Patrick Leigh Fermor dead

I was talking about this man only last week, not really sure if he was still alive and now he has died. In March 2009 the BBC4 showed an episode of the series Traveller's Century sadly not available now. A journalist followed Leigh Fermor's 1930s journey across Europe but also told the story of his wartime adventures and finally interviewed him. The most extraordinary part of the programme was an excerpt from Greek television's version of "This is your life" in which Leigh Fermor met not only his old Cretan resistance friends but also the German general they kidnapped. The story was immortalised in Stanley Moss's book and the Powell and Pressburger film Ill met by moonlight. The Independent Review of the programme is interesting.

The Old Inn at Stein, Isle of Skye

Craig Murray's current visit to Doune reminds me of my own visit to the Old Inn at Stein. We were having dinner when an American tourist came in and demanded coffee. The busy waitress said she was sorry but they were in the middle of serving dinner. The American expecting instant gratification of his wishes came straight back with, "Don't you serve after-dinner coffee ?". The waitress now flustered as well as busy replied, "Ye..es but you haven't had dinner.". The American expostulated and left in a huff. What the girl had meant was that she would be serving coffee later but right then she was busy serving main courses. A few minutes later, the chef appeared from the kitchen, shock of red hair, large straggly red beard and (I may have imagined this) a meat cleaver in his hand. "Look", he said, waving the cleaver "We'd like to serve him coffee. We would, but there's nae but the two of us here. If he comes back later we'll give him a coffee.". Of course, he did come back later (there's nowhere else in Stein) and the landlord bought him a drink and he bought the landlord a drink and they ended up singing in the ceilidh together.

I liked that the chef (almost certainly a merchant seaman on leave) cared that the customers should not think the place unwelcoming and that the American learned that Skye is not Times Square and is indeed a lot friendlier.

The landlord led off the singing with "I'm a man you don't meet every day". This turned out to be true. A year later I visited the Old Inn and asked after him. "Oh, the police came up from England and took him back" they told me. I won't name the Liberal Democrat MP who quarreled with the same man and had to sleep in his car.

Police accreditation - the answers ?

Andrew Wiseman has been kind enough to send me answers to my long list of questions. There is one outstanding point. People keep claiming that conference standing orders provide a power to exclude people. I can find no such power. Paragraph 6.2 provides for an appeal if the Chief Steward excludes you but without giving him explicit power to do so or setting out grounds for such a decision. That just leaves Public Order legislation which I believe relates to the behaviour of people at conference, NOT to any pre-emptive ban. Here are the questions again with Andrew's answers in italics.


Police accreditation for Liberal Democrat Conferences

A. Questions re data protection
1. Why do the police require passport, driving licence or NI number ? What will they do with the information ? What are the checks they will carry out ? What sources of information will our identities be checked against ? Will these include CRB, County Court judgements, credit reference agencies, Sex Offenders List, anti-terrorist intelligence obtained through interception of signals or undercover officers or word of mouth from informers ? Has FCC asked these questions yet ?

The checks are carried out firstly to ensure the person registering are who they say they are ie someone is not registering under a false name. We have been advised that one way of them doing this is by checking passport or driving licence details. This is because of the checks that are carried out before either are issued. If no such details are available they look at other information to verify the persons identity. The next stage is to decide whether the person poses a significant risk to conference and those attending conference. This is a risk assessment looking at criminal records and other information..

The fact that someone has a criminal record is not a bar, similarly the fact they have been on a picket line, protest etc is not a problem. It comes back to that test of posing a significant risk to conference. By way of example this could be terrorism or one of the known individuals to the police who they believe are a serious threat to certain individuals within the party (a fixated person).

2. What arrangements, if any, has FCC made for people who have none of these items ? Will they be able to attend ?

This is something that we have been assured the police are use to dealing with. They can accept banks statements, registration on the electoral role etc. I attended one of the other parties conference last year with someone who didn’t have the usual information (they do not have a UK passport or driving licence) and they got accredited on site very quickly.

3. What arrangements has FCC made for people whose identities have changed in some way, e.g. transgender people ?

I am in discussions with DELGA, a number of transgender people and the police to work out a system that they are comfortable with. The police have dealt with similar cases with the other parties but we want to go for a slightly different approach that our reps will be more comfortable with.

4. If an elected representative is unable or refuses to provide this information, will they be able to attend ?

Given the wide range of data that is acceptable if they do not have a passport or driving licence which can be provided before conference or, if really necessary at conference there should be no reason for someone not being able to provide the information.

5. Why do the police need to retain the information after they have carried out their checks ? Did FCC consult anyone else in the party to see if they would object to such retention ? Did FCC consider making arrangements to allow members to provide the information on condition that it is not retained ? If such an arrangement happens now, what guarantees will there be that the information has been deleted ?

The police have confirmed that any member that wants their data deleted can have it deleted.

6. How many organisations will actually hold the data ? Just Manchester Police or West Midlands Police or the Home Office or ACPO ? What about the contractors who collect and pass the information to the police ?

