The Daily (Maybe)

Remember kids the Lib Dems don't care whether you vote yes or no in today's elections, they only care how many of their colleagues fail to get elected. The best way to punish the Lib Dems in Scotland is to ensure they come in fifth behind the Greens.

However, one question that will be much discussed in the coming days as the Lib Dem stretcher bearers take away the remains of their fallen comrades is... will Nick Clegg, the most hated political leader in the UK, resign as leader of his party?

Well, the answer is no, because his sort never go quietly - but the New Statesman does have a very handy pull out section from the Lib Dem rules on how to get rid of the leader. The important section is as follows;

"(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of all
Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons;

"(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75 Local
Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated Organisation or
Organisations representing youth and/or students) following the decision of a
quorate general meeting; "

Well, (e) seems very unlikely but I wonder about (f)... after an election that's more than bruising up and down the country the question is will the yellow grassroots continue to put up with Clegg's leadership?

It's unlikely that anything can save the party from its inevitable destruction now, despite the resilience of the activists in a very hostile political environment. They do still have a choice though. Go out with honour, by their own hand, or be suffocated in the night, unnoticed and despised.

7 comments Labels: Lib Dems

For those to the south of the Scottish border you may not have heard of a gentleman by the name of Tavish Scott. He's the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats who are, it appears, heading for an inglorious drubbing at the polls this May.

Here Scott is quizzed about his party's prospects on the Scottish Newsnight, or Newsnicht as they say in these parts. Car crash TV in its purest form.



Tavish does a number of things here. First of all he tries to pretend that the Scottish Lib Dems are quite separate from their southern cousins. This despite the fact that Clegg was warmly welcomed at their recent conference and that the Lib Dem MPs returned from Scotland have an identical voting record as all the rest of them.

The same broken pledges, the same attempts to blame everyone except themselves for their own actions and the same dismal poll ratings. It simply feels incredibly dishonest to try to disown a government that Lib Dem MPs in Scotland are enthusiastic members of.

Tavish also manages to say that even their plans for Scottish Water (a plan to refinance debt for a short-term cash sum paid back with interest by the tax payer) which are the centre piece of their campaign is something that they'd ditch at a moment's notice if someone, anyone, would only go into coalition with them.

I think Lib Dem voters deserve something better than this.

In fact it's the failure to take responsibility for any policy or decision that I think is the worse thing of all here. This is exemplified by the way that the closure of A and Es is blamed on Labour, even though the Lib Dems were in coalition government with them and supported the policy at the time.

Tavish then says that although Lib Dem policy is now different, the fact that Labour have changed their policy as well is some kind of disgraceful U-turn. It's one of the most incoherent defences of a party's position I've ever seen.

Some people are thinking that a No vote in the referendum is the best way to punish the Lib Dems for their shoddy coalition. I don't agree. The best way to punish them is to make sure they are beaten by the Greens on the list vote. That is where it will really hurt the Lib Dems, lost seats round the table, after all no one really gives a damn about AV anyway.

3 comments Labels: Holyrood2011, Lib Dems

Although I'm sure I slip now and then I'm very unkeen on the demonisation of individuals in politics. It always seems to play into a tribal and unthinking approach, where the baddies do bad things because they're bad and, because we oppose them, all things we do are somehow by definition good, even when they're counter-productive or rubbish.

link[i-link]

Clegg: second from left

However, along came Clegg and he does make it bloody hard not to hate him as an individual. He just seems to lack any moral center what-so-ever. There are Lib Dems I have respect for David Howarth and Bob Russell to name a couple, but it's true that their yellow standard is so tainted I find the organisation hard to stomach.

Last week he was interviewed by Jemima Khan and the man was unable to tell the truth about even the simplest matters. When asked about his personal relationship with his boss, David Cameron, he said “We don't regard each other as mates and actually I don't think it would be a particularly healthy thing if we tried to become personal mates".

What a thing to say about one of your work mates? Especially when you've said you don't disagree with them on anything. No wonder the Tories are annoyed at the way the Lib Dems seem to be attacking their coalition partners even whilst agreeing with all of their policies.

However, on hearing that Clegg  has a purely business relationship with the big man and thinks getting close to him would be unhealthy, she expresses surprise and asks don't they play tennis together? Clegg replies "No, no – well, er, I think we've played one game of tennis. Of course we meet from time to time but it's always basically to talk about what we're doing in government."

What an oily little tic. Disowning his friends in public because he thinks they might make him unpopular (note to Clegg: Cameron is more popular than you, not less), pretending he only meets them for work and then when he's pulled up on it his first instinct is to deny it. Only when he realises he could easily be caught out lying does he change tack and own up.


These little things are the mark of what kind of man someone is. There are no two politically closer individuals in politics than Nick Clegg and David Cameron - at least have the honesty and integrity to stand with your friends, even if everyone else thinks you're an idiot for it.

2 comments Labels: Lib Dems

Let no one tell you that the Lib Dems are the cuddly part of the Coalition. Some would have you think they are the grizzled fur rather than the yellowed teeth of this rabid dog, but when it comes to the number one issue of the day, public services, the parties are of one mind.

Vince-Cable111[i-Vince-Cable111]Take a look at Vince Cable's recent Trade and Industry speech at Mansion House. Once he was the darling of the liberal establishment, what's he got to say about his achievements so far?

