Oh dear, I can't pay the school fees !

I came across this poster outside the Ritz on Saturday. I thought it was a demonstration which hit the nail on the head but it turned out to be a band filming a video.

Mark Steel, on the other hand, sums it all up beautifully in the Independent.

Peace in Hampstead (for nearly 2 minutes)

Sunday morning found me walking across Hampstead Heath as 11 o'clock approached. I sat on a log for the two minutes' silence, which was nearly perfect in the silvan sunshine but for the distant wail of a police siren. Long gone are the days when the traffic stopped and even the trains paused on their journeys.

Peace in Glastonbury and Wells

Thursday was a sunny, misty November day and I climbed Glastonbury Tor and attended the Wells Constituency Dinner (in Highbridge, NOT on the Tor). I always meet interesting people on the Tor and at the dinner. On the Tor there was a group with a peace banner planning a demonstration for the next day, the 11th of the 11th of the 11th. I wished them luck. Peace is the fundamental value of federalism. At dinner, Paddy did not use the "F" word but spoke of the need for countries to work together in Europe and characterised the independence chimera of the eurosceptics as "the perfect sovereignty of corks bobbing around in the wake of an ocean liner".

On measuring

Jo Swinson recently reported on a briefing by God (Gus O'Donnell, Cabinet Secretary) on measuring wellbeing. I retorted by quoting from David Boyle's book "The Tyranny of Numbers": "You can't make the pig bigger by weighing it more often". Jo pointed out that it might be useful to weigh the pig at least once. Thinking about this in the shower (measurement not Jo) I recalled the great Liberal promise that "None shall be enslaved by ... conformity". At my 50th birthday party (sadly a while ago now) at the National Liberal Club, I proclaimed that for Liberals the importance of freedom was the freedom to be different. "Look at you", I said to the company, "You're all different". "Ahem, I'm not" responded Liberal England.

My point is incommensurability, not a word you can utter in a soundbite or put in a focus but fundamental to liberalism. How can you measure one person's well-being against another's ? How can we choose between policies with different objectives and benefits ? How to decide between actions ? In 1789 Jeremy Bentham attempted it in his felicific calculus in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Recognising that his two great masters of mankind - pleasure and pain - do not actually explain all human behaviour, he redefines them at length until they become pseudonyms for good and evil and we are back to irreducible ethical concepts. The more complex the calculus becomes, the less convincing it is.

I fear that modern attempts to calculate well-being may deteriorate into governance by Top Trumps. It is widely accepted that natural science developed by measurement, replacing vague notions of force by measurable quantities. Social scientists from Bentham onwards have longed to emulate such precision. It cannot be done. Not for us the illusion of scientific socialism as promoted by Marx and Engels and parroted by Tony Benn and his ilk. People have motives which are not only different but incommensurable as well. The myth of the objectively correct policy shatters on this hard fact. We, humans, politicians, Liberals especially, are condemned to choose.

The Golden Age of canals

Just watching "The Golden Age of Canals" on BBC 4. Apparently it's a series which has been on since May but fortunately it's all available on the BBC website here. Tonight we heard of rows between Tom Rolt and Robert Aikman, founders of the Inland Waterways Association. We also heard about the great festival and rally at Market Harborough in 1950 (not, I expect, news to Liberal England).

Amazing resemblance No. 325

Has anyone noticed the amazing resemblance between Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael and Rab C Nesbitt alias Gregor Fisher. I wonder if perhaps they are related.

On being ineffable

Just read Julian Baggini's interesting piece in the Guardian on religion and ineffability. I particularly liked:

"Too often I find that faith is mysterious only selectively. Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother."

When did you last see your father ?

Shame on David Norgrove and the Family Justice Review which has rejected the right of children to a meaningful relationship with BOTH parents.

As Ken Sanderson, chief executive of Families Need Fathers said, the review's failure to recommend shared parenting legislation or a statement on the importance of both parents in law represents "an abdication of their responsibilities to children and their families". "The core failing of the current family justice system is that the rights of children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are not adequately supported or enforced".

Principles
The review sets out the key principle of private family law that both parents have a responsibility to ensure their child has the emotional, financial and practical support to thrive (para 4.5) but fails to address how a non-resident parent can fulfil his or her responsibility if they have little or no contact with the child. The review declares (para 4.20) that “...courts start from the principle that contact with both parents will be in the interests of the child, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary” and quotes an assertion that the courts “… make great efforts to secure this; and in most cases they are successful. Nor are the amounts of contact that non-resident parents end up with negligible...”. I suppose this depends upon whether you think once a fortnight is negligible or not.

Children’s rights NOT parents’
The panel also make the empty claim that “...we of course believe strongly that most children benefit from a relationship with both parents post separation.” but much of the language in the report reveals that the panel saw shared parenting as a parental right NOT as a right for the child. For example, David Norgoves’ own foreword recognises the distress of parents who do not see their children but does not even mention the distress felt by the children who don’t see one parent. The panel think (para 4.27) that legislation might risk creating an impression of a parental ‘right’ to a particular amount of time with a child. This is a gross misconception of the nature of a legal presumption, one not shared by the promoters of shared parenting.

