School - let's have a little diversity

Just been reading about the problems of yet another national political initiative for schools - this time free school meals for some.  Nick Harvey warned that it would be unfair in the allocation of resources.  Now the Independent reports it wasn't thought through before being announced.

What is it about hands crudely grasping the levers of power before they are wrenched away by the next lot ? Every national government seeks to micro-manage education.  With Blair it was targets that have warped all schools into exam factories and even lesson plans for teachers to download.  Gove like many predecessors seeks to write the detail of history teaching.   I remain an advocate of local education authorities with powers as well as duties and I would have no national curriculum for each generation of politicians to fiddle with.  Let's have a little diversity and evolution in education instead of uniformity and revolution every new government.

While I'm about it, here's Donald Trefussis again on education and parent power !  OK, it's fiction but so is the idea of a politician who can leave well alone.

The media write their stories in the bar in London before they travel to the seaside.

I think it was 1979 when Michael White wrote in the Guardian that Margate pier was the ideal image for the Liberal Party.   Our conference in Margate had been interrupted by occasional explosions as the demolition experts tried to destroy the pier.   It was, said Michael, "a Victorian structure that refused to go away".  I wondered if any journalists this year would be tempted to compare the party to Brighton's West Pier, cut off in the middle of a hostile storm, but none of them did, although Allegra Stratton's Newsnight piece extended the weather metaphor and included a shot of the pier.

Journalists searched Brighton in vain for despair and rebellion.   Instead they found what you will always find at a Liberal Democrat Conference - debate and decision (not to mention drinks and dinner).   Today Andrew Sparrow told us in the Guardian that the Lib Dem Conference had taught us 10 things.

"1. Nick Clegg is trying to forge the Liberal Democrats into a new party"
We are down to our core vote and  there are no fair-weather friends any more. That doesn't make us "a new party", it makes us the party we always have been without the temporary penumbra that politicians waste so much time seeking to attract.

"2. The Lib Dems seem more committed than ever to the coalition"
"As committed as ever"  maybe.   I detect no more or less enthusiasm.   We have the same distaste and doubts about the Tories.   We will be happier if our leaders express it more often.   Andrews cites the so-called rejection of an economic "Plan B".   Sadly Ed Randall's amendment to the growth motion was poorly worded and worse presented in debate.   I believe our Conference Committee selected that amendment because it could be easily defeated and they chose not to select Prateek Buch's much better amendment.    Andrews concludes " the Lib Dems face an existential threat, and if the coalition fails, the party is doomed too".   This is nonsense and perhaps wishful thinking by the Guardian, given their Toynbee-esque prejudices.   Failure of the coalition's economic policy will be bad for both parties in the coalition but fatal for neither.   The sooner we start exploring the economic alternatives (and I don't mean the Balls that the Labour Party talks) the better the party will recover.

"3. The Lib Dems are seeking to reassert their identity"
He's right.  Some of us have been doing that from the beginning of the coalition (two beds not one) but like the rest of the Guardian stable , he doesn't know what our identity is.  He writes, " ...many Lib Dems ...think the party would be mad to give up on leftish voters who are attracted by the party's social democratic instincts." (my emphasis).   As I explained to Jackie Ashley last year, we don't have "social democratic instincts";  we have social liberal instincts, which are quite different and date back to the writings of Green and Hobhouse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

"4. Clegg intends to fight the general election"
Well spotted, Andrews, who obviously has a MA in the Bleeding Obvious.    He even raises the old chestnut of Nick Clegg going to Brussels in 2014.   This was never a runner (do chestnuts run ?).   Why on earth would the Tories send Clegg to Brussels ?   Do they want someone British committed to the development of the EU sitting in the European Commission ?   Do they want to make a vacancy for Vince or Tim Farron to lead the Lib Dems ?   I don't think so.

"5. There will be no imminent leadership challenge"
Yet Andrews thinks there might be in 2014 or before.   Do this journalists ever think things through ?   For a challenge, there must be a challenger.   If, surprisingly, the economy picks up and things look better, Nick Clegg will be safer.   If, as looks likely, there is no recovery and the deficit looks as bad as ever, Nick Clegg is even safer.  Why ? If you had plans to be leader of the Liberal Democrats, why would you want to take over just before a really bad election when all you have to do is wait until after it and let Nick take all the blame ?

