More answers to Jennie Rigg !

...and here are the answers on FPC.

1. Which of the following activities do you consider the most dangerous and why?

- taking a single ecstasy tablet

- taking an advanced motorcycle riding test

- giving birth

Giving birth.  Around 100 women die every year in the UK whereas between 10-17 people die from taking ecstasy.  Statistically ecstasy may be more dangerous because far fewer people take it than give birth.   As far as I know, no-one has actually died taking the motorcycle test.

2. What four pledges would you put on the front of the next Lib Dem manifesto?

1. To build more affordable and social housing

( with a costed figure of say 400,000 homes a year)

2. To create new jobs in a greener economy (again, a costed figure as large as possible)

3. To reduce borrowing by taxing wealth and by cracking down on tax avoidance.

4. To promote peace through international law and to avoid military adventures.

3. A genie appears and tells you that you can remove one law and make one law; what would you remove from the statute book and what would you add to the statute book?

Remove: Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which outlaws abusive and insulting words or behaviour.  

Add: All childcare to be tax deductible - the biggest contribution there could be to gender equality.

4. What balance should the committee give to the views of the leadership, the parliamentary panels and the membership in setting policy priorities?

FPC should listen to all these but the dialogue should be two-way.  We want to support the parliamentary leadership but not to restrict our policy formulation to topics that fit the Westminster bubble.   The party desperately needs to offer the public an independent message - what we stand for, not just to pose as the brakes on the Tories.   Fighting the next election on the economic competence of the coalition would be disastrous.

5. How would you change the party’s procedures on gathering and analysing evidence when formulating policy?

I have served on policy working groups and watched with increasing dismay the current process where, although staff work very hard, the choice of witnesses is somewhat random.   We need to invite evidence publicly and not be afraid to hear from specialists who disagree with us.   Their contributions can only strengthen our policies.   Loss of the Short money has left the party desperately short of policy staff.   We also need to involve more party members and to use the hidden expertise they possess.   In the East of England I have started a process of identifying where that expertise lies.   I have tried unsuccessfully so far to revive the old Liberal Party practice of a travel pool for working groups, so that the cost of taking part is the same for all whether they live in Kensington or Newcastle or Penzance.

  

6. Which is more important - freedom from ignorance, poverty or conformity?

I have always emphasised freedom from conformity.   There is no great value in the freedom to be the same as everyone else.  Conformity carries ignorance and poverty in its train, ignorance because alternatives are suppressed and poverty because growth and opportunity require innovation and choice.

7. Are you a member of any (S)AOs or other pressure groups which might give us an insight into your policy priorities?

I am chair of Liberal Democrats for Peace & Security and have campaigned persistently against nuclear weapons.  I am a member of Liberty and Amnesty and a former president of the Young European Federalists.  I have also worked for years with Environmental NGOs and professionally lobbied the European Union on environmental policy and regional policy.

8. Which external bodies would you like to see audit the manifesto to see if our policies are workable?

Honestly, I hadn't thought about it.  Actually auditing after we have written the manifesto is too late.   We should seek external critique of our polices as we develop them not when it's too late.

9. What proposals do you have to improve the process of negotiating policy priorities for a coalition agreement in the event of another hung parliament?

Other countries allow a sensible period of time but the markets and the British media will probably not.  I understand why preparations before elections for negotiations afterwards have to be confidential, but the negotiators should have guidance from FPC and conference as to red lines.  I think it is a mistake to put too much into an initial coalition agreement.  As the likely minority partner we are in a stronger position if the majority partner has to come back to us to negotiate on issues.   Any coalition agreement must also provide for wider negotiation of new policies than the present quad of two MPs each.  In any such discussion, the party outside parliament should also be represented.

10. If elected, how do you plan to engage with the wider party?

I want more members to be involved long before policy gets to federal conference.  The current process of policy formulation is something of a secret garden and indeed a garden made up of plants from within the M25.  As a start in the East of England, we (the Regional Policy Committee) have arranged for regional consultation sessions on defence and on work / life balance, subjects which will be debated at federal conference next Autumn.   I would like FPC to engage with regional committees and for committee members to explain the policy process to local parties, something I would be glad to do myself.

11. Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones, and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?

I'm also standing for FPC.   The actual number of meetings for both committees is not too demanding.   If elected to both, I would have to reconsider the amount of time which I currently spend on local and regional party bodies.

Answers to Jennie Rigg

Here's my answers to Jennie's questions on FCC.

Answers to Jennie Rigg’s questions to FCC candidates

1.    What ratio do you think is the ideal balance for keynote speeches, policy debates and Q&A sessions on the main stage at conference?

I think policy debates should have the lion's share of the time, certainly over 50%, probably more, then Q&As and finally keynote speeches.   Ministers can make speeches all year round.  This is our time as party activists.

2.            How do you plan to make conference more inclusive?

This is my main theme.   Going to conference can cost hundreds of pounds and our policies will suffer if those with harder lives can't contribute.  I want Conference Office to help organise block travel bookings and car sharing, to match up local members as hosts with reps who need cheap accommodation and we need to provide alternatives to the ridiculously expensive food available at conference centres and hotels.   Constituencies should consider subsidising their reps.  I support the use of the internet and skype as well but it's important for people to be physically present if possible.

3.            What is your favourite conference venue and why?

Brighton, because of the wide range of accommodation and restaurants from the cheapest to the most luxurious.  I also have happy memories of performing in the Liberal Revue there.   I like Harrogate too but it may be too small now.

4.            What is your opinion on the proposal to make conference one member, one vote?

I hadn't heard the proposal but if it means more members can attend and vote, that would be a good thing.  However, see answer to question 2.  We don't just want the better off members to decide everything.

5.            What would you do to make conference more affordable for the less well-off within our party?

See detailed answer to question 2. This would be my most important objective if elected.

6.            What is your opinion on the proposal to allow non-attending members to participate in conference - remote voting, speeches by skype, etc.?

I'm in favour of using Skype to let people participate, to follow debates and even to speak.   I'm not sure about voting.  There would need to be very secure systems in place.  This could be very important for people unable to travel because of disability, poverty or occupations like teaching.

7.            How much consideration do you think FCC should give to avoiding embarassing our frontbench when it selects motions and amendments for debate?

Almost none.  I successfully proposed an amendment at the Special Conference declaring our right to continue to make policy as an independent party.   The only caveat I would make is that sometimes a Lib Dem minister may be able to achieve amendments to legislation or policy by quieter methods which would be undone by the fog-horn of conference, but that minister would need to convince us that this was so.   Mere embarrassment would not qualify.

8.            What are your views on  whether outside experts should be allowed or encouraged to speak on the main stage?

This should be exceptional.   For example, I would have wanted to hear Hans Blix on Iraqi armaments before the UK went to war.  There is limited time on the conference floor.  Experts can speak at fringe meetings.

9.            Where do you stand on conference security in general and accreditation in particular?

I fully support the airport-style security which make us all safer.  I totally oppose accreditation as an affront to democracy.  No state agency whould have any say in the selection of our representatives at conference.  I drafted, promoted and summed up for the resolution which conference passed last year condemning accreditation and I shall continue to oppose it and seek to end it.

10.               If elected, how do you plan to engage with the wider party?

Even when it does a good job, FCC does seem a little mysterious and its decisions opaque.   I would favour more openness about meetings and their decisions whenever possible.   I would make myself available to talk to local parties about conference organisation.   We used to have a two-stage agenda process which gave members more say over what was debated.   The sausage machine of FPC-appointed working groups producing lengthy reports hasn't always been an improvement and can limit debate rather than encourage it.  I want to explore ways in which members can have more influence on the final agenda.

11.          Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones, and if elected to more than one, how do you plan to divide your time?

I'm also standing for FPC.   The actual number of meetings for both committees is not too demanding.   If elected to both, I would have to reconsider the amount of time which I currently spend on local and regional party bodies.

Vote early and vote often !

No, seriously vote once in each Liberal Democrat internal election and if you value our party's independence and internal democracy, please vote for me for FPC and FCC.   If you want to know more about my views, there's more here: David Grace for FPC and FCC.

EU Nobel Peace Prize but some Liberals carp !