Who did they listen to ?
The panel has disregarded support for a shared parenting presumption from the Law Society and the British Association of Social Workers. They have ignored 49% of respondents who supported legislation to recognise more formally the importance of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents, as against 18% who opposed it. They have preferred the advice of one judge, one Australian academic and Gingerbread.

Why the change of heart ?
They have stepped back from recommendations on shared parenting in their own interim report. They say, “The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.” This bizarre conclusion rests mainly upon the evidence of Associate Professor Helen Rhoades of the Melbourne Law School, whose submission is set out in full (Annex G) unlike other contributors'. I do not find her arguments persuasive, particularly as the one legal case she cites was overturned on appeal.

The abuse argument
Both the panel and their favoured academic suggest that a presumption of shared parenting would expose children to abuse from a non-resident parent. Leaving aside the statistic that more abuse occurs with resident parents, the presumption would not and could not override the courts’ duty to protect children. This argument is not worthy of the panel.

Leaflets and encouragement ? You cannot be serious
So what did the panel call for instead of a presumption of shared parenting ? “Parental education and information”. They suggest that parents should be given a leaflet when they register a birth and should be encouraged to have a parenting agreement when separating. They have clearly never listened as I have to crying fathers who have been denied contact with their children for years on end. Their best hope that “Progress depends on a general social expectation of the full involvement of both parents in the lives of their children before separation, not on changes in the law” displays astonishing naivety. Non-resident parents do not see their children because resident parents don’t want them to and the law offers no effective remedy. Do they really believe that leaflets and encouragement and changes in social expectation will provide that remedy ? As some might say, “They’re having a laugh” but it’s not funny, is it ?

Words you seldom hear...

"Today Nigel Ashton is the inheritor of that tradition which was founded on Methodism and temperance."

I'm sure Nigel won't mind me quoting Iain Brodie-Browne's comment in his tribute to Southport's David Bentliff.

I don't know about the Methodism but everything else is true and tells us how the world changes.

Ever wondered what happens to manifesto promises ?

Ask Oliver.

Plan A: get out of that, George !

Here's the image I have been looking for to illustrate the deficit reduction policy which inhibits growth and therefore reduces the revenue from taxation and makes the deficit harder to reduce. These men were installing bollards to stop vehicles going on the pavement. How are they going to get out now ?

Go away and read Keynes, the lot of you !

Please yourselves - I'm here all week (1)

The Liberal Democrats Conference Committee has an unfortunate habit of timing debates I am due to speak in for 9.00 am usually on a Sunday morning. A few years ago we were debating what is now called Ballistic Missile Defence (unless the military-industrial complex has come up with a new bit of camouflage / acronym / euphemism). It used to be called Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) or more commonly just "Star Wars". In my speech I outlined the cost, the fact that it didn't work and the threat the idea posed to disarmament negotiations. I concluded, "Very expensive, ineffective and hostile. So what's the answer ? It isn't rocket science, is it ?". I thought this was rather good but from the small squad of comatose conference addicts who had crawled into the chamber came not a titter, let alone a chuckle. I did notice however a small smile creep across the countenance of Tom McNally. Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated.

She's right - it's mad.

Lottery winner Angela Dawes said she and her husband woke up as ordinary people in the morning and now have over £100 million, adding, "It's mad". She's right. Millions of people bet money on the lottery every week (not the Daweses - they tried only three times) with astronomical odds against winning. Ask the same people to vote for a government that wants them to pay one penny more in tax to be spent according to a democratic collective decision and they vote against it. So people would rather part with a pound or more every week with an infinitesimal chance of personal benefit knowing that the biggest beneficiary (apart from the shareholders in Camelot) will profit not from hard work or talent but sheer blind luck. Mad indeed. The lottery is an investment in stupidity and a tax on hope.

Never mind the quality, feel the width

Liberal Democrats are constantly reminded by their leaders of the concessions made by the Tories in coalition, most recently at conference. The Tory website Conservative Home also harps on about it. A more considerate assessment can be found in UCL's report "One Year On"

The problem is that the width of Liberal Democrat policy gains is not matched by the quality whereas the party's losses in policy terms are gaping holes. It's as if you bought trousers with a generous waistline but no material behind leaving a bare backside to be kicked. The voters might ignore the fine work on the lapels and collar if the pockets were empty with a big hole in the bottom.

As Nick Clegg noted at conference, "Probably the most important lesson I have learned is this: No matter how hard you work on the details of a policy, it's no good if the perception is wrong. ". The Clinton mantra "It's the economy stupid" is still true. No amount of blaming Labour for the mess, however justified, will save our bacon in 2015 if too many people are out of work.

Tails lash at Tory Conference.