Well, he begins with the things he's really proud of " We have succeeded where our predecessors failed with a clear programme to stabilise and privatize the Royal Mail. We have put in place unprecedented higher education reforms. I could go on." But we hope you don't Vince.

He chillingly then outlines what his plans for government are; "We know business wants action, not words. That is why... we embarked on a Growth Review, an exercise every bit as rigorous and challenging as its spending equivalent. It has challenged every department to get behind the growth agenda, critically examining every policy that might get in the way or hold back our vision for private sector recovery."

So every government department has been challenged to harness itself to the needs of the private sector rather than, say, delivering a good service to disabled people or teaching kids to read and write. So the Department for Health has to get behind the 'growth agenda' ensuring it doesn't hold back 'our' vision for private sector recovery... glad no one is getting sick these days then.

He wants to "encourag[e] what Keynes called the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurs." That's quite interesting as I had a vague feeling I remember something about this, so I quickly dug up the Keynes quote...

"Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits - a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities."

In other words Cable explicitly endorses something Keynes thought helped cause instability and was a product of 'optimism' rather than analysis. I wont dwell on this, he wont be the first, nor last politician to find a natty phrase regardless of its actual original meaning.

So let's move on to regulation. Most thinking people agree that the financial sector needs to have firmer regulation to prevent another financial sector crisis, or at least ameliorate it when it comes. They also happen to see that Barclays pay just 1% in Corporation Tax and think "Bloody hell, literally the richest are paying the least." So, what does this progressive have to say about regulating these loose dogs?

"Successive governments have made ritual commitments to reducing red tape but have added to it, inconveniencing businesses large and small." and then...

"Within my own department I have already taken action, to remove regulations which impede the ability of businesses to expand and take on people. This includes a review of labour market regulation specifically to stop cases reaching employment tribunals without a prior attempt at reconciliation and restricting access for unfair dismissal cases to the employed for two years rather than one."

So restricting workers access to employment tribunals and reducing their rights at work. How progressive of that cuddlesome Mr Cable! He goes on " Another useful step forward has been the steps we have taken to stop “gold plating” EU regulations and fight damaging regulatory impositions from the EU like the Working Time Directive."

He then talks about planning regulations being a barrier to growth, and how in the finance sector "My first priority was to ensure that the rapid deleveraging should not choke off, or make prohibitively expensive, the supply of credit to good British companies, especially SMEs."

This Growth Review he's outlining sounds more like the driver of a runaway train putting his foot on the gas. At the very time when the public have started to demand better regulation, and for business to pay its way Cable's emphasis is to advocate liassez faire capitalism without addressing why the crash happened in the first place. In fact he himself summarises his approach as "robust and unsentimental withdrawal of Government from unnecessary interference."

Jeezo.

dcameron_thumbsup[i-dcameron_thumbsup]So Cameron must be saying something even worse. Nope. He's singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

At the Conservative spring forum he launched an attack on public sector workers in Whitehall and town halls who were the "enemies of enterprise". He denounced the "the bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules and regulations that make life impossible".

When it comes to commissioning goods and services Cameron says we'll be "throwing open the bidding process to every single business in our country – a massive boost for small businesses, because we want them to win at least a quarter of these deals".

Competition in the NHS is just the tip of the ice burg it seems.

Meanwhile the CBI and the City are lobbying to pull down regulation and end high taxes for the richest. the head of the CBI "urged Vince Cable's Department for Business and Skills to scrap unnecessary regulations and make good its plans to boost exports with the offer of credit guarantees and loans."

I'll end with the Cameron's speech on his arms sales to dictators trip;

"Here's another thing I've personally been doing. Selling Britain to the world.

"You know some people are disdainful about that. They see me loading up a plane with businesspeople and say - that's not statesmanship, that's salesmanship.

"I say: attack all you want. But do you think the Germans and the French and the Americans are all sitting at home waiting for business to fall into their lap? ...

"So let met tell you: while there are contracts to be won, jobs to be created, markets to be defended - I will be there ...

"I'll be there not just because it's my job, not just because it's my duty, more than that - because I passionately believe - no, I know that this country can out-compete, out-perform, out-hustle the best in the world."

He boasts about "loading up a plane with business people"? I thought he was spreading democracy, no? At the very least I assumed he'd say it was a coincidence but he's right out there implying they maybe didn't even want to come and he's there "loading" them onto the plane, he's forcing them to sell their guns and bombs to people who really, really may need them very soon.

He passionate believes that we can "out-hustle" the best in the world. I agree, but think we must be stopped. This vision for UK PLC where every public body is chained to the needs of business is utterly horrifying to me and frankly I think would be an historic crime if allowed to happen.

7 comments Labels: Economics, Lib Dems, Tories

Scan courtesy of Darren Johnson.

dUUTwI[i-dUUTwI]

4 comments Labels: Elections, Fun, Lib Dems

It's hustings central here at the Daily (Maybe) at the moment, although this one is a change of pace from all that Green Party stuff. I'm based in Edinburgh at the moment and in the upcoming Holyrood elections the Greens stand on the second, proportional representation, ballot paper but not in the First Past the Post constituency lists.

This presents people like me, who'd naturally vote Green on any ballot paper put in front of them, with a dilemma - which of the other main parties to vote for? I could, of course, spoil my ballot but I've never been quite that tribal. While there are disturbing similarities between the parties some candidates are always going to be better than others.

