Craig Murray returns !

Great news ! Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador in Uzbekistan and author of Murder in Samarkand, has rejoined the Liberal Democrats. Welcome back, Craig !

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.

I have been trying to listen to Obama's healthcare summit but like everything else on the lousy connection provided by Orange, I keep losing the signal. I switched to Orange last October and have spent hours on the telephone to Bombay ever since. I have finally given up on Orange in despair and with high blood pressure and am switching to another provider. Orange now want to charge me a cancellation fee of over £200 and a disconnection fee of £28. They have been charging me for months for failing to provide a decent service. They'll have to sue if they want to charge me for leaving as well.

Rather an interesting interview ????

After the Today programme's interview with Andrew Lansley this morning, James Naughtie commented,"Rather an interesting interview". Actually it barely kept me awake, but it did illustrate the two worst problems with British politics and British media. The story is how spokesmen of three parties tried and failed to reach concensus on care for the elderly.

The politics problem is a classic example of how useless the House of Commons is at improving legislation. Party point-scoring always takes precedence over writing better laws, not just when an election is approaching. The media problem is the preoccupation with process over substance, so as usual we learn nothing of the policy issues but everything about who said what to whom first. The BBC couples this with an insistence on devoting only a few nano-seconds to each subject and the interviewer's usual refusal to allow the interviewee to complete a single sentence.

How can we ever have a grown-up political debate in Britain ?

Did Blair lie to the Inquiry ? (1) Regime Change

The inquiry panel asked Tony Blair if regime change was a valid objective. He replied, "No,the absolute key issue was WMD", but almost every other answer showed that the answer should have been "Yes". He conflated the two issues of WMD and regime change, saying that they were "...two ways of saying the same thing". He told the inquiry that the only commitment he had given Bush at Crawford was "...to deal with Saddam". The panel suggested that he and Bush had been agreed on ends but not means and he responded, "Agreed on both...".

At the end when infamously Blair refused to admit any regrets, he said, "Responsibility but no regrets at removing Saddam Hussein. He threatened not just a region but the world." The inquiry tackled him on the Fern Britton interview where he said that despite the lack of WMD, "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." His disingenuous response was to pretend that despite his experience he had been tricked.

LIARS: Truth was a casualty even before the Iraq War

It may be that listening to the pathetic excuses and Jesuitical wriggling of a succession of Labour ministers at the Iraq Inquiry has left me more than usually disgusted and angry with New Labour even before Blair's testimony. I know there were honourable exceptions like Robin Cook and Chris Smith but too many self-serving apologists allowed Tony Blair to take us to war. Rarely has a war been wrong on so many levels - legal, moral and even the realpolitik of self-interest.

My disgust boiled over today after hours of Goldsmith so that when I heard Denis MacShane on the news, I sent him the following message:

I have just heard your comments on the World at One. You should be ashamed of yourself. You showed your well-established contempt for international law because it gives a voice to foreigners, including the French ! You also made clear by your cheap attack on the Liberal Democrats that you think regime change is a legitimate reason for the use of force. Thank goodness you will never serve in the Foreign Office or any ministry again.

Are they related ?

Has anyone noticed the amazing resemblance between Cllr Roger Hayes from Kingston and Jonathan Pryce in "Sweeney Todd" at the Whitehall Theatre. I wonder if by any chance they are related. Perhaps we should be told.

Comediana -trivia about comedians 2

I saw a face I thought I knew in a television trailer. It was Hugh Lloyd, who used to appear in Hancock's Half Hour. I looked him up and discovered, to my delight, that he was a lifelong Liberal. Asked to appear in a Conservative PPB, he responded, "I rather jump off Beachy Head". His Liberalism began at the age of five when Lloyd George patted him on the head.

Comediana -trivia about comedians 1

The University of Chard offers the post of Reader in History of Comedy to the first person to respond with Sid James' middle name, which is most unexpected.

Ban the ban

The Home Secretary, wishing to appear tough (Don't they all ?), has banned Islam4UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. This legislation which originated in Roy Jenkins' original and "temporary" Prevention of Terrorism Act should be repealed. The state backed by whatever majority should not ban groups of people, however small or unpopular a minority. It's called Freedom of Association. The state should only ban activities such as terrorism, whoever commits them.

