Coconut

A Bristol Liberal Democrat Councillor, Shirley Brown, has been found guilty of racial harassment. She called Asian Conservative Jay Jethwa a "coconut" during a debate at Bristol City Council in February 2009, because Jethwa had backed a proposal to cease funding for an organisation set up to support ethnic minorities in Bristol. Mrs Brown's words were:
"In our culture we have a word for you, a word which many in our city would understand, and that's coconut. At the end of the day I look at you as that." The term coconut is used to accuse someone of betraying their race or culture by implying that, like a coconut, they are brown on the outside but white on the inside.


Section 3A of the Race Relations Act provides that harassment occurs where:
"A person subjects another to harassment ... where, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of:
• violating that other person's dignity
• creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him
• conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified (above) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect"

Well, I suppose that being called a "coconut" in those circumstances and with that special meaning is insulting but does it violate a person's dignity, as the magistrate must have concluded ? The insult can only be delivered sensibly to someone with a dark skin but the burden of the insult is about the person's behaviour not their colour. As I write this I am listening to a succession of Labour MPs making similar insults about the behaviour of Liberal Democrats, accusing them of betraying the people they represent, but there's no racial element so you can violate their dignity as much as you like. Above all, I question whether making a remark like this in the absence of violence or any threat of violence should be a crime ? This case is a good example of how easily we limit freedom of speech when we make being offensive a crime. The logic is that you can legally insult me for being a Liberal,a lawyer, a ballet dancer, a fox-hunter or a train-spotter (I am only one of these) because these are all choices I can make. Of course you can also legally insult me for being middle-class, red-haired, short, fat and bald ( I am all but one of these), but I have no choice about any of them. Most of these characteristics are genetic inheritance as much as race is. As a society, we have decided that certain insults are so much worse than others, that they are criminal.

Surely an apology, which I understand was given, should have ended the matter. I have grave doubts that the criminal law is helpful in this situation. Indeed, there is a danger that such cases assist recruitment to the dreadful BNP.

Thumbs down for the budget

The more I think about this budget, the less I like it. James Graham sums it up well in the Social Liberal Forum: deficit reduction too fast, ratio of cuts to taxes too high, choice of taxes unfair. The main argument deployed to defend the budget is the need to reassure the money markets. My fear is that the initial confidence of the money men will disappear when it becomes clear that the coalition's ambitious cuts cannot be achieved in the timescale. A more practical and slower plan would have been better economics, better politics and better for the markets too.

Budget leaks

Amidst all the speculation on the budget, I hear so many reports of government plans - not so much leaks as news management. Whatever happened to the Chancellor's traditional purdah ? What happened to promises to announce things in parliament first ? We used to demand that in opposition.

The budget and the size of the state

As we await the budget cuts, some Liberals have started to argue about the size of the state. Define "state". The largest chuck of public spending is £135.7bn for the Department of Work and Pensions which is mainly dispersed in transfer payments which are then spent by individual citizens. Does this make the state large ? The second largest is £109.5bn spent by the Treasury on saving the banks, which in due course we will sell again.

IMHO the arguments about the size of the state are beside the point. The actual political issues are the speed of reduction of the deficit and the balance between spending cuts and tax increases. The government's unseemly haste to cut the deficit may serve political purposes and kowtow to the financial markets' usual short-term views but they will be less pleased in due course if a double-dip recession results.
If you think the haste is NOT unseemly, don't take my word for it, read Sam Brittan in the FT.

Matthew Parris on Afghanistan

Parris writes in The Times "Cameron and Clegg have made a calculation: sacrifice more soldiers in Afghanistan to keep on side with the US"

The price of power

Liberal Democrat policy is not to replace Trident with a like-for-like system, but the price of sharing power in the coalition is becoming clear.

The coalition agreement approved by the conference in Birmingham said:
"The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury. The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives."

I (and others) took this to mean that Trident WOULD be included in the SDR. The fact that the drafting put Trident in a separate sentence should have been a warning.

Strangely the Coalition Programme for Government doesn't mention the SDR but repeats:
"We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent,and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives"

On Tuesday night this week (8th June) the Commons voted on Angus Robertson's amendment to the Address which called for Trident to be included in the SDR. As far as I can tell there was not one speech in the debate which mentioned the amendment ! In the vote, the Labour opposition (with very few exceptions) abstained despite the fact that in government they had no intention of including Trident in the review. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs voted AGAINST and defeated the amendment.

Nothing in the coalition agreement says that Trident should or should not be included in the SDR. Yet Liberal Democrat MPs have voted against something they surely believe in. Presumably excluding Trident from the SDR was a cabinet decision followed by a three-line whip. It seems that MPs are not only committed to support items in the agreement but also to oppose items NOT in the agreement. We can, it seems, "continue to make the case for alternatives" but not in parliament ! Where then ?

