ASA bans ‘misleading’ L’Oréal advert featuring Rachel Weisz

The ASA ruled that the image used in an advertisement for L’Oréal Paris’ Revitalift Repair 10 was altered to change Rachel Weisz’s complexion, making it appear smoother and more even. It was judged to be in breach of industry code and “misleadingly exaggerated” the performance of the product.

The advertisement has been banned in its current form and the ASA has warned L’Oréal not to use digital retouching to misrepresent the effect of their products.

Commenting, Jo Swinson said:

“The beauty and advertising industries need to stop ripping off consumers with dishonest images. 

“The banning of this advert, along with the previous ASA rulings banning heavily retouched ads featuring Twiggy, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, should act as a wake-up call. Thankfully the advertising regulator has again acknowledged the fraudulent nature of excessive retouching.
 
“The Royal College of Psychiatrists has spoken out about the harmful influence of the media on body image and has highlighted the airbrushing and digital enhancement used to portray physical perfection as an area of concern.
 
“There needs to be much more diversity in advertising – different skin colours, body shapes, sizes and ages.  Studies show that people want to see more authenticity from brands.  Images can be aspirational without being faked.

“The Campaign for Body Confidence challenges the narrow ideal of beauty perpetuated by the media and other industries. Tonight the All Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image is hosting a screening of the documentary Miss Representation which explores the impact on society of such an intense focus on women’s appearance, instead of their achievements. 

“The film shows how media misrepresentation and under representation of women results in a leadership gap and the silencing of difference.”  

Julian Huppert: Yearly MOT tests right decision

“In 2010 there were 1,850 deaths and more than 200,000 injuries on our roads. That’s some 600 every day. With mechanical failure already contributing to a significant number of these, the Coalition Government has made the right decision to keep frequent MOT-tests.

“This will also see the system strengthened through a combination of open public data and stronger regulation.

“Liberal Democrats strongly believe road safety should be central to the Coalition Government’s transport strategy. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State to further this agenda.”

Simon Hughes: Young people have not been put off university

“Today’s figures show that on the whole young people have not been put off by the changes in the student finance system. 

“This is due in no small part to the serious effort put in by the Coalition Government and many others in making sure that each young person and their parents knew all the facts about funding higher education. 

“In particular, many families clearly now understand that all graduates will pay less each month towards the cost of their university education than they did before.

“There has been a larger drop in the number of older students applying to university. The Government will have to take a serious look at why this has happened, particularly as part-time students for the first time also do not have to pay for their university education  in advance.

“However, because mature students have more flexibility in when they apply, there are still good opportunities for people looking to start university this year to put in an application.”

Liberal Democrat News 27th January 2012

More power for Scotland

The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, is determined to move Scotland forward towards greater devolution.  As well as delivering the Scotland Bill, he is paving the way towards Home Rule.

In an interview with Liberal Democrat News he said: “These are exciting times for Liberal Democrats. We are leading the charge. The central issue at the moment is the independence referendum, which was in the SNP manifesto at their victory last May. We are clear, however, that they do not have the legal powers necessary [to instigate independence]. We are looking carefully as to how that referendum takes place. My job is to work with the Scottish Government to make sure we can devolve powers that are legal, fair and decisive.

“The referendum must be overseen by the Electoral Commission. On timing, we believe that a referendum needs to take place as soon as possible, as the uncertainty is extremely unhelpful to business.”

Combining questions on a ballot paper is complex, and devolution is a separate issue to independence. So, while the Secretary of State is consulting the Scottish people on this, the Coalition government’s view is that there should be a simple, straightforward, ‘yes-no’ question on independence.

“The suggestion of a third option, ‘Devo-max’ question would not resolve the issue and may well end up in the courts,” explained Michael. “For instance, 55 per cent of the people could vote for full independence and 75 per cent plus vote for Devo-max. Alex Salmond believes if that was the result, then full independence would carry the day. Most democratic people would strongly disagree.”

“This party has always been in the forefront of the debate for Home Rule,” continued Michael. “The Liberal Democrats in the Coalition are delivering greater powers in the Scotland Bill. But the Liberal Democrats are not stopping there. Willie Rennie has asked Ming Campbell to set up a Commission to look at what powers Scotland should have within the UK. This would be similar to the Constitutional Convention, the Scottish Parliament and the Calman legislation for the Scotland Bill. In that way you get common ground and consensus before legislation.”

There are a number of important questions the SNP has left unanswered: What regulation would be applied to Scottish banks and who would enforce it? Would they be prepared to buy out the UK Government’s stake in RBS? Which currency would Scotland adopt? What would happen to Scottish membership of international organisations (including the EU), our armed forces, pension liabilities? What are the bottom line costs of independence?

As Nick Clegg said last Sunday on BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show, “You would have thought for a party whose sole purpose in life is to advocate independence, they [the SNP] would have been able to provide answers about what it means for defence, for taxation, for investment, the currency, and that’s what I think we should focus on.”

Nick Clegg's tax cut speech at the Resolution Foundation

Today I want to make clear that I want the Coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance.

Because the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.

Yesterday's GDP figures remind us that the road to the UK’s economic recovery will be long and progress will be uneven.

Those GDP figures remind us that we cannot simply ride out these troubles.
Waiting for the good times to roll around again, nor can we return to business as usual.

The financial crash and the recession that followed were unprecedented, and they were global. But the UK’s weakness in the face of those events was a damning indictment of the way our economy had been run.
An economy that became closed, elitist, driven by vested interests. Where we prized recklessness and short-term gains, and undervalued stability and hard work.

So picking ourselves up for good means fundamental reform. Hitting the reset button to ensure that not only does prosperity return, but, this time, it’s properly shared and really lasts.