Alan Johnson said, "We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name." Be as clear as you like, old son. You have hit upon the other argument against this legislation. It doesn't work ! Any group will simply evade the sanction by reforming under a new name, every time you ban an old one.

Unhelpful messages No. 3

Error: bX-aiksoi
Blogger.com : supposedly an explanation for not uploading a post ! What the hell does it mean ?

Unhelpful messages No.2

Terms and conditions apply.
Classic FM adverts

Unhelpful messages No.1

Other parts were played by members of the cast.

BBC Radio 4

Desperate Anachronisms

I have been watching the BBC's Desperate Romantics about the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (to be precise, about the leading pre-Raphaelites as all the others don't get a look-in). I have been enjoying it despite the suspect dialogue. Did Rossetti really frequently exclaim "shit". Don't misunderstand. I'm not objecting to the coarseness. I simply doubt that it was the expletive of choice in the 1850s.

The latest episode went beyond the substitution of modern Atlantic dialect for mid-Victorian upper class speech. It was historically innaccurate. The brothers suspect that Ruskin is trying to arrange adultery between his wife Effie and Millais in order to begin divorce proceedings against her. His marriage was actually annulled in 1854 and she married Millais in 1855. At that time divorce required a private Act of Parliament, which may have been beyond Ruskin's means. Divorce through the courts only became available in 1858. In the same programme Holman Hunt refers to Rossetti's libido, a term which didn't come into use until Sigmund Freud developed psycho-analysis forty years later. If the writer Peter Bowker can't be bothered to get his history right, surely the BBC also employs researchers and script editors.

The strange case of Jack Straw, justice, Gary McKinnon and General Pinochet

As Home Secretary Jack Straw evaded his legal obligation to extradite murderer and torturer Pinochet by saying that he was unfit to face trial. Pinochet returned home to greet his supporters showing no signs of unfitness. Even tea with Margaret Thatcher hadn't made him sick.

Perhaps as Minister of Justice, Straw might see the case for refusing to extradite Gary McKinnon as unfit to face trial, or does that get-out-of-jail free card only apply to corrupt dictators and not to UFO-geeks with aspergers. I don't suppose Straw will stop the extradition. Giving him the post of "Secretary of State for Justice" truly took New Labour into the realms of 1984.

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 ?

Nick Clegg says: Don't replace Trident

Tonight on BBC News at Ten Nick Clegg said that Britain cannot afford to replace Trident. The report also said that he poured doubt on its military usefulness. Tomorrow's Guardian will have an article by Patrick Wintour under the title: "Nick Clegg says Lib Dems won't replace Trident because world has moved on", already available on the net.

Like we said in 2007, Trident is useless, dangerous and expensive. I am delighted that it will be the Liberal Democrats who have the courage to say so to the voters.

In the name of God, go !

Someone has sent me Cromwell's speech when he dissolved the Long Parliament. Still topical, yes, but let's not forget how dreadful England (not to mention Ireland) was under his protectorate without an elected parliament.

Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament
Given to the English House of Commons

20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Gordon Brown steps in !

I nearly missed the news today ! I was just in time to turn my radio on to hear that Gordon Brown has contacted Simon Cowell to see if Susan Boyle is all right ! Well, that's a relief ! It's so good to know that the Prime Minister has his finger on the pulse. You couldn't make it up, could you ? Well you never know, Gordon, might be worth the odd vote on Thursday...the very odd vote. Roll on a General Election, I say.

Bumps on the head ? The face of evil ?

What is it about physiognomy and fascism ? Can you really judge a man by his boat ? Look here at these chaps. OK, the prat on the right could be in any party, even mine. After all, we've got Lembit Opik. The chap on the left, however, could only be a fascist, couldn't he ? He could be a Tory of course, but actually he's Barry Bennett, BNP Euro-candidate in the South-West, whose opinions include: "David Beckham is not white, he's a black man." and "... whatever's good enough for Hitler's good enough for me. God rest his soul." For more lowdown on the low-lifes of the BNP, see yesterday's Observer.