Claws were out at the Tory Conference as Teresa May and Ken Clarke clashed over the Home Secretary's claim that courts applying the ECHR's Article 8 on family life allowed an illegal immigrant to stay in the UK because he had a cat. May has now admitted that this was not true. The judge was ruling on the veracity of the man's relationship with his partner, which was partly evidenced by the joint purchase of a cat.

The Guardian report says "May's speech was not shown to Clarke. In common with conference speeches by all cabinet minsters, it was cleared with the "quad" committee of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and Danny Alexander.". Come on Nick and Danny ! Wake up and smell the Tories. Don't leave the defence of the ECHR to Ken Clarke alone.

Reasons for buying an iPad (or not)

If you don't yet own an iPad (like all the journalists at LibDem Conference did), Dan and Dan explain one of the reasons you might like to buy one (or not). (You have to scroll down to "iPad Head".)

Amazing Resemblance No.324

Has anyone noticed the amazing resemblance between Ed Miliband and Ginger, the escapist chicken in Chicken Run ? I wonder if perhaps they are related or move in the same closed circles.

Not despairing, not deluded but deliberate

As usual I have been to a different party conference from the one the media floated through or above. The Guardian led the pack who expected Liberal Democrats to be downhearted and when we weren't decided that instead we must be deluded. Setting aside the joy of meeting old friends, the curious pleasures of debating and voting, we had other reasons for not despairing. There is the Tim Farron joke that we could cope with being out of power for a generation as predicted by the governor of the Bank of England, because we are used to being out of power for three generations. There is the comfort of Harold Wilson's observation that "A week is a long time in politics" and there is the gut wisdom of Harry Truman's "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

At the Guardian lunch, Paddy Ashdown chose a metaphor from military history. He recalled the Duke of Wellington saying to his troops when the French found their range, "Hard pounding gentlemen." Actually I don't think the Labour opposition has found our range yet, just scored a few lucky hits on our exposed left flank. I did ask Paddy, "Where's Blucher, where are the Prussians ?". He suggested that the voters would be the Prussians. I believe this can only come true if we establish clear gold water (not, please, aquamarine). As I repeatedly suggested at conference, the next election will turn upon how many voters have jobs. Myriad Liberal Democrat policies will weigh as nothing if unemployment is high. We need to propose a programme for jobs like Obama. We too may be blocked by conservatives but people will know what we stand for.

Trim and spin and flimflan and aaaarggghhh!

According to today's Guardian, a leaked No.10 memo outlines government plans to appeal to women. It cites "...an urgent need to up our game on communications about what we're doing". Well, they could start by learning to write in English and continue by basing policy on principle and evidence instead of trim and spin. Why do politicians always think the problem is communications instead of the damn stupid policies ?

(Fans of Ed Reardon's Week will note that the 12-year-olds run No.10 as well.)

Smoke and mirrors and plain nonsense

Simon McGrath has published an article on Liberal Democrat Voice defending the Liberal Democrats' Federal Conference Committee's handling of accreditation. It contains many false assumptions and muddles and some language that is downright misleading. I have commented at length on LDV but I summarise here.

1. Simon says that the party not the police take the decision to exclude representatives, but he also says that if the party ignores the police advice then we would have no insurance and hence no conference, so it's not advice, is it ? It's a police veto.

2. "When Simon says that the party decides to exclude representatives, he means the mystical group of three - the Chairman of FCC,the President and the Chief Executive. This is an unelected committee unknown to our party constitution which gives no-one such a power.

3. Simon maintains that the real choice was between accepting police advice on accreditation or having no conference, although he goes on to say (in the same paragraph)that we might not need this procedure at a different venue. Find that venue, I say. This is not a true dilemna.

4.Simon is remarkably better informed than the rest of us about the fact that there has " ...only been one person flagged up by the police and the group of 3 has decided that he should not be admitted. This is someone who joined the Party in July 2011 and about whom the police have raised ‘serious concerns’ – very specific details of which were given to Wiseman etc". As he's not on any of the relevant committees, how does he know this ? Who's been briefing him ? More to the point, how is it that the rest of us don't know this ? An unelected group of 3 purport to exclude someone from the conference without any constitutional power to do so and in an unaccountable way. None of us know who the person is nor what the grounds were. We don't know if the person concerned was told of the "serious concerns" and had the chance to challenge them. This in a party that has fought against arbitrary power and against control orders in particular. Nor has the procedure for challenging a police "recommendation" be publicised. Nor, it appears, is there any appeal against the self-appointed group of 3. We would not tolerate such proceedings in government. Why the hell should we accept them in our own party ?

5. Simon objects to my motion because of "the idea that the police should be pressured to change their advice on security on political grounds." This is very misleading language. I am not suggesting that politicians should interfere with the police (we can leave that to the daft Tory idea of elected Police Commissioners which many Lib Dem MPs have just been whipped to vote for). I am suggesting on the contrary that the police should not interfere with the democratic process of a political party choosing its own representatives.

