Female Representation and Quotas.

Kay Adams, BBC Radio Scotland

It was the Call Kaye show on Radio Scotland that got me thinking.  The episode on 8^th March, International Woman’s Day (or as I like to call it to tease Mrs V., International Female Comrades’ Day) and the topic was quotas for the FTSE 100 companies when it came to female representation, should they have quotas in the boardroom?  Apparently in Norway they have introduced a forty percent quota for board-level female representation, with companies simply having to obey the law.  This compares with the current situation - fifteen percent of directors of FTSE100 companies are woman.

Hold on, I thought to myself.  We Liberal Democrats are not exactly shining when it comes to women representation in Westminster.  In the parliament prior to 2010, fifteen percent of our MPs were female but in 2010 this fell to twelve percent.  Part of this is undoubtedly an artefact of the rotten voting system: our percentage of the overall vote rose but the total number of our MPs actually fell from 63 down to 57.   Even allowing for this, the figures are not good.  The party is addressing the issue with a new Leadership scheme which is special training not only for women but for all minorities in the party.  As a middle-aged white guy I naturally do not qualify to take part so there is already positive discrimination taking place.  The key question though is “is it enough?”  I think the answer is “no”.

I forget who the guests were on the radio show but these learned ladies reckoned that at the current rates it would take seventy years for parity of representation to be reached.  I am certain that we all agree that is nowhere near good enough.  The Norwegian scheme was criticised for been too much too soon.  In order to conform to the law, it was alleged that some companies had to create previously non-existing posts, effectively as window dressing.  One problem that they identified that there currently is not enough women currently in middle-management.   It seems to me that both politics and business have a shared problem.

My suggestion therefore is this.  Instead of having a radical jump towards quotas, introduce them in stages.  For instance, if among publically-listed companies the average board representation is fifteen percent, the first step should be to twenty five percent.  After five years that increases to thirty five percent and at ten years up to the maximum of forty five percent – actually higher than the Norwegian total and it would give time to large companies to recruit and train the necessary numbers of females for the right posts.  Here’s the rub though – political parties but most especially the Liberal Democrats should be doing the same.  If legislation was introduced before the 2015 election, we would have effective parity of representation by 2025, both in the boardroom and in parliament.

Liberal Democrats will be seen to be practicing what we preach and, it could be said, this turkey is voting for Christmas.  Or as I prefer, trying to make life fairer for all.

Why Nick Clegg is Right about a Tycoon Tax

When I heard of Nick Clegg suggestion on Tycoon Tax I thought “at last!”  In a keynote speech at conference last weekend he made the point that many of the wealthiest people are not paid like you or me.  Rather they draw their emoluments in the form of capital gains or set up shell companies, incorporate their labour and draw wages from there; so instead of paying the individual it becomes a business-to-business transaction which, of course, are taxed at a lower rate.  Nick claimed that this means that some of the highest paid individuals are paying less than 20% tax upon what are really wages, no matter how they dress things up.

Now since the crash both Labour and the Coalition have taken steps to close loopholes but I think Nick’s suggestion is valuable for several reasons.  The first one being that it provides a minimum level of taxation, no matter how many smart lawyers and accountants an individual can afford to employ.  The richest will pay a fair share of their tax.  This is an innovation in UK tax policy because previously relief has always been targeted, hence the ability of many to exploit the loopholes.

Now it might startle a few of you but I am now going to advocate that the minimum rate of taxation should be 35%.  Why is this?  When I was living in Norway (which at the time had the highest standard of living in the world) individuals were heavily taxed with personal rates of up to 60%.  At the highest threshold however, at the time set at £300,000 or so, taxation reverted back down to 20% on all income after this with all loopholes being closed.  The explanation was that in Sweden in the 1970s there was no drop for the highest earners who were taxed at rates above 70% and this hurt business.  I too remember the “brain-drain” from the UK in the 1970s, with many of our nation’s most talented people seeking work abroad.  They joined many ex-pat tycoons who chose to hide from Labour’s top rate of income tax of 83%.  Statistic shows that on average people on super-earnings paid 35% tax.  It is a rate that is currently acceptable to many and sets a good benchmark for all.

There has to be a balance so I would suggest this:

• ·        The fifty pence tax rate be retained for earnings over £150,000 and up to £500,000.  The usual tax relief on pensions etc are available.

