Trident and the Marquess of Salisbury

On Wednesday morning, the Liberal Democrat Conference unanimously passed a motion calling for Trident to be included in the Strategic Security and Defence Review. For a few days the debate can be found on BBC I-Player. The Financial Times decided that Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, looked like an anarchist and I looked like the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. Actually the Marquess looks more like Kropotkin than any of us. The Grauniad called me David Grave.

Try, try, Trident again !

The Liberal Democrat Conference Committee has allowed very little time for emergency motions proposed by members. There are two slots, one of which they have given to a motion on floods in Pakistan which nobody will oppose and will not really require debate. Six perfectly good motions are left to compete for the remaining slot. The ballot between these motions is also so arranged to limit participation. Ballot forms will be handed out on Sunday morning to be returned by 1.00 pm on Sunday. Why such a short period when the chosen debate won't be until Wednesday morning ?

If you agree that now is the time to push on Trident, vote for this motion:

Emergency Motion No.6

Conference notes that:

In July the Chancellor announced that the Ministry of Defence will have to fund the £20-£30bn capital costs of a ‘like for like’ replacement for Trident. The Defence Secretary has warned that this means severe restrictions in the way Britain operates militarily, regiments could be axed or the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy amalgamated. The exclusion of Trident from the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is now untenable. It should be included and receive the scrutiny which strategic, political and financial circumstances demand.

Conference calls on the Liberal Democrat ministers to:

Press for the extension of the SDSR to allow a full review of the alternatives to ‘like-for-like’ replacement of Trident;

Ensure the SDSR considers cost-saving options such as ending continuous at-sea patrols and extending the life of Vanguard submarines;

Ensure the SDSR makes explicit the opportunity cost of Trident replacement – in terms of cuts to troop numbers and equipment programmes.

Trident replacement to be postponed ?

The BBC reports that the government is considering putting off the key decision on replacing Trident (known as "main gate")until after the next election. As so often, this decision not to decide is driven by saving money not by any principled discussion of the role and usefulness or lack of usefulness of Trident. That discussion would only happen if the government stopped ringfencing Trident and put it into the Strategic Security and Defence Review. At least a postponement will provide more time to press for that discussion to take place. The writer and former naval officer interviewed on the Today programme revealed that all three armed services don't want Trident and feel it has been imposed upon them by politicians.

Things you don't hear every day

"Pandas always find their way into politics" were the words with which the Today programme woke me this morning.

Bankers or borrowers ???

As, I think, Terry-Thomas (or possibly Snoopy) might have said, "It matters not who wins or loses, but how you place the blame".
So who do we blame for the financial mess - the bankers or the borrowers ?

Peter Black quotes an interview with former Cabinet Secretary, Andew Turnbull, which firmly blames the Labour Government's borrowing.

On the other hand, Keynesian Liberal quotes an unpublished letter to the Guardian, which equally firmly blames the bankers.

It remains a political truth that the government of the day will always get the blame, even if the causes were before they came to power.

"One can survive everything, nowadays, except death."

In Paris recently I visited Pere Lachaise cemetery. It is a vast necropolis with Oscar Wilde buried furthest from the entrance. This has not stopped a continuous flow of visitors since he was moved there in 1909 from his original resting place outside Paris. As you can see many of them pay their tributes in writing with marker pens or on post-it notes. Thus defacing the tomb does seem a strange way to honour someone you admire.

Wikipaedia tells me the tomb was commissioned by Robert Ross and designed by Sir Jacob Epstein, adding "The modernist angel depicted as a relief on the tomb was originally complete with male genitalia which have since been vandalised; their current whereabouts are unknown." Taken by a fan or a critic ? Who knows ? After my trek to Oscar, my feet hurt and I decided to leave Sartre, Jim Morrison et al to rest in peace.

David Rogers and the Rome restaurant

Is David Rogers secretly running a restaurant in Trastavere ? Here's my snatched shot of the restaurant owner. You decide. Incidentally the food was excellent.

Burning books: Thank God, I'm an atheist.

Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, plans to burn the Quran on Saturday (9/11 in the backward American usage). Many have quoted Heinrich Heine, who in 1821 was referring to the burning of the Qur'an during the Spanish Inquisition: "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." The Nazis proved him right, burning his books in Berlin's Opernplatz a century later before they moved on to burn people.