Jolly boating weather

A few views of the Grand Union and Stratford canals
Sadly "New technology defeated old hack" when I was on the canals last week. Couldn't get camera to talk to laptop, nor laptop to internet whilst actually travelling.

David Laws and Alastair Campbell

Sara Bedford's excellent posting on David Laws is followed by an intriguing comment by Pat Nash, suggesting that Alastair Campbell played a role in the story. Why did he produce a photo of David Laws in the 59th minute of Question Time ?

Private lives

The news about David Laws is sad. His second home expenses were not unreasonable for London, less than many MPs claim. The issue is whether your lover is your spouse. The opposition will exploit popular salacious homophobia but pretend only to care about the money. Society pretends not to care about public figures' sexuality but denies them the right to private lives.

Nick Cohen attacks Jenny Tonge...again !

Nick Cohen is very rarely right. He was wrong about Iraq and he's wrong about Jenny. Read this appalling article carefully and you'll see that he smears her for what he thinks she believes rather than for what she actually believes. One example: "Once baronesses start talking like this, it is only a matter of time before they embrace the "blood libel"..." She doesn't, she hasn't, she never will. Cohen really is "something nasty in the woodshed" - a disgusting toad. I hope Jenny can sue him for libel.

People called Boak(e)s

The Thirsk & Malton election was delayed because of the death of John Boakes. The name rang a bell and I identified the clanging as Commander Bill Boaks, the eccentric parliamentary candidate. Wikipedia has an interesting biography of him. I particularly like that the first time he stood, in 1951, he intended to stand against the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, whose constituency was Walthamstow West, but Boaks got it wrong and fought Walthamstow East as an independent candidate for "Admiral" (which stood for "Association of Democratic Monarchists Representing All Women") and got 174 votes out of 40,001 cast.

Boaks obviously disliked Attlee who relied upon his (Attlee's) wife Vi to drive him (Attlee) when campaigning. Mrs Attlee was a notoriously bad driver and Boaks attempted private prosecutions whenever she crashed. Boaks himself used to campaign from the middle of roundabouts, until moved on by police. His funeral was attended by the then Transport Minister, Peter Bottomley.

Not a lot of people know that

Michael Caine says he supports the coalition government. He likes the idea of politicians controlling each other.

So, farewell then Alan Watkins

Alan Watkins, who died recently, was the man who coined the term young fogey for Charles Moore. Alan Watkins' son David was about to read him fellow columnist Simon Hoggart's article on the General Election fallout when he realised that his father had died. "Rather an extreme reaction," said Robert Harris in his address at the funeral.

The men who stare at space

Kevin Fetter stares at space. Some time ago he discovered a missing tool bag that an astronaut had dropped at the International Space Station. The video of a dot crossing the dark sky was a hit on You Tube. Now Kevin has found the US's secret unmanned shuttle, the OTV-1, which passes over Afghanistan every 90 minutes. Kevin lives at home with his mother and cleans floors for a living. Perhaps he could find my glasses.

Israel locks up Vanunu again

Whilst the world tries to negotiate reductions in nuclear weapons and the West threatens unspecified reprisal if Iran develops them, Israel continues to deny that it has them and again jails Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower who exposed their nuclear arsenal to the world. He has already spent 18 years in jail, mostly in solitary confinement. This time he's been sent back to jail for unauthorised meetings with foreigners, including his Norwegian girlfriend. Amnesty International now considers him a "prisoner of conscience". That's Israel folks, the country our last government used to refer to as a friend and ally.

Fine cuts

At the Yeovil constituency post-election party I handed David Laws a present to help with his job as Chief Secretary of the Treasury - a knife sharpener. Not a knife, because I didn't want to promote cuts but a sharpener because I wanted him to make fine cuts. David has referred to it in his interview in the FT.

Naked short-selling - was I wrong ?

I think the Druid and the Guardian between them have persuaded me that banning naked short-selling may not be the solution. I'd like to know what is.

Sssssh ! The spectre of budget cuts

New York Public Library facing budget cuts, re-enacted the invasion of ghosts and their defeat by ghostbusters. When libraries in the London Borough of Ongar faced cuts, the headline in the local paper read "Book lack in Ongar".

Naked trading

The Guardian reports, "Germany bans naked short-selling". Years ago I asked fellow Liberal and a stockbroker, Chris Wilding, what a financial headline meant. He responded, "Oh that means you're going uncovered bears". I was suitably enlightened. Now uncovered has become naked. It's selling stocks you don't own. If you sold someone a car you didn't own, you'd be guilty of an offence under the Theft Act for "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another" and it would be no excuse that you planned to buy it before you handed it over. But of course the financial markets are a law unto themselves. High time they weren't. Good on the Germans, I say.