Fair votes referendum NOW !

Alan Johnson has called for a referendum on PR to be held on the day of the next general election. What is the logic of voting to change the electoral system on the same day as electing a new House of Commons under the old system ??? Of course, a referendum on the Jenkins Commission's recommended Alternative Vote top-up System is now more than ten years overdue. Labour's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum was the first of many promises broken by Tony Blair's government.

Small problem: under our daft, archaic and essentially monarchical non-constitution, the PM only needs to give everyone about four weeks' notice of when his time runs out, whereas public debates on referendums should last longer.

Big problem: The main block to PR has always been the strange unwillingness of MPs elected under first-past-the-post (stupid name for a system without a post) to vote for their own demise. However, we are now in a most unusual period when many MPs do not expect to be re-elected anyway. Perhaps Labour MPs would be willing to respond to a referendum now, as a way of avoiding a huge Conservative majority next year. If we wait to hold a referendum until general election day, we can be certain that a new government led by David Cameron will ignore the result. They would probably set up a new Royal Commission to think about it for another ten years.

The opacity of hope

My dictionary defines opacity as the quality of being difficult to understand. I was delighted when Barack Obama decided to close down Guantanamo Bay, but I do NOT understand why he has reinstated military tribunals and now has defended the "enhanced interrogation" authorised by the Bush administration to extract information from terror suspects as "legal, essential, justified and successful". Isn't there enough bad news already without this ?

Going, going, gone ! Not with a bang but a whimper.

At last, the Speaker has seen sense and announced his resignation. MPs must not imagine that his departure is the necessary reform of the Commons. So much more needs to be done. They would do well to look at the procedures of some other parliaments, perhaps not as old but then not as archaic nor hidebound by conventions that protect the executive from effective scrutiny. May I suggest having a look at the European Parliament ?

Oh mother ! What a parliament !

Once again the so-called mother of parliaments reveals its essential weakness. Once it challenged kings. Now it lies at the beck and call of Prime Ministers. The House of Commons does NOT control its own timetable. That privilege resides with the government of the day, so it's up to Gordon Brown whether MPs get to debate no confidence in his old mucker, the Speaker. Look ourt of the window, Gordon. Look at that statue of Cromwell and remember his words:

"you have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!."

Snuggery strikes again

Remember the Rev. Snuggs who cut down a yew tree. Well here's more snuggery - schools are giving up on proper ties in favour of clip-ons. I suppose it will put the next generation of yobs on a level playing field (if it hasn't be sold off) with the police when they come up against each other.

Actually, it's not a new story. Bramhall High in Stockport stopped using normal ties in 2007.

Dissolution : ask the Queen ?

It occurs to me ( and many others) that trust in parliament cannot be rebuilt without a general election. One of the many appalling features of our uncodified constitution is the power of the Prime Minister to choose the date of a general election. Gordon is in no hurry. I consulted my ancient edition of de Smith's Constitutional and Administrative Law to see if the Queen could dissolve parliament without his advice. The last precedents were in 1783 and 1834 and may not be helpful. de Smith says:

"[The Queen]...would also, it is submitted, be justified in dismissing her Ministers if they were purporting to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution".

He gives the examples of extending the life of parliament, obtaining a majority by duress or fraudulent manipulation of the poll. As m'learned friends say, this case is not on all fours. Nor of course is parliament; it is prostrate.

de Smith goes on to point out the difficulties in the way of the monarch 's insisting on a dissolution.

"It is true that the Queen might urge upon the Prime Minister that a dissolution might be in the best interests of the country and he might reluctantly agree to advise her to dissolve. But if he did not agree, and the Queen were to insist on a dissolution then she would have to remove the Prime Minister and find a new one; the procedure upon a dissolution of Parliament entails the making of an Order in Council and the issue of a royal proclamation under the Great Seal, and this requires the cooperation of Ministers."

He concludes that if the Prime Minister's colleagues refused to choose a different leader, the Queen could call the Leader of the Opposition to be Prime Minister for the sole purpose of advising a dissolution, which David Cameron would undoubtedly do. The Queen would thus become embroiled in party politics, but she would have immense popular support for doing it.