The first part of that is clearly deficit reduction.
Filling the black hole; wiping the slate clean;
Preventing years of higher interest rates and fewer jobs;
Ensuring that the next generation does not pay for this generation’s mistakes;
Creating the sound public finances, the macroeconomic stability that we know is a prerequisite for lasting growth.

But, beyond that, we must also rebalance our economy: ending our overreliance on financial services and the South East;
Shifting from consumption to investment;
From debt-driven bubbles to sustainable growth.

And there is another element of rebalancing.
Rebalancing our tax and benefits system, because both need to be rebuilt with work at their heart, restoring some sense to the assistance and rewards the state provides.

We cannot pin all our hopes on the traders or the bankers. It will be the millions of hardworking Britons who deliver the nation from these difficult times. So we must now make the most of all of our human capital. And we must help struggling families stand on their own two feet.  That means a benefits system that gets more people into work and a tax system that ensures work pays.

Today I want to say a word on each.

First, benefits.

I have always believed in a welfare system that helps those in need - those who cannot work must be protected. And those who have jobs must be confident that, should they lose them, there is a safety net in place.

That is precisely why, in the Autumn Statement last year the Coalition committed to the full uprating for pensions and out-of-work benefits from April - 5.2%, in line with inflation. Not everyone agreed that “the unemployed” should receive the full uplift, certainly not in the current climate. And, if you believed everything you read, you would think that these benefits are, essentially, unlimited handouts for the ‘idle poor’.
But that just shows what is so often wrong with this debate.

For one thing, for decades now benefits have been uprated in line with prices while earnings have generally increased at a faster rate. So the value of benefits such as Jobseekers Allowance have actually shrunk over the years compared with the incomes of those in work.

But, even more importantly, abuse of the benefits system by a minority has obscured the needs of a deserving majority.
The older people who have contributed to our society for their whole lives.
Those who cannot work due to disability or serious illness.
And - the group most often forgotten - working people who have been laid off, through no fault of their own. And, most often, for short periods of time.

Yes, sometimes the system is exploited - and that cannot be accepted.
But the majority of people who claim JSA are off benefits within three months.
People who pay their taxes, support their families, but are temporarily down on their luck. So we need a benefits system that helps those who can work into work.

And it is that simple principle that drives the Coalition’s welfare reforms. From the Universal Credit, to the benefits cap, to the Work Programme and the Youth Contract.

While the economy was booming. We saw four and a half million people stuck on out-of-work benefits.

The number of young and unemployed hardly changed. There are now 2.6m people on incapacity benefits. 900,000 of them have been parked there for 10 years or more. And where children grow up in homes where no one works they are twice as likely to experience long spells of unemployment themselves.

It isn’t right; the country can’t afford it.  The Coalition is determined to see it change.

Nearly 70 years ago, when William Beveridge designed the welfare state he imagined a system that would give people protection from cradle to grave. Not one that would act as a crutch every day in between. The state must offer security in hard times.
But it should not, he warned, ‘stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility’.
In the words of another great liberal, John Stuart Mill, ‘assistance should be a tonic - not a sedative’. I couldn't agree more.

Tax - the different traditions

And it is those same values, that same belief in the potential of ordinary men and women to flourish that needs to be instilled in our tax system too.

My philosophy on tax is simple: The system should reward effort, enterprise and innovation and bear down on those things which are bad for our society.

That sounds like a proposition with which most people would agree. But attitudes to tax are a good proxy for our deepest political instincts.  And the three major political traditions in the UK – conservatism, socialism and liberalism – have very distinct approaches.

For those on the philosophical right, taxes are necessary but there is an understandable fear that tax-done-badly can threaten entrepreneurialism and business, strengthening the hand of an intrusive state. That wariness means the right can be less inclined to promote tax as a way of redistributing wealth and opportunity, putting less of an emphasis on using the tax system to tackle inequality, for example, between those who earn their income and those who are asset rich. 

For the traditional left, on the other hand, taxes are the principal means of redistribution. Socialists will support a penal rate of tax on the highest earners, simply because it makes them poorer.

For them, tax is a badge of socialist success: the more, the better. They would rather draw money in through the state and then hand it back to people rather than letting them keep more of their earnings in the first place. 

The liberal approach, put most simply, is based on a profound commitment to the value of paid work.

Citizens are empowered when they can keep the fruits of their own labour. As Gladstone said, it is better for money to ‘fructify in the pockets’ of the people who earn it, rather than in the Treasury and fiscal liberalism supports taxes on unearned wealth, precisely to lighten taxes on the wages of the hardworking. 

A simple choice

Those principles could not be more important today. Because, in developed economies around the world, in every country now seeking to get back on the right path, where money is scarce, where every day families are tightening their belts, the biggest question we face is this: how is that burden shared?

That’s why, this week, we heard President Obama devote his State of the Union Address to greater fairness in the American tax system. It’s why tales of tax avoidance are filling our newspapers everyday. And every politician now has a simple choice: do you support a tax system that rewards the hard-working many? Or do you back taxes that favour the wealthy few?

I know which side of the line I stand on: The UK’s tax system cannot go on like this.
With those at the top claiming the reliefs, enjoying the allowances, hiring other people to find the loopholes, while everyone else pays through the nose.

So the Coalition is calling time on our unfair and out-of-whack tax system.

We’ve put up Capital Gains Tax - Ending the scandal, under Labour, of a hedge fund manager paying less on their shares than their cleaner paid on their wages.

We’ve reduced tax breaks on pension funds for the very rich.

We’ve clamped down on avoidance and taken steps to raise an extra £7bn through closing the tax gap.  