The data is held by Greater Manchester Police. They run the accreditation of all the party conferences. The local force (in our case West Midlands) ‘contract’ with GMP to carry out the checks.

7. Section IV of the Data Protection Act has exemptions for various purposes including crime and tax. Has FCC enquired of the police whether they would wish to use the information provided by members, for any of these exempted purposes ?

We have asked .The conference accreditation system is a stand alone system that is not accessed for any other reason than the accreditation to attend party conference (any of the three main parties). Data can be deleted if requested after conference.


B. Questions re excluding representatives from conference

1. Did FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party raise with the police or the Home Office the provisions of our constitution ?

We did raise this with the police (and Home Office). It is because of the unique position of our members and conference that many of the procedures have been put in place.


2. Has FCC established what information the police will give to the party to back up any recommendation to exclude someone from attending conference ? The police are unlikely to disclose information obtained through secret surveillance or intelligence sources. In that situation how will FCC “approach any such decision seriously” ?

There have been discussions over this. Where ever possible they will advise us, this is subject to data protection laws and security considerations. Often the information is in the public domain and can be pointed out to us. Other information may be disclosed subject to confidentiality. We have made it clear that we need to be satisfied. We have offered to take the advice of certain members of the party that have the highest level of security clearance and to whom the police could disclose some information to. Much depends on the nature of the reasons for the potential exclusion.

3. If a member learns that FCC has excluded him or her form attending conference (without of course any constitutional power to do such a thing), what reason will be given and what, if any, appeal process will be available ? How can a member appeal against an allegation if the police will not tell the party what it is ?

An appeal process has been set up. The first stage will be for the person to speak to a senior police officer That will enable any clarifications to be mad and will enable the police to reconsider their recommendation. If that is not successful it will come to myself and the Chief Exec. From there it will go to a full meeting of FCC.


4. Does FCC have a timetable for the accreditation process ? When will the police give their advice ? When will FCC consider it ? When would an excluded person have a chance to appeal ?

As soon as the person registers on the party website the police will start the accreditation process. Thye work through them one by one. As soon as there is a problem we will be advised. They will not save them up. We will deal with the issues as soon as they arise.

5. Has FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party actually asked either the venue or the insurers whether they would refuse us if we did not accept any particular point of police advice or has this possibility been assumed ?

This has been discussed. Advice has also been taken from our insurance advisors. We are continuing the discussions to try and get us into the best position possible.

Vince Cable and the end of innocence

"As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals." wrote G K Chesterton.

After Vince Cable today tried to threaten the trade unions with the possibility of tougher laws to prevent strikes, I recalled what Chesterton wrote. That's not why we wanted a Liberal government, Vince. Then I recalled, of course, Vince isn't a Liberal. He came to the Liberal Democrats from Labour via the Social Democrats. It's not Vince's first mistake in government. The mantle of wisdom which descended on Vince so quickly in opposition has blown away as quickly in office. I remember something else which Chesterton said:“When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.”

Will this do ?

Liberal Democrat HQ wants a new photo from me for conference. It must be colour, light background, neutral expression, head and shoulders etc. I'm thinking of sending this snap from the Guardian of me at Sheffield, not actually bombing anyone when they took it.

How do you contact the Leader of the Liberal Democrats ?

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

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

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

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

Responsibility to Protect

I see the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) as a useful development of international law and I recently defended British action in Libya as an example of it. I admit that it may not be but I still believe the doctrine is a good one. Craig Murray has written an excellent article for the Independent about Libya and the coalition government's approach to foreign policy. The question is whether the Liberal Democrats are making any difference to foreign policy. Any evidence that we are ?

For more information on RtoP, go here and for NGO support for RtoP here.

My recommendations on Police Accreditation

Police accreditation for Liberal Democrat Conferences
1. Summary
Two problems: data protection and selection of representatives other than by local parties.
Andrew Wiseman’s response inadequate. Fundamental issues for Liberals, not mere concern.
Questions for FCC now and, if unanswered, at conference.
Recommended actions:
1) Members provide ID info now on explicit condition of guaranteed deletion not retention.
2) FCC arrange such guarantees.
3) FCC arrange offsite facilities for representatives excluded from main building.
4) MPs raise questions of Home Office re conduct of police re party conferences.

2. Introduction
The introduction of this procedure raises two sets of problems, the first about data protection and the second about the interference of the state in party democracy. The first concerns all members who attend conference, the second only elected representatives. Andrew Wiseman, Chair of Federal Conference Committee, claims that the committee was very reluctant to increase security but it appears that most members of the committee were not involved in negotiations with the police, nor necessarily fully informed about them and in the end nor did they challenge the new requirements. It is only now that party members have learned what FCC has agreed to that Andrew is considering any changes. These issues are not just “some concerns” a phrase beloved of civil servants and junior ministers playing down a problem, they are bloody great breaches of liberal principle and Liberal Democrat party democracy. I suggest questions to be put to FCC now and at conference if not answered satisfactorily now.