Whatever the political consequences, surely an election is a necessary condition of the renewal of our political system.

P.S.
Since posting this, I have seen that Craig Murray has started a petition to the Queen to dissolve parliament. You can sign it here.

MPs' expenses: ask the tax man

The country is awash with proposals for reforming the system of MPs' expenses and allowances (Lynn Truss, please note position of apostrophe). Here are two more. Firstly, remove certain support functions from individual expenses altogether. For example, parliament itself should employ the support staff, as happens in the European Parliament. (It would be helpful if leading members of the Liberal Democrats could refrain from cheap cracks about "the Brussels gravy train" and perhaps learn some lessons from the EP instead). Secondly, pay MPs a higher salary and let HMRC decide which expenses are allowable as wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the course of work. This would put MPs on the same footing as all citizens. There would still be disputed items but the decision would lie with the taxman and the courts, not the House of Commons fees office operating special rules for MPs.

Incidentally, according to Michael Brown, former Tory MP, Margaret Thatcher is to blame as she blocked a salary increase and introduced allowances instead, thus deceiving the electorate.

Swine pandemic in Commons

As the pigs of Animal Farm finally proclaim, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". If MPs do not wish to be equated with these same pigs for exploiting their allowances in ways that would be forbidden or condemned in any other job, resisting the publication of their expense claims and then defending their behaviour because it was "within the rules" that they themselves had agreed to and failed to change, they must do more than change the rules.

I suggest:
1) Sack the speaker who exploited the rules himself, spent £100,000 of public money on m'learned friends trying to stop publication of expenses and failed to give his staff the backbone to stand up to absurd claims;
2) Force the resignation from the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet of the worst offenders;
3) Introduce retrospective Capital Gains Tax on all the capital gains made by MPs over the last ten years through abuse of the second homes allowances.

Only such drastic measures can begin to restore confidence in democracy. If we don't restore it, we will give strength to the campaigns of the demagogues of UKIP and the BNP.

What ho ! Wedding and Wodehouse

At a recent wedding reception a guest I had not met before said that I had already been described to her in suitably Wodehousian terms. I took this as a compliment, but on subsequent reflection over the eggs and b, I began to have doubts. She may not have been referring to Jeeves' superlative grey matter but to the young master himself or to Bingo Little, known to have frequented the National Liberal Club and conceived a passion for a waitress there (I have not). Surely she wasn't think of Aunts Agatha or Dahlia (of whom a well-known Somerset Liberal sometimes reminds me).

Bloody marvellous ! Gurkha victory

Like many bloggers, I'm always moaning when I say anything at all, but today I am rejoicing. Congratulations to Nick Clegg and the parliamentary team for defeating the government. On a less glorious but still highly enjoyable note, how wonderful to see Joanna Lumley and Nick Clegg sharing the limelight, with David Cameron playing second fiddle. I shall go out and buy the SatNav with Joanna Lumley's voice saying, "Turn left here, darling".

Gruntled, highly gruntled

Before I came to Chard, the small town in Somerset with one of the worst crime rates in Britain - ram-raids, murders, all out attacks on houses and quite a lot of litter, I lived in Lewes. This week Mark Steel visited Lewes and captured the character of the town, which he called stroppiness and I call a love of freedom and a determination not to be bossed about. OK, Mark Steel said it better.

They call me Mr Tibbs

I don't read the Daily Mail. Honest. Never. However, the Today programme has drawn my attention to an article by Guy Walters about how you address people and the growth of informality. I share Mr Walters' resentment when strangers, sales people in particular, call me David. I have tried responding, "Do I know you ?". In writing I often resort to the old Quaker habit of using both names, which is about showing respect to everyone equally. Sidney Poitier's character Virgil Tibbs insisted on Mr when the southern cops called him boy. Richard Crossman noted in his diary how his colleagues treated each other with greater respect and calmness in cabinet than when they met in the Labour Party's national executive. He attributed the different behaviour to different modes of address. In cabinet, titles - Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary ; in the NEC, first names - Harold, Jim, George. Of course, Mr Blair removed this distinction when first names made their appearance in cabinet, a clue to his evident disregard of cabinet government.