"6. Vince Cable is the party's undisputed leader-in-waiting"
I do not share the reported adoration of St Vince.   He is not a team player.   His economic judgement is not as reliable as believed.   His presentation and political management of the tuition fees (as opposed to his masterly negotiation behind the scenes) was catastrophic.   I think his ascendancy to the leadership is unlikely and possibly unwanted by him.  Andrews for some reason not explained, believes Tim Farron's star to be falling.  I have seen no evidence of that.

"7. Election manifestos are going to look different in the future because they will clearly differentiate between non-negotiable promises and negotiable ones"
Possibly although I doubt it, but the problem last time was not the manifesto but the pledge.  Nobody reads manifestos.

"8. Coalition is making government more open"
Yes, but sadly not enough.   We don't really have a new politics.   Labour's visceral hatred of the Liberal Democrats exceeds their dislike of the Tories and effectively, especially in parliament, we still have two sides and old-fashioned adversarial politics.   The culture of disagreeing about everything has yet to be replaced by a culture of seeking agreement which will outlast a single parliamentary term.

"9. The Lib Dems are still overwhelmingly white and male"
He is, of course, judging by the House of Commons, not the party membership.   I don't deny that there is more to be done but it's not a Lib Dem problem, it's a problem with politics across the board.   Conference this year seemed to me to have more young people, certainly more women and in my estimation, more representatives from ethnic minorities than in previous years.

"10. But it's a great party to join if you want to speak at a party conference"
Finally he gets something right.  In his own words:
This week has confirmed that the Lib Dems are still the only main party in British politics genuinely comfortable about letting the members debate policy. Labour and the Tories use their conferences to showcase their leaders and rising stars. If you want to go to party conference, get involved in debates and speak on more than one occasion, I'm afraid you haven't got much option. You'll have to join the Lib Dems.

Sorry

Our damned media have been predictably ungracious in their response to Nick Clegg's apology over tuition fees.   The despicable, opportunistic and hypocritical Labour Party has been predictably worse.   When will we hear the Daily Mail apologise for years of lying ?   When will we hear the Labour Party apologise for starting an illegal war and for leaving the country's finances in such a dreadful state ?   When will they apologise for wrecking reform of the House of Lords, something they promised in THEIR manifesto ?   When will they apologise for introducing tuition fees, promising not to put them up, putting them up and then appointing a businessman to review them, who recommended putting them up without limit ?

I was bitterly disappointed by the desperately bad political management of the tuition fees issue by Liberal Democrat leaders, above all Vince, but I honour Nick Clegg for his apology.   Sir Humphrey might have called it brave and so do I.   Our society will not be mature until politicians, businessmen and all in authority over us can admit their mistakes and their apologies be accepted instead of being exploited by the Tory press and the Labour scum  (Yes, Harriet Harman, I mean you !)

The price of Cameron's "Veto"

As Myles Neligan's article in Reuters shows, the UK is already beginning to pay the price for David Cameron's Brussels histrionics last month. After the EU Summit in December Cameron returned home to a hero's welcome in the popular press and the House of Commons. This was always a bizarre combination of xenophobia and myopia.

Forget how you feel about Europe for a moment. You are a member of a cricket club which is part of a league. Your captain or manager goes off to the league committee meeting, where he presents a list of demands expressly designed to give advantages to your club, based on the characteristics of your ground and your players' skills. The other clubs ask him if he is willing to negotiate on any point and he refuses. The league then decides to change the way it works leaving your club technically still a member but with no fixtures for the coming season. Do you welcome your chap back with applause or do you call him a blithering idiot who has relegated your team even before they have played a single match ?

As the debate on Solvency II regulation for the insurance industry shows,Cameron has failed to protect the financial sector he loves so much and isolated the UK in the process. So much so usual for Tory blinkered nationalism, but for me the shame is that Nick Clegg let it get to this point.

That's another fine mess you've got us into !

A lot of nonsense has been promulgated by Tory eurosceptics and even by Liberal Democrat apologists for the mess our coalition government has landed us all in. They have tried several arguments which don't work. As usual, the mantra - "Blame the French!" plays well with the public. Let's look at them in turn.

1. The government was protecting the City of London, the financial sector.
This is true but only if they were protecting them from proper scrutiny and regulation. See response by Edward McMillan-Scott, former Conservative and now Liberal Democrat MEP. Here's a flavour: "Cameron said the sticking point was the interests of the London financial sector, which has ripped off British taxpayers and stripped savers of their assets. What sharp City practices was Cameron trying to shield from the proper scrutiny which financial services in Frankfurt or Paris were prepared to yield to? Paying lip service to Europe's single market - which is of such value to the rest of the real British economy - while making bumps in the level playing field is simply ridiculous."