Recognise Palestine now

In a few days time the United Nations will decide whether to recognise Palestine. Listening last night to Richard Perle, Washington's "Prince of Darkness", on Question Time, I heard him lie many times. In particular he denied that Israel was in breach of any UN Security Council Resolutions. A member of the audience immediately cited UNSCR 242 as I shouted it at the television. There are others. David Miliband called for leadership to solve the Israel/Palestine issue. Clearly he has little faith in the expensive mission of Tony Blair on behalf of the Quartet which we are all paying for.

My disgust at Perle and other apologists for the USA's and the UK's failure to face up to the problem has led me to contribute to Avaaz's campaign for recognition of Palestine. If you agree, you can too by going here: Time for Palestine.

Swedish stag party ?

Clearly temperance has not reached all parts of Swedish society, as this story of a moose on the juice demonstrates.

All captions and puns gratefully received.

It's completely bonkers !

Excellent article on accreditation by Jonathan Calder in the Guardian's Comment is Free. Most of the comments that follow the article are by people with very short memories who think the Liberal Democrats are finished. Have a little perspective guys. Read some history. People have been saying we finished since the 1920s. They were wrong and it's still wrong now. However, I was amused by this comment which refers to instructions for permissible photos:

"A neutral expression, with your mouth closed, eyes open and clearly visible...

Isn't this actually a partial quote from the Coalition agreement? I believe it continues...

... bent over, with hands firmly grasping ankles."

Striking a balance - duh ?

I have heard the hackneyed phrase about striking a balance between security and liberty before - from Tony Blair, from John Reid, from David Blunkett, always in the name of some new restriction on fundamental freedoms which we as Liberals have opposed over the years. I do not take my stand against police accreditation on the inevitable inefficiency of this process. I would oppose it if it was executed with finesse and subtlety and grace. Search us, scan us, check our luggage by all means but never admit the possibility that the state in any of its myriad guises can decide who shall attend a party conference.

Done badly or done well, accreditation is wrong !

Much recent discussion about accreditation has been about the inefficient operation of the process. I wouldn’t care if the process was the smoothest I had ever experienced. It is simply wrong that an organ of the state has any say in who attends a political party’s conference. No Liberal should have any difficulty understanding this principle. It is also wrong if the party's Federal Conference Committee (FCC) or any other committee, office-holder or panjandrum can decide who attends. Does anyone really think that a party committee should be able to interfere with a local party’s choice of representative ? Even if you do think that, it’s not what our party constitution provides. I am bitterly disappointed that members of FCC either didn’t know this or didn’t care.

John Arlott on the H-bomb and co-ownership

Thanks to Stephen Tall for drawing my attention to some old Liberal (not Liberal Democrat as YouTube says)Party Political Broadcasts. I particularly like Frank Byers and John Arlott answering questions from a businessman and a housewife in 1955. Unscripted, polite political dialogue unknown to us today. 56 years later we are still waiting for the spread of co-ownership and profit-sharing (except for bankers of course).

May 2011: "A perfect storm" for Liberals

Today's Telegraph reports on the internal inquiry into the May local elections by the Liberal Democrat's Campaigns and Communications Committee. The committee says the party faced a perfect storm and identifies these factors:
* public anger over university tuition fees and NHS reforms;
* failure by Lib Dem activists to praise the Coalition Government during discussions with voters on doorsteps;
* reluctance by supporters of the two main parties to vote tactically for the Lib Dems in seats where their own party had no chance;
* high turnout among Tory and Labour voters because of the referendum;

The sad thing about this report is not that it is a statement of what Basil Faulty called "The bleeding obvious" but that it was bleeding obvious before it happened. So many of us warned that the handling of tuition fees would be toxic, whatever the merits of the policy itself. So many of us warned that the referendum should NOT be on the same day as the elections.

To paraphrase the Earl of Strafford, "Put not your trust in leaders". They don't always know best and nor do the inexperienced wunderkinder who surround them in their offices.

Well whoopee -dee-do, Greater Manchester Police approve of me !

Just received the following from LibDem HQ:

Dear Disgruntled,

Just to confirm, we have received information from Greater Manchester Police that you have been successfully accredited for the upcoming Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference 2011. Your conference pass will be posted to you in September.

In the meantime all conference papers, including the Agenda, Directory and Training Guide, are available to view online at www.LibDems.org.uk/AutumnConferencePapers

We look forward to seeing you at conference.

The Conference Team
The Liberal Democrats

Please note: should you have colleagues or friends who have registered to attend the Liberal Democrat Conference but have not received confirmation of successful accreditation yet, please be aware that the accreditation process is ongoing and all members will be updated about their application when information becomes available.

I replied:

Thanks for your message. I attend conference because Yeovil Liberal Democrats elected me, not because the police allow me to. That’s according to our party constitution.

Best wishes,
David

Disgruntled but accredited ???