I have spent a lot of time today arguing on-line with fellow Liberal Democrats about the contribution of the European Union to peace.   Some have repeated the false but successful UKIP propaganda that the EU is undemocratic; some have challenged its contribution to peace; some have moaned about the Common Fisheries Policy.

As Romano Prodi pointed out on Radio 4  Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace since the Roman Empire.   I fear the UK is now heading for an in/out referendum.  The entire British political class, not excluding the Liberal Democrats, will be to blame if the  vote is for out, after decades when they have failed to proclaim the achievements of the European Union or even engage in trying to improve it, preferring instead to carp on about fish and bananas.

"Reform sir ? Aren't things bad enough as they are ?"

...as Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor said in the 1820s.  Birkdale Focus reminds us of Paddy's wonderful speech on foreign affairs at a conference fringe, full of poetry and history but sadly no substitute for the lack of foreign policy debate on the floor of conference.   For the full speech see here.

Paddy was somewhat disparaging about the EU, saying rightly that it does not connect with the citizen and then calling vaguely for institutional reform.  As I pointed out in my question to him on the day, he doesn't say how he wants the EU institutions reformed !  This is dangerous.  Usually the Tory eurosceptics call for EU reform but they have always opposed any reform which would improve things.  Small example: everyone moans about the European Parliament working on three sites and the cost of decamping to Strasbourg once a month.  Why does it happen ?  Because the power to decide the question rests with a unanimous vote of the European Council, i.e. there's a national veto involved.   Solution: remove the veto and let the EP decide on its own location.

I don't believe that the answer to UKIP is to say "Reform the institutions".  It's to proclaim what the institutions have achieved.  "Reform the institutions" is a defensive response, conceding half the eurosceptic case.

Independent gets it wrong too !

The Independent leads a report on conference with the price of Miriam Clegg's dress, followed by "Come back Lembit, the party needs you    What the conference has missed is Lembit Opik, the ex-MP".  No, no,no - or as King Lear Lear put it: "Never, never, never, never, never".

The piece continues with " Ian Wrigglesworth... held the stage immediately before Clegg".  Well, he was on the stage and he did better than Sarah Teather, but "held" it ?  I don't think so.

The writer finishes by praising Charles Kennedy.   He was right about one thing - Charlie wasn't there.  Years ago when Kennedy was a new MP, I met a man on the Isle of Skye who praised their previous MP, Russell Johnston, for ten minutes without stopping.  Finally I said, "And now you have a new MP" and he thought for a moment before replying gently, "Aye, Mr Kennedy has his good points as well."  So they tell me.

"We're not very popular at the moment"

Just watched Cameron on Letterman.   This is the moment when he responded to the question, "How are you doing ?"   Many people have commented on his failure to translate the words Magna Carta, which is bizarre given his Eton education and, anyway, why couldn't he guess ?   Boris, of course, would have known.   Cameron did, however, work in one of my favourite historical facts, that the British sailed up the Potomac in 1814 and burnt down the White House.    I also noticed his mistake about the royal family.  He said that the Queen's visit to Ireland this year was the first by a member of her family since Irish independence.   Has he forgotten Lord Moutbatten ?

The media write their stories in the bar in London before they travel to the seaside.

I think it was 1979 when Michael White wrote in the Guardian that Margate pier was the ideal image for the Liberal Party.   Our conference in Margate had been interrupted by occasional explosions as the demolition experts tried to destroy the pier.   It was, said Michael, "a Victorian structure that refused to go away".  I wondered if any journalists this year would be tempted to compare the party to Brighton's West Pier, cut off in the middle of a hostile storm, but none of them did, although Allegra Stratton's Newsnight piece extended the weather metaphor and included a shot of the pier.

Journalists searched Brighton in vain for despair and rebellion.   Instead they found what you will always find at a Liberal Democrat Conference - debate and decision (not to mention drinks and dinner).   Today Andrew Sparrow told us in the Guardian that the Lib Dem Conference had taught us 10 things.

"1. Nick Clegg is trying to forge the Liberal Democrats into a new party"
We are down to our core vote and  there are no fair-weather friends any more. That doesn't make us "a new party", it makes us the party we always have been without the temporary penumbra that politicians waste so much time seeking to attract.