And our priority in Government, from the front cover of the Liberal Democrat manifesto to the pages of the Coalition agreement, is freeing the lowest-paid from income tax altogether and cutting income tax for millions of ordinary workers.
Raising the personal threshold to help the squeezed middle

Over recent weeks you will have heard a great deal about fairness at the top, through Vince Cables’ reforms to curb excessive executive pay.

You will have heard a great deal about fairness at the bottom, through reform of our welfare system to ensure benefits are fair and reasonable, and to get more claimants into work.

This is about fairness in the middle. More money in the pockets of the people who need it.

 Whether you call them the ‘squeezed middle’, ‘hard-working families’, or, as I have, ‘alarm clock Britain’, cutting income tax is one of the most direct tools we have to ease the burden on low and middle earners. The people whose incomes are too high to qualify for welfare benefits, but too low to provide any real financial security. The group whose plight the Resolution Foundation has done so much to highlight.

The working mum whose bills keep rising but whose wages do not.

The father kept awake in the dead of the night, worried tomorrow the company will be laying people off. 

The young couple who used to look forward to the holiday they would book or the car they would buy, but who now know that if the boiler breaks or the washing machine packs up, the money just isn’t there.

Go back 50 years or so and many more working people were exempt from income tax thanks to a more generous tax-free threshold. But over the last few decades wage rises have outpaced the increase in the allowance. Sucking more and more people into the income tax net. And, while in the early 70s, the Personal Allowance was worth around 28% of average earnings. By 2010 that had dropped to around 20%.

At the last election my party promised to raise the personal allowance to £10,000 for ordinary taxpayers. And I am extremely proud that the Coalition is on track to do so over the course of this Parliament. We’ll make sure that anyone earning £10,000 or less will pay no income tax at all and for those on middle incomes, the first £10,000 they earn will be tax free.

For millions of basic rate taxpayers – ordinary, hardworking people – that means paying £700 less in income tax each year, around £60 a month.

In the 2010 Budget we increased the tax allowance from £6,475 to £7,475. This year we have already announced a planned rise of an additional £630 - meaning that a total of 1.1 million more people will no longer pay income tax at all.

But today I want to make clear that I want the Coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000. Because, bluntly, the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.

Compared to those at the top, these families have seen their earnings in decline for a decade and that’s got worse since 2008, with lower real wages and fewer hours at work.

Ongoing consolidation in the UK public finances has meant necessary increases in taxation, reductions in spending, restrictions on public sector pay, and higher contributions on pensions.

Last year brought much higher world inflation, some food prices have doubled, some energy prices have gone up by 50%.

And, yes, we are now seeing some moderation in inflation.

But, in just three years, real household disposable incomes have fallen by some 5 per cent, one of the biggest squeezes since the 1950s, since the records began. These families cannot be made to wait.

Household budgets are approaching a state of emergency. And the Government needs a rapid response.

Delivering the £10,000 personal allowance more quickly will need to be fully funded. We cannot just cut taxes by raising borrowing – that is just extra taxation deferred. And it would undermine our success in restoring stability and credibility to the public finances. So we need to find the money. And that will not be easy, of course. 

But to those who say: we cannot afford to do this. I say: we cannot afford not to do this. And it is because of the pressure our economy is under that there is now an urgent need to give families more help; an urgent need to rebalance our tax system so it rewards work and encourages ordinary people to drive growth. And that means those who are better off paying their fair share.

In its recent excellent report Divided We Stand, the OECD noted how the incomes of the richest 1 per cent have soared away from everyone else over the last 20 years and showed that these people could be making a bigger tax contribution.

They also made clear that the right way to do this is not to increase marginal tax rates on work any further. This would simply drive many of the rich away to other countries.  Or encourage them to use tax avoidance mechanisms more aggressively.
Instead, they suggest, governments need to look at tackling industrial-scale tax avoidance.

As well as at the allowances and reliefs which favour those on very high incomes that is how we can raise the average taxes paid by the very rich, without any further rise in marginal rates.

To that end the Coalition set up the Aaronson Review to look at a General Anti-Avoidance Rule on tax so that the tax industry cannot spend all its time creating ever more contrived schemes, undermining the principles and intentions of the system.

There are a range of other, specific areas where we need to be tough too, not least stamp duty avoidance, particularly on higher end property sales and the transferring of assets and income abroad to avoid UK tax.

We need to look at what more can be done to “green” the tax system. Not just because we care about the planet we leave our children - although that would be reason enough. But because, when the decision is between taxing pollution or taxing hard-graft, the right impulse is obvious.

And, there is another big part of the tax system where I believe we need to be much more ambitious: Serious, unearned wealth.

The eye wateringly lucrative assets so often hoarded at the top. We still live in a society where, for so many people. How much you earn can never compete with how much others own. Our tax system entrenches that divide. And we need to be bold enough to shift the burden right up to the top.

I know the Mansion Tax is controversial, but who honestly believes it is right that an oligarch pays just double the Council Tax of an average homeowner even if their house is worth one hundred times as much?

And who seriously thinks we would kill aspiration through a levy on the 0.1% of the population who own £2 million pound homes? The Mansion Tax is right, it makes sense and the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for it. We’re going to stick to our guns.

So, to finish as I began: we are living in tough times. And many families are feeling the pinch. We need more of those who can work in work, and real rewards and incentives for those who are.

It is often said that to govern is to choose and, in particular, to choose whose side you are on. That is especially true when there is no money around. My choice – the Liberal Democrat’s choice – is clear:

I want to help the hard-pressed and the hardworking. If that means asking more from those at the top – so be it.

We are committed to eliminating the deficit, and eliminate it we will. But I am determined that we do so in a way that is fair.