2. The government was proposing reasonable measures to preserve the Single Market !
Preposterous ! The UK put forward a a whole draft protocol to the Council legal service the day before the meeting, detailing various subjects in the field of financial affairs where they wished decision-taking to switch from Qualified Majority Voting to unanimity (some in areas that have been QMV from the beginning, and some that have been QMV since the 1986 Single European Act negotiated by Thatcher). This does not fit any definition of "perfectly reasonable" as claimed by Nick Clegg, Graham Watson and Sarah Ludford. Nor does it amount to protecting the single market since the purpose of a veto would be to block single market measures leaving each member-state to decide for itself. In any case, whatever the merits of the UK proposals, you simply cannot expect 26 other countries to bow down and accept such a document at less than 24 hours notice. Summits are usually preceded by months of negotiations. Cameron refused to negotiate about the document with the consequences we all know now.

3. Sarkozy was being unreasonable
This suggests traditional francophobia but actually the real situation is "Fog in channel- continent cut off". It wasn't a French veto. It was 26 countries disagreeing with Britain ! Do people imagine that 25 Prime Ministers always dance to Sarkozy's tune ?

4. This will make it easier to regulate the banks.
This little gem is attributed to Vince Cable and has even been parroted by some of the bankers themselves. Anyone smell a rat here ? No actual argument has been put forward and I cannot imagine how it could be true. Successful financial regulation has been resisted (by this government amongst others) on the grounds that it won't work in one country alone. To claim that European disunity will make it easier would seem illogical, Captain.

Nothing in the coalition agreement required Liberal Democrats to abandon our principles so dramatically. Nick Clegg is now trying to row back following reaction within the party. He should have got it right first time.

How do you contact the Leader of the Liberal Democrats ?

As a party member I have recently tried to contact some of our ministers in their roles as our party's leading spokespeople. It's not easy. Their published contact details invite you to contact them either as a minister (in which case of course a civil servant drafts the response) or as your constituency MP (I live in Yeovil and my MP is not a spokesman). For example, here's Nick Clegg's details:

If you are contacting Nick as Deputy Prime Minister, please write to him at the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS or via this contact form: www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/contact-deputy-prime-minister.

If you are a constituent of Nick's in Sheffield Hallam, please write to him at 85 Nethergreen Road, Sheffield S11 7EH or contact him via this contact form: www.nickclegg.org.uk/ncorguk_contact.aspx

I know the LibDem ministers have a hell of job with not enough political staff, but then I didn't negotiate the details of the coalition agreement, which failed to address the issue. I hope they won't forget their party in the maelstrom of government and constituency business. We've had a year of people forgetting who the Liberal Democrats are and what we stand for.

What a pity ministers don't read Liberator !

I read in the Evening Standard that one of our ministers has said, "It's going to be liberating to take a private dialogue and make it public. We need to demonstrate that we're different from the Tories, not just competent partners. If the process is more public, it'll look less as if we went into a locked room and lost our heart and soul. It won't be a slanging match, but we won't have to pretend we agree on everything. I think people will be able to cope with that.".

Last August four local Liberal Democrats in Yeovil met to discuss our feelings about the coalition. In September Shirley Williams put it in a nutshell when asked how she felt about being in bed with the Tories, "Not one bed, two beds". In November Liberator published my article "Separate Beds" in which I wrote, "The voters need to see that we have a clear vision and we need to be seen to argue before agreement is reached. This is not the tradition of British cabinet government and civil servants will have advised ministers against it – “Not in front of the children”. This is NOT a traditional government and we must stop infantilising the electorate. Otherwise Liberal Democrat Ministers defending government policies which we have always opposed will appear dishonest and weak. They have to demonstrate tough negotiation and the necessary virtue of constructive difference... Liberal Democrats in the government cannot implement all our policies but they must deliver some and be seen to do so."

Somebody give Nick Clegg a subscription. He can read that edition and other old ones here.

How to run a coalition ( or wag the dog)

Interesting article by Julian Astle in his Daily Telegraph blog. Broadly he says there's the Clegg approach so far - we own everything the government does -, the Toryphobic approach - we hate everything the government does - or there's Chris Huhne's third way - critical support. He warns that this approach must not damage the good reputation of coalition politics. We must break the perceived link between coalitions and weak, fractious, ineffective government.