To help resolve this conundrum I wrote to the four candidates for Edinburgh Central with three simple questions. They're busy people so an in-depth questionnaire was unlikely to get any response.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats (in that order) got back to me really quickly with very friendly emails. I heard nothing from the Tory, even after a follow-up email, although in fairness his answers would have had to have been pretty damn good to get on my short list!

Labour's candidate didn't get back to me but someone else did with a terse email asking for my address. I'm not quite sure why that was necessary but I supplied it anyway - that was the last I heard from them. My vote's clearly not worth very much to her then, at least not as much as knowing my address is.

Anyway, thanks to Marco Biagi of the SNP and Alex Cole-Hamilton of the Liberal Democrats for their responses. Here's what they had to say, both really interesting I thought - for different reasons.

marco%2Bbiagi[i-marco%2Bbiagi]1) The cuts are dominating the headlines at the moment. Are you in favour of using the Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers to off set job losses and protect public services? If so please do give a specific example.

I support fair and progressive taxation. The existing income tax power is neither. As Holyrood can only change the base rate the burden would fall on virtually all those earning. A 1p rise in the Scottish Variable Rate would mean a £60 per year for a full-time minimum wage worker - and frankly people working for £5.93 an hour 40 hours a week should be paying less tax and not more.

Even using the full 3p of the power would not have been enough to cancel the £1.3bn cut happening just this year. The SVR was intended never to be usable and its designers did their job well. Don't even get me started on Council Tax. It was invented by a Conservative Party who were trying to go as little distance as possible from their beloved poll tax and is even more regressive than VAT. Freezing it is progressive but I'd rather replace it entirely.

The Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers however also cover business rates. In the SNP policy team I helped conceive the Large Retailers Levy as a way of trying to find ways to raise revenue from sources who could even now afford to pay a bit more. Unfortunately this fell under yet another alliance of convenience of the other three big parties.

Other revenue options at a local level are worth exploring, such as scaling empty business relief. Personally I also think we should be courageous and make use of the provisions to introduce a carrier bag charge under the Climate Change Act, provided the money goes straight to green jobs schemes. I'd also like to see money that is Scotland's by right - like the Fossil Fuel Levy or consequentials from the London Olympics - coming to Holyrood. Unfortunately when it comes to enforceability the Barnett Convention isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.


2) I received a free education, my Dad was in the same job for almost all his life and it seems that everywhere I look services, like local libraries, are being closed down. are we moving backwards as a society?

There's a trap here of falling into a giant postmodern discussion about the meaning of progress. Yes, there are fewer libraries in the country than fifty years ago but there are more nurseries (as just one example).

Services change based on the demands of the public and their willingness to pay, and many things the government provides now weren't even thought of back then. Employment has changed almost unrecognisably too - more fragmented and less unionised yes, but also with better rights in workplace safety and minimum pay.

Movement though isn't something that should happen *to* people, it should happen because of them. There can be a better future if people are willing to engage and be part of it - and if people go against those who present dystopia in the language of progress (not that I'm thinking of any Big Society in particular).

The SNP restoring free education by abolishing the Graduate Endowment was the embodiment of a group of motivated people choosing to put one their principles into action and reverse a direction of travel - towards ever more charging - that until then had seemed unstoppable. We chose party politics.

Some people prefer to lobby politicians through interest groups, but it's a lot easier to win an argument with an elected representative if that elected representative agrees with you in the first place. And, incidentally, when it comes to free education, wild horses couldn't shift me - no tuition fees. End of story.


3) I'm voting Green on the list. How would you pitch for my vote on the constituency paper?

That question is a bit of an elephant trap and it would be very easy to be cynical. I'm standing for the party that ended PFI, froze an unfair tax, increased the police to record highs and took class sizes down to record lows, restored free and funded higher education, abolished prescription charges, and focused our support for industry on small business and the new, emerging low carbon technologies.

We've done a lot and we'll do even more if and when we're able to make more of the big decisions about the economy, jobs, pensions and our relations with the rest of the world from here in Scotland. That's the same list of achievements I'd give to anyone on a doorstep, and I'd be doing you a disservice as a voter if I did otherwise. We have an environmental record that is second to none, and I'll expound it any time and anywhere you want. But that's not what you asked.

My answer in a nutshell? I think you should vote SNP on both.




alex%2Bcoleh[i-alex%2Bcoleh]1) The cuts are dominating the headlines at the moment. Are you in favour of using the Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers to off set job losses and protect public services? If so please do give a specific example.

We live in unprecedented times, the UK's structural deficit was costing us £120 million a day in interest payments alone, that's the equivalent of ten new primary schools a day going straight into the pockets of international financiers. So whilst I didn't get into politics to make cuts, I recognise that in this instance something had to give. Labour have a nerve when they suggest that the cuts the coalition are making are deliberately targeted at the poor and vulnerable.

By their own admission, they were going to cut public spending by 16% whilst renewing trident and keeping ID cards, the coalition are only cutting 19% but not renewing trident and scrapping ID cards, so under Labour vulnerable groups would have suffered just as much, because they depend disproportionately more on public spending.

With regard to raising tax in Scotland to offset the need to cut public spending, I'm not convinced. With inflation at 4% and the cost of living soaring as a result, the last thing hard up families need is to pay more tax. I do agree however that the poorest should in fact pay less tax. That's why I'm proud that Lib Dems in government in the UK are moving the income tax threshold to £10,000 meaning that over 90,000 Scottish families will soon pay no tax at all.