3. Data Protection
The guidelines say that this information will then be passed onto Manchester Police who are operating the checks on behalf of West Midlands Police. The information will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future to assist with the accreditation of subsequent political conferences only. Details of the data stored may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

3.1 Questions to FCC
1. Why do the police require passport, driving licence or NI number ? What will they do with the information ? What are the checks they will carry out ? What sources of information will our identities be checked against ? Will these include CRB, County Court judgements, credit reference agencies, Sex Offenders List, anti-terrorist intelligence obtained through interception of signals or undercover officers or word of mouth from informers ? Has FCC asked these questions yet ?
2. What arrangements, if any, has FCC made for people who have none of these items ? Will they be able to attend ?
3. What arrangements has FCC made for people whose identities have changed in some way, e.g. transgender people ?
4. If an elected representative is unable or refuses to provide this information, will they be able to attend ?
5. Why do the police need to retain the information after they have carried out their checks ? Did FCC consult anyone else in the party to see if they would object to such retention ? Did FCC consider making arrangements to allow members to provide the information on condition that it is not retained ? If such an arrangement happens now, what guarantees will there be that the information has been deleted ?
6. How many organisations will actually hold the data ? Just Manchester Police or West Midlands Police or the Home Office or ACPO ? Is Events Force a separate organisation able to see and hold the data ?
7. Section IV of the Data Protection Act has exemptions for various purposes including crime and tax. Has FCC enquired of the police whether they would wish to use the information provided by members, for any of these exempted purposes ?

3.2 Recommendation:
Members wishing to go to the Autumn Conference should not withhold the identity information on this occasion as we then risk having a conference composed only of people who don’t care about the issue. Instead, we should provide the information on the explicit understanding that it is for one time only and must be deleted after checks have been carried out. FCC should negotiate with the police to ensure that there are guarantees for members who make this stipulation.

4. Selection of representatives at conference

4.1 Andrew Wiseman’s response
This is a more serious matter. Andrew Wiseman maintains that Liberal Democrats remain in control of the conference. He says “There has been some suggestion that this means the police will decide who can come to conference. This is absolutely not the case as the final decision will rest with the party.” He adds, “Can I guarantee now, in advance that whatever information is given us, we would never agree that a particular individual would pose such a severe personal security threat that for the safety of all our conference goers they should be excluded? Of course not – and I can just about conceive of circumstances in which there was very strong evidence relating to an individual that we might feel we had to take that view. But I think it unlikely this will happen, and you know how seriously we will approach any such decision.” Perhaps Andrew can tell me where the party's constitution provides for FCC or anyone else to override the choice of local parties.

4.2 The insurance and venue argument
An FCC member has told me that the police insist upon this accreditation procedure and that if we refuse to follow police advice, we could lose our Public Liability Insurance or be refused admission by the venue. These are serious points but they need testing. They do perhaps give the lie to the idea that we remain in control of our conference. If in fact either venue managers or insurers would refuse us if we refused to exclude an individual on police advice, then we need to take up the issue in parliament because we cannot accept a situation where an organ of the state decides who may attend any party conference. Meanwhile, we have a problem for our Autumn Conference this year and must work out how an elected representative could take part if excluded from the building.

4.3 The Party Constitution
Just for the record, our party constitution says:
Article 6: The Federal Conference
6.1 The conference will consist of
(a) Representatives of Local Parties...
6.3 Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...

6.3a provides for circumstances when a representative shall cease to hold office. Strangely, it does NOT say when the Manchester Police advise against, nor even when Andrew Wiseman “might feel we had to take that view”.

4.4 Questions
1. Did FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party raise with the police or the Home Office the provisions of our constitution ?
2. Has FCC established what information the police will give to the party to back up any recommendation to exclude someone from attending conference ? The police are unlikely to disclose information obtained through secret surveillance or intelligence sources. In that situation how will FCC “approach any such decision seriously” ?
3. If a member learns that FCC has excluded him or her form attending conference (without of course any constitutional power to do such a thing), what reason will be given and what, if any, appeal process will be available ? How can a member appeal against an allegation if the police will not tell the party what it is ?
4. Does FCC have a timetable for the accreditation process ? When will the police give their advice ? When will FCC consider it ? When would an excluded person have a chance to appeal ?
5. Has FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party actually asked either the venue or the insurers whether they would refuse us if we did not accept any particular point of police advice or has this possibility been assumed ?

4.5 Recommendation:
FCC must make preparations to allow any elected representative excluded on police advice to participate fully in the conference. This should include provision of a video link to the chamber permitting any such person to listen to debates, to put in a speaker’s card and speak if called and to vote and have their vote counted.

Some may argue that this is an absurd amount of work but it would enable us to respect our own constitution whilst coping with police advice, venue and insurance problems. Given that Andrew Wiseman and others regard the eventuality of someone being excluded as unlikely, they should be able to make provisional arrangements which result in little or no cost to the party.

Police can veto who goes to Lib Dem Conference ?!!?

Today I received a message from Liberal Democrat HQ telling me that I must supply my passport (or other ID) details if I want to attend party conference. Guidelines on the website make it clear that the information will be passed to the police. They also make it clear that I may be refused "accreditation" presumably on police advice. There is nothing in our party constitution about accreditation. Local parties elect representatives and there is no power for the party nationally to choose which of these may attend. We must fight this illiberal procedure which is against what we stand for and our constitution.