• ·        Above £500,000 there is a flat rate tax of 35%.  No loopholes or concessions are acceptable.

One more thing I would look at is non-domicile status.  At this time I understand that if one is a non-dom, if the HMRC receives £30,000 then that is that.  There may be a case for Vince Cable’s Mansion Tax for such people.  Otherwise I still think that the Liberal Democrat policy of local-income tax is ultimately the right way to go.

As a final thought, wouldn’t it be nice if the principle of minimum taxation would be introduced to some of our richest companies such as Vodafone and Sky?

Why the Army is Wrong for London.

I tweeted the following tonight:

Disappointed by how many of my fellow Liberal Democrats are calling for the Army and water cannon. Property can be replaced: lives cannot.

It got a fair amount of reaction(!). So here are my reasons in a fuller form:

The army is not the police. They are trained to kill and not to use non-fatal force with due restraint.

The vast majority of the rioting is criminal and not political but there are political elements who would delight to see blood flowing in the streets of London due to the over-reaction of the State. They should not be given another Peterloo or Bloody Sunday.

The army on the streets of Northern
Ireland did not deter rioting nor succeed in keeping the peace.

The deployment of the army would increase the the chance of deaths and not decrease it.

Mobilise the police on a national basis to ensure that the Met has the manpower and resources necessary to regain control of the capital.

Straighten Up and Fly Right

That did not go to plan did it. The devastating results of the Scottish elections for we Liberal Democrats were partially expected but perhaps not to that full extent. In Edinburgh Eastern, I polled twelve percent down and a casual cast around showed this to be about average. Even in seats that were strongly contested with everything thrown into the fight, we were lucky to avoid a double-digit drop. What went wrong?

Let’s give due credit. The SNP ran a good campaign. Labour on the other hand ran a shockingly bad one. Liberal Democrats worked hard, as usual, and Tavish Scott actually came across well to the public. I know this because that was the feedback I was getting on the doorstep.


During the general election of 2010, we Liberal Democrats campaigned on the grounds of “we’re different.” Tories and Labour were the “same two old tired parties.” Nick Clegg was simply brilliant in the televised debates. The media was in a frenzy; not just with our performance but with the possibility of a hung parliament. Lo! It duly arrived but not how the public thought it would be. Instead of a Labour / Libdem pact, the current Coalition emerged.

Labour, never shy when it comes to negative campaigning, turned their guns upon us. The press, both left and right-wing followed because hate sells. And their combined campaign has obviously succeeded. We have become hate figures, even among some of our own supporters.

Not only that, we were not shy in self-inflicted injuries. The tuition fees increase is a policy that we introduced, piloted by the trusted Vince Cable and championed by Nick Clegg. The two most high profile people we have therefore led it. As critics at the time pointed out, the headline was a tripling of tuition fees in England. As I pointed out at the time, if we went with this we would lose all credibility: it was a policy that we diametrically opposed during the election. Pretty well all of our Westminster candidates signed the National Union of Students pledge of no increase to student fees. It does not matter one jot that the majority of our backbenchers in the House of Commons voted against it. Nick and Vince backed it therefore we, as a party were seen to back it. In the most public and obvious fashion we Liberal Democrats broke our word.

From Thursday night’s results it is clear that the SNP, although not shy at breaking promises themselves, are the beneficiaries of the combination of the negative campaign against us and our own mistakes in government. Next time somebody says that Westminster politics has no bearing upon the Scottish parliamentary elections, kick them. Then kick them again on my behalf. The SNP succeeded at our expense (and at Labour's) because they are simply not tainted with the “same old politics” of Westminster. That is how we were in April 2010.
Okay, so here we are. Rock bottom. What can we do to turn this around?

We have to look at technical details. Perhaps our excellent campaigning techniques are designed for opposition politics and not for government? Just a thought to throw out there. The main thing we have to do is from now on, match words to deeds.

To this end I have come up with The Liberal Test for any policy. In my view, government is there to serve the people and allow them to make real, effective decisions as close to the issue as possible. In addition, we are here to enable people to better themselves, their families and their own communities.

Therefore there are four questions we have to ask of any policy:


Will it encourage a person to advance in life?


 Does it reduce the burden of the state upon that person?



Will more power be devolved from central government?



In bringing forward this policy, are we keeping our word?


Failure of a positive answer for any of these questions does not necessarily mean that the policy falls. But alarm bells should ring if two or more results in negative answers. For instance, the tuition fees increase fails on at least three counts.