I searched for a biblical injunction against burning books but found this:
"Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men ... So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." Acts 19:19-20. This was quoted by this bunch of Baptist nutters, who proclaim proudly:
"The burning of books is nothing new to True Christians®. We invented the practice over two-thousand years ago as a way to promote our faith in the Lord Jesus. In the early days of Christianity, when new believers in Christ were converted, they were naturally moved by the Holy Spirit to grab as many books as they could and pitch them into a fire. Unlike the sissy "Jesus is Love" fake-Christians (whom both the Lord Jesus and we loathe) we have running around today, the early followers of Christ were never ashamed to burn books. In fact, if you ever find yourself being grateful for the destruction of most of the works of pagan nincompoops like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you have a Christian to thank! ".

At first I though this was some kind of spoof, a parody, but no, it's real. They go on to announce: "As most Christians already know, the Harry Potter book series is the most evil and dangerous set of books to be released this century.".

They are perhaps marginally less nutty than Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina who maintains that the first King James translation of the Bible is the only true declaration of God’s word, and that all others are “satanic”. On Halloween, he's going to burn the following “perversions of scripture" : The New Revised Version Bible, the American Standard Version Bible, and even the New King James Version.

Let's not forget Sarah Palin's old church, the Assembly of God, which has burnt Harry Potter books, music by Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam and that ungodly tale, Pinocchio.

Sometimes I thank God I'm an atheist.

Season of mists

Sue McGuire has published Keats' Ode to Autumn. Strange that Keats did not mention the smell of woodsmoke and burning leaves in Autumn's bonfires. I looked up how he came to write it. He was in Winchester. Surely they had woodsmoke ?

I also think the year starts in Autumn when the academic year begins and woodsmoke used to hang around Cambridge. It was the right time to start eating crumpets, which should have a closed season in the spring and summer like game birds. I particularly remember toasting them on a gas fire while the girls who invited me to tea sang, "When all those endearing young charms...". I promise you this was 1971 not 1871.

Autumn also means Last Night of the Proms and Liberal Conference, sometimes at the same time, but not this year.

Two Beds

The Guardian: “So what is it like to end up in bed with the Tories?
Shirley Williams: "Not one bed, two beds."


The coalition is a great experiment in grown-up government for Britain but it must also be a launch pad for Liberalism, not a slippery slide into decline.


We must maintain our separate identity, develop, promote, deliver and proclaim Liberal Democrat policies or the media will scorn and the electorate desert us.


Develop: We remain a separate party and must not be afraid to propose ideas which Conservatives oppose or the coalition agreement ignores. Our conferences should be fresh and exciting, a hotbed of new ideas, not a coalition rally.


Promote: Coalition is about compromise but after negotiation NOT before. We must argue from our clear vision, not some fuzzy consensus, and we must be seen to argue. Liberal Democrat Ministers defending government policies which we have always opposed will appear dishonest and weak unless they can demonstrate tough negotiation and the necessary virtue of constructive difference.


Deliver: Liberal Democrats in the coalition government cannot implement all our policies but they must deliver some and be seen to do so. Liberal Democrats in coalition must have real value for the voters, not just ministerial bums on seats.


Proclaim: Our identity and our political future are on the table. The future of Liberalism in Britain is in play. We must shout our achievements from the rooftops just as Labour and the Tory press will bellow out our failures. We have to win local elections over the next few years and European elections in 2014 on the Liberal Democrat record and Liberal Democrat policies. We are not all in coalition. In five years’ time we have to fight a general election as Liberal Democrats and emerge stronger.

So, farewell then Jack Straw !

Hoorah ! Jack Straw is quitting front bench politics. What a pity he didn't quit public life at birth ! He says, "But now I want the freedom to range more widely over foreign and economic policy." No, no, no ! Go and waste years writing the memoirs no-one wants to read.

Perhaps we could amend the Reform Bill to add ex-Presidents of the NUS to the list of people ineligible to stand for parliament along with lords, lunatics and felons. The degree of guile and utter lack of principle required to win that post should disqualify anyone.

Hiroshima Day

Hiroshima Day. Do we really want to spend billions on a Trident replacement so that we can do this again ? I couldn't bear to post most of the images I found.

Labour Gerrymandering

My friend Simon McGrath has reminded us of Jim Callaghan's defiance of Boundary Commission recommendations in 1969 which would have cost Labour at least 10 seats. Actually it was worse than that. Callaghan failed to lay Orders in Council before parliament as the law required. Instead he introduced a bill to give effect to local government changes in London which he liked but also to absolve himself from the duty to lay the orders for parliamentary boundary changes which he didn't. The Lords passed the bill but with wrecking amendments. Ross McWhirter started a court action for a writ of Mandamus to order Callaghan to carry out his statutory duty as Home Secretary. In the end Callaghan laid the required orders before parliament but made sure the Labour MPs were whipped to vote against them. Consequently the 1970 election was fought on 1954 boundaries. Labour lost anyway.