The postman and I had a good chuckle as he delivered my conference papers from LibDem HQ addressed to Mr Disgruntled Grace. He asked if I'd fallen out with the senders. Apparently the sorting office had a good laugh over it this morning. I'm all for a lighter Chard and don't mind that party HQ or their contractors can't handle data entry accurately but I would like to know if I have been accredited, i.e. approved by the Constabulary to take part in my party's conference. I suppose we can assume that being sent papers means we're OK, kosher, pukka, persona grata etc. If not, it's going to be difficult for me to sum up the motion challenging this nonsense (9.00am, Sunday, 18th September)

Evening all

The last few days have offered relief from contemporary images in the form of Carry on Constable and Radio4 Extra's revival of Dixon of Dock Green. How policing has changed.

What will Ed say today ?

Party positions seem to be hardening ahead of today's parliamentary debate on the riots. The government - both coalition parties - seems to be focusing on punishment, including the nutty idea of making people homeless. The Labour Party is trying to blame the government's cuts whilst simultaneously condemning the rioters. This won't work as Harriet Harman found out on Newsnight. The media will simply headline Labour's party political point-scoring and ignore the ritual condemnation.

If Ed Miliband has any sense - and he has shown some in the past - he will of course condemn the rioters but he will add that the entire political class has lost touch with a section of society, the often-labelled underclass. He could quote J K Galbraith's "The Culture of Contentment" which contends that society is divided into two classes. One class has material goods and comfort and votes. The other has little or nothing and doesn't bother to vote. Of course, politicians compete for the voters and ignore the rest.

Parents, will you take your kids to the police ?

"When I get home nothing is going to happen to me. I might get shouted at", young looter on radio this morning.

I put this question to two law-abiding,sensible Guardian-reading friends. One hesitated and ducked the question. The other answered without pause that she would not. She stuck to this answer.

I don't understand the dilemma. You expect even demand that other people's kids are punished for theft. Why not your own ? I praise the parents of the boy who dropped the fire extinguisher off the roof of the Millbank Centre during the tuition fee demo. They took their son to the police. To my mind, that is good parenting and a lot more use than shouting.

It's not just the kids who have lost their moral compass, it's parents too.

Riots ramble - not, I hope, a rant.

I have been looking at Facebook, Twitter and LibDemBlogs and listening to Radio 4. Radio 5 and BBC News 24 and trying to avoid my own anger and fear deteriorating into calls for the army etc. Comments fall into two categories: (1) condemnation of the rioters and looters and (2) searches for deeper explanations, usually involving government policy. For now, I settle on two points of social psychology.

Firstly, the relative poverty hypothesis. The rioters and looters are neither starving nor homeless. They may be hopeless. Compared with teenagers of earlier generations they are well off. Above all, all around them they see people enjoying wealth and consumer goods, which they cannot obtain legally. Some are really poor. Many more see themselves as poor.

Secondly, the loss of respect for the law. It's an old chestnut for students whether law and order is maintained by consent or force. Certainly when there is no consent, force will follow. The young criminals of the last three nights number far more than the usual habitual thieves of any neighbourhood. How have thousands of young people come to lose all concern for law ? Last night was not just an attack on rich chain stores. Some burned cars and buses, some hit anyone who tried to stop them, some broke into houses. Of course, it's still a small minority of the population, but it's a group growing up seeing the rich and powerful casually breaking the law with great impunity - cheating MPs re-elected, amoral bankers wrecking people's lives and still getting their obscene bonuses, police on the take, rarely held to account when they kill people, journalists with no moral qualms about their methods. Useless to protest that these too are minorities, that most politicians, police and journalists don't do this (You'll note I do not exonerate bankers). Someone I know well, on a small income, has recently been ripped off by a landlord charging extra when nothing extra was given and an employer in the restaurant where he works stealing his tips. Both landlord and employer are very well off and do not seem to be breaking the law. His reaction has not been to riot, loot or burn but he begins to understand why people do.

We cannot and should not excuse any of the rioters and looters but nor should we be surprised at their greed, envy and sheer anger untrammelled by any moral perspective in a world that shows them the prizes but keeps them out of reach.

London's burning

We know it's not protest. We know it's crime, theft, arson and violence. What follows is not in any sense justification. In a society where MPs cheated on their expenses, where bankers remain immune even rewarded for their catastrophic mistakes with other people's money, where powerful and rich companies and individuals avoid tax, where the press hack into people's phones and are untouched by their clients the politicians and the police, where the burden of mismanaged public finance falls hardest on the poor, where education is becoming a private privilege, where schools fail and jobs disappear, can we be surprised that there are so many young people who clearly feel they have no interest or stake in a lawful society ?

This is not the Big Society. This is a very small, fearful, hopeless, selfish society.

"Time for Radicals" says Craig

"A financial system in which the face value flow of funds was vastly greater than the face value flow of goods traded is a bubble. The “bailout”, or payment of vast sums of ordinary people’s money to bankers to keep this crazed system going, could never make it sane.

Allowing bad banks to go to the wall was not just possible, it was essential. Instead the poor are in deep hock simply to maintain the lifestyles of awesome consumption led by the political and financial elites. That is the immediate cause of the services cuts and tax increases sweeping the Western world. The fact this is no solution at all to funny money explains why trillions were wiped off world stock markets last week. The explanation is simple; those trillions never existed in the first place."