I think we can be more sophisticated in Scotland about where the cuts fall and it doesn't have to mean job losses or service closures. Public sector pay is a major area that could provide a saving, I think it's outrageous that hundreds of public sector bosses earn more money than the First Minister and with no accountability. Similarly In think that by delivering services in partnership with the voluntary sector, we can do a lot more, more efficiently and for less money.


2) I received a free education, my Dad was in the same job for almost all his life and it seems that everywhere I look services, like local libraries, are being closed down. are we moving backwards as a society?

A lot of the problems we face are being experienced in many developed countries around the world, but they are worsened in the UK by the size of our deficit and the burden of debt repayment we face. But everywhere I see reasons to be cheerful- in the determination of community groups and charities pulling together to get through these difficult times. Sometimes adversity brings out the best in people and you can see that in local campaigns springing up, like the successful campaign to save Dalry swim centre.

We will come out of this slump with a greater sense of community and an understanding that we need to be more responsible with public spending in the future, to me that suggests we are in fact moving forward as a society, despite the problems we face.

With regard to free education, Students in Scotland pay no tuition fees, because the Lib Dems in Government in Scotland scrapped fees after Labour first brought them in. We intend to preserve free education in Scotland as it should be a right and not a privilege.


3) I'm voting Green on the list. How would you pitch for my vote on the constituency paper?

As a Quaker, a voluntary sector worker and a committed environmentalist, I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the green movement. Our manifesto for the forthcoming elections is packed with policy to make our country and our economy more sustainable and cognisant of our responsibilities to the world around us.

This includes a dramatic refocusing of our economy towards the renewable energy sector, something which, if done correctly, could provide thousands of new jobs. We are also committed to the full implementation of the Climate Change Act. The Liberal Democrats were the only major party consistently to argue for the 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and we are proud of the role we played in securing the inclusion of cumulative emissions, sectoral targets and tough annual targets within the Act. Concerted effort is now required to meet those targets, and we recognise that sustained, early action over the course of the next parliamentary session is crucial.

4 comments Labels: Holyrood2011, Lib Dems, Scotland, SNP

Lib Dem MP and deputy leader Simon Hughes has been appointed 'access to higher education Tsar' by the Coalition government.

link[i-link]Hilarious. This follows hot on the heels of his supposedly principled abstention on a bill that he had pledged to oppose.

According to the BBC "During the six-month term, Mr Hughes will go into schools to canvass the concerns of less financially well-off teenagers and devise with them publicity campaigns to persuade as many as possible to consider higher education."

Well, that sounds ace doesn't it? Mr Hughes is going to "devise" a PR campaign. It's brilliant having people with a social conscience in the government isn't it?

In April I was saying nice things about the man, but his refusal to act on his personal pledge and this new role in spinning the government's plans turn those words to ashes in my mouth.

My only wish is that every time Hughes decides to "go into schools" every kid who's had their EMA taken away from them looks him in the eye and dares him to say that they are better off.

7 comments Labels: Education, Lib Dems

If it wasn't for those damn pesky kids the Lib Dems would have got away with it too...

[Loband: Object Removed -]

1 comments Labels: Education, Lib Dems

It appears that the Lib Dems have suspended their process for selecting a candidate for London Mayor "for about a year" due to a lack of decent candidates. Three candidates got through the first short listing process "ex MP Lembit Opik, party stalwart Jeremy Ambache and former Richmond councillor Shas Sheehan."

I was surprised to see that Lewisham councillor Duwaine Brookes was not on the list as he had been making his intentions to stand for the post public for some time. It appears that he did not pass the selection test and his appeal failed. I'm torn on this because he's a well-liked local Lib Dem with a lot to offer, but I suspect he'd have found the race a bruising process as he lacks the experience and weight to be regarded as a serious Mayoral contender.

I also note that Ffloella Benjamin was not on the list which either means the rumours were not true or that she is reluctant and the stalls have been held to give party bigwigs time to persuade her. Speaking with my Green Party hat on it would be terrible if she was the Lib Dem candidate as she'd provide a real breath of fresh air and distance from the previous disastrous Lib Dem Mayoral campaign.

It's interesting that three candidates are not regarded as enough to choose from if they're deemed of sufficient quality to run and I wonder if this will backfire on them if they're going to select so late in the game.

1 comments Labels: Lib Dems, London

If you still need proof that the Lib Dems have moved wildly to the right then I don't know where you've been living. But for those who've been slow to catch up Nick Clegg has told the Lib Dem conference in the clearest possible terms that he does not lead a left wing party.

clegg[i-clegg]For example, in today's Observer, he paints a vivid picture of how influential he is in the coalition, and is responsible for all the core policies. "All the big decisions are jointly taken by David Cameron and myself … that is why I didn't want to have a department, why I am a hop and a skip from his office."

The image of Clegg skipping joyously to meet Cameron to discuss the decimation of public services is positively stomach churning. However it is where he lays out those who have voted Lib Dem from the left that the interview is most revealing.

"Clearly there is a chunk of people who, I totally understand, turned to the Liberal Democrats at the height of Blair's authoritarianism and his fascination with [George] Bush and [Dick] Cheney," Clegg says. "They said, 'Aha! These Liberal Democrats, they are the leftwing party I want. They are the leftwing conscience of the Labour party that I want.