Extracts from the website
"...all applicants will be required to complete a more comprehensive security pass application. These details will be passed onto the police to carry out their own accreditation procedures. Please note that Police Accreditation will be carried out by Greater Manchester Police on behalf of West Midlands Police.

In the unlikely event that your accreditation is unsuccessful, you will be issued a full refund of your registration fees. The Liberal Democrats will not accept liability for any additional costs incurred by the applicant."

"The submission of the application form does not confer any right upon the applicant to attend the conference and the Liberal Democrats reserve the right to refuse admission.
Your data will be stored in the Liberal Democrats secure conference registration system and will be made available for future conferences to speed up your registration process, in addition to keeping you updated on Party conferences. It may also be used for anonymous statistical analysis.
The information supplied by you will be provided to the relevant Constabulary for storage on a computer system in connection with the policing arrangements for the Party Conference. The information will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future to assist with the accreditation of subsequent political conferences only. Details of the data stored may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
The Liberal Democrats and police will comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 at all times with regards to any of your data held.
"

Extracts from Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution

Article 6: The Federal Conference
6.1 The conference will consist of
(a) Representatives of Local Parties...
6.3 Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...

The Rape of the Clark

Rape (3): "any violation or abuse" (Collins Compact English Dictionary). I suppose I should not be astonished at the ridiculous, overblown response to Ken Clark's remarks yesterday. Nobody doubts that he regards all rape as serious and most people who think about it will admit that there are differing degrees of seriousness of rape so why can't the Lord Chancellor say so ? No surprise perhaps that the great guardian of women's rights The Sun should attack him but Ed Miliband should know better. Clark is one of the most rational and sensible of Tories and certainly more Liberal than his Labour predecessors Jack Straw and Charlie Faulkner. Ironically Miliband's call for his resignation has probably saved Clark's job, as Steve Richards points out in the Independent.

Macho contest: Fox and Murphy show their muscles. Where are Nick Clegg's ?

Liam Fox's announcement today of "Initial Gate" for Trident means we could spend up to £3 billion pounds designing new submarines before the next general election. (You may have missed it as the media are much more interested in what Ken Clarke said about rape and Labour MP Tom Docherty claiming that the Met will be investigating David Laws. As usual the process stories take over from the product.)

Labour's response: "Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy backed the decision, saying Trident had been a "cornerstone" of the UK's peace and security for more than 50 years." So, no change there then. The party that supported Blair's rush to replace Trident still wants to do that.

CND Response: "The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament condemned today’s decision to authorise billions of pounds of further spending on the Trident replacement programme, prior to the major decision point on the nuclear weapons system, not due to be taken until 2016. However, CND welcomed the launch of a government study into alternatives to Trident, to be led by Lib Dem Defence Minister Nick Harvey as providing the opportunity for other options – so far excluded for reasons of dogma rather than on an evidential basis – to be considered. "

Fox says "The Coalition Government is committed to maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and policy remains that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at sea deterrence is right for the UK." The words in bold do not represent the coalition agreement nor the Liberal Democrats' party policy and should not have been allowed to appear in the MoD statement. Come on Nick, let's see those muscles !

Hypocrisy, mendacity, stupidity and ineptitude !

Today I wrote to a friend and green activist drawing his attention to Chris Huhne's victory in cabinet over targets to reduce carbon emissions. His response was to point out that Hammond wants to raise speed limits to 80mph. I wasn’t trying to defend the entire coalition government and certainly not the Tories, but I thought that Chris Huhne had done a good job here. I am very critical of some of the coalition's policies but I am just bloody angry at Labour hypocrisy, Tory press mendacity and voters' stupidity (not to mention our own leadership's inept management).

One of the things which has hit Liberal Democrats hard is the widespread misunderstanding of coalition government. We lost the general election. Labour lost the general election. The Tories also lost but had the most MPs. A Lib-Lab coalition which many of us would have liked was impossible because the numbers didn’t add up and half the Labour leadership were against it anyway. There were three real alternatives.
1) Tory minority government. I and most of my LibDem colleagues are convinced that the Tories would have called a second general election (probably last Autumn) and won a majority. This was Harold Wilson’s tactic in 1974, the last time we had a hung parliament.
2) Tory minority government with LibDems offering a confidence and supply agreement, i.e. no guaranteed support for any particular policy. The same objection applies and we wouldn’t have got any of our policies adopted.
3) Coalition with the Tories. We have got some of our policies adopted and what Chris Huhne has achieved is an example. A purely Tory government would never have done this. Coalition inevitable involves compromise and the government has adopted some policies which many LibDems oppose as well of course as LibDem policies which many Tories oppose.