Transports of Delight 2

If you thought travelling by Ryanair couldn't get worse, you were sadly mistaken. Now they are thinking of charging for using the loo on the plane. Flushed with, and perhaps bowled over by their own cleverness, they have not considered the chain of consequences of this motion. Passengers desparate to avoid spending extra pennies will not dare to buy drinks during the flight. Net result - Ryanair's revenue down the drain. If you can bear more news, try Ryanair Campaign, where I found this cartoon.

Transports of Delight 1

Returning from Whitby down the M1, I made the unforgiveable error of stopping at Moto's Donnington Park Services. Britain's motorway services are so famously awful that it is hard to choose which is the worst but Donnington is a candidate. It is a vast aircraft hangar devoid of beauty or utility or of course service. Presumably Moto impose their exhorbitant prices to recover the costs of their fascist architecture, because clearly little money is spent on training their demoralised staff. I'm sure it's a dreadful, badly paid job but they would enjoy it more if they treated their customers with more than indifference.

Penrose in Whitby

I spent a long weekend in Whitby recently and I recommend it. Over the weekend the name Penrose came up again and again. I had packed Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" in another forlorn attempt to finish the book. I needn't have worried. As I sat at dinner at the wonderful Magpie Café, a young bearded Englishman at another table explained the entire thesis enthusiastically to a young bearded Frenchman. My eagerness to overhear this conversation meant that I missed some of my hostess' remarks about...yes...Penrose, but I discovered she meant the English Surrealist painter and poet Roland Penrose. A visit to the Whitby bookshop yielded science fiction I hadn't read before, "White Mars" by Brian Aldiss and...sorry, you guessed...Roger Penrose.

BBC: Not very appealing, not much trust

(Thanks to the Grauniad for the cartoon).
I have been pursuing the BBC's arcane complaints procedure to express my disgust at their refusal to broadcast the DEC appeal for Gaza. First, I received a response that simply re-iterated their original statement without answering my points. I replied to this as required and after two weeks received a response to my response to their response to my original complaint. This told me off for not using their webform and said that as the Director-General had made the decision, they couldn't consider any further complaint but I could complain to the BBC Trust.

As I had read their detailed procedure, I wasn't entitled to appeal to the trust until I had exhausted the BBC's own internal procedure. Meanwhile others had complained straight to the trust. Despite the fact that the trust had already received an appeal and reached a decision, the BBC's letter to me made no reference to it.

Turning to the substance of the trust's decision, they have acted like a court hearing a judicial review or an ombudsman receiving a complaint. In each case, the reviewing body (trust, court, ombudsman) does not attempt to substitute its own judgement of the issue for the judgement of the initial body (BBC in this case) but only to review whether the initial body arrived at its decision in a proper way. This is usually expressed as they took into account all relevant arguments, did not take into account any irrelevant arguments and their decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have taken it. In other words, there is no appeal on the substance rather than the process. As long as he jumps through the right procedural hoops, the BBC Director-General is no longer under anyone's control as he was when there was a Board of Governors. Isn't it comforting to know that the trust claims "As representatives of the licence fee payers, we take complaints about the BBC very seriously" ? Like so many of New Labour's reforms, the replacement of the governors by the trust has weakened the voice of the citizen.

Going to market

With the founding of the Social Liberal Forum the debate between Social Liberalism and Classical Liberalism has started up again and prompted me to repost yet another article. You don't have to read it, but if you do I'd be glad of any comments.

Thoughts on going to market

I love maps. Particularly, I like maps of mountains like the Coolins of Skye. They are so much easier to climb than the real thing. Apostles of "the Market" both within and without the Liberal Democrats need to remember that the map is not the territory, the theory is not the reality. In texts from Adam Smith to David Laws there is "the Market"; in the world there are only markets. Let us therefore explore the reality and not only the map and build Liberal policy on what exists as well as what we would like there to be.