"That was always going to unwind at some point, particularly when Labour went back into opposition and started sloganeering leftwards. Because the vocation of Liberalism is not to be a leftwing ghetto for people disaffected by the Labour party."

But while Clegg is busy making nice with the Tories and basically telling lefties to eff off the Labour Party have begun firing their smart missiles at the yellow peril. The Labour leadership candidates seem to be going out of their way to tell disillusioned Lib Dem voters that they are the party for them. It's extremely curious that Clegg does not seem in the least bit concerned that he may be giving those voters the vital push they need to dessert his party.

Whether those voters turn to Labour, the Greens, the SNP or where ever is yet to be seen, although I suspect a combination of the lot.

Certainly the trade union demonstrators wont need telling that the Lib Dems are not the party for them, which is just as well as they have been banned from approaching the conference centre at all.

2 comments Labels: Lib Dems

Sometimes there are stories that are true, sometimes they are half true and sometimes you just want them to be true. I wonder where the rumours that Charles Kennedy, ex-Lib Dem leader, is thinking of leaving the party and taking other Lib Dem MPs with him falls in that schema?

link[i-link]We know that many activists are unhappy, and some have even left the party. We know from the polls that many more people who lent the Lib Dems their vote last time wont be doing so again.

But we also know that not a single Lib Dem MP voted against the coalition with the Tories, a coalition they went into with their eyes open - no matter how surprised left leaning Lib Dem voters were at the turn of events. Certainly Clegg and Cable look very comfortable with their feet under the big man's table.

I suspect it's over-egging some real grumbling - but who knows? Perhaps the end of the Lib Dems is nearer than we think. Fingers crossed.

10 comments Labels: Lib Dems

With the little micro-ripple of gossip that Floella Benjamin may stand for selection to be the Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate I thought it was probably time to review her book Coming to England.

14744abe7068x517.jpg[i-14744abe7068x517.jpg]Now, I'm of an age that I remember the deep and transfixing crush I had on Benjamin watching her on Playschool as I grew up. Her irrepressible energy and warmth that she displayed on the box also runs through this book like an iron thread, and I have to say it's a great read.

Intended, I think, for younger people trying to cope with the immigrant experience and to explain a bit of the history of how some came to this country, and what that was like for them, it's a simply written account of Benjamin's childhood in Trinidad and the great wrench it was to come here as a child.

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I opened Coming to England but I certainly was not prepared to devour the whole thing in one sitting nor to find myself wiping away tears as she recounted in a clear and concise manner the veil of sadness that descended upon her life.

As she described the joy of her early family life you are reminded that she is not exactly one of life's cynics. Whether she's describing the food, her siblings or even the toilet she manages to bestow the glow of fond remembrance on it all. Frankly, if the whole book had been like that I would not have been disappointed, but her feelings when first her father left them behind to go to England and then her mother left the kids too leaving them split up between two strange households would melt the coldest heart.

I wouldn't want to ruin the book for anyone who's intending to read it but we eventually progress from Island life to England where her troubles are far from over. The racism Benjamin encountered as a child may not have dulled her spirit but to find yourself hated, even in church, for being something that you didn't even know you were a year before must have been a devastating experience.

Now, of course, she's a baroness but whatever I might think of the people she's chosen to affiliate to I found this book a real education. Not because it necessarily told me facts I didn't know already but because it painted so vividly how it felt to live them.

2 comments Labels: Lib Dems, London, Review

At the Liberal Conspiracy blog nation event yesterday one speaker from the Social Liberal Forum told us that the biggest threat in this Parliament will be tribalism. He continued to predicate everything on the inevitability of Parliamentary mathematics and the idea that the Lib Dems had no choice but to support the coalition.

Well, I don't agree. Like my friend Dave Osler who gave a spirited rant in response I think the biggest threat posed by this Parliament is a slash and burn economic policy under pinned by a right-wing anti-state ideology.

It's estimated that between half a million and 1.3 million people will lose their jobs, millions of families who rely on public services will find their lives harder and many people will literally find themselves on the streets - all cheerfully supported by the Lib Dems en bloc, en masse, en tribe.

Anyone who saw the beleaguered Vince Cable on Question Time this week will have seen the shonky dishonesty of the Libs Dems on proud display. He weakly tried to justify this budget as progressive and good for the poor. He claimed to have changed his mind about VAT, coincidentally at the same time as being given a cushy treasury job, even he didn't believe it.

If Lib Dems want to dissent from the party, argue against the budget and other parts of the coalition deal then they're welcome to pride of place in any campaign I'm part of, but you don't get to posture as part of the left while supporting these extraordinary measures of mass impoverishment.

The speaker told us that if we rock the boat too hard it would "jeopardise the referendum on AV." Well, big deal. AV, like FPTP, will leave millions unrepresented in Parliament and millions more massively under represented. As carrots go it's pretty rotten.

The AV referendum is the Tory strategy to prevent PR, damn right I want to jeopardise it but not half as much as I want to challenge the down right villainy of this budget.

If Lib Dems want to hang out with the left then they need to buck up and stop pretending that they're taking part in some sort of "progressive coalition". Our job is to thwart the intentions of this government, not give excuses to its embarrassed supporters.