Yet the electorate has shown itself determined to punish the LibDems and not the Tories and indeed to reject electoral reform not on its merits but to punish us ! Three areas where I feel the electorate’s judgement and the hypocrisy of the Labour Party coincide:
1) Nuclear Power: Labour and Tories both want it. We don’t and have managed to limit it by ensuring much less public subsidy than they would have liked to provide.
2) Trident: Labour and Tories both want to replace it. We don’t and have forced the government to postpone the main gate decision until after the next election. Much will be spent in the meantime and can’t be stopped because of the Labour and Tory attitudes. The way to stop trident now is to get Labour to change its mind before 2015.
3) Tuition Fees: Labour and Tories both wanted to increase them. We didn’t. Vince has negotiated a much fairer scheme than would have happened if only Labour or Tories were in power in a traditional majority government. I believe this was badly handled and all LibDem MPs should have abstained. As it was half voted against. Nevertheless a better outcome than would have happened without us.

All this has been achieved with only 57 seats. We didn’t win the election. We’re doing our best. Labour has spent the last year lying about their own policies, lying about us and lying about the problems they left behind. The Tory press had done its best to undermine the coalition and destroy the Liberal Democrats. Sorry to go on, but given the arithmetic and the ridiculously adversarial nature of UK politics, it’s bloody marvellous we’ve managed to get anything changed.

The absurd suspension of David Laws

The Parliamentary Commissioner has recommended that David Laws be suspended for a week. The Commissioner accepted that David Laws' motive was to protect his privacy not to make money and that his claims would have been "considerably more" if he had stuck to the rules, and he agreed that there was no loss to the taxpayer from the breaches.

It is absurd and I share Olly Grender’s view published by the New Statesman. I also share Frank Field's view:
"Today's report vividly highlights how arbitrary these judgements are," he said. "MPs guilty of milking the system get a ticking off. David Laws, whom the report accepts was not guilty of this, and who has already lost office for a year, is further punished with a suspension. If our constituents were treated so arbitrarily MPs would naturally be fuming with anger. Where is the justice in this?"

Admittedly a week out of the chamber may be a relief from the nonsense talked there but he doesn't deserve it. When I consider the MPs who deliberately flipped their second homes and still got re-elected, I realise that it is foolish to expect justice in the House of Commons.

David must nevertheless be relieved that it is finally over. Despite my continuing disagreement with his economic views, I am glad that this burden is finally lifted.

Now is the time to Kiple.

Graham Watson's weekly newsletter reminds us all to remember Kipling and "...meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same..." Here's the rest.

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

What a pity ministers don't read Liberator !

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

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

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

I agree with Nick !

No, not that one. Nick Thornsby has concluded that there is no progressive majority in Britain.

As a party we have spent years becoming diligent on local issues, helpful on personal problems and brilliant on targetting tactics but we have not changed minds. Like every other party we have abandoned ideology and when our leadership makes strategic errors, our fair-weather voters melt away leaving us with that small core which always agreed with us from the beginning.

Now is the time to learn from our mistakes. In the long run we cannot change and keep votes unless we first change minds. We have lost our reputation for being honest. We have lost our radicalism (if not our disgruntlement). Working hard will not be enough. Now we have to persuade people that we are also right.

Wisdom from 1908

FM Cornford's MICROCOSMOGRAPHIA ACADEMICA published in 1908 explains academic politics and has some truth for the wider world and the AV debate in particular. He says there is only one reason for doing something - because it's right - whereas there are many reasons for NOT doing something.

He also gives the following definitions of two kinds of academic politicians:
"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."

I hope we have moved on.

How to run a coalition ( or wag the dog)

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

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

The morning after the morning after the night before

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrow's impossibility theorem

A little maths to lighten the gloom.

How strange that the Tories and Labour NOs did not quote Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which proves mathematically that no voting system can meet three criteria of fairness (see extract above).

No, I don't understand it either.

"Never glad confident morning again" ?

Nick Clegg has made two historic errors.

Firstly, the referendum on AV should never have been held simultaneously with council elections. I always thought this was a mistake and hoped the House of Lords might succeed in forcing a delay. This vital issue was subsumed into the party political battle. Voting "No" became a way of punishing the Liberal Democrats. Campaigners' efforts were diverted from the referendum to local elections. The only material on AV delivered where I live was council election leaflets with a Tory footnote NO and a Lib Dem footnote YES.

The second error was as bad. The identity of the Liberal Democrats has vanished. Voters cannot discern what makes Liberal Democrats different from Conservatives. It is whistling in the dark to cite the shopping list of policies which are supposed to form 75% of our manifesto. They do not amount to a visible Liberal Democrat narrative. They weigh as nothing against the two policies which were not in the manifesto - raising tuition fees and rapid, unfair deficit reduction risking a double-dip recession.

At our special conference to ratify the coalition agreement, I asked if our reaction should be "Never glad confident morning again". I don't know if anyone recognised the poem by Robert Browning. It is called "The lost leader" and mourns the desertion of William Wordsworth to the conservative cause. Read it here.

Time now to show that we are different. Coalition -yes, Cosmetic for the Tories - No.

Never confuse Labour with a progressive party !

This is the proud boast of the Labour NO to AV campaign. So we know that their manifesto promise was a lie. So we know that they prefer the system that has put Tories in power for generations. So we know that their commitment to democracy is threadbare. So we know that they are happy to see 1.6% of the electorate (less than 500,000 voters) decide who governs Britain. So we know that they don't care that MPs are elected by a minority.

