Cllr Bradley was leader of the Lib Dem group but resigned the day the allegations were made public. He was then suspended from the Lib Dems and he is currently facing being banned from the party. At the time he said: “I totally deny this allegation and am seeking legal advice to that end.”

Cornwall Council said 17 councillors paid late but the authority would not comment on individual cases, arguing it was a personal matter. The Government’s Information Commissioner is considering an appeal against the refusal to identify the members.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Manchester Withington’s John Leech submitted the Early Day Motion and said people should sign an online petition protesting against Turing’s conviction. The gay computer pioneer was convicted for gross indecency in 1952, when homosexual acts were illegal in the UK. Mr Leech said his persecution “by the state for being gay is a scandal that shouldn’t be allowed to stand”. Alan Turing worked as part of the team which cracked the Enigma code at Bletchley Park in World War II and directed the computing laboratory at the University of Manchester, where he helped to form the basis for the field of artificial intelligence.

You can sign the e-petition here;
You can see the Early Day Motion here.

Anti-gambling campaigners have blasted Robbie Williams for starting a poker site. The Robbie Williams Poker community, to be launched online this year, says the main focus is “fun” but some of the games cost money. Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt said the Take That singer, 37, should know all about addiction as he was once dependent on prescription drugs. She added: “I’m outraged by this. It directly targets his fans, including children. The money he makes should go to addiction charities.”

Health researcher Rebecca Taylor, who grew up in the town, has been installed as Euro MP for Yorkshire and the Humber. … Her father Dr Michael Taylor, who still lives in Owlers Walk, Todmorden, is a former Todmorden and Calderdale councillor and her mother Elisabeth Wilson is an ex-county councillor and her grandparents are also committed Liberals. She said: “It is a great privilege and honour to serve the people of Yorkshire and the Humber in Europe as a Liberal Democrat MEP. It is why I stood for selection in 2007 and my commitment to the region has not changed.”

Sir Bob was unrepentant. He said: “If people write seeking my views, I give my views. If he wants to think it’s insulting, that’s his point of view.”

Former Liverpool council leader Warren Bradley was today facing a perjury charge after a police inquiry into electoral fraud allegations. … At the time Cllr Bradley was leader of the Lib Dem group but resigned the day the allegations were made public. He was then suspended from the Lib Dems and he is currently facing being banned from the party. At the time he said: “I totally deny this allegation and am seeking legal advice to that end.”

Cornwall Council said 17 councillors paid late but the authority would not comment on individual cases, arguing it was a personal matter. The Government’s Information Commissioner is considering an appeal against the refusal to identify the members.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

(Picture from The Guardian.)

Here’s Nick Clegg welcoming new energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey to the cabinet — what do you think might be being said or thought by or about them?

And the winner of our last caption comp is…

Some fantastic entries for our most recent caption competition, Eds Balls and Miliband “The Early Years” Edition.

The winner, according to The Voice’s judging panel of one, was this one by Cheltenham robin, with a highly commended offerings by LondonLiberal here and Toby MacDonnell here.

Got a photo of a prominent Lib Dem you think would work well for a future caption competition? Then please email us at .

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

We asked: Would you support or oppose David Laws making a return to government at the next reshuffle?

• Yes – to a cabinet post 58%
• Yes – but only to a non-cabinet post in government 14%
• No – he should not return to the government at the next reshuffle 21%
• Don’t know / No opinion 7%

In total, then, 72% of Lib Dem members in our sample wanted to see David Laws return to a ministerial post in the Coalition government, with most wanting to see him return to the cabinet 18 months after he was forced to resign. However, a significant minority, 21%, opposed his return, at least at the ‘next’ reshuffle (as it then was). You can read a sample of the comments received from members below.

Nick Clegg was asked directly about a return for David Laws in Paul Waugh’s excellent interview for The House magazine — here’s how he replied:

Speaking of possible ministerial reshuffles, would he bring back David Laws at non-cabinet level if needed? “I’m not wildly hierarchical and David certainly isn’t. It’s one of the many things that I like so much about David, he’s a sort of an unusual combination of being a politician but actually quite a modest character, which you don’t find very often in politics. David is not after status. What I would like to see David do is to be close to the centre of power in one shape or form with, ideally, quite a broad view of government policy, because I think he’s got an ability to see the connections between policies – which is quite unusual.”

So though David may not have returned officially to the heart of government in Friday’s reshuffle, we can be pretty sure unofficially he’ll be there or thereabouts regardless.

Those are Nick’s thoughts; here are some of our party members’:

Running the country well is more important than some pretty trivial personal tomfoolery. If he’s the right person for the job, give him the job.