That rebalances our economy.

That gives the right people their dues. 

People look to the Liberal Democrats to keep this Coalition anchored in the centre ground. They want economic competence, but they want compassion too.
It is our job to make sure this Government delivers both.


Thank you.

More money back in your pocket

Between now and the Budget, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in Government will be arguing for faster tax cuts for hard-working families, promoting work and growth, and rewarding innovation, paid for by increasing the amount paid by the richest.

And the Liberal Democrats in Coalition are already making the difference:

• More than 800,000 working people no longer paying income tax
• 23 million working people have been given a £200 tax cut
• In April this year every worker will be given a further income tax cut of £130
• And by the local elections in May this year, 1.1 million of the lowest paid workers, will no longer be burdened by income tax

---

Imagine a mum who works 3 days a week as a teaching assistant - earning £10,000 a year or just over £190 a week. Under Labour she paid more than £1,000 in income tax and national insurance. Although she wanted to work more days a week she knew it was not financially worth it. Under Labour; once tax, tax credits and housing benefit has been deducted, for every extra pound she earned she was able to keep just 10.5p.
Under our plan she would see her income tax bill cut to zero making her £700 a year better off.

---

The Liberal Democrats are committed to delivering a fairer economy, turning our tax promise into cash in your pocket. It was on the front page of our manifesto and is being implemented because of Liberal Democrats in Government.

As part of this Coalition, Liberal Democrats are calling time on our unfair and out-of-whack tax system.

• We’ve clamped down on tax avoiders – targeting an extra £7bn every year
• We’re taxing the banks by an extra £2.5bn every year
• We’ve stopped inheritance tax cuts for millionaires
• We’ve put up Capital Gains Tax
• We’re ending the scandal, under Labour, of a hedge-fund manager paying less tax on their shares than their cleaner paid on their wages
• We’ve reduced tax breaks on pension funds for the super-rich
• We have retained the 50p rate
• And our overall priority is freeing the lowest-paid from income tax altogether and cutting income tax for millions of ordinary workers

You can read Nick's speech to the resolution Foundation here.

Don Foster: BBC should not harm local and regional broadcasting

“Lord Patten gets the final word and with it he says what we’ve all been thinking.

“The BBC won’t improve itself by stripping away some of its most valued work. Seven million people listen to BBC local radio across the UK and it is a lifeline for older people and the disabled.

“We can’t expect easy solutions to the BBC’s challenges but it should be possible to meet them without harming local radio and regional TV.”

Lorely Burt: Post Office deal will secure its future

“This is very welcome news for both the Post Office and Royal Mail and demonstrates our commitment to ensure a sustainable future for both.

“Post Offices are a vital part of our communities and are the lynchpin of our towns and villages. More than 20m people visit a Post Office every week to send letters to loved ones, to manage their finances or to renew passports for holidays and hundreds of thousands of pensioners rely on them every day for their pensions.

“Labour left Royal Mail in a terrible mess and it is Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government who have stopped closures and put Royal Mail and the Post Office on a secure footing. Our plans mean that we will never see the kind of planned closures that devastated local communities under the previous Government.

“Labour said our plans would lead to more closures as the Royal Mail moved away from using the Post Office network. Today’s announcement proves that they were, once again, wrong.”

Liberal Democrats right to shine light on executive pay

“This announcement shows the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to tackle out of control executive pay.

“Liberal Democrats have no problem with people being highly paid but there should not be rewards for failure.

“This problem can only be solved by companies and their shareholders.  It’s not government’s role to micro-manage company pay but there are things we can do to address what is a clear market failure.

“With millions of people experiencing pay freezes and uncertainty about their jobs, the right thing to do is to shine a light on the murky world of executive pay and boardroom behaviour.”

Nick Clegg: Re-election of Sharon Bowles MEP welcome news

“Sharon is one of the most influential thinkers and legislators in Europe on financial services and the Eurozone crisis. Her re-election is good news for Europe and the UK.

“As party leader, I am proud that we have a leading Liberal Democrat in such a prominent and powerful position on the international scene. As UK Deputy Prime Minister, I am delighted and relieved to know that the EU financial services brief is in such expert hands.

“In the wake of the financial crisis, it is absolutely right that we undertake a complete overhaul of the rule book governing global finance and banking at the European, national and international level.

“Ministers and industry figures must now redouble our efforts to re-engage across Europe, pro-actively work with our partners to shape EU legislation that builds a more responsible, safe and successful banking sector, and deploy our financial expertise to help resolve the ongoing Eurozone crisis.

“I look forward to working with Sharon over the coming months in addressing these overwhelmingly important issues for the UK and Europe as a whole.”

Don Foster: Live music licensing regulation will strengthen the British music scene.

“Private members’ bills are rarely passed, and it’s even rarer that they do so with the unanimous support of every MP as happened today.

“The current system has had a deadening effect on the performance of live music in small venues. At the moment, the landlord of a small pub could face a big fine and imprisonment for letting a customer play a piano without a licence.

“The support received this afternoon from all MPs from all political parties just goes to show how important live music is in our country and the overwhelming support for changing our obstructive licensing laws.

“We’re now only one step away from the Bill becoming law and creating an even more vibrant and successful live music culture. This will benefit hundreds of small pubs, restaurants, schools, churches and community halls, and strengthen the British music scene immensely.”

Liberal Democrat News 20th January 2012

A more liberal capitalism

In a major speech on the economy at the Mansion House on Monday, Nick Clegg set out a “liberal diagnosis of what’s wrong; and then a liberal remedy.”

The UK’s capitalism is in crisis, Nick argued, because there is a crisis of power. “We now have an economy driven by immensely powerful vested interests that politicians have abjectly failed to stand up to. The remedy, put most simply, is a redistribution of power.”