I doubt that this perception exists among voters in the UK today. Nobody remembers what coalitions are like. The last one, Churchill's wartime coalition was unpopular at the time but seen as strong and indeed victorious in retrospect. The problem is deeper than any hazy preconceptions of coalition. Voters want various contradictory things from politicians, e.g. good quality services AND low taxes. They also want politicians to be honest AND not to bicker. Perhaps this is not impossible if the arguments are about the product - the policies - instead of the usual political row about the process - who said what to whom and when and you did this, you said this etc.

The morning after the morning after the night before

What people think after not so cool reflection. A small selection.

Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the RSA not the ex-MP) analyses why the YES campaign got it wrong.

Tom King noted on Facebook that ‎32% voted Yes, but 35% voted Labour in 2005, and they got a 66-seat majority. Explains why Labour loves the unfair FPTP.

David Allen Green asks in his New Statesman blof, "What the Liberal Democrats should do next". As he says, "The party has to be distinct. As this blog has said previously, the blurring of lines between Tories and Liberal Democrats makes one want to adapt the ending of Animal Farm:

"The voters outside looked from Tory to Clegg, and from Clegg to Tory, and from Tory to Clegg again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

I ask, "In the seats we lost in the south of England, did Labour supporters who would normally vote for us stay at home ? Alternatively did more right-wing voters who normally vote for us switch to the Tories ? Can anyone tell me ? I ask because it's obvious why we lost seats to Labour in the north of England but not why we lost seats to Tories in the south."

Sandy Walkington suggest on Facebook that the referendum increased Tory turnout in the council elections ! How ironic that we held the referendum on the same day as the council elections to increase turnout in the referendum. Massive mistake.

Nick Clegg has asked us to move on. Then he asked us for money. Was it too much to expect the slightest admission that maybe he got it wrong ?

Stop Murdoch !

I have just sent this message to Nick Clegg and other ministers. Please send one yourself here directly or using the Avaaz website.

Dear Prime Minister Cameron,
Dear Deputy Prime Minister Clegg,
Dear Ministers,

It is astonishing to me that the United States has stronger laws to prevent concentration of media ownership than we do in Britain. Tony Blair failed to stand up to Murdoch when he had a huge majority. Please show us all that this government cares about competition and diversity, particularly in the media.

Granting Rupert Murdoch controlling ownership of BSkyB would make a mockery of our already weak media ownership laws and damage our democracy. No one person should be permitted to control nearly half our country's mass media, certainly not someone with such a clear record of abuse of media power for political influence and personal gain. Opinion polls show that opponents of the Murdoch bid outnumber supporters 9 to 1. We strongly oppose any deal made with Murdoch, and pledge to hold you accountable for this crucial decision for the future of our democracy.  

Nick, I nominated you for leader. Show me I was right.

State of the United Kingdom

Nick and Danny, David and George, here's some advice on cutting deficits from Barack Obama giving the State of the Union address.

"I am willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without but let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens."

Oh yes, and for Vince:
"Cutting the deficit by cutting the investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded aeroplane by removing its engine."

Honeymoon over. On with married life.

Of course it was foolish of Vince to talk about Murdoch to people he didn't know, but generally the Telegraph's exposures will have served the cause of grown-up politics. Tim Farron handled it beautifully on the Today programme this morning. It's about time Nick Clegg stopped pretending that the coalition is a love match. We want people to know that the Liberal Democrats are different from the Conservatives and to understand that a compromise is what it says, not our heart's desire to be defended to death. The honeymoon is over. Let's get on with married life (two beds, of course).

"I believe it's time for promises to be kept" - Nick Clegg

It may or may not have been foolish for any MP to sign the pledge on tuition fees. Most did it fully believing in it. Our party had debated the issue and refused to downgrade our opposition to tuition fees to a mere "aspiration".

I am not so sure about the motives of at least two of our coalition negotiators, David Laws and Danny Alexander. David never liked the pledge and signed it very reluctantly. Danny Alexander had already concluded in March that we would not be able to honour the pledge if entering a coalition. Yet both campaigned in the election on the strength of the pledge. The coalition agreement recognised the difficulty by allowing for abstention, but then Vince Cable negotiated a deal which his colleagues could not accept. It's not the first time Vince has developed policy without much regard for his colleagues.

What I don't understand or accept is the argument that Shirley Williams made on WATO this lunchtime which is that we cannot afford to continue state funding of universities at the current level. Replacing this funding by loans and grants doesn't save a penny in the short to medium term. In the long run it may turn out expensive too not only for the graduates but for the government if the default rate is high or many graduates finds themselves unemployed or on low incomes.