In the Platonic world of the Market, everyone has equal information, supply always responds to demand and competition is utterly free. In the world of Emron, Berlusconi and even Gordon Brown, information is shared very unequally, supply is controlled by the few and the demands of the many are often shaped by them too. In the real world of soap powder, beer, buses, railways and newspapers, producers seek to dominate markets and restrict competition. The evangelist of the Market will of course condemn these departures from theory, but we should take the advice of Sherlock Holmes and make our theories explain the facts and not the facts fit our theories.

The Market is as much an intellectual construct as was "the State" in socialist theory. For much of the twentieth century, political discourse was pre-occupied with "the State" (sometimes called the people, the nation etc). When people wanted the government to do something (and especially when people in government wanted to do something), they did not say, "Let's give this minister (commissioner, gauleiter, prefect etc.) more power". No, they talked of the interests of the State (people, nation etc.). This kind of talk shouldn`t work any more. The people (real existing people) don't buy it. However, in the last two decades of the twentieth century and in our own brave new era, there is a new god, "the Market". These words conceal a slide in meaning, which I call the idealistic fallacy. The Market is an idea, a slovenly abbreviation for "the free market" whereas real markets are not an idea and not very free.

Of course, as Liberals we should prefer free-er markets to less free ones, competition to monopoly, choice to compulsion. But we should also abandon the old theology of the Market versus the State, which is about as fantastic and as little use as Alien vs. Predator. Both are false gods. Real markets need real states. Actors in real markets need a framework of law and a guarantee of value. Contract law means you can rely upon bargains made with strangers; property law defines what can be owned and by whom (Can you sell your genes, your ideas or even your cat ? Can anyone else ?). A stable currency requires legitimate authority not just a cabal of gold miners. Modern enterprises involving capital from many pockets need company law and banking law.

Above all, making markets free-er requires competition law. Who can doubt that there is a free-er market today in the countries of the European Union because of legislation, not in spite of it ? Well unfortunately, many people, but they should consider what the markets of Europe would be like if each country had been adopting its own legislation on the subject for the last fifty years. With each government lobbied by its own interest groups, there would still be a protectionist plethora of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Yet there are people who believe that you can have a functioning Free Trade Area without a democratic legislature to agree the rules. If you do doubt that markets need states and you think that freeing markets means less law and a weak state, take a good long look at Russia. The paradox is that law and freedom march together.

All political theories have an ethical root, explicit or implicit. They assume what human beings are like, how they behave and especially how they relate to each other. For Marx, your role as producer defines you; for the marketeers, it is more often your role as consumer. Feudal societies were made of subjects, nation-states of citizens. Liberals must build their ideas on the real complexity and diversity of people. Yes, we are all both producers and consumers but our roles in society are not exhausted by what we buy and sell. Yes, we are citizens but not everything in our lives, not even the most important, is covered by our public roles. As John Stuart Mill proclaimed, there is also the private sphere. Our freedom depends upon not expecting the state to solve all problems. It also depends upon not expecting the Market to solve them.

Ruskin lampooned the theories of economists by comparing them with theories of exercise - calisthenics. He said it was as if you based your theory of exercise on human bodies having no bones. From this premise you could prove logically that people could roll into balls or cylinders. Your logic would be impeccable but your premise absurd. This criticism still applies to modern economists who expect all behaviour in the Market to be based upon the rational expectations of people whose only motive is to maximise their wealth. In real markets people have other desires and motives such as to maximise their free time or the time spent or not spent in one person's company. In real markets people don't always recognise the course of action which will achieve their desires. In real markets their desires and their expectations are partly shaped by suppliers. Above all, in real markets people do not always have the means to convert their desires into effective demand.

It has become fashionable to justify state action today in terms of "market failure". I dislike the term because it implies an assumption that the Market should have produced a rational allocation of scarce resources in the first place, to provide enough teachers or doctors or houses or whatever the writer wants. We should not even hint at such an assumption but understand ab initio that real markets are good for many things but not all things. Perhaps then we should expect real markets not to deliver social justice or human happiness in general but simply to deliver strictly economic objectives (assuming there are such things). Unfortunately real markets cannot always manage that either. As John Maynard Keynes so compellingly argued, markets will inevitably bring about a balance between demand and supply but the balance will not necessarily be at the level where all resources are used or all people employed.