“It’s easy to throw rhetorical rocks at directors, bankers and businesses. But, if we are honest, this is as much a failure of politicians and regulators, the authorities too often cowed by corporate power.

“There’s nothing new about it. The agricultural landlords of the 19th Century and early 20th Century were happy for working people to pay more for their food because of protective tariffs. What Lloyd George in 1906 memorably called ‘stomach taxes’. So long as their own profits were protected.

“For liberals – from Gladstone to Grimond – the role of the state has always been to break up unaccountable, opaque concentrations of power. To protect the national interest from those vested interests. That is why, as well as the moves the Coalition government is making to bring greater transparency to government contracting and lobbying, we need real reform of party funding to reduce the influence of those interests in politics. We need tougher border controls between the political class and the corporate world. And we also need a better distribution of power within our economy.

“In an open society, a liberal society, people don’t just hold more power in politics, but in the economy too. And, over time, empowering workers can have a hugely transformative effect over corporate culture.

“Employee ownership has been a touchstone of liberal economic thought for a century and a half. Because we don’t believe our problem is too much capitalism: we think it’s that too few people have capital. We need more individuals to have a real stake in their firms - more of a John Lewis economy, if you like.

“Firms that have engaged employees, who own a chunk of their company, are just as dynamic, just as savvy, as their competitors. In fact, they often perform better: lower absenteeism, less staff turnover, lower production costs. In general, higher productivity and higher wages, they weathered the economic downturn better than other companies.

“Is employee ownership a panacea? No. Does it guarantee a company will thrive? Of course not. But the evidence and success stories cannot be ignored, and we have to tap this well if we are serious about growth. It won’t happen at all without government taking a lead, so I am kickstarting a drive in government to get employee ownership into the bloodstream of the British economy.

“As the debate on a more responsible capitalism moves forward, Liberals will remain set on that goal: an end to crony capitalism, where vested interests trump the national interest; a better balance of power, in the economy - and between politics and business.

“That is the route to a safer, more stable, more prosperous economic future. This is how we will spread wealth and share rewards - a more responsible capitalism, a more liberal capitalism.”

---

To read more and subscribe to Liberal Democrat News, click here.

Local Euro MP announces her resignation

“I have been in the European Parliament twelve years and I think that is time enough. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time and it was truly a huge privilege; especially to serve as a Vice President of Parliament for the last five years. However, I think all of us, whatever our professions, need to turn a new page from time to time.

“At the mid-term of parliament many members come and go, so accordingly this moment following upon my unsuccessful bid for the Presidency is a good time to take stock. I undertook that bid for reasons that I deeply believe in but such a course of action is bound to lead to reflection. I want to take a break from politics and to take time and assess what next.

“I have been at the service of the people of Yorkshire and the Humber for twelve and a half years. I will always be grateful for the trust that was placed in me to carry out this role, but now is the time for someone with fresh eyes to take over.

“I remain a committed pro-European Liberal Democrat.”

Fiona Hall, Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for North East England and leader of the Liberal Democrat MEPs said:

"Diana has been  a high profile Member of the Liberal Democrat delegation in the European Parliament, which she led from December 2001 until June 2004 and again from June 2006 to January 2007. She was an outstanding and hard working Member and ALDE coordinator of the Legal Affairs Committee. In her 5 years as a Vice President of the European Parliament she made a name for herself as a champion of transparency. In this role, she negotiated the new joint lobby register of the European Parliament and Commission and the new Code of Conduct for MEPs and was a driving force behind greater access to parliamentary documents. A great believer in participatory democracy, Diana was also very much committed to engaging people with the EU legislative process. Her work on the new European citizens initiative ensured that the admissibility criteria and checks were as open, unbureaucratic and citizen-friendly as possible.
 
"This resignation is an entirely personal decision by Diana. Being an MEP is a very demanding and time-consuming job and after 12 years and having achieved so much, I can understand that she might want to turn the page.
 
"On a personal note, I am very grateful to Diana for all the help and support she offered to me personally even before I was elected as an MEP"

Euro-MPs tighten e-waste rules

TVs, mobile phones, computers and other electrical equipment are the UK's fastest growing waste stream, with more than one million tonnes generated annually. Despite already existing EU laws, only about one third of e-waste is currently disposed of in an accountable and sustainable way. The rest is either dumped in landfills or shipped - often illegally- to non-EU countries.

UK Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies, who negotiated the original EU legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), said:

"MEPs fought hard to set a higher target for the recovery, recycling and re-use of e-waste. When treated properly our old electrical equipment needs not be rubbish but a valuable raw material.

"The new rules will make clearer what used items can be legally exported. This will help to curb the criminals who ship electronic gadgets overseas where it is dismantled by children and the poor often in hazardous and toxic conditions.

"Our waste must not become anther person's poison."

According to the Environmental Investigation Agency, the UK has a persistent problem with e-waste trafficking with up to half of all discarded computers in the UK entering the illegal trade streams.

Tom Brake: We must get to the bottom of detainee allegations

“It is disappointing but inevitable that the inquiry has been shelved.

“We must get to the bottom of these allegations of mistreatment as soon as possible. The credibility of our intelligence services depends on it.

“I am pressing the Justice Secretary to announce how soon a new inquiry will be established once the police investigations into the Libyan allegations are complete.

“I am also questioning whether, in the interim, there should be an enhanced role for the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to investigate the Intelligence Services.”

Sarah Ludford: Outrage of EP honouring Francoist jointly with Havel

Sarah Ludford commented:

“Havel's democratic and human rights credentials underpinned his whole life, while Fraga never renounced or apologised for the repressive standards of the Franco regime he served. Linking the two was a cheap trick, presumably to head off an MEPs' protest."