Why is this important? There is more at play here than the future of the Liberal Democrat party. In Scotland especially but in the UK in general, liberalism itself is under threat. Both the SNP and Labour are authoritarian in nature and wish to centralise power, whether in Edinburgh or Westminster. The Conservatives, while talking about being liberal, seldom are able to walk-the-walk. Witness David Cameron’s speech on immigration and freedom of association he made in Germany a few months ago. He thinks he is a liberal but he is not. To a Conservative, the only good liberal is a classical liberal economist.


I have mentioned honouring our word several times now. What does that mean for the Coalition? Simple: it means sticking with it. As a party, we backed this in a special conference. We enter it in good faith and we continue to act so because we gave our word and commitment to this. That does not mean however that we are not being able to seen to disagree with our partners. We have to not only to be liberal, we have to be seen to be liberal. And that means public disagreement; not for show but because it is sincerely meant. We should not be afraid to stand up for what we believe in.
I used to joke that we had to hard: “It’s going to be liberal whether they like it or not.” Now I am not joking. Politically we live or die by our beliefs and how our words match our actions. Both voice and deed have to be liberal, democratic and true to our word. Anything else will simply not do.

And So The Tragedy Continues...

It has been a sad couple of weeks.

The events that unfolded in Japan following their 9.0 earthquake have been truly horrifying. Many terrible images were presented and repeated on global television screens. The death toll, in main due to the tsunami, continues to rise as hope evaporate for finding those missing. I have not yet been to Japan but my father was a frequent visitor who loved the country, so it is with deep emotion I view the horrors that have come to pass. This horror have only been compounded by the effects of the disaster on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. I am not an expert on power stations but have received training on handling radioactive material and the effects of radioactive particles on the human body. Any enhancement above natural levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs in particular is not a joke: people will die through cancer because of it but since the effects will only be evident in statistics, they can usually be ignored by those who continue to support the use of nuclear energy. I always viewed nuclear power as the source of last resort; now I have to come out totally against it’s usage for large-scale energy generation. We will always have nuclear reactors; for instance their products are often have medical applications but we should not design facilities that if they fail, the potential for catastrophe is simply too great.

This morning we awoke to the news of air-strikes against Libya. Yes Gaddafi has proved himself to be a killer and now must fall but I have to be critical of the way that Foreign Secretary William Hague has handled the situation. The purpose of the no-fly zone should have been to allow violence to stop and not to escalate further thus allowing politics to re-establish itself. Since Hague came out for full regime-change this was simply no longer an option. Europe might as well as declared war on Libya from that point onwards.

Let me explain why.

Some of you might recall a blog I wrote in September 2009, Lockerbie: Business as Usual. http://tinyurl.com/6bk6ore . That blog put the decision of the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into context as I outlined the strategic nature of British and European links with Libya and why the Al Megrahi case wouldn’t, couldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of Europe’s quest for natural gas that does not originate in Russia.. That is still the case so how could Britain maintain relations once regime-change has been called for? It would also explain why France has been so quick of the mark on this occasion. Germany on the other hand has stood back. I wonder if this has anything to do with renewed exploration for small-scale gas-fields in Poland?

Gaddafi has proved himself to be a terrible ruler and in doing so encouraged those who wish to see him overthrown bring full military weight to bear. He had nothing to loose when turning to the Chinese and Russians as potential energy partners, as he did this week. My guess was any such offer would have been also an attempt to gain a veto from either or both in the UN Security Council.

As for the people of Libya, let me quote a friend of mine who was evacuated from there a few weeks back. To put it in context, he was responding to John Kerry’s call for sanctions against the Gaddafi regime.

“I am an American trying to get out of Tripoli. Your suggestion of sanctions against Libya will only create hardship for the good people of Libya. History has already shown sanctions of such only creates hardship for the wrong people. Please refrain from such suggestions until the crisis days are over and the dust settles. Such suggestions at a critical time is blowing smoke in the wrong direction.”

Owing of the trade implications for Europe and investment already made by BP, trade sanctions were never an option. The situation has to end now in the overthrow of Gaddafi.

The smoke is now blowing for real. My guess that the five nations involved in the attacks will be satisfied with an Egyptian-style military take-over. As long as the investments are protected.
I hope that it will be soon over and that the people of Libya will be in control of their own destiny and be free in their own country with minimum of casualties.