NEVER CONFUSE LABOUR WITH A PROGRESSIVE PARTY, NEVER AGAIN !

Yes or no ? Is that democracy ?

The BBC has this graphic for its summing up of the arguments on the AV Referendum. Clearly the pencil has more than two faces but only two are available to the voter - yes or no. The graphic so neatly sums up the problem with First Past the Post that I'm surprised the Director-General Mark Thomson didn't ban it as the BBC banned the use of the word "Reform".

Caroline Lucas was of course right in seeking to amend the referendum into a preferendum with a choice of voting systems. She was wrong to blame Liberal Democrat MPs for not supporting her, as she know that the combined weight of the Tory and Labour dinosaurs would not have permitted such a choice to the electorate. LibDem MPs were confined to the AV option by the coalition agreement. Could we have got more from the Tories ? I wonder. What about Labour ? With the exception of Ed Miliband (who gave a remarkably honest interview to the trivial, point-scoring, ever interrupting Humphries this morning) and a few other Labour politicians, the Labour Party has once again shown itself dishonest and opportunistic. Blair's first broken promise was his refusal to put the Jenkins Commission's report to a referendum. Now many Labour politicians led by the despicable Reid, Prescott, Blunkett and Beckett are campaigning against AV, which they promised in their own General Election manifesto. Make no mistake. If the answer tomorrow is "NO" they will bear the blame as much as any self-seeking Tory.

The conclusion: you can't trust politicians to set the rules by which we are governed. The UK needs a Constitutional Convention, just as the Scots had before.

Responsibility to Protect

I lost a debate last night. Not so terrible, you might think. We all lose arguments and perhaps I was wrong. I was defending the intervention in Libya by the USA, UK and France under UNSC 1973. My argument was based on the development of the Responsibility to Protect. I am disappointed not that I failed to persuade people that this intervention is a good, practical example of the doctrine, which is arguable. No, I am downhearted that radical, peace-loving people rejected the whole concept. Some went so far as to say that national sovereignty is essential to democracy ! As Lord Lothian proclaimed in 1935, "Pacifism is not enough". I am convinced that national sovereignty is the root cause of war. There is nothing surprising about right-wing opposition to the evolution of supranational democracy and international law. Those like Murdoch who wield global commercial might will always resist it as it constrains and regulates them. I remain astonished at left-wing opposition. How do people who recognise the dangers of concentrated private economic power propose to challenge it if they will not support the construction of supranational governance and if they insist on the untrammelled sovereignty of nation-states ?

BBC promotes bias against ECHR

Tonight's Report on Radio 4's Six O’Clock News on the subject of the European Court of Human Rights and Prisoners’ Right to Vote was a model of tabloid bias and I have told them so.

Both the headline and the full report on the ECHR decision to refuse an appeal today was inaccurate and descended to tabloid levels, saying that the ECHR had demanded that prisoners must have the right to vote. The Court did NOT. It ruled that barring convicted prisoners in detention pursued a legitimate aim, but that a blanket ban was not proportionate. The Court acknowledged that the right to vote was not absolute and that states had to be given a margin of appreciation - a broad discretion- to decide what limitations on that right would be proportionate.

You can find more in the House of Commons’ library's publication.

This is not a question of getting the emphasis slightly wrong or simplifying to fit the constraints of time in the broadcast. By reporting the court’s judgement wrongly, the BBC fuelled the rampant xenophobia displayed by the tabloids and indeed the MPs who took part in the Commons debate on the subject. The BBC's error is not minor. It has political import and should be corrected.

The bias of their report was clear; they referred to the clash between MPs' "opinions" and the court's "demands", which they had misreported.

Global action against military spending day

Today is Global Action Against Military Spending Day promoted by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that in 2010 global military expenditure was $1,630 billion. Globally it would cost $10 billion to provide universal primary education, $30 billion to eradicate world hunger, $30 billion to provide clean water to everyone without it. Which is the better investment ?
Take a look here for more information and do look at the video.

Liberals in literature and films (13)

I am very grateful to Malcolm Baines for the following information.


"Despite being a Tory MP from 1927 to 1935, Buchan has sympathetic portraits of Liberals in quite a few of his books and short stories. In "Castle Gay" for example, published in 1930, there is a thinly disguised Lloyd George renamed as Foss Jones. In "The Gap in the Curtain" from 1932, the 5 major characters are all able to look a year ahead to the then copy of "The Times". Whilst two of them see their own obituaries, another, a leading Labour politician, sees that the leader of the small Liberal Party has become PM. He spends the next year working out how this could happen and getting it spectacularly wrong, leading in the process to the ruin of his own political career. The Liberal leader combines some of the characteristics of Gladstone, Grey and Campbell-Bannerman - not always the most appealing ones!"

Will the Liberal Democrats disappear ? NO !

Someone asked me: "Do you think that the Liberal Democrats are being drawn into things they do not want but have to accept in order to continue to have a say in what is being proposed. Are they being sucked so far in that they will disappear?"