"2. The Lib Dems seem more committed than ever to the coalition"
"As committed as ever"  maybe.   I detect no more or less enthusiasm.   We have the same distaste and doubts about the Tories.   We will be happier if our leaders express it more often.   Andrews cites the so-called rejection of an economic "Plan B".   Sadly Ed Randall's amendment to the growth motion was poorly worded and worse presented in debate.   I believe our Conference Committee selected that amendment because it could be easily defeated and they chose not to select Prateek Buch's much better amendment.    Andrews concludes " the Lib Dems face an existential threat, and if the coalition fails, the party is doomed too".   This is nonsense and perhaps wishful thinking by the Guardian, given their Toynbee-esque prejudices.   Failure of the coalition's economic policy will be bad for both parties in the coalition but fatal for neither.   The sooner we start exploring the economic alternatives (and I don't mean the Balls that the Labour Party talks) the better the party will recover.

"3. The Lib Dems are seeking to reassert their identity"
He's right.  Some of us have been doing that from the beginning of the coalition (two beds not one) but like the rest of the Guardian stable , he doesn't know what our identity is.  He writes, " ...many Lib Dems ...think the party would be mad to give up on leftish voters who are attracted by the party's social democratic instincts." (my emphasis).   As I explained to Jackie Ashley last year, we don't have "social democratic instincts";  we have social liberal instincts, which are quite different and date back to the writings of Green and Hobhouse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

"4. Clegg intends to fight the general election"
Well spotted, Andrews, who obviously has a MA in the Bleeding Obvious.    He even raises the old chestnut of Nick Clegg going to Brussels in 2014.   This was never a runner (do chestnuts run ?).   Why on earth would the Tories send Clegg to Brussels ?   Do they want someone British committed to the development of the EU sitting in the European Commission ?   Do they want to make a vacancy for Vince or Tim Farron to lead the Lib Dems ?   I don't think so.

"5. There will be no imminent leadership challenge"
Yet Andrews thinks there might be in 2014 or before.   Do this journalists ever think things through ?   For a challenge, there must be a challenger.   If, surprisingly, the economy picks up and things look better, Nick Clegg will be safer.   If, as looks likely, there is no recovery and the deficit looks as bad as ever, Nick Clegg is even safer.  Why ? If you had plans to be leader of the Liberal Democrats, why would you want to take over just before a really bad election when all you have to do is wait until after it and let Nick take all the blame ?

"6. Vince Cable is the party's undisputed leader-in-waiting"
I do not share the reported adoration of St Vince.   He is not a team player.   His economic judgement is not as reliable as believed.   His presentation and political management of the tuition fees (as opposed to his masterly negotiation behind the scenes) was catastrophic.   I think his ascendancy to the leadership is unlikely and possibly unwanted by him.  Andrews for some reason not explained, believes Tim Farron's star to be falling.  I have seen no evidence of that.

"7. Election manifestos are going to look different in the future because they will clearly differentiate between non-negotiable promises and negotiable ones"
Possibly although I doubt it, but the problem last time was not the manifesto but the pledge.  Nobody reads manifestos.

"8. Coalition is making government more open"
Yes, but sadly not enough.   We don't really have a new politics.   Labour's visceral hatred of the Liberal Democrats exceeds their dislike of the Tories and effectively, especially in parliament, we still have two sides and old-fashioned adversarial politics.   The culture of disagreeing about everything has yet to be replaced by a culture of seeking agreement which will outlast a single parliamentary term.

"9. The Lib Dems are still overwhelmingly white and male"
He is, of course, judging by the House of Commons, not the party membership.   I don't deny that there is more to be done but it's not a Lib Dem problem, it's a problem with politics across the board.   Conference this year seemed to me to have more young people, certainly more women and in my estimation, more representatives from ethnic minorities than in previous years.

"10. But it's a great party to join if you want to speak at a party conference"
Finally he gets something right.  In his own words:
This week has confirmed that the Lib Dems are still the only main party in British politics genuinely comfortable about letting the members debate policy. Labour and the Tories use their conferences to showcase their leaders and rising stars. If you want to go to party conference, get involved in debates and speak on more than one occasion, I'm afraid you haven't got much option. You'll have to join the Lib Dems.