As a young economics student I heard another unfashionable economist, Kenneth Galbraith, propose the motion that "This house considers that the market is a snare and a delusion". I spoke against him. Now I believe that talk of the Market is a snare and a delusion but that real existing markets are powerful tools of mankind to achieve its purposes. They cannot do everything. Liberals must be wary of state action. There is always a price as well as a benefit for interfering with a market. When it comes to the Market and the State, there is not one god and we should eschew the blandishments of those who say there is.

Hot air, hot Brown air

In November 2007 our great leader, Gordon Brown proclaimed:

"The climate change crisis is the product of many generations, but overcoming it must be the great project of this generation. And this project will have to involve not just America and Europe, as in 1945, but the entire community of nations. So once again leaders will have to show vision and determination"

As we know, Gordon's latest contribution to the "vision and determination" required is to approve the plans for a new runway at Heathrow. God help us all if he didn't have vision and determination !

If you want to stop this ludicrous idea from taking off (sorry !), have a look at Greenpeace's website on Heathrow and become one of thousands of beneficial owners of a plot of land at Sipson near Heathrow, the village Gordon wants to destroy.

Tea at Betty's !

Himmelgarten Cafe posts about the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in Harrogate, but forgets to draw attention to the ever popular Constitutional Amendments. This year we'll be adding to 6.10(c): "(State Parties may appoint a substitute member should the elected member be unable to attend a specific meeting of the FCC)". Should be a lively debate !

At university there was this man called Rosenstiel who forever popped up at general meetings moving amendments making the Cambridge Union Society's constitution longer than the United States'. When I joined the Liberals back in the Neolithic Era, imagine my delight to find the very same man popping up to do the same job for the party. The mantle has now passed to Duncan Brack and at least he doesn't try to stop ambulances with his bare hands.

If all this isn't enough to wet the Liberal appetite, there's always tea at Betty's, although their website warns: "Our Veranda and Spindler Cafés at Bettys in Harrogate will be closed temporarily. From 5th January until Easter. Why not try our elegant Imperial Room? Or for our full café menu please visit Bettys at RHS Gardens Harlow Carr."

Stupid or corrupt ? You decide

Craig Murray posts in characteristic trenchancy about Tessa Jowell, arguing that if she didn't know what her husband David Mills was up to she was stupid but if she did, she was corrupt.

Comments from contemporaries on Camden Council suggests she may not be the sharpest tool in the box. For myself, I first took notice of her when she attempted to ban the Stop the War march from using Hyde Park to protest against the Iraq War, because the demonstrators would damage the grass ! Of course the hordes who swarmed to Hyde Park (like myself) for the Last Night of the Proms or (unlike myself) various corporate entertainment events would just float over the grass. The difference was that the latter would provide money (something she seems inordinately fond of) whereas the former were there to protest against the illegal war she and her colleagues voted for and which damaged slightly more than grass. Here are some of her other votes.

• Voted for introducing a smoking ban.
• Voted for introducing ID cards.
• Voted for introducing foundation hospitals.
• Voted for introducing student top-up fees.
• Voted for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
• Voted for the Iraq war.
• Voted against investigating the Iraq war.
• Voted for replacing Trident.

When the kissing had to stop

Actually I don't think Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson did kiss on the platform at Carnforth Station, but they couldn't do it at Warrington today where they have erected no kissing signs. Are the people of Warrington really so passionate that they need this restraint ? Perhaps they are trying to win back the world simultaneous kissing record for Britain. Until Valentine's Day this year, the record was held by Britain with 32,648 people, but now Mexico City has taken it with 39,987 participants. How on earth do they count it ?

Incidentally Brief Encounter was banned in Ireland for its sympathetic betrayal of adultery. The censors obviously didn't watch the whole film.

Strictly come sinking

Linda Jack says, "Two or three days before it sunk the Titanic was warned it was approaching an ice field, ignorance, arrogance or indifference meant it ignored the warnings. Vince Cable has been a clear and lone voice about the banks and personal debt for many years. No one listened." Here he is whispering words of doom in Kate Winslet's ear as they begin the Tango.