"Well, what would you do?" Vince Cable's question on Tuition Fees

There has indeed been much heart-wrung anguish among us Liberal Democrats on the issue of student tuition fees and plenty of opportunity for opponents to join in giving us a kicking. Hard for us, fun for them but I don’t hear many alternatives being put forward by either friend or foe.
Instead of flailing out in anger against party colleagues who support the rise in fees, truly I understand and salute the bravery of those being seen to be able to take a hard decision in the face of terrible abuse and opposition. I could not share that decision though.
It is still the policy of the Liberal Democrat party to abolish student tuition fees, not that many will believe that now. Now is it not my intention to keep this particular wound open but we need a mechanism to bring this about and what follows is my outline suggestion.


The current argument is that students should pay because they are the ones that benefit from the education. My point is that they are not the only ones. The businesses that hire graduates also benefit from their abilities and (tend to) pay graduates extra in recognition of this.
What if instead of taxing the graduates, the employers are taxed, say, one percent of the gross amount paid to their graduate employees?

This levy would be payable against all graduate employees and not just new graduates, therefore taking away the argument that those before are taking up the ladder behind them.

Because it is levied on all graduate employees, it doesn't matter where the person graduated from. So foreign graduates working in the UK would be contributing to our university system.

The levy would have to be a percentile of earnings because if it was a fixed amount, a librarian would end up paying the same as a hedge-fund manager.

Some would say that this is a hidden graduate tax and in a way it is as over time business would doubtless reduce graduate pay to cover the charge of the levy. But it is very rare that people emigrate for the sake of one percent and owing to the fact that the levy would not appear on pay slips, most people would know that it is there but it would not be strongly emotive about it.

Arguments against would be increased costs on business but over time pay would be adjusted to reflect this cost - as discussed above.

Another case would be those students who already are repaying their student tuition fees. Obviously upon introduction the repayments on student tuition would be frozen and probably the outstanding debt cancelled.

Because it is a percentile levy, some will undoubtedly end up paying more for their tuition than others owing to the predicted depression in wages. These will be the highest paid though so there is an element of wealth redistribution in the policy.

Some jobs would have to be exempt and these would be jobs which are not usually performed by graduates but in which individuals are employed. For instance, factory workers in non-graduate posts, catering and some agricultural work. This is perhaps the trickiest element as it provides loopholes for employers but it is necessary because not all graduates do end up in high-flying careers and they should be able to compete on an equal basis for non-graduate jobs.

The self-employed would have to pay the levy as there would be otherwise a loophole which would allow employers to contract work to the self-employed who are in reality employees in all but name.

So, to my mind a fair system that delivers on our promise of no student tuition fees and guarantees finance for a top-draw tertiary education and research system.

I would welcome discussion on this issue and have published the kernel of this argument on the relevent page of Lib Dem Act - just press on the title for the link.

UNA NATO's New Strategic Concept and Global Zero.

The United Nations Association – Edinburgh , One Day Conference on NATO’s New Strategic Concept and Global Zero was held on 1st of November 2010 at the Scottish Parliament. It was a very enlightening day in many regards, sometimes not in the way that the speakers meant however.

After the introduction by Dr. Gari Donn, first speaker of the day was Lord David Hannay; chair of the United Nations Association and former ambassador to the UN. His broad scope were the challenges, past and present facing NATO. In terms of current nuclear threats, Hannay focused upon North Korea and Iran. It was clear from a paper provided with the conference papers that Iran has been doing their best to derail the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference held this year so there is something in what he says. In response to my later suggestion, that when it comes to nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, should not the regional aspects be considered and their own and their rivals security concerns be taken into account? Lord Hannay decided to talk exclusively about Iran and North Korea in this context. He would not even mention the state of Israel by name and assured the meeting that the only nuclear security concern that Iran had was the USA. A quite remarkable statement.

Lord Hannay did offer a nine step programme to forward multi-lateral disarmament however. In brief they were:

1. Ratification of the test-ban treaty by the US Senate
2. Negotiation of further reductions of strategic nuclear capacity between the USA and Russia, with the involvement of France, Britain and China (the P5 nations)
3. Start of talks over Russian sub-strategic nuclear missile capacity in Europe
4. Progression of de-alert doctrines. This refers to the state of readiness that nuclear weapons are held in.
5. Fissile cut-off treaty. This would the cutting back on nations’ capability to enrich uranium in exchange for non-enriched uranium to be readily available for the promotion of national civilian nuclear power projects. Hannay indicates that in recent years Pakistan has been the major stumbling block on this project.
6. The Fissile cut-off treaty is a necessary precursor to a global test ban treaty
7. Middle East nuclear-free zone, with the first conference taking place in 2012
8. Strengthening the monitoring of global production by the IAEA
9. Acceleration of Norway’s VERTIC verification project.