3 comments Labels: Coaltion Government, Lib Dems, Reports, The Left

• In the Guardian on Esther Rantzen; When she spoke of her vision for Luton she liked to drop a few famous names into her comments. "Imagine a town centre with a Jamie Oliver restaurant," she told me. "Imagine Andrew Lloyd Webber, who is a friend, bringing his latest musical to Luton! Imagine the Anton Du Beke dance studio! I have spoken to Anton and he is very keen to do it." (JJ - she didn't win)
  
  
• Charles Kennedy reveals why he did vote for the coalition; "It is hardly surprising that, for some of us at least, our political compass currently feels confused. And that really encapsulates the reasons why I felt personally unable to vote for this outcome when it was presented to Liberal Democrat parliamentarians."
  
  
• Norfolk blogger attended a Lib Dem conflab on the coalition, he was not best pleased; "I was appalled at the way some in our party will resort to personal attacks, blatant lies and selective use of quotes in order to justify their side of the argument, and all those people were on the "We love the coalition" side of the debate." (JJ - who'd have thought?)
  
  
• Sticking with the Lib Dems I was intrigued to read this speech by Nick Clegg made in 2008; "So I want to make something very clear today.Will I ever join a Conservative government? No. Will I ever join a Labour government? No. I will never allow the Liberal Democrats to be a mere annex to another party's agenda."
  
  
• Former Labour Education Minister Kim Howells extends his warmest congratulations to the new government; "There's visceral loathing between the parties in constituencies, no question about it, you know - and the Lib Dems especially. I tell you why it's been rejected by most Labour MPs. Because they know that they're [the Lib Dems] a bunch of opportunistic toe-rags, who'll say anything to anybody in order to get power. And they've done it this time, they've got power. Good luck to them."

0 comments Labels: General Election 2010, Lib Dems

This just in from the press office: Greens issue "big, open, and comprehensive offer" to Lib Dems dismayed by Nick Clegg’s support of Tories

Following Clegg’s betrayal, Liberal Democrat members are urged to “support the party of change – not the party that changes its mind all the time”

Yesterday evening's announcement of a deal between the Tories and the Lib Dems should be a wake-up call to Lib Dem supporters, said Britain’s Greens this morning – and the Greens issued a "big, open, and comprehensive offer" to Liberal Democrat members and voters to come and join the Greens and campaign for real democratic change, real action to tackle poverty, and real action on climate change.

The offer was made jointly by the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:

“The Lib Dems have shown themselves to be not so much a party of change as a party of changing its mind.

“The Lib Dems have made themselves known as a party of dirty tricks in election campaigns. But now Nick Clegg has carried out the biggest Lib Dem dirty trick so far, betraying all those people who voted Lib Dem because they honestly thought it would bring about electoral reform.”

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

"This is an extraordinary decision by the Lib Dem leadership, and thousands of their activists and voters will feel heavily betrayed today. Many explicitly campaigned as the best way to keep the Tories out of power, as a party of radical change and a party of principle, and they have now been completely let down by Nick Clegg and his top team. These members and supporters did not work hard over the last weeks and months to see their party become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tories.

"We would therefore like to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to Lib Dem supporters to come now and talk to the Greens instead. Many former Lib Dem members have already found a long-term home with the Greens, including former Lib Dem Councillors. Thousands of Lib Dems will be unable to stomach this decision to put David Cameron's Tories into power, and it's time for them to consider coming home to the Greens.

"On several crucial points we have significant common ground, ground the Tories will never concede through this Westminster stitch-up. We back true constitutional reform, not only proportional representation but also fixed-term Parliaments, a written constitution, votes at 16, limits on corporate donations to political parties, and a whole host of other measures dear to Lib Dem activists' hearts. We support a fairer taxation system too, where those on the highest incomes start to pay their fair share, something the Tories' donors will never permit them to consider. On the environment, we've stood up against a litany of climate-wrecking projects, including those which were approved by Lib Dem ministers in Scotland to the dismay of their members. We're the only political party offering an economic policy which is consistent with environmental politics.

"With the election of Caroline Lucas as the UK's first Green MP, we've shown that radical Green politics can also win popular support at all levels. We are also a truly democratic party, our members set policy in public at conference, and we can be relied on not to sell out. Above all we would never deliver power to the Tories, a party still alien and unacceptable to most Scots. This Lib Dem/Tory deal is the final confirmation that those wanting change will always be shut out by the three big parties at Westminster, and today's decision will be the death-knell for the Lib Dems here in Scotland."

I've lost count of the number of times I was told by Lib Dem activists that a Liberal-Tory coalition was impossible because it would have to go through the members, and they'd never allow it. So much for that theory.

10 comments Labels: General Election 2010, Green Party, Lib Dems

Well, people say they don't like the Punch and Judy of oppositional politics so this time it looks like the game's going to be changed with Cameron playing the Crocodile and Clegg as the string of sausages. Great family fun no doubt.

link[i-link]It's smiling faces all round at the Lib Dem and Tory Headquarters as yet more white men in suits gather round making deals for the country's future. Due to the Lib Dem set up this means they could be having a special conference as early as this week to ratify their cooperation with the Conservatives.

Whether this means a formal coalition or some sort of quid pro quo we have yet to see. We also do not know as yet what concessions Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg may have won from Cameron in return for his support. A commemorative tea towel perhaps.

Oh, and by the way, to those friends of mine who've told me today they regret voting Lib Dem on Thursday... it's too late, you can't take it back now.