David Laws is an exceptionally capable individual that should be central to our government and its achievements.

No objection to him being in government per se, I’d just rather we kept some of our best people available to be Lib Dems rather than government spokespeople.

A very gifted man, but his ethics and integrity were found to be incompatible with his position.

He does not represent the kind of liberalism I generally support, but he is probably our most intelligent and competent MP and deserves a place at the Cabinet table.

Good man, but I’d like someone less right-wing in the cabinet.

There is no doubt that David is immensely talented and would make a valuable contribution to government. But I would prefer that he remains outside of the government, supporting the Lib Dems in government and looking to the future and the 2015 election.

He is valuable and, writing as an older gay person, I know the fear that some folk have of being “out” – I had this once. He has been punished enough.

His resignation shouldn’t have happened, but I see why he did it. Bring him back.

But much as I would love to see David back in the Cabinet, can we PLEASE have a woman LD Cabinet minister first!!!

We can’t afford to waste talent like his although I’m sure he is playing a major role behind he scenes

David Laws is a clever man who behaved stupidly. He’s paid the price. He’d be an asset in Government – provided he’s not turned Tory-Lite.

Should not return to government until he has been re-elected as an MP.

He’s a talented man but his re-appointment would play badly when the public still regards most politicians as corrupt.

He’s the brightest and the best MP we have. Bring him back!

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Chris Huhne:

How would you rate the performances of Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Very satisfied 15%
Satisfied 40%
Total satisfied = 65%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 17%
Dissatisfied 21%
Very dissatisfied 7%
Total dissatisfied = 28%
Net satisfaction = +27%

In Chris’s final rating by party members — at least for now — he scored a net satisfaction rating of +27%. In a way, not bad, but it’s a big drop from Chris’s best ratings — back in November 2010, he was the top-rated Lib Dem government minister, with a score of +68% (though note we were then rating ‘effectiveness’ rather than ‘satisfaction’, a subtly different question). Here’s how Chris’s ratings have fared while in government:

July 2010: +51%
August 2010: +59%
November 2010: +68%
January 2011: +65%
April 2011: +63%
September 2011: +53%
December 2011: +42%

The drip-drip of bad publicity over the past few months relating to the charges that have now been laid appear to have dented Chris’s popularity among party members — notwithstanding his lauded performance at the Cancun climate change summit in December.

Ed Davey:

How would you rate the performances of Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?

Very satisfied 16%
Satisfied 35%
Total satisfied = 51%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 39%
Dissatisfied 8%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Total dissatisfied = 10%
Net satisfaction = +41%

Ed finishes his time as Lib Dem No. 2 at Vince’s BIS empire with very positive ratings, testament to how he’s pushed through Lib Dem policy on a range of issues while offering a coherent story of liberalism in action. Here’s how his positive ratings have grown over the last 18 months of Coalition, from a relatively poor start, a legacy of what was judged to be a mixed performance as the party’s shadow foreign affairs spokesman before the election:

July 2010: +9%
August 2010: +11%
November 2010: +23%
January 2011: +24%
April 2011: +30%
September 2011: +27%
December 2011: +39%

Ed will start the new role with a lot of goodwill behind him (though more than a few Lib Dems are unhappy that Nick Clegg didn’t take this enforced opportunity to create the first female Lib Dem cabinet minister), but will be very well aware he has big shoes to fill. If he makes a real success of the role, though, he may find journalists starting to ask him if he’d like to be party leader one day.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

It could be said that the former secretary of state for energy and climate change has a rather chilly public persona – but despite something of a “grey man” image, Chris Huhne has a warm, devoted fanbase according to Stephen Tall, the editor of the Lib Dem activists’ newspaper, Lib Dem Voice. … “After the leadership battle, he could have gone away and sulked but he didn’t, he backed Nick Clegg all the way and helped prep Nick for the TV debates. He was also one of four Lib Dems involved in the coalition negotiations,” he said. And Mr Huhne remained a key player in the coalition despite occasional and vocal disagreements with the Tories. …

“He’s the sort of person who has ‘sharp elbows’, which is unusual in the Lib Dems – he’s not afraid to stand up and say what he thinks, which I think is rather a candid way of doing things in contrast with briefing against people behind their backs,” he said. … Mr Tall told Channel 4 News: “He’s never been able to electrify the Lib Dem conference and Chris can’t do jokes or the ‘light and shade’ like Nick Clegg can. He’s not afraid to take prisoners – he’ll say it as he sees it, which has made him some enemies.”