So raising tuition fees will not save money in the short term in which the government insists on cutting the deficit. One can only conclude that the policy is for the long term, which means that Vince and those who support his policy have abandoned the party's stated policy, still on the party's website: "Liberal Democrats believe university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost.". What are the chances that when the government sells off the banks, the proceeds will be used to abolish tuition fees or will they simply be applied to offering tax cuts at the next election ?

Finally, let's remember Nick Clegg's pitch on new politics at the General Election. Here's what he said in a PPB as he walked along a street strewn with broken promises by Labour and the Conservatives:

"I believe it's time for promises to be kept. We can say goodbye to broken promises"

Good news and bad news

First, the good. Aung San Suu Kyi released. This must outweigh all the other news today. Tim Farron elected Lib Dem President: OK, not on the same scale, but good news nevertheless as we may now hear some Liberal Democrat policies being promoted for a change.

Now the bad. Chiefly and so depressingly the Guardian reports "Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge.". If this true, then we have all been lied to and I am not sure that I can remain in a party whose leadership shows such contempt for its members.

Riding Two horses

A famous left-wing MP called Jimmy Maxton once said, "If you can't ride two horses at once, you should get out of the bloody circus". It appears that Nick Clegg can.

Nick Clegg - be yourself ! (An open letter)

Dear Nick,

Your interview this morning on the Today Programme was disappointing. OK, James Naughtie, in the worst tradition of Today, interrupted almost every answer before you had completed one sentence. But, Nick, you know that's going to happen.

I nominated you for leader. I defend you against your detractors. I think you are a gut Liberal. But since you became leader, you have often appeared to be the prisoner of your advisors. They pull you back, they hold you in, they make you keep your guard up when you should be throwing a punch. Your message on the economy this morning was "Responsibility and Radicalism". You sounded responsible except that Naughtie had to take you through the figures three times. It made you sound like you were trying to hide something. You did NOT sound radical.

We can't convince the electorate that we are different by naked assertion of difference. We have to be different and unafraid to be different. We also need to be brief. Liberal positions are usually realistic and therefore nuanced. It's hard to condense these into soundbites but the media demands it. The disillusioned public won't wait for the end of a long sentence - it's just another politician covering his arse. We have good policies but people don't know them and they will be lost in the noise of battle unless they ring true and clear.

The economy - Labservatives would make the poorest people pay for the blunders of the richest. We won't. You made the points about fair taxation and controlling the banks but they needed to be up-front at the start of the interview before Naughtie led you into his mire.

Trident - the only party in Britain that won't replace it. That should be the message. Vince said it in the Chancellor's debate, Sarah Teather said it on Question Time. Naughtie led you into the smoke and mirrors of Ming's review of options and the message was the Liberal Democrats haven't made up their minds yet, the same message as Ming's policy three years ago. I warned then and I repeat now - you can't say to the voters, "We'll let you know our policy after the election".

Broadly, our policies are right and radical, but they won't sound it if we sound uncertain.

Nick, I beg you, let's have a lot more emphasis on the radicalism and a little less on the responsibility.

Real Liberal not Fake Tory

Bad news about Fraser Nelson’s interview with Nick Clegg in the Spectator Daniel Hannan and others have spun it to link Nick with Thatcher. In the interview Nick was claiming that Liberalism requires standing up to vested interests and that just as Thatcher stood up to the Trade Unions, so he will stand up to the banks. I can see that the comparison may have appeal to older Middle England Tory voters but of course it will be spun all over the place by hostile journalists in the mass media while few of the Spectator’s rather small readership will vote anything but Tory, so perhaps not the best strategy. Anyway I well remember Margaret Thatcher borrowing Liberal rhetoric on the economy but her government’s conduct of the economy was not genuinely Liberal as she only stood up to vested interests which opposed her and did nothing about those which supported her like the defence industry (notably BAe) and the brewers. I fear that Nick’s trying to sound tough again. As Liberator has often said, “Give people a choice between a real Tory and an imitation Tory and they will always chose the real one.” Much better to offer a real Liberal, which I believe Nick is.

We're over here !

I may have missed something. I don't watch or listen to every news broadcast, but what has happened to the news I care about - Lib Dems won't replace Trident ? The Today programme had more important news - carrots prevent cancer better if not chopped up - so no room for us. Liberal leaders (and Nick Clegg is no exception) are always accused of not doing enough, not making an impact. With the media including the BBC determined to ignore us, what does Nick have to do, climb a tall building dressed as superman ?