So writes Craig Murray.

OK, all you dismal and realistic economists, explain to me now why you think Craig is wrong.

Liberals - NOT defined as centrists

Someone recently described the Liberal Democrats as a centrist party. Here's what I thought of that in 2005 and it's still true.

What’s left ?

During the [2005] general election various journalists with self-satisfied smirks, indicating that they thought they were doing something clever, would ask a Liberal Democrat, “Are you left of Labour ?” as if the question meant something. As well ask, “ Are you against sin ? Are you for motherhood and virginity ? (perhaps not in that order)”. Why don’t they do something useful instead, like delivering some focuses or, God forbid, writing some ? They would ask it as if the categories of twentieth or even nineteenth century debate were still meaningful, as if the terms “Left” and “Right” conveyed the same meaning to the speaker and all the listeners. The BBC website even had a page supposed to help the anxious enquirer in resolving the question.

How many of these scribblers, quibblers and mediacrats know that the terms “Left” and “Right” were coined before the arrival of socialism, before Karl Marx was a gleam in his mother’s eye (My favourite story about Karl was what his mother said when he was working on his magnum opus, “Why doesn’t he stop writing about it and make some ?” Just what my mother would have said.) As all Liberator readers know and could tell Jeremy Paxman, the terms derive from the 1791 Legislative Assembly during the French Revolution, where the monarchists sat on the right and the Jacobins on the left. Hence the general idea that the left favours change and the right opposes it. It is in that broad sense that Kremlinologists after 1989 described communists as right wing and free-market-reformers as left wing. And what of the Thatcher years in Britain? Who favoured change and who opposed it ?

In the twentieth century, socialism was seen as progressive and therefore left-wing and the right wing as defined by Wikipedia (the online encyclopaedia) referred “...with no particular precision to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics”. The party regarded as the most right wing was of course the German National Socialists. OK, let’s not be pedantic. We know that language wanders about but there comes a point where it is actually off the map. The cause of this confusion lies deeper than historical meandering. The attempt to reduce all political dialogue to “Left” and “Right” presumes one axis of debate, an axis which is itself always shifting. To imagine that all social concerns can be expressed along one axis is as daft as the Brobdignagian struggle over the correct end at which to open an egg. Even to imagine that most issues fit on one axis, with the occasional exceptions subject to a free vote, is to stifle and limit discussion not to widen and encourage it.

Those who want to defend the use of “Left” and “Right” will characterise the first as being about state ownership, equality and the interests of the working class and the second about private enterprise, liberty and the interests of the middle class. These seemingly opposed ingredients have long been blended into a fusion of school dinners that would make Jamie Oliver throw up. In most industrialised societies we expect levels of taxation and public services unimagined by “Left” and “Right” of years gone by and mixtures of public and private ownership; our class systems are not bipolar and most people consider other aspects of their existence more important than their class; material equality is no longer expected and liberty is undervalued and taken for granted despite the depredations of David Blunkett and Charles Clarke. The British political parties do not fight on these grounds any more but offer different presentations of much the same mixtures. They try to attract the electorate not by solid principle but by the superficial and cosmetic. Like nouvelle cuisine, some of the policies look interesting but the meal is unsatisfying (and overpriced).

All right, you say, we’ve got it. “Left” and “Right” are old hat and should be removed from all lexicons, school books and road signs. But what, you continue in your insidious way, do you propose instead ? Enough negative campaigning, eh ? Well, just one more negative. I don’t propose that giddy (or Giddeny) goulash of nonsense Mr. Blair’s friend at the London School of Economics (and now the House of Lords) chose to call “the Third Way” as if there were no more than two to start with. I do, however, look to one of the LSE’s more interesting directors, Ralf Dahrendorf. In his book, “Class and class conflict in industrial society” (1959), he suggested a new model of class based on the distinction between those who exert authority over others (the command class) and those who are subject to authority but exercise none themselves (the obey class). Here is a model that a Liberal understands instinctively. In 1979, he proposed the idea of “life chances”, a combination of the range of choices available to an individual (options) and the social connections in that individual’s life (ligatures). In 1974 in the Reith lectures he suggested changing the subject of history, away from the debate about the role of the state in the economy. The real issues are about control not ownership, accountability to the public rather than the stock exchange or the treasury. Politics, based upon people’s needs and wants rather than their jobs or investments, requires more than one axis.

We can make a small advance by considering two axes. Make no mistake, this is still a model. The map is not the territory, but it helps you work out where you’re going. In 1954 H.L.Eysenck in “The Psychology of Politics” demonstrated a two-axis model with Radical----Conservative on the x axis and Authoritarian-----Democratic on the y axis. If you looked at the usual Left-Right x axis, the Liberals were in the middle. If you changed the subject of history and looked at the y axis, the Liberals were on the democratic end and everyone else was between the middle and the authoritarian end. A similar and more developed analysis is available in modern form on the website www.politicalcompass.org with a questionnaire which places you on a two-dimensional graph. The website www.publicwhip.org which monitors voting in the House of Commons has produced a graph by cluster analysis which looks very like the same pattern, with Liberal Democrat MPs’ votes grouped in the middle of the first axis but up one end of the second one. I offer these references for further research and do not attempt further summary. They can provide a thoughtful answer to the tedious “Are you to the left of Labour ?” but not one that even Lembit Opik could condense into a soundbite.