The difference between government and opposition is this. In opposition as the third party we could only propose amendments to proposals by the government. Sometimes the Speaker did not call our amendments and they were not even debated. If debated, they were nearly always defeated. In government, actually with fewer MPs, we help to write the proposals which then are passed by parliament. Each proposal is of course a compromise. I accept that. It's what happens in coalition. I think that Nick Clegg has been too keen to present the government as united so the public believes the compromises are what Lib Dems wanted all along. At Spring Conference in Sheffield, Nick and other ministers repeatedly said, "We didn't win the election. This is the policy we wanted. That is the policy we got." Nick even said that a Lib Dem majority government would cut tuition fees. I want the public to get this message and reward us for the changes we have made instead of punishing us for the changes we could not stop. We may have bad council results in May. We may even lose the referendum but the Liberal Democrats will never disappear. Liberals survived a party split in the '30s. We survived the'50s when we had only 4 MPs. We must stand for Liberal ideas in government or out. With apologies to Tennyson, "For men may come and men may go, but we go on for ever."

Liberals in literature and films (12)

Crichton-Potter shuddered. Larry Boot-Heath had once talked to him for three and a half hours about land taxation. Admittedly the party was in favour of land taxation, but Crichton-Potter had never had the faintest idea what it was or where he stood on the issue He knew exactly where he stood, however, on the question of people who talked to him for three and a half hours about any aspect of policy.

Thus Mark Tavener described the views of the leader of the Reform Party (for which read Liberal Party) in his first novel "In the Red" later produced as a serial on BBC. Mark himself had worked for the BBC, oh let's be honest, "worked" is too strong a word, spent days at Broadcasting House or at least in a pub nearby.

Liberals in literature and films (11)

"Some Tory MPs spend the week in their clubs, camping out in attic bedrooms but lounging in some of the more elegant of London's drawing rooms...Labour MPs shared digs, Dennis Skinner and John Prescott being seen as the People's Party answer to that other 'odd couple', Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon. One Welsh Liberal MP even lived in the regent's Palace Hotel."

Thus, Julian Critchley's view of how MPs spent their allowances in his novel "Hung Parliament".

Did Skinner and Prescott really share digs ? Who was the Welsh Liberal MP ?
Answers on a postcard...

Liberals in literature and films (10)

Liberal: "I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honour"

So said Matt Santos in the final series of the West Wing. It turns out that Martin Sheen who played Josiah Bartlett is a real-life liberal too. Listen to him on Desert Island Discs.

Does identity require hate ?

The picture shows a guide to voting on the basis not of what you like or value but of whom you hate. Historians maintain that nobody really felt English until the Hundred Years' War against France. I have seen a set of football scarves and hats which proclaim "Love Team A, Hate Team B". You can fill in A or B yourselves - I hate all soccer and would rather listen to Colin Rosenstiel explaining STV...well maybe not. Which would be harder to sleep through ?

Can we only establish our identity in distinction from other people's - not just distinction, but contempt, loathing and even violence ? I do hope not. I am indubitably and proudly British, I never miss the Last Night of the Proms, but I do wish the Census Form had allowed me to describe myself as more than one thing - British and European would have done for me.

P.S. (OK,I know there's no signature)I don't hate the Labour Party but if I have to listen or watch Caroline Flint sneering again, I might begin to. As for the Tories, when seeking selection I was asked if I hated them and I replied that we should follow the advice of the Church of England: Hate the sin and love the sinner !

Liberals in literature and films (9)

Quiz No.2:
Which play has the following exchange and who wrote it ?

DOTTY:Archie says it was a coup d'etat not a general election.
GEORGE: Glib nonsense. It is unthinkable that the Radical Liberal Party could manipulate the democratic process...Furthermore I had a vote.
DOTTY:It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.

Liberals in literature and film (8)

The Old Liberals
by John Betjeman (Picture shows statue outside St. Pancras)

Pale green of the English Hymnal! Yattendon hymns
Played on the hautbois by a lady dress'd in blue
Her white-hair'd father accompanying her thereto
On tenor or bass-recorder. Daylight swims
On sectional bookcase, delicate cup and plate
And William de Morgan tiles around the grate
And many the silver birches the pearly light shines through.

I think such a running together of woodwind sound,
Such painstaking piping high on a Berkshire hill,
Is sad as an English autumn heavy and still,
Sad as a country silence, tractor-drowned;
For deep in the hearts of the man and the woman playing
The rose of a world that was not has withered away.
Where are the wains with garlanded swathes a-swaying?
Where are the swains to wend through the lanes a-maying?
Where are the blithe and jocund to ted the hay?
Where are the free folk of England? Where are they?

Ask of the Abingdon bus with full load creeping
Down into denser suburbs. The birch lets go
But one brown leaf upon browner bracken below.
Ask of the cinema manager. Night airs die
To still, ripe scent of the fungus and wet woods weeping.
Ask at the fish and chips in the Market Square.
Here amid firs and a final sunset flare
Recorder and hautbois only moan at a mouldering sky.