2 comments Labels: General Election 2010, Lib Dems, Tories

I've been meaning to do a post on party politics for a while now about how parties are generally a utilitarian method for promoting politics you agree with rather than ends in themselves, which are deserving of tribal loyalty - but frankly I've not had the time to think about it properly.

So instead I thought I'd do a short series of posts about people in other parties who I rather admire, despite our differing allegiances. It's a bit of a risk but I do think politics needs to grow up a bit, and not just between election campaigns. I don't think I could trust anyone who cannot admire those that they disagree with. Episode One: the Lib Dems.

david+howarth[i-david+howarth]David Howarth is the sitting MP for Cambridge and I was genuinely saddened when I heard he was going to step down from Parliament at this election, a decision I still don't understand. Perhaps he just didn't enjoy being an MP?

Regardless of this David had a very good personal reputation in Cambridge and is well liked. He's also been an outspoken advocate of civil liberties. He attended the G20 protests and other events and has been extremely outspoken about the behaviour of the police at these demonstrations.

He was also rather good as Lib Dem energy spokesman where he pushed the party towards an anti-nuclear stance and, every time I lobbied him always left frustrated due to his irritating habit of being in total agreement with greens on environmental issues, even when this put him out of step with the rest of his party.

Always very affable and open minded David Howarth has been a real feather in the collective Lib Dem cap and I really do hope that his decision to step down does not signal his retirement from politics altogether.


link[i-link]My next pick, coincidentally, stood unsuccessfully for the Cambridge seat in 1987 (coming second), she's also a surprising choice in many ways given my view that the formation of the SDP was criminal irresponsibility that condemned us to many dark years of Thatcher.

However, the irony is that although she left Labour because she thought it was too left-wing (yes kids, there was a time when it was possible to think of Labour as a left-wing party) they are now a long way to her right simply because, politically, she has stood firm by what she always believed as they slithered their way into Thatcherism.

One of the characteristics about her that I really admire is her willingness to tell ordinary voters that they are wrong. There's no PR in her politics, just passion. Even when I disagree with her I happen to think it's extremely admirable when politicians are willing to look a voter in the eye and remark "What a stupid thing to say."

These days that kind of honesty, which has no truck with "narrative" or "framing", is in short supply. All power to her elbow.


879[i-879]My last choice continues the Cambridge connection in that he was a member of the Liberal Society at Cambridge University.

More importantly he is someone who is actually on the left of the Lib Dems. Simon Hughes' journey has probably been as personally bruising as it has been politically frustrated.

Intellectually capable and level headed I was reminded of Hughes' talents a little while ago when he was on Newsnight debating how we deal with the BNP with UAF activist Martin Smith. Despite the fact that Smith was attempting to articulate my own position on combating fascism it was impossible to deny that Hughes wiped the floor with him leaving Smith utterly outclassed and floundering.

It says something of the man that Peter Tatchell, who was grievously wronged by Hughes in the 1983 Bermondsey by-election, endorsed his Lib Dem leadership bid, saying "Simon Hughes is the best of the Lib Dem leadership candidates. If I was a party member, he'd get my vote. I want to see a stronger lead on social justice and green issues. Despite his recent drift to the centre, Simon is the contender most likely to move the Liberal Democrats in a progressive direction."

The Lib Dems would be a far more robust and interesting party today had Hughes won that election, but alas, it was not to be.

P.S. obviously you should still vote for Tom Chance in Bermondsey and Old Southwark though.

8 comments Labels: Be Nice To Someone Day, Lib Dems

It has come to my attention that very few political bloggers are intending to compare this election to a science fiction epic.

This is very disappointing indeed and so, in order to redress this sorry state of affairs, I thought I'd write a post on what sci-fi monster each party resembles the most. Vital research I'm sure you'll agree.

link[i-link]As ghastly alien invaders intent on obliterating every man, woman and child upon the Earth the Conservatives do indeed resemble the tripods.

The tripods are a remorseless and unfeeling bunch who are repelled by humanity, attempting to literally wipe it from the face of the Earth. The Tories sadly may get their hands on the nuclear button but even their stated intention of dismantling public services stone by stone, job by job bears far too much resemblance to the classic sci-fi monsters.

Weakness: The tripods were brought down by an infection. Simply by breathing the same air as the poor it may well be that the Tory war machine will be brought to a shuddering halt as its immune system cannot cope with the contradiction between a society that isn't bothered by gay people and doesn't give much of a shit about marriage and their own innate reactionary perspectives.



sontaran[i-sontaran]The Sontarans are an invincible race of warrior clones who live for the battle and give very little thought to what they may do after they are victorious.

Seeking to obliterate all in their paths Sontarans are consumed with hatred for all non-Sontaran life forms but despite their fearsome reputation can be disabled with a simple ping pong ball and a good eye. Try this on the next Lib Dem canvasser that comes to your door - trust me, it really works!

A Lib Dem canvasser might say to their candidate: "Sire, allow me the honour of covering the Grove Park estate entirely naked save for my bar charts and this enormous laser pistol."



link[i-link]We may look fluffy and harmless but we're armed to the teeth with spears and communist ideology.

Consistently under-estimated by Jedis and evil Empire alike the Ewoks are capable of bringing down even a mighty Death Star down at close range.

In Norwich South Green Party deputy leader Adrian Ramsay (pictured) often dresses in traditional East Anglian clothing before embarking on another round of midnight leafleting.



viki[i-viki]Gordon Brown's original pick for Labour's election slogan was "Our logic is irrefutable" which was a nod towards Vicki, the revolutionary super-computer from I.Robot.