Labour had form for gerrymandering. They didn't like the first ever Boundary Commission recommendations in 1948, so they simply added 17 new urban constituencies. They now have the gall to suggest that reforming parliament to make constituencies more equal in size is gerrymandering. They would know, of course.

Microcosmographica Academica

I am delighted that F.M.Cornford's guide to academic politics Microcosmographica Academica is out of copyright and available on-line. It also applies to national politics. It explains the principle of the thin end of the wedge and the difference between Conservative-Liberals and Liberal-Conservatives.

A Conservative Liberal is a broad-minded man, who thinks that something ought to be done, only not anything that anyone now desires, but something which was not done in 1881-82.

A Liberal Conservative is a broad-minded man, who thinks that something ought to be done, only not anything that anyone now desires; and that most things which were done in 1881-82 ought to be undone.

The men of both of these parties are alike in being open to conviction; but so many convictions have already got inside, that it is very difficult to find the openings. They dwell in the Valley of Indecision.

Where do you stand on squirrels ?

Jonathan Calder has posted a defence of eating squirrels. It turns out that Jenny Seagrove is against it. Just an excuse for posting her picture as she appeared in Local Hero but with a pirate squirrel as company.

Call Labour's bluff - split the bill !

The opportunistic self-serving hypocrites who lead the Parliamentary Labour Party are going to vote against a referendum on AV despite their own commitment to the idea a few weeks ago. The arch-hypocrite (and sadly typical ex-NUS President) Jack Straw explains that the bill also provides for redrawing boundaries and reducing the number of constituencies. Of course the real motive is to join with Tory anti-referendum backwoodsmen rebels and defeat the government. So, the obvious solution - split the bill in two. Will Labour have the unashamed gall to vote against a bill only for a referendum on AV ? I doubt it, but if they did we would see their essential and deep-seated conservatism revealed. Simples !

Literary quiz

I have recently bought a copy of James Walton's "Sonnets, Bonnetts & Bennetts". I couldn't resist the puff by Lynne Truss which said, "The perfect gift for the sort of person who shouts the answers at University Challenge". That's me. Here's an example of the questions inside.

Who's the only person in literary history both to have been shortlisted for the Booker Prize and to have played a girlfriend of Ken Barlow's in Coronation Street ?

No prizes for the first answer. Just buy the book.

Sinography - enough already !

This is the Chinese character for love. Sadly I know no others, so whoever it is keeps posting comments in Chinese characters, please stop. I can't read them, so I can't publish them, not knowing what they mean.

The police get away with it - again !

The decision of the CPS not to prosecute the police officer, Pc Simon Harwood, who struck and knocked over Ian Tomlinson is indefensible, unforgivable, outrageous. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer should resign. The CPS Statement says that "...there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter." because of conflicts in the medical evidence. Perhaps they haven't heard of the jury system, in which twelve members of the public decide who to believe. It's what we commonly use when the accused is NOT a policeman.

The CPS also failed to prosecute for any lesser charge than manslaughter. After a year they have decided what we can all see in the video evidence: "Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC 'A' in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault." so they're not completely stupid. They're just inexcusably slow. Why take a year to review the evidence ? Why not bring charges of common assault within the six-month time limit ?

Perhaps the policeman concerned will face charges under the Health and Safety legislation like the policemen who killed Jean Charles de Menezes. Perhaps he'll face a little reprimand under the internal disciplinary procedures. Or perhaps he will conclude that he can behave just as badly as he likes, because his colleagues will lie to the press to protect him, because his bosses will employ incompetent doctors who will screw up the evidence and because the bloody geniuses at the CPS can't put a case together in under a year !

Now it turns out Pc Simon Harwood had already reached that conclusion, having been previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour.

Trident- let's not talk about it !

As we know, the government has excluded Trident from the Strategic Defence Review. Now the Liberal Democrats' Conference Committee has excluded a motion on Trident challenging that decision. Surprisingly perhaps, Ming Campbell has challenged the government's decision*. Ming is emerging as the strongest independent Liberal voice in parliament. Liberal Democrat voters and members have to be mature about the coalition in which we are the minority and understand that the leadership cannot deliver everything we want. In return the leadership has to understand that we can go on saying what we want even it's embarrassing for the government.

*Thanks to Liberal England for pointing out Ming's remarks.

The home life of the Hitchens

I have often wondered what breakfast was like in the Hitchens family when brothers Christopher and Peter were young. Radio 4's "The House I grew up in" revealed yesterday that they were at each other's throats just as much as now, but physically as well when children.
If you enjoy watching brothers arguing, there's more on you tube.