Sack Simon Harwood !

How can we have confidence in policing as long as Simon Harwood remains a policeman ? This bully has form. He had been investigated twice for violent behaviour before he struck Ian Tomlinson. He had left the Metropolitan Police on "medical grounds" with a disciplinary charge hanging over him. He later joined the Surrey Police and then the Met again. Children's authors need a CRB check to talk to a class of children with their teacher present but the Met's vetting procedure is so feeble it let Harwood return and use force on behalf of the state. Today at the inquest he cried crocodile tears for Ian Tomlinson. He's suspended on full pay. Here's a simple public expenditure cut. Sack him now !

Liberals in literature and films (7)

Firstly, the answer to Liberals in literature and films (6) was "Trouble with Lichen" by John Wyndham.

Now the new one. "He was Asquith's new blood in the Home Office"..."A man by the name of Strafford. But that's literally all I know of him - a few years of office, then nothing..." I hope that phrase won't be heard again.

This comes from the opening pages of Robert Goddard's "Past Caring", the first novel by John Major's favourite author, which goes on to explore what happened to Strafford.

Is Baroness Ashton the problem ?

Excellent article by Joan Marc Simon in the New Federalist. Joan Marc says the problem with EU Common Foreign Policy isn't the High Representative herself but the impossible role of that office.

I agree with Joan Marc's general point but still think that Baroness Ashton could achieve more. Her background and her approach are managerial where what is needed is something a little tougher, a little more imaginative. The High Representative's job is impossible so she needs to enlarge the area of possibility, to push the envelope, to take a risk, to challenge the national leaders. This calls for political instinct not technocratic competence.

Liberals in literature and films (6)

"A rumour raced round the market that a certain Q.C. had been heard to state in the National Liberal Club the previous evening that as it was already an important part of a doctor's function to extend lives threatened with extinction, and one that was practised daily, he entirely failed to see that any question should arise."

Liberals in literature and films (5)

In the film of "The Hireling" chauffeur Ledbetter (Robert Shaw)invites his employer Lady Helen Franklin (Sarah Miles) to come to his boxing club where she will meet Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). She asks, "Isn't he a Liberal ?". Ledbetter replies "Well, his politics may be a bit funny but he's a good bloke" or words to that effect. I don't have L.P.Hartley's book so I can't say if this is the original dialogue.

Talking of dinosaurs...

Here's another one who opposes both electoral reform and reforming the House of Lords, which he now belongs to, none other than the former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, John Prescott.

Chris Davies explains the deficit and the cuts

Excellent explanation by Chris who, as we all know, cannot be described as an Orange-Booker !

Liberals in literature and films (4)

The importance of being Liberal

Lady Bracknell: What are your politics ?
Jack: Well, I am afraid I really have none. I am a Liberal Unionist.
Lady Bracknell: Oh, they count as Tories. They dine with us. Or come in the evening at any rate.

Can I remain a member of the Liberal Democrats ?

As the Sturdyblog points out the real problem is a deficit in humanity. My personal problem is "Can I remain a member of the Liberal Democrats ?"

Liberals in literature and films (3)

"It must have been a week or so after the departure of Claude and Eustace that I ran into young Bingo Little in the smoking-room of the Senior Liberal Club. He was lying back in an armchair with his mouth open and a goofy expression in his eyes, while a grey-bearded cove in the middle distance watched him with so much dislike that I concluded that Bingo had pinched his favourite seat. That's the worst of being in a strange club -- absolutely without intending it, you find yourself constantly trampling upon the vested interests of the Oldest Inhabitants.

'Hello, face,' I said.

'Cheerio, ugly,' said young Bingo, and we settled down to have a small one before lunch.

Once a year the committee of the Drones decides that the old club could do with a wash and brush-up, so they shoo us out and dump us down for a few weeks at some other institution. This time we were roosting at the Senior Liberal, and personally I had found the strain pretty fearful. I mean, when you have got used to a club where everything's nice and cheery, and where, if you want to attract a chappie's attention, you heave a bit of bread at him, it kind of damps you to come to a place where the youngest member is about eighty-seven and it isn't considered good form to talk to anyone unless you and he were through the Peninsula War together."

"This club," I said, "is the limit."

"It is the eel's eyebrows" agreed young Bingo.

The Inimitable Jeeves, Chapter 17.

Hannay was in Galloway

Iain Brodie Brown has pointed out that Hannay was in Galloway, not the Highlands. I've checked the chapter called "The adventure of the radical candidate". The meeting was in a town called Brattleburn, described as "an infernal Tory stronghold". It doesn't appear to be on the map but there is a Brattleburn bothy just North-West of Moffat pictured above.

Liberals in literature and films (2)

"There was never a by-election like it, Tom, there was never any election like it. We are born, we get married, we divorce, we die. But somewhere along the way, if we get the chance, we should also stand as Liberal Candidate for...Gulworth North..."

Thus begins Chapter 11 of John le Carré's A Perfect Spy. As far as I recollect the BBC version with Ray McAnally as Rick Pym, the candidate, based upon le Carré's own father does not mention his political allegiance.