As for what the MP for Eastleigh may do in future, Stephen Tall said he could face yet more battles, something he believes Mr Huhne is likely to relish. “I think he’ll want to continue being active through journalism and interventions on those issues he cares about – the economy and environment in particular. He also faces boundary changes in his Eastleigh constituency, so will want and need to spend some time nursing his seat if he wants to remain in frontline politics, especially after the dark cloud that’s been hovering over him the last few months.”

You can read the full article at the Channel 4 News website here.

(Available on YouTube here.)

But now reality has struck. Though Chris was able to retain his cabinet post while the police investigated the claims (as Tim Farron rather neatly put it, ‘Tony Blair remained prime minister while he was investigated, I imagine Chris Huhne can just about cope with being energy secretary’) it was always clear that in the event of formal charges being laid his tenure as secretary of state for energy and climate change would be terminated. Nick Clegg made clear his own view on BBC1 last Sunday:

“Of course, that is a very serious issue if that were to arise. We as a Government want the highest standards of probity to be in place in everything that is done by Cabinet members.”

Nick and Chris contested the leadership of the party following Ming Campbell’s resignation in 2007. Despite a rather bruising campaign — probably best-remembered for the ‘Calamity Clegg’ jibe made by one of Chris’s team — the two later formed en effective working relationship, with Chris key member of the Lib Dem negotiating team which produced the Coalition programme with substantial chunks of the party’s election manifesto incorporated. It was no coincidence that one of the most detailed policy areas was the environment, a long-term passion of Chris’s, which saw him identified as being on the social liberal / centre-left of the party; yet on the economy, he was a Lib Dem fiscal hawk, trenchant in his support for deficit reduction.

Never one to avoid a fight, there was frequent friction between Chris and his Conservative cabinet colleagues. For example, he controversially attacked Tory chairman Baroness Warsi during the AV referendum for mounting an “increasingly Goebbels-like campaign”, spoke out in cabinet against the Tory tactics of personally targeting Nick Clegg (much to its co-author George Osborne’s annoyance), and took David Cameron to task for his ‘veto’ in December’s European summit. For some this smacked of betrayal. Personally I admired Chris’s willingness to say what he thought without resorting to the more common Westminster practices of unattributable briefings. Not that he lacks sharp elbows when they’re needed, a rare trait in Lib Dems which will be missed by (most of) his colleagues.

Chris will soon face the charges that have dogged him for so long; the rest of his political career will now depend on whether he can disprove them.

There will be few major implications for the Coalition of Chris’s resignation. For all the media excitement today, Cameron and Clegg have had plenty of time to prepare for today’s reshuffle. There may be bigger implications for the Coalition’s environment policies — Chris was a big hitter who achieved a huge amount in a short period of time: will his successor be able to continue Chris’s assertive work? An important first decision will be whether to retain Chris’s influential and knowledgeable special advisors, Duncan Brack and Joel Kenrick (a reminder that resignations have a human impact that extends well beyond the minister alone). Both were drafted in by Chris on his appointment to the climate change and energy post; it’s to be hoped they are allowed to continue in their roles.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Mature students

Largely missing from the media’s coverage of the headline-grabbing drop in overall applications, is the stark gap between applications from teenagers, broadly flat, and the plummet among mature students (those aged 19+). This shouldn’t suprise us: similar drops occurred when Labour itnroduced fees in ’98 and tripled them in ’03. But we need to understand better what lies behind the figures. Are fees deterring those who missed out on university first time and now feel they can’t afford to try and better themselves when they have other financial responsiblities (kids, mortgage, etc)? (There’s a case study here in the Guardian.) Or is it mainly affecting those who want to study for second degrees in order to re-train for a new profession?

The former group worries me more. If this year’s drop were to be the start of a trend (which hasn’t been the case after previous price rises) then it will likely entrench social immobility. However, in both categories I think we need to think more deeply about the length and style of the type of education needed. How many of these mature students actually need (or even want) a full three-year undergraduate course delivered on campus? Are there other ways in which such a course can be delivered more efficiently without compromising on quality?

We don’t know enough yet

Understandably there has been relief among Lib Dems that this week’s figures are better than feared: the predicted slump in applications from school-leavers did not become a self-fulfilling prophesy (as, I’m afraid to say, I think a number on the left half-hoped they would). But there has been, perhaps, too much relief. And yes I plead guilty, m’Lud. First, these figures are only one year’s. We need to see longer-term trends to know what impact if any this move towards market-fees is having. Secondly, though it appears according to Ucas’s own figures that young people from disadvantaged areas are not being disproportionately affected, we need to drill down further into these figures. There can be great socio-economic disparity within areas (think of the London boroughs), so the analysis of who potentially may be deterred needs to be much more granular. I’m sure my colleagues at The Sutton Trust will be doing that job through the indpeendent commission they’ve established.