Conference to debate Trident ???

Liberal Democrat Conference Committee is considering the following motion on Trident which many of us have signed.
Nuclear Weapons and the Financial Crisis

Conference notes that:

i) Britain is currently in the worst financial crisis since the end of the Second
World War

ii) Britain’s capacity for independent military action is limited increasingly by financial constraint. The Strategic Defence and Security Review Green Paper (February 2010) called for Britain to act more in concert with our partners rather than attempting to bear the cost of fully-independent Armed Services.

iii) neither our coalition partners nor Labour, while they were in government, have indicated any willingness to include Trident in the Strategic Defence Review.

iv) in the last two military conflicts in which Britain acted unilaterally - Sierra Leone and the Falkland Islands - nuclear arms were irrelevant.

Conference further notes that:

a) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty all signatory states undertake to pursue negotiations, in good faith, on effective measures relating both to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament at an early date and to negotiate a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

b) the cost of the proposed Vanguard submarine replacement contracts and lifetime running costs are in the order of £100 billion

c) the cost of replacing the current nuclear warheads will be a further £8 billion

d) any major military actions in the future are certain to take place as part of an international coalition for which purpose British nuclear weapons would be irrelevant

e) In a speech in May 2010 Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, cast doubt on the future of the Ohio-class submarine and with it the Trident missile system

Conference welcomes this year’s agreement to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by Russia and the US and notes the bilateral agreement reached by the two Presidents. Conference also notes, however, that the weapons which are to be removed are due to be retired from service anyway.

Conference therefore calls for:

1. Trident to be included in the Strategic and Security Defence Review

2. Confirmation of current policy to cancel any planned 'like-for-like replacement' of the Trident system

3. A freeze on any further procurement by Britain of all types of nuclear weapon

4. The retirement of the current Vanguard fleet at the earliest possible opportunity.


These steps will save in excess of £108 billion during the planned lifetime of the Trident submarine replacement systems and the early withdrawal of the Vanguard fleet will save a further £2 billion per annum up to the year 2025.

Conference recognises that, under the terms of the Coalition Agreement, this policy cannot be implemented fully at this time but full implementation will be pursued once the party is in a position to do this.

UK bans Chernobyl's children

The Independent reveals that the UK Border Agency has refused visas to child victims of Chernobyl fallout to have holidays here. I have written to Chris Huhne and Lynne Featherstone. If you agree, write to a Liberal minister as well.

Brian Haw survives again

Yesterday the High Court granted the GLA an injunction to remove protesters from Parliament Square under the law of trespass. However, Boris may allow Brian Haw, the anti-Iraq War protester, to remain. He'll find it difficult to budge him.

In 2005 Charles Clarke, a veteran of NUS protests when he was Chairman but by then New Labour Home Secretary,put the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act through parliament which forbade protest near parliament without the permission of the Met, a provision specifically designed to remove Brian Haw. Ironically, when Haw was prosecuted, the court ruled that his protest predated the Act and therefore he is the one man who cannot be removed under the Act.

This time , Boris claimed the protesters presence in the square "prevented its peaceful use by other Londoners". Strange ! Last month, my sons and I had a perfectly peaceful picnic in the square along with many others. I introduced them to Brian Haw and congratulated him on his protest.

Tessa Jowell, as Culture Secretary, tried to stop the anti-Iraq War demonstration in 2003 from using Hyde Park, because it would damage the grass. Jowell and Clarke, of course, supported the illegal invasion of Iraq which, I imagine, rather prevented the peaceful use of Baghdad and the whole country and damaged more than the grass.

Gun Law

Sahil Kapur writes in the Guardian about the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down gun control laws. The statistics stack up the cost of America's 2nd Amendment. About 100,000 people in America are shot ever year and more than 30,000 die. On average, 85 people in America die every day from gun violence, nine of whom are teenagers and children.

A 2009 study in the American Journal of Public Health also found that gun owners are more than four times as likely to get shot in an assault as individuals without a gun. But most Americans won't let the truth get in the way of their right to bear arms. Nor will American politicians, scared of a gun lobby which last year even defeated attempts in Congress to preclude terror suspects from buying guns. The same individuals that are deemed too dangerous to get on a plane can freely purchase firearms.

Wikipedia notes the origin of the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which put it like this:
"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. ”

The coconut debate

If you want to see what was said and how it was said, the BBC have a clip of the remark.

Football and Xenophobia

I am famously uninterested in football but I can't help noting the casual xenophobia following England's departure from the World Cup. Never mind the English players, fire the Italian !

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.