A welcome in the hillsides, a welcome in the vales

The England-Wales match today and, judging by last week's performance, the only sight that England will enjoy today is Kathryn Jenkins. Still, a welcome change from Tom Jones.

I disapprove of what you say...

Oh dear, oh dear ! The Today programme could not find a minister to defend the government's stupid decision to ban Geert Wilders from entering Britain, so they found Chris Huhne to do it for them. Chris began by saying "Freedom of speech is absolutely crucial" and then showed that he doesn't know the meaning of absolute by trying to draw a dividing line we should not cross, a principle for exceptions to freedom of speech. First he argued we should not allow "incitement to hatred or incitement to violence". John Humphries pointed out that these are two different things. Chris tried again. We shouldn't allow speech which is "creating the conditions for violence". We should have "freedom up to the point where there is potential for harm". Talk about stop digging when you're in a hole. Chris had not thought through the principles he was trying to enunciate. Freedom of speech is not absolute but it is bloody important.

The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views. Wilders says the government's reason for not allowing him to enter is because his opinions "threaten community security and therefore public security" . The Home Office website gives no information on the point. No minister appeared on the Today programme.

Chris is wrong and Jacqui Smith is wrong, wrong in principle and wrong in practice. They are wrong in principle because what they object to is Wilders' opinions (and they are objectionable) but his views do no not themselves incite violence, they upset and offend many people, some of whom may become violent in reaction. His film if anything condemns violence. The film combines extracts from the Koran which encourage violence with clips of actual violence by Islamists (NB. This is the general term not for Muslims but for what the press calls Islamic extremists). I'm sure a similar film could be made with extracts from the Bible and clips of Christian violence or from the Torah with Jewish violence. The offence lies in not distinguishing between Muslims and Islamists. Wilders may be ghastly and his views dreadful but we should not prevent the expression of views which create "the conditions for violence" or "where there is the potential for harm". A literal interpretation of these tests would prevent the expression of any opinion which could possibly upset or offend anyone prepared to resort to violence when upset or offended. Nor should we allow the Home Secretary or even a judge to decide on a non-literal interpretation. The link between such words and actual violence is not sufficiently proximate. Offending the violent is NOT inciting violence. If you think it is, you are handing over power to the bigot.

They are wrong in practice. Jacqui Smith's decision (which she would not defend in public but Chris did) has given more publicity and support to the wretched Wilders that letting him in to the UK would ever have done. Polls on the Daily Mail and Guardian websites both show an overwhelming majority of voters opposing the ban. Newly elected Presidents of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats traditionally receive a copy of the Milton's Areopagitica which contains the phrase,
"...who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter ?". I commend it to Chris. The right response to Wilders and anyone like him is to hear them, to argue with them and show that they are wrong.

There is another worrying implication here. Wilders is a European citizen and parliamentarian. He was invited by a European citizen (Lord Pearson of UKIP may not like this description) and parliamentarian. Wilders' attendance at the meeting in the House of Lords was prevented by Jacqui Smith, a member of the Executive. The prevention of discussion among parliamentarians by the Executive is characteristic of fascist government. Of course I do not say that our government is fascist but they do need to consider more carefully the implication of their decisions.

Finally, on the subject of offending people, have a listen to Marcus Brigstocke on religion on YouTube. Perhaps Jacqui Smith will prosecute him.

Sorry !

An American writer, Tom Perrotta, has suggested
two new holidays, "Grievance Day" and "Apology Day". On Grievance Day, you could approach someone and complain that you've suffered at their hands. After three months, on Apology Day that person can apologise or respond. What interested me were some of the comments on the idea.

"That would be the worst idea ever. Some people don't take kindly to being told they have done something wrong, there would be fights left right and centre". Where did this comment come from ? Northern Ireland. It's such a pity when your worst prejudices are confirmed.

I preferred this comment from Grantham. Bless. "I spend half my life saying I'm sorry, a whole day dedicated to it will save me a lot of time." As they say in Lincolnshire, "Now then."