“Buzek has done some good work as President, and it is a pity for him to go out on a sour note. But the suspicion that he orchestrated this twinning deliberately to please his political friends is confirmed by his airbrushing of Fraga's fascist past out of his tribute."

“The EU was founded as a reaction to the horrors of dictatorship. It is an insult not just to Havel’s memory, but to that the millions of people who suffered and died at the hands of authoritarian regimes like Franco’s.”

Nick Clegg announces Leadership Programme participants

More than two-thirds of participants are female and a third are from BME backgrounds. Furthermore, a significant number of participants are disabled, openly LGBT, under 30 years old and/or from a lower socio-economic background.

Download the Candidate Leadership Programme Participant Profiles document here.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said

“The Leadership Programme is now ready to start changing the face of the Liberal Democrats. For too long, our party in Westminster has been too male and too pale.

“If we want to represent all of the country then we must have all of the country represented in us. That is why the Leadership Programme has sought out talented Liberal Democrats from across the country to ensure that over the coming years we will together change the makeup of the party.

“I know this excellent Leadership Programme will support them as they seek selection for a seat all the way until they sit in the House of Commons. I am proud to have met them all this weekend and I know we will be hearing a lot more from them in the months and years to come.”

Nick Clegg speech on responsible capitalism

Another week, another speech about the evils of capitalism. Let me start by asking: who here is in favour of irresponsible capitalism? Because you won’t find many people arguing for more recklessness, more short-termism or greater rewards at the top. On the contrary - the growing consensus is that we need the opposite: a more sustainable economy; a more balanced economy, where rewards are proportionate and relate to real success.

That consensus, emerging among the political parties, has attracted a little cynicism.
I can understand that. It is, after all, bonus season in our banks. But there is a more generous interpretation of the shifting political mood. One that says: perhaps the penny has finally dropped.

Liberal Democrats have been arguing for a more balanced capitalism for many years. Vince Cable warned in 2006 that bank lending levels were “recklessly irresponsible” at a time that “bad debts were growing.” We saw the gulf emerging in our economy between a small number of winners and everyone else. And we warned against the corrosive effects. So we welcome the new political vogue – although it is not so new for us. And we want to seize on growing support for so-called ‘responsible capitalism’ and actually deliver it.

To do that, as this debate moves forward, we need to be clear about what we mean.
Because, whether you call it a new economy, an ethical economy, moral markets, responsible capitalism, there is a big difference between having strong views on bonus culture or excessive top pay and wanting real change in the practices and principles that guide corporate life. A bit of wrist slapping or moralising at the worst offenders will not be enough. This should not be a war of words but a real contest of ideas about how to reform our economy.

So this morning I want to offer a liberal diagnosis of what’s wrong; and then a liberal remedy.

First, diagnosis. Why is our capitalism in crisis? I will argue that this is, at root, a crisis of power.
That we now have an economy driven by immensely powerful vested interests. Interests that politicians have abjectly failed to stand up to.

The remedy, put most simply, is a redistribution of power. Last month I set out my vision for an Open Society and I talked about the need to disperse political power to create strong citizens.
Today I want to talk about dispersing economic power to that same end.

Before I say any more, I want to make one thing clear: Capitalism may be today’s political punchbag, but let’s take a long view: it’s one of history’s great success stories. No other human innovation has driven progress – and raised living standards – so consistently. Markets catalyse ideas, invention and experimentation. When they work well, they are meritocratic and liberating.
And they generate the wealth to support the most vulnerable and needy in society.

Liberals believe strongly in the virtues of the market. But only if it is a market for the many, not a market for the few. Our economy is in danger of becoming the latter, monopolised by a minority, serving narrow and sectional interests.

I am not here to take a cheap shot at big business – this would hardly be the right crowd.
Big British firms are the backbone of our economy: our employers, our wealth generators, leaders in our society. And I am grateful to many of our major firms, particularly, for the commitment they are showing to greater corporate and social responsibility.

Just last week over 100 large companies signed up to the Coalition’s Business Compact, opening their doors to young people from all backgrounds in order to improve social mobility.
I’m delighted to see some of them represented here today.

And I know many people in this room will agree: our economy is now seriously out of whack. It simply cannot be right that, right now, because of the crash and the recession, millions of ordinary people are struggling to get by. Yet relatively little has changed for those at the top.
It cannot be right that, for example, for most people, on average, wages are falling, by around 3% a year, yet executive pay is rising – on average, by 13%. Over the last 25 years, top Chief Exec pay has shot up by 1200%.

That is a gross imbalance, with wealth and influence hoarded among the few. It’s socially destabilising. Morally, it cannot be justified. And it’s bad for the economy too.

Our problem is what Jesse Norman has called crony capitalism. It’s easy to throw rhetorical rocks at directors, bankers and businesses. But, if we are honest, this is as much a failure of politicians and regulators, the authorities too often cowed by corporate power. Whether that is political parties of all stripes in hock to vested interests or regulators struggling to stop supermarkets from putting the squeeze on small suppliers, whether it’s politicians kow-towing to media barons, the problem is endemic.

There’s nothing new about it. Kings have always bestowed privileges on their favourite merchants. Corporations will naturally seek a dominant market position. It’s one of the reasons liberals from John Bright to the present day have been such fierce advocates of free trade. The agricultural landlords of the 19th century and early 20th century were happy for working people to pay more for their food because of protective tariffs. What Lloyd George in 1906 memorably called ‘stomach taxes’. So long as their own profits were protected.