A variation on the journalists’ question is the one confronting the 62 Liberal Democrat MPs, “How should the party position itself ?”. I hope this question will also be considered by the party as a whole even though Charles Kennedy has now joined David Steel in his contempt for the Party Conference, which he characterises as “... a brief desultory debate in a largely empty hall” as opposed, I imagine, to a completely packed kitchen cabinet. Many, bruised and battered by the election campaign, will seek a psephological answer. My calculations show Liberal Democrats now in second place in 105 Labour seats and 83 Conservative seats, but in the 23 seats needing less than a 5% swing, the balance is different: 14 Conservative and 9 Labour. The 62 MPs already elected may pay more attention to the parties challenging them; 44 face a Conservative challenge, 17 a Labour one and one a challenge from Plaid Cymru. At first glance, the maths suggests that the competition is for Conservative votes, but it isn’t that simple. The Conservative vote is much more solid than the Labour one as we found out in the election and many Liberal Democrats depend more upon squeezing the Labour vote than they do upon picking up Conservative votes. In the end, the decision should not depend upon these numbers because it is impossible as well as unprincipled to seek a position, defined by its relationship to other parties’ positions, which are themselves changing.

It would be a foolish and dispiriting experience for the party to spend the next few years agonising over the left-right argument. It would also be self-defeating because that debate ignores our Liberal heritage and defines us instead in other people’s terms. Nor should we seek some new and magical middle ground. Remember, that’s one-axis thinking. It is not enough to say we believe in social progress and reform, a phrase that echoed round the leadership hustings a few years ago. Both the state and the market can serve the needs of the individual but neither is the solution to all problems. Both can concentrate power in the hands of the few and ignore the wishes of the many, both can deny diversity and reduce freedom. New Labour’s combination of private provision of public services and micro-managed Treasury targets combines the disadvantages of state and market and loses the benefits of each. We should build on our traditional emphasis on choice for all, on the value of diversity. To revert to the French Revolution, the Tories are still the Right, Labour are the centralising Jacobins and we are the Girondins with a firm faith in decentralised government. As the Conservatives cast around desperate for new ideas, don’t let them steal ours because, in the end, Liberalism is what’s left.

Oslo

Aloha! Could Obama have become Prime Minister ?

Good question for a pub quiz : Which American state flies the British flag (Union flag, only a jack when flown on a ship)? Hawaii. Listening to Radio 4's Excess Baggage on Saturday morning, I learned that at one point Hawaii could have become British. You have to wonder what chance would Obama have had of becoming Prime Minister ! Not much is my guess.

So farewell, Amy Winehouse

Guess what ! There's more important things going on than Amy Winehouse dying. Nobody invaded her house, bombed it or shot her. I'm sorry for her, of course, but why don't we praise the rock stars who manage their artistic lives without substance abuse or wrecked relationships ? Now that would be a role model.

Custard pie moment eclipses Murdoch's replies

The picture shows Jonathan May-Bowles (allegedly) in a check shirt attacking Rupert Murdoch with a custard pie. Wendy Murdoch (dark hair and red dress back to camera) is about to get up and clout May-Bowles, who apparently tweets as JohnnyMarbles.

According to Lord Bonkers, Molesworth blamed the pie on Peason. Bonkers also avers that he twittersphere suggests that Rupert Murdoch's defence is that he has never heard of the News of the World. Someone also commented that Murdoch has also denied all knowledge of the custard pie.

Shock new witness on hacking

So what will the committee be asking Pamella Bordes ?

I think we should be told.

Has anyone notice the remarkable resemblance between Rebekah Brookes and Judge Jefferies ? Of course the difference is that one of them took bribes...

Daily Mail, stop writing crap !

The European Parliament's Culture and Education Committee debated a motion on the European dimension in sport this week, UKIP salivated and the Daily Mail and the Daily Express foamed at the mouth.

Here's the idea that shocked our great patriotic newspapers:
"The European Parliament...
26. Proposes that the European flag should be flown at major sports events held on EU territory and suggests that it should be displayed on the clothing of athletes from Member States; "

Here's how the Daily Mail reported it:
Brussels bureaucrats will today make a desperate bid to shore up their plans for a European superstate by forcing British sports players to wear the EU flag on their strips.
The shock plans will demand that all of the country's national heroes in sports such as football, rugby and cricket, display the blue and yellow flag - or face hefty fines of thousands of pounds.