One would expect many of these points to be raised at NATO’s 10 year review conference of nuclear strategy to be held in Lisbon later this month.

Going back to Iran for a moment, it is my view that when it comes to the Middle East, Israel’s nuclear capacity is the elephant in the room. Naturally I do not in any way support the proliferation of nuclear weapons or Iranian attempts to further their capacity in this area. If one applies the logic of the Cold War though, it could be said that Israel and Iran are regional superpowers and rivals. If one side has nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable for the other to attempt to gain a similar capacity in order to bring about a status of MAD – mutually assured destruction. The fact that one side has nuclear weapons will only drive other nations to attempt to develop their own.

Now I am not going to provide a précis of every speaker as that really is the role of the UNA reportage. Another highlight for me though was the Russian delegation led by Vadim Mitrofanov, head of Foreign Policy at the Embassy of the Russian Federation. He expressed Russian disappointment that NATO was not disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact but, perhaps more pertinently, Russia’s commitment to further disarmament talks with the USA and working in partnership with NATO. On the matter of the sub-strategic nuclear capacity, Mr Mitrofanov said that talks had not started yet but they simply could not decide this matter bilaterally with the USA. The reason for this is clear. In Europe the US has stationed 200 B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs, deployed by US and other NATO (German, Dutch, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Turkish) air forces under burden-sharing agreements. (In military terms nuclear gravity weapons are obsolete although fair to say the use of a single bomb would spoil a lot of peoples’ day.) There were various numbers given for Russian capability but the minimum cited was 2000 short and medium-range nuclear weapons. I took the liberty of following up this Russian position in a round-table session and the Russian Consul General Sergey Krutikov was pleased to clarify the position. Russia desires to see a nuclear-free Europe. Therefore in order to achieve that, not only would the Russian and American weapons would have to go but also those of Britain and France.

On Russia in broader terms, it certainly felt like it is NATO 28 + 1. It is clear that a lot of effort is being put into bringing Russia into the fold, if not as full members but certainly as “super-partners” as the new American terminology has it. This concept was unfurled to us by Dana (pronounced “Daina”) M. Linnet of the US Consulate. She did have a lot of good things to say; on how the USA is working to increase transparency in nuclear issues, are working hard to broaden the concepts of deterrents away from being just nuclear-based and enlarging shared risks and commitments. Along with former defence secretary Lord Des Browne, other nations were berated for not working harder with President Obama in order to further these and other worthy ends. One has to say the effect was rather spoiled by one impertinent fellow sticking up his hand at question time and asking of Dana “What would President Palin do?” It led to some back-tracking and statements such as (from Browne) “even those Republicans who think would back this issue” but the point was well made. After Bush’s dismantling of international agreements in 2005 and the Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the test-ban treaty in front of them, the general intransigent nature of US politics is an international problem. In that respect both Linnet and Browne are correct: Obama does offer a window of opportunity.

The day was very useful in terms of answering the question raised on these pages as who actually controls Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Rebekah Grenowski reported she was summarily put down by Rebecca Johnson of ACRONYM when the former raised this issue. Johnson assured Rebekah that the ownership of Trident was the subject of a bilateral UK-US agreement. This statement is backed up by the response to our letter to Nick Harvey. However, the issue of NATO strategic control was not contradicted by others in round-table meetings. It seems to me therefore that it is not a question of which is right or wrong, rather there is a double-lock on nuclear deployment. Bilateral agreements with the USA backed up with NATO unanimity – which also involves the USA. I feel this matter requires further clarification. It is probably the case though that in reality UK defence spending is bound totally to NATO commitments, thus casting light upon Hillary Clinton's recent intervention on the UK's Strategic Defence and Security review.

I only touched upon some of the matters raised on the day. When the UNA put up their full report I will post the link. It was a very worthwhile day and I am grateful for the chance to attend but sometimes the truth of any matter is deliberately obscure and the more I learn about nuclear weapons, the greater I have that feeling.