Coalition: Special Conference speech

What do we think of this coalition ? Some will say with Wordsworth, "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven". Others with Browning, "Never glad confident morning again". I go with Longfellow, "Life is real and life is earnest". Sadly however, while we campaign in poetry, we govern in prose. I wanted a progressive alliance but there were two problems, quantity and quality. There weren't enough Labour MPs and Labour wasn't progressive.

This is a Westminster coalition, not a merger. We know that Liberal ministers will be bound by collective cabinet responsibility and that the whips will try to restrain Liberal MPs, but Liberal MEPs in Strasbourg will not be restrained, Liberal councillors in Birmingham, Sheffield, Edinburgh and Cardiff will not be restrained and above all our party will not be restrained.

Charlie Kennedy is afraid of being swallowed up. Well I'm not. The Liberal Democrats are not. Paddy says he's confused. I'm not confused. Paddy was at my wedding at a Quaker meeting. One of the elders addressed the congregation and invited them all to stand and speak if they wished to. I looked at the crowd of Liberals and thought, "We'll be here all night". You cannot shut Liberals up and you shouldn't try.

As Liberals grasp the reigns of power, they should continue to reach for their ideals. I hope Robert Browning will forgive me when I say, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what are the Liberal Democrats for ?"

I think we should be told

Has anyone noticed the extraordinary resemblance between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws, and the new Dr Who, Matt Smith ? I wonder if by any chance they are related ? I think we should be told.

Shoot the dogs - says Toby

Canvassing and leafleting during elections, one learns to be careful about sticking fingers through letterboxes, but even after being barked and growled at and attacked in front gardens, I don't agree with Lord Harris's stand on dogs. Toby Harris, another old Labour dinosaur, says we should shoot dangerous dogs to save money.

Labour dinosaurs

The antediluvians of the Labour Party have wrecked any chance of a progressive alliance, confirming what an archaic, conservative force Labour is. David Blunkett and Jack Straw, two of the worst Home Secretaries ever, can't cope with the idea of a government that actually represents the majority of people instead of their own prejudices.

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.

Don't sell out on electoral reform !

Any deal with the Conservatives will be worthless if it doesn’t deliver electoral reform. I don’t expect Cameron to offer it and, if he did, his party would never deliver it. Nor would a so-called confidence-and-supply deal be any good. It would reap for us the opprobrium of all those voters who supported us to stop the Tories but would gain nothing in return. To update Jeremy Thorpe, “6,827,938 people did not vote Liberal to put a Conservative government into power”

I do not understand those who fear a referendum on PR, as already offered by Labour. The public mood is strong for constitutional reform. Whenever before did we see demonstrations for fair votes across Britain ? I marched in Bristol with several hundred and shoppers applauded and cars hooted their support. Many Labour activists also support PR. If we do not have the courage to seize the chance for fair votes, we don’t deserve to be in politics at all.

There is a tide in the affairs of men

One or two people of my acquaintance have expressed the opinion that we would lose a referendum on electoral reform and that therefore Liberal Democrats should do a deal with the Conservatives.

I do not understand this view. All the polls on the subject show that the public support it. If we are not prepared to take the risk, we should just get out of politics. This is the best chance we have ever had to change the voting system and the only chance we will have for many, many years. A deal with Cameron would be utterly worthless. We would share the blame for his disastrous economic policy and fail to achieve any of our own basic policies and, when Cameron felt the time was right, he would pull the plug and go for a new election, at which he could win a majority. Under the current system the public would feel even less inclined to vote for a third party and the Tories would have more money to fight the campaign than anyone else.

“There is a tide in the affairs of men” and we don’t take it at the flood, we deserve to drown.

Cameron offers nothing

1. We did NOT promise to work with the party with the most support. Nick Clegg said before and after the election that that party (the Conservatives of course) had the right TO SEEK to form a government.

2. The Conservatives did NOT win the election either by the discredited first-post-the-post system nor by any proportional test.

3. The great prize of this election can be electoral reform. We will never have a better chance of getting it.

4. I have never had any doctrinaire opposition to co-operation with Conservatives or Labour, being pragmatic and basing my view on whatever they offer. It seems to me that Cameron is NOT offering and will not offer anything worth having and that Brown is pretty desperate and ready to offer more.

5. I believe an arrangement with Labour can be presented as a crisis measure for constitutional reform (PR, elected Lords and fixed-term parliaments) and economic stability in exceptional circumstances. There is a popular mandate for both and the Tories offer neither.

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.

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).