Here's the boring truth. This is a draft report at committee stage. It's not even draft legislation as the European Parliament has no power to initiate legislation. The suggestion was the 26th item in a report which even UKIP acknowledged was a good report. The European Parliament are not Brussels bureaucrats, they are elected politicians and the actual bureaucrats, the European Commission,merely wait to receive the report. Would the Mail call MPs Westminster bureaucrats ? Nothing in the report calls for fines.

As Julia Gillard told the Murdoch press, so I say to the Mail and the Express: Stop writing crap ! Time to listen again to the great Dan and Dan's Daily Mail song.

Sleeping with the enemy

Whilst I sympathise with anyone whose privacy has been violated by the Murdoch press, my condolence with Gordon Brown is attenuated by the consideration that he and his colleagues were in bed with the digger for years. I recall that one of Gordon's first foreign jaunts at our expense was to call upon Murdoch at his ranch. Nor in thirteen years of government did New Labour make any attempt to regulate or weaken the concentration of ownership of the media and the undemocratic power that it confers.

It's a bit late to complain now, Gordon.

Murdoch blames the workers !

So Murdoch has closed The News of the World. So what ! The website The SunonSunday has just been registered. The same old rubbish will be churned out under a different title and as long as people buy it, the advertisers will come back.

Come on, coalition ! Legislate to restrict concentration of media ownership now. Don't waste a good crisis.

What are you doing about it, Vince ?

Last night BBC's File-on-4 explained some of the games bankers play. Finally I understood what a naked Credit Default Swap (CDS) is. You take out insurance against your investment in a government bond (or whatever) failing because the borrower defaults. However, unlike the insurance that you or I take out on our homes, cars, lives, you can sell the CDS to someone else, who does not hold the original investment. The CDS is now naked and it's owner has an interest in the original investment failing, as Greece is now finding out. The European Parliament is trying to outlaw some of these naked CDSs, but is running into opposition led by one member-state - the UK !

Over a year ago I asked Vince Cable what role he saw for the EU in financial regulation. He ducked the question, more or less suggesting that the UK could act without the EU. Come on, Vince ! I know you're Eurosceptic but I heard your attack on the bankers at the Social Liberal Forum. How about putting your money - or your supposed ministerial clout - where your mouth is ?

They're having a laugh !

Rarely does the Today programme make me laugh out loud. Simon Greenberg, Director of Corporate Affairs at News International managed it this morning. This satrap of the Murdoch empire opined to Jim Naughtie, "You're reaching a judgement without knowing all the facts. That's speculation. I can't comment until the facts are in."

Midsummer in Copenhagen

What a glorious weekend we had in Somerset ! The gravel beaches were full of white blobby bodies turning red. I walked up Glastonbury Tor in the sunshine where there was so little breeze I could light my pipe with a match.

Not so glorious in Copenhagen. This film shows dramatic flooding in the streets of the Danish capital. Note how the Danes drive, cycle and walk through the floods with characteristic Scandinavian phlegm. I bet even the trains worked whereas the British train operators came up with a new excuse recently - railway tracks too hot. That's three seasonal excuses for railway failure: Summer - hot tracks, Autumn - leaves on line, Winter - wrong kind of snow. They just need some new excuse for the Spring. Any ideas ?

"Their Lordships die in the dark"

So wrote George Dangerfield in the Strange Death of Liberal England*, but their house lives on. In the opening words of the Parliament Act 1911, it is written: "...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation..."

Mark Pack writes about the concessions behind the Act in Total Politics blog. What a pity one of them was not bringing in a Land Tax. A hundred years later let's abolish the house of the undead AND introduce Land Tax. Now that would be new politics, Nick.

(*Now the name of a an experimental/folk/indie group from Southsea.)

How many will be excluded from our conference ?

I asked Andrew Wiseman, Chair of the Liberal Democrat Conference Committee about exclusion of representatives from conference.He replied that "Conference Standing Orders allow us to exclude someone from conference. It is not something we would do lightly. As I have said given that the threshold of likely to cause a serious risk of harm to those attending conference or conference it is highly unlikely that any legitimate conference rep would be excluded."(My emphasis).

There are a number of problems with this reply. Firstly, Standing Orders do NOT empower anyone to exclude anyone. They only provide for an appeal from exclusion by the Chief Steward, a power which they do not confer on him. If he does exclude anyone, it can only be under Public Order legislation for behaviour during the conference, not because of some advance vetting procedure. Secondly, Andrew only says that it's highly unlikely that a "legitimate" rep would be excluded. Who decides who's legitimate ? Why should a legitimate rep be excluded at all ?

Zoe O'Connell asked Greater Manchester Police how many were excluded from last year's Labour Party Conference. Here's the answer: 11,988 people were vetted for the Labour Party Autumn Conference in 2010, 24 failed. (0.2%). Of course, the Labour Party wasn't even in power then, but we all know how much safer Jack Straw feels if anyone who shouts "rubbish" at him can be excluded using anti-terrorist legislation, don't we ?

I give the last word to the wonderful Dilly Keane and Fascinating Aida. I don't think the rozzers would let her in.