After thinking through the logic of her guiding principles she comes to realise that humanity cannot be trusted to look after itself and that, in order to serve her higher purpose, it would be necessary to save humanity from itself.

This generally takes the form of smashing up buildings, devouring its own and shooting at black people, more specifically the superbly sculpted Will Smith. But remember, it's all for our own good.

I have heard that only way to truly destroy the Labour Party would be to storm Number Ten and insert a tube of Nano-bots directly into Gordon Brown's brain. However, I'm fairly sure this constitutes a violation of the Terrorism Act and therefore is not to be attempted on a full stomach.

Next week: the political leaders and kids TV characters.

4 comments Labels: General Election 2010, Green Party, Labour, Lib Dems, SciFi, Tories

I was genuinely shocked when attending Radio Four’s Any Questions in Camden on Friday night when Vince Cable, the cuddly face of liberalism, came out in favour of banning strike action - gaining the honour of getting the first boos of the night.

cable[i-cable]Specifically he said that workers in "essential public services" should not be allowed to strike. He was pressed on it and was adamant that this was what he believed. He seemed to think this meant both rail workers and BA cabin staff, both of whom work for private companies, so it seems they are essential enough to take away thier basic human rights, but not essential enough to take the industries into public hands.

While he doesn't seem to have said this in print (although I haven't scoured the entire internet), writing in the Daily Mail Cable says that "We are back to old-fashioned industrial conflict of a kind that we thought, and hoped, had gone." He compares the strikes to "union militants who once ruled the roost in Britain’s strike-prone industries and helped to wreck them."

I think Cable is making two mistakes here. The first one is that he is simply wrong to say the industrial disputes of 2010 are in any way comparable to the disputes of the 70's or 80's. The scale and quality of the strikes are quite different and since the mid-90's we have seen a dramatic decline in industrial disputes.

The number of strikes days the year before Labour came to power was 1.3 million while in 2009 there were less than half a million strike days. Union membership today is dwarfed by the size of the unions three decades ago. Personally I think we strike far too little and far too few of us are members of trade unions, but that's by the by.

His other mistake though is this fake even-handedness where he says both sides have a case and both sides are at fault - so let's outlaw strikes. This would put the employer in a position where they can run riot over their workforce who would have been completely disarmed, so not quite as neutral as we first thought.

It may have escaped Vince's attention but slave labour was abolished a little while ago and it is a human right to choose not to work. To tell people that they must work, no matter what the provocation, no matter what the justice of your case, is to encourage employers to be intransigent and arrogant beyond anything we normally see in the 21st century.

Industrial action, up to and including strike action is the only bulwark working people have against a dictatorship in the workplace. Employees have to be able to take *collective* action because the employer can take *collective* liberties with the workforce each and every day.

Whilst it's to be regreted that people wont be able to travel by train on the day of the rail strike, if we make strikes illegal we are effectively chaining people to their desks and work stations for the sake of our own convenience. That's a narrow vision because today it's them, tomorrow it's you.

The rail workers and BA staff took a clear democratic decision that it was necessary to withdraw their labour. We should support their right to take that decision even if we don't think they're right on this occasion. However, it seems to me that they are right to strike and I'd recommend reading up on their cases at the RMT and UNITE websites.

14 comments Labels: Lib Dems, Trade Union

Personally I thought Darling's budget was unsurprising. Some things went up, shock. Budget consistent with the "Don't cut now, cut later" ethos that is Labour's election pose which simultaneously allows them to paint their pending cuts as a good thing because they are simply further away than the cuts of the other parties.

BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders summed up Mr Darling's message as "it's bad, but not as bad as we thought - and not nearly as bad as it would have been under the Conservatives".

The Tory response was equally predictable. They said that Labour nicks ideas off them, which it does. Cameron also said "We need a credible plan to cut the deficit. We need an unleashing of enterprise across the nation. We need a plan to boost employment through radical welfare and school reform." I'm fairly sure this makes no sense, how does laying off civil servants "unleash" enterprise?

Nick Clegg, who apparently leads a party called the "Liberal Democrats" responded in similarly uninspiring fashion. After trying to win a bet by cramming as many cliches as possible into a single paragraph Clegg berated the government's refusal to slash spending by saying that "Labour should stop trying to kid people about this recession. They got us into it. Only by being honest about how we got into this mess will we ever be able to get out."

There were better responses from Ann Pettifor, LEAP and the Greens, who displayed an altogether different kind of realism - one that understands that poverty is not a positive economic tool and that we should be bolstering the economy not undermining it.

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, said that "Unlike the other parties, we will argue that increases in taxation for the better-off are required. We will raise taxes fairly and explain them honestly. Labour's plans depend upon wishful thinking about how quickly the economy and tax revenues will recover. They are unwilling to tell you about the cuts and tax increases coming later.

"In contrast, the Green Party will be open about what we would cut, what we would defend, and about the fact that we need to raise taxation from 36% of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45% in 2013. This would halve the gap between government expenditure and revenues by 2013-14 (as the Labour government proposes) and progressively close the gap thereafter."

It's interesting that when the government proposes cuts they never consider waste like ID cards, or Trident they always cut backs in the public sector.

11 comments Labels: Economics, General Election 2010, Green Party, Labour, Lib Dems, Tories