This has always been capitalism’s greatest danger: a tendency for the rule makers and the money makers to get too close. And we saw the consequences of that closeness play out in the most dramatic fashion right here, in the City, just three years ago. It was a political failure; a regulatory failure; and a market failure too.

Political failure, because Whitehall became so dependent on City revenues. That politicians would not see the problems that were brewing. Instead, they hoped the goose would keep laying golden eggs.

Regulatory failure, because the Financial Services Authority failed spectacularly in its duties. Regulators are meant to guard vigilantly against industry excesses. But they turned soft – either captured by or intimidated by those they were supposed to keep in check. And, just like the politicians, just like the industry, the FSA ignored the alarm bells ringing.

And market failure, as short-termism and recklessness eventually consumed our banks, taking the whole economy to the edge of a cliff.

Politicians in the pockets of vested interests, regulators asleep at the wheel, an unrestrained economic elite. The primary symptoms of crony capitalism.

I welcome much of what Ed Miliband said last week on the need for a more responsible capitalism. Although, like others, I think it is difficult for Labour to be credible on the economy until they fully acknowledge the mistakes they made as the party sitting in government while our economy became so dangerously unbalanced. And, Ed Miliband cannot credibly claim to be a crusader against vested interests when he is in hock to one of them: the trade unions, who won him the leadership – and now pay for his party.

For liberals – from Gladstone to Grimond – the role of the state has always been to break up unaccountable, opaque concentrations of power. To protect the national interest from those vested interests. That is why, as well as the moves the Coalition Government is making to bring greater transparency to government contracting and lobbying, we need real reform of party funding to reduce the influence of those interests in politics. We need tougher border controls between the political class and the corporate world.

And we also need a better distribution of power within our economy.

The three main political traditions in Britain - conservatism, socialism and liberalism - bring different instincts to the question of where power in the economy should lie. Right now, I think liberals have the best argument.

The traditional conservative right has a strong faith - at worst, a blind faith - in the capacity of markets to correct themselves. To automatically ensure real competition and a level playing field.
This means that the role of the state is, as far as possible, to get out of the way. But markets left to their own devices can generate huge concentrations of economic power: monopolies and cartels that cripple competition and act against the interests of ordinary people.

The traditional left is historically suspicious of market outcomes but has a deep belief in the economic wisdom of the state. So while socialists abhor concentrations of economic power in the market, they want to draw economic power towards the state.

But an overly intrusive state crowds out the dynamism that makes markets so successful, both in terms of raising living standards and liberating consumers.

Liberals, alternatively, believe the role of the state is to hold power in balance so that it is neither hoarded in the market, nor wielded, unduly, by the state. Liberals don't want to substitute state power for corporate power. But we will use the power of the state to ensure power is properly distributed within the market. Breaking up monopolies and fiercely defending open, free and fair competition. Liberal economics is not laissez faire economics – it’s fair economics.

Let me take wage inequality as an example – and quite a topical one. The right-wing view is that soaring executive pay will be corrected by the healing power of a competitive labour market.
The left-wing view is that the state will have to set maximum wages or impose penal tax rates, that politicians will have to take matters into their own hands. Liberals take a more balanced approach. We understand that the market for executive pay can become closed, uncompetitive and self-serving. And that the state can and should intervene to clamp down on egregious excesses.

That’s why, for example we want new rules to stop an executive serving in one company from sitting on the pay board at another, so that directors’ salaries are no longer, effectively, decided by their mates. And we see an extremely important role for the state in redistributing wealth through income tax. In fact, one of the Coalition’s most significant reforms is our changes to income tax. Making it more progressive – so that lower earners keep more of what they earn.

But liberals also recognise that narrowing wage inequality is not solely a task for the state. We also need to put much more power in the hands of other stakeholders in the economy - shareholders and employees - when it comes to setting top pay. Trusting not the unfettered market, nor the interventionist state, but trusting people.

That is the core of a more responsible capitalism: power in the hands of people. Strong economic citizens able to keep vested interests in check. So let me say a word on the Coalition’s approach to empowering two groups in particular: shareholders and employees.

First, shareholders. Part of the challenge is getting more of them to behave like business owners rather than absentee landlords. If they are unhappy, we don’t want them just to sell up and move on, we want them to throw their weight around so that the company improves: but we need to make sure they have the right tools at their disposal and they know how to use them.

The Coalition has said we will introduce binding shareholder votes to curb executive pay as part of a package of measures to moderate boardroom behaviour. Vince Cable will set out that package next week but I can tell you today that we are going to overhaul the way shareholders – and others – can access information.

Often, the reason investors are passive is because they can’t see the reasons to act. Take annual and pay reports. Shareholders should be able to use them as a kind of report card so they can see how well their money is being spent. But, you’ve read them, many – not all, but many – are impenetrable texts: obscuring rather than illuminating. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of facts, figures, charts and graphs. Plenty of information but nowhere – nowhere – a simple, clear single figure showing who gets paid what; Or a simple summary of where the money goes – how much is spent on directors, how much on dividends, or re-invested into the business.

That information is absolutely essential for any investor trying to calculate value for money. Some companies do much better on making it transparent and easy to understand, but not enough.
And where companies bury it – that is deeply cynical.

So the Coalition will force companies to open up their books, so that investors don’t need an accountancy degree to decipher them. We are looking at a range of ways of increasing transparency, but here are two very simple changes:

One: shareholders will only need to look at one number, not a dozen, to see how generously top executives are being paid, and they will need a clear policy in place for departing CEOs so that, if they deviate from that policy, and if a hefty payment is made for failure, that decision is up in lights.

Two: the way money is spent will need to be crystal clear. So if a company is spending too much on boardroom pay compared to the amount being reinvested in the business, they will have to explain why: show investors where their money is going. That’s how to unlock shareholder power.