Lib Dem HE policy needs to be informed by evidence

‘Evidence-based policy’ is a discipline most Lib Dems sign up to in theory, less so in practice. If (and I stress the ‘if’) we find that fees have no significant impact on the likelihood of poorer young people applying to university it would be illogical to maintain our opposition. So what comes next? Well, chances are that some form of compromise will be reached (politics being what it is), and in return for scrapping the party’s ‘scrap fees’ policy, Lib Dem conference delegates will insist on a variety of well-meaning spendign commitments intended to address perceived disadvantage for low-income applicants. Fine, in principle, but let’s actually see what will make a difference. Centre Forum’s Tim Leunig has already made the point here that fee waivers and bursaries appear to have little effect on influencing poorer applicants’ choices of university, compared to (for instance) their view of the quality of the university or course they’re applying to. If we really want to help those kids we need to be clear about what will be effective, what will work, rather than simply chuck some cash at the problem to make ourselves feel better.

In the week of the publication of university application figures, LibDemVoice co-editors Mark Pack and Stephen Tall debate what it means for the Lib Dems’ future policy…

Stephen Tall: The publication of the University application figures for 2012 — the first year of the new £9k maximum fees regime — has something for everyone. Those who have always claimed the prospect of huge debt would deter potential students can point to the headline 8.7% decline in applications. Those who say the new fees repayments system is the best affordable deal can highlight that this year marks the second highest ever number of applications from teenagers, including for those from disadvantaged areas. Whichever side you take, these are in any case just one year’s figures: this debate will continue to rage.

Another debate which will rage is likely to be this: what should the Lib Dem policy on tuition fees now be? Officially, party policy remains unchanged from the 2010 manifesto: the Lib Dems are committed to abolishing them. However, we all know what happened after the general election: the biting reality of Coalition politics triggered an infamous U-turn. Can the party really enter the 2015 general election with the same policy that we reneged on in this parliament? And if not how should Lib Dem policy start adapting to the changed reality of the new fees policy?

Mark Pack: Both the economics and the politics of promising to abolishing tuition fees in the 2015 manifesto look pretty implausible to me. Even if we thought it was politically sensible to say “we didn’t do it last time, but we really mean it this time”, given the likely state of the nation’s finances in 2015 there is unlikely to be much money to spare for extra spending on policy priorities and there’s going to be a long list of other worthy causes to lay claim to what cash there is.

What might well be plausible on both fronts is a limited expansion of bursaries and the like so that tuition fees and maintenance costs are covered for a larger number of those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It would fit well with Nick Clegg’s passion for social mobility and the party’s wide message about building a fairer society.

Stephen Tall: I agree with you on both the economic and political implausibility of sticking to a ‘scrap fees’ policy which almost half the party’s MPs voted against. Yet I also find it implausible that the Lib Dem conference-voting members will find it in themselves to jettison a policy to which the party has been so wedded. I guess a compromise might be accommodated which sidelines the abolition of fees as a long-term aspiration impossible in present circumstances — in which case it risks becoming our Clause IV, a not-to-be-implemented policy which members cling to out of nostalgia but which simply reminds the public of a distinctly unglorious moment in our party’s history.

On your point about the party developing a more pragmatic policy of targeted assistance to help those groups most likely to be put off by fees, this seems to me essential. However, we need to ensure our thinking is informed by evidence of what actually works. As it happens in the example you cite, bursaries, the evidence so far indicates such assistance doesn’t actually help encourage the poorest to apply to university (though it may help in lowering drop-out rates). Too much educational policy in this country is based on personal hunches of what should work, and not enough on the reality of what will help. If the party wants to be taken seriously on access to higher education, it needs to start doing some proper policy heavy-lifting. And soon.

Mark Pack: The big untouched issue in higher education is the reliance on lectures – and on lecturers who aren’t trained in lecturing to boot. I say this as a former sometime university lecturer… We say the education is vital and yet let people get up in front of students and lecture with remarkably little in the way of training in many cases. Reputations and ratings do help push universities into doing rather more than they used to in order to ensure that lecturers do a good job, but even whey they do the central tool – the lecture – is still predominantly used in a very old fashioned way.

With the widespread availability of video on demand over the internet letting students watch the world’s best lecturers from previous decades at the click of a mouse, the idea that there should be widespread use of an inexperienced, under-trained person who stands up and talks for 55 minutes is very much in need of questioning.