Charles Clarke preaches telling the truth !

I rarely shout at the television (unlike the Today Programme on Radio 4) but I could not believe my ears tonight when I heard Charles Clarke, commenting on Nick Clegg's apology, say "The essential thing about politics is that you've got to tell people the truth".   Charles Clarke !  He's having a laugh !

If the young Charles Clarke, who I knew as a student leader, had come face to face with his later self as Education Minister blows would have been exchanged.  Nobody in the Labour Party who presided over or voted for the introduction of tuition fees or their subsequent increase in breach of their own manifesto has any right to criticise Nick Clegg.  What is the Labour Party's policy on tuition fees now ?  Is it the same as last year or the year before or whenever ?   What do these lying, hypocritical opportunists actually stand for ?

Sorry

Our damned media have been predictably ungracious in their response to Nick Clegg's apology over tuition fees.   The despicable, opportunistic and hypocritical Labour Party has been predictably worse.   When will we hear the Daily Mail apologise for years of lying ?   When will we hear the Labour Party apologise for starting an illegal war and for leaving the country's finances in such a dreadful state ?   When will they apologise for wrecking reform of the House of Lords, something they promised in THEIR manifesto ?   When will they apologise for introducing tuition fees, promising not to put them up, putting them up and then appointing a businessman to review them, who recommended putting them up without limit ?

I was bitterly disappointed by the desperately bad political management of the tuition fees issue by Liberal Democrat leaders, above all Vince, but I honour Nick Clegg for his apology.   Sir Humphrey might have called it brave and so do I.   Our society will not be mature until politicians, businessmen and all in authority over us can admit their mistakes and their apologies be accepted instead of being exploited by the Tory press and the Labour scum  (Yes, Harriet Harman, I mean you !)

Shopping around in Edinburgh ?

Last year I was lucky enough to visit the Edinburgh Festival Fringe twice and determined to go again.  This year I'm in it !   If you're going to the fringe, may I recommend the light-hearted musical Retail Therapy, written and performed by a very talented group of young people from Somerset (OK - and me).   If you enjoyed Are you being served ?, this is better.  If not, then it's definitely better.   This is not cutting edge political satire but a joyful break from it.  The venue Greenside is central, the show is 50 minutes in the afternoon (Monday 13th to Saturday 18th August) and will revive you after your late night the day before.

Look out for the MAdD actors promoting the show in the Royal Mile.   Although the music, the songs and the dance are all excellent, I should mention that personally I am not required to sing or dance  so don't let that mental image put you off.   Nor am I playing young Mr Grace (although I have done that in the Liberal Revue) but instead old Mr Perkins, the fashion store manager.   Years ago the cashier in Kredietbank, Rond Point Schuman, Brussels greeted me as young Mr Grace and told me that Are you being served ? was very big in Belgium.   This summer (huh ?) Retail Therapy will be very big in Edinburgh.   Come along and make it bigger !  You can book here.

That was fun

I'm not a great fan of sports, especially athletics, but the Olympic opening ceremony was fun.  It is also an amazing sight to see the parade of athletes from over 200 countries all looking so happy - a better image of the globe than the parade of commercial sponsors.   Not sure why we had a quick flash of David Niven in "A Matter of Life and Death", one of my favourite films, unless it was to remind us how the stadium looked like the court of heaven which was to decide if Niven lived or died.

Sorry !

I have been a negligent blogger.  I have left undone those things which I ought to have done.  Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  I'm not apologising for failing to inflict my views on the world for nearly two weeks.  I've been busy and you may even appreciate a period of silence on my part.  No. I'm apologising to people who posted comments which I did not see and therefore did not publish.  I've published them now.  Truly sorry.

5 myths about the UK economy

The graph above shows  that the coalition's current deficit-reduction plans are actually slower than Alistair Darling's.   It comes from Stephen Tall's great article which shows the emptiness of the economic debate between government and opposition. If only we could spend more time and energy on who should bear the tax burden and what scarce resources should be spent on, politics might become about real choices again.


I plead guilty to spreading some of the myths that Stephen destroys and, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, thank him for correcting me.


I note Stephen calculates


"Overall, the marginally higher growth of Labour’s looser fiscal policy would have resulted in 70,000 fewer unemployed. However, that reduction would have been obtained with an increase in debt across the three years of £26 billion — the equivalent of £370,000 per job — to be repaid by the nation later."


which compares with  


"The £1bn contract for reactors for the next generation of the UK's nuclear-armed submarines to be announced by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will create 300 jobs.  I make that a mere £3,333,333 per job"


which I reported yesterday.   In either case what we want are sustainable jobs at sustainable prices. 

Useless, expensive and dangerous

The £1bn contract for reactors for the next generation of the UK's nuclear-armed submarines to be announced by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will create 300 jobs.  I make that a mere £3,333,333 per job.   Why is defence spending always justified by the jobs it creates ?   Also, could someone explain exactly what Trident is defending us against ?

I can't stand it

For a long time now, I have felt great disappointment (to put it mildly) with the conduct of Liberal Democrats in government.  We have failed utterly to advance Britain's role in the European Union; indeed we have kowtowed to the Conservatives' deep-seated euroscepticism.  We have supported, promoted and defended a disastrous economic policy.  We have compromised too far on the green agenda.  We have failed to reform the voting system and are en route to fail to reform the House of Lords.   Today our MPs will abstain when they should vote for the motion calling for Jeremy Hunt to be referred.  The country today has lost what little confidence there ever was in politicians and has less idea of what Liberal Democrats stand for than at any time in my life and for good reason.  We have lost thousands of voters, hundreds of councillors and at least one fifth of our members.  I am seriously considering for the first time ever joining that last group.

Yes, but an hour later they'll be hungry again

China investment in Europe triples - FT.com

www.ft.com

Chinese direct investment into Europe tripled in 2011 to $10bn, according to a new study that estimates Chinese companies are in the early stages of a global shopping spree that could see them spend as much as $500bn a year in the region by 2020.

Opik: Sad when the lust for publicity turns to masochism

This is when a great weight landed on Lembit Opik and broke his ribs, two minutes after he entered the wrestling ring in Welshpool.  Lembit's poor judgement and lust for publicity, which cost him his seat in Montgomeryshire, continue to dog his life.   After the match, he commented, "I think I need to think about what I am doing in future, because I think I may have gone a step too far this time."     As a child of ten might say, "Well duh ! You think so ?"  Perhaps if Lembit had learned that lesson long ago, Montgomeryshire would still have a Liberal MP.


I am not a fight fan and I do wonder about people who enjoy this spectacle.  After Lembit's opponent, Kade Callous, threw him on the floor he stood looking on while the crowd urged him to do more, which he did as the picture shows.  In the video you can hear the mob cheering and one man shouting "Stomp him !" repeatedly, after he had been stomped already.   According to the Shropshire Star, one fan commented "It was the best show we have seen in Welshpool in my 35 years.”.   A fight that lasts two minutes between grotesquely unequal opponents is "the best show" ?????   Clearly life in Welshpool could be better.

Hester Smallbone

Many Liberals will have been saddened to hear of the death of Hester Smallbone.   Her daughter Teresa wrote an obituary in Saturday's Guardian.   Hester was a stalwart of Richmond Liberals and I lodged with her in Kew in 1983 so that I could take part in the general election campaign which Alan Watson very nearly won.   She was larger than life, generous, vocal and enthusiastic.  Indeed, Hester's enthusiasm for liberalism was unbounded.   I remember we travelled through Richmond on an open-topped battlebus with Hester dressed in orange from head to foot.   She may sometimes have overestimated the party's impact.  Returning from a Liberal Conference in Blackpool, I met Hester at a  motorway service station.  When I commented on the amount of traffic, she told me it was all the Liberal delegates on their way home.    When her daughter voted Labour, she commented, "Born free, chose slavery".

Now you're asking

BBC interviewers like nothing better than displaying how clever they are by asking the question which they know a politician cannot answer.  Last night on Newsnight Emily Maitlis tried to get Chloe Smith, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to admit that the government has a Plan B in case Plan A doesn't work, as the IMF report may suggest.   This is the forward-looking version of "Have you stopped beating your wife ?".  You can't answer Yes or No.  If Chloe said Yes, then Emily would have come back with "So plan A isn't working !".  If Chloe said No, then Emily would have asked why the government was so over-confident and ill-prepared.  Chloe Smith handled it fairly well but Emily wouldn't move on.  She had her game plan and pushed the dilemma again and again.    I have heard John Humphries waste a whole interview on this technique with the net result - no new information for the listener but the politician looks shifty.
Here's how the West Wing's Josh Lyman handled the same problem and invented the President's secret plan to fight inflation:

Letchworth

Last week, I found myself at Letchworth station in the rain.  Today I found George Orwell's comments on Letchworth and socialism:

"The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. he is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealth marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Non-conformity behind him, and above all, with a social position which he has not intention of forfeiting.
   This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party, in addition to this there is the horrible-the really disquieting-prevalence of cranks wherever socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "nature Cure" quack, pacifist and feminist in England
   One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about sixty, both very short, pink, and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was obscenely bald, the other had a long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every dimple. Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus.
   The man next to me, a commercial traveler I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again at me, and murmured "Socialists," as who should say "Red Indians." He was probably right-the I.L.P. were holding their summer school at Letchworth. But the point is that to him, as an ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank."

George Orwell  "The Road to Wigan Pier" (1937)

Vince panders to the Torygraph

Vince Cable has produced a dreadful piece in the Daily Telegraph pandering to their eurosceptic readers. He rails at European legislation which he characterises as over-regulation and micro-management. He is disingenuous and wrong about the origins of EU laws, the character of them and their substance. He fails to mention the way that European legislation is produced, based on treaties freely entered into by the UK, proposals widely consulted on before draft directives emerge from the Commission and then discussed, amended and adopted by Parliament and Council. Britain is part of all these institutions but Vince's account will only confirm the fantasy of some evil Brussels bureaucrats pursuing some hideous agenda of domination. European directives, adopted by the democratic process summarised above, typically establish agreed objectives but leave the exact method of achieving them to member-states. The habit of British civil servants of adding unnecessary detail when directives are transposed into British law is famous and is known as gold-plating. Our wretched national parliament compounds the problem because it fails to scrutinise or challenge the drafts produced by the civil service and signed off by ministers. As to his argument that British workers have the right 'to choose' to work more than 48 hours a week, Vince misleads the reader. The 48-hour limitation is an average measured over a long period of time (I forget how many months). In other words there is flexibility within the directive. I will be surprised if the party's newly created Working Group on Work / Life Balance shares his view. Furthermore spreading work among a larger group of people instead of the unbalanced mixture of the overworked and the unemployed has social and economic benefits - less mental illness, lower social security payments and higher spending to fuel growth. I have always known that Vince was eurosceptic but I thought he understood economics.

Bliss

When it comes to disgruntlement I am a mere amateur compared to Ed Reardon.

I had the great pleasure of seeing Christopher Douglas perform "An audience with Ed Reardon" at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe last summer. I decided I wanted to go to the fringe every summer from then on but I never suspected that I would be appearing myself. Book now for "Retail Therapy" at Greenside venue from 13th to 18th August. But I digress. Ed is everything a grumpy old man should be, despising the 12-year-olds who run the mass media, astounded at the widespread success of the illiterate and the vulgar and scrabbling unsuccessfully for the crumbs that fall from their undeservedly rich tables. Spot on, Ed. In the new series he gets to spend time with Jenny Agutter and is still disgruntled ! Pace Wordsworth, "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be old was very heaven."

So, farewell then Bert Weedon

Bert Weedon was in that very large category or people who you think are dead, indeed died long ago. Then quite suddenly they die and you find out, too late of course, that they were alive all along. Fans of the Bonzo Dog Doodah Band will remember how he appeared in their great song, "We are normal". The lyric ran: "We are normal and we want our freedom, We are normal and we dig Bert Weedon" You can hear it here (2m30s in if you don't want the whole song).

Would you credit it ? Accreditation (again) !

The Liberal Democrat Federal Conference Committee plan to ignore the conference decision on accreditation and have asked for my views. Here they are.

A. The request for views

1. The timing of the request on Liberal Democrat Voice
I have deliberately waited before replying to allow myself to give a calm and considered response but I find that my astonishment at FCC’s course of action has only increased. FCC have known since the conference in Birmingham in September 2011 that there would be a problem. To await until meeting the police in March 2012 and then to invite comments on 14th April giving members one week to respond is ridiculous. We would not hesitate to condemn any government department or agency which behaved like that.

2. The wording of the request on Liberal Democrat Voice
Andrew begins by mentioning “widely differing views within the party” and ends by saying “strong views on both sides”. He finally manages to mention the conference resolution which he says FCC “has taken into account”. FCC appears to have developed a new way of deciding things in the Liberal Democrats. Conference resolutions (by the way, it is a resolution because it was resolved, not merely a motion which was moved) can be ignored and decisions will be taken by the committee itself. Consulting those members who happen to read LDV is not a democratic process as LDV has no place in our party’s constitution and nobody elects its readers.

B. The substance of the argument

1. The question of members providing personal data
Others have argued this point endlessly and the party’s tradition is well known. The Birmingham resolution specifically stated:

“Conference therefore condemns the system of police accreditation adopted for this conference which requires party members to disclose personal data to the police”

2. The selection of representatives at conference: constitutional point
Article 6.3 of the party’s constitution provides:
“Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...”
Nowhere in the constitution or the federal conference standing orders is there any provision for officials of the party to interfere with that process. I addressed this point when summing up the debate in Birmingham which adopted the resolution which includes the following:

“Conference therefore calls upon:
...
2) The Federal Conference Committee to negotiate security arrangements for future conferences which protect the privacy of members’ personal data and which respect the party’s constitution and internal democracy.” [My emphasis]

Nevertheless FCC proposes to ignore conference’s decision and is proposing exactly the same unconstitutional powers for the three wise men, President, Chair of FCC and Chief Executive. If FCC considered that such powers should exist they could have proposed a constitutional amendment at Gateshead but they did not do so. Andrew’s request states “The final decision on accreditation rests with the party, not with the police (and the police accept this).” This misses the point. As a democratic party we cannot agree to any outside body OR federal officers interfering with the election of representatives by local parties. How could a party conference hold officers to account effectively if those same officers could decide who may attend ?

3. The selection of representatives at conference: practical point
Andrew also says that the proposed three wise men “will review the reasons for suggested declining accreditation, and the information on which it is based (where privacy laws permit)” and “will only consider not accrediting a member of the party if they believe there is very strong evidence that that individual may pose a serious security threat to the conference”. How is it possible to review information which the police or security services do not divulge ? This is exactly the problem with control orders, that the security services would not present evidence to a court which they believe would compromise their methods and their agents.

4. Spurious security arguments
Andrew says the police cited the Brighton bombing. The bomb was planted before the Conservative conference began and would now be found by the security searches of buildings conducted in advance of conference. Even if not found, accreditation would not have prevented the bombing. Apparently the police also cited Breivik’s attack in Norway. Breivik was not accredited. Nobody carrying the armament Breivik took on to the island would get through physical security. Did the police really have no better arguments for accreditation ?

5. The insurance risk
This argument was also presented last year. We know that last year the police recommended not accrediting one member and that the three wise men overruled the recommendation. What was the impact on our insurance ? None. What then is the point of accreditation if the party’s officers can overrule it ?

C. Conclusion

The FCC’s task now is to obey the party conference and not to seek views on what has already been settled. However, this is not just a question of procedural incompetence (in both senses of the word). The police proposal and the FCC’s proposed acquiescence flies in the face of our party’s most fundamental and cherished principles. The FCC’s attempt to ignore a Federal Conference decision undermines our constitution, our contract with each other as members of a party and our trust in our elected officers. As a party our devotion to liberty and our commitment to our internal democracy lie at the heart of what makes us different and valuable to our country and our voters. We throw these away at our peril and