But it’s not just shareholder power that matters. Ultimately investors seek profits, just like executives expect high pay. Some enlightened shareholders might see the benefits of a well-rewarded workforce, but the people best placed to look after the interests of staff are staff. And that is what, so far, has been missing from this debate: ordinary people.

In an open society, a liberal society, people don’t just hold more power in politics, but in the economy too. And, over time, empowering workers can have a hugely transformative effect over corporate culture. People want to work in companies which are dynamic, but they also value stability. They want firms that secure big profits, but not at any cost. They believe that effort and achievement should be rewarded above all else.

Aren’t those precisely the values everyone is now clamouring for businesses to hold?

There are, of course, a range of ways employees can be given a louder voice.
More rights, for example: like the new right to request flexible working and more flexible parental leave – to name just two.

But today I want to focus specifically on employee ownership, a touchstone of liberal economic thought for a century and a half.

John Stuart Mill hoped that employee-owned firms could end what he called the ‘standing feud between capital and labour’ and liberals have been championing it ever since. Because we don’t believe our problem is too much capitalism: we think it’s that too few people have capital. We need more individuals to have a real stake in their firms.

More of a John Lewis economy, if you like.

And, what many people don’t realise about employee ownership is that it is a hugely underused tool in unlocking growth.

I don’t value employee ownership because I believe it is somehow “nicer” - a more pleasant alternative to the rest of the corporate world. Those are lazy stereotypes. Firms that have engaged employees, who own a chunk of their company, are just as dynamic, just as savvy, as their competitors. In fact, they often perform better: lower absenteeism, less staff turnover, lower production costs. In general, higher productivity and higher wages. They weathered the economic downturn better than other companies.

Is employee ownership a panacea? No. Does it guarantee a company will thrive? Of course not. But the evidence and success stories cannot be ignored, and we have to tap this well if we are serious about growth. The 80s was the decade of share ownership. I want this to be the decade of employee share ownership.

Now that’s a big ambition, I know. And it won’t happen overnight. But it won't happen at all without Government taking a lead, so I am kickstarting a drive in Government to get employee ownership into the bloodstream of the British economy.

We’re already doing this in the public sector, though the work of the Mutuals Taskforce, under Julian le Grand, and work being led by Francis Maude. And, of course, the radical reform of the Royal Mail - on that, I’d like to pay special tribute to Ed Davey. Governments have been grappling with the future of the Royal Mail for decades. Under Ed’s stewardship it will finally be transformed into an organisation in which staff have a meaningful stake. And now I've asked Ed to turn his hand to employee ownership in the private sector too.

Working with professional bodies and businesses, the Coalition is going to find out where the barriers are, so that we can knock them down. Do staff and business owners know enough about employee ownership? Are the accountants and lawyers who advise them taught enough about it? Is there red tape we can cut? Does the tax system treat these firms fairly? Do we need an off-the-peg model so that more ordinary people take this up?

We’ll appoint an independent adviser - an expert in the field – to help us find the answers and solutions to these kinds of questions, which will be brought together at a Summit I will chair in the summer.

Crucial to all of this, of course, will be encouraging take up. One option, to give you an idea, could be giving employees a new, universal “Right to Request” shares. Imagine: an automatic opportunity for every employee to seek to enter into a share scheme, enjoying the tax benefits that come with it, taking what for many people might seem out of their reach, and turning it into a routine decision. Clearly the details of that kind of policy need to be properly thought through. We need to establish which companies would and wouldn't benefit - it might not be feasible for microbusiness, for example. But we need to start by thinking big: not asking ‘why?’, but asking 'why not?' Looking across the board – tax, regulation, simplicity, awareness - to help more of these companies flourish, in order to put more employees at the helm.

And that brings me to the thought I want to end on today: economic power in more hands.

As the debate on a more responsible capitalism moves forward, Liberals will remain set on that goal:

An end to crony capitalism, where vested interests trump the national interest. A better balance of power, in the economy - and between politics and business. That is the route to a safer, more stable, more prosperous economic future. This is how we will spread wealth and share rewards.

A more responsible capitalism. A more liberal capitalism.

Thank you.

Stephen Williams: Miliband talks while Liberal Democrats deliver

“Ed Miliband is confused and inconsistent. He now says that he supports Government cuts, having spent the last 18 months opposing and voting against almost every single one.

“He says he wants to clamp down on vested interests while his party is bankrolled by the unions, and end crony capitalism when it was his Government that let the banks run riot and allowed corporate pay to spiral.

“But most notably he still refuses to admit that Labour got it wrong on the economy.

“While Ed Miliband talks, Liberal Democrats are cleaning up Labour’s mess and delivering in Government what we championed for years in opposition.

“We’re cutting taxes for the lowest earners, protecting pensioners and giving every child a fair start through the pupil premium, whilst targeting unfairness at the top by clamping down on tax avoidance, corporate pay and hitting the banks with a £2.5bn bank levy.”

Tim Farron: Ed Balls’ admission better late than never

“After nearly two years of opposing every saving the Coalition Government has made at least Ed Balls has finally admitted there is a deficit problem.

“However, he still refuses to take any responsibility for Labour’s 13 years in power where they failed to balance the books and get to grips with reckless behaviour in the City, even when he was City Minister.

“Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government are doing the right thing, taking the difficult decisions to protect Britain from the same fate as some euro zone countries while at the same time pursuing progressive policies such as reducing taxes for the lowest earners, making sure pensioners get a fair deal and providing a fair start for every child through the pupil premium.

“Ed Balls’ admission is better late than never, but he and Labour still owe Britain an apology for 13 years of poor government and 18 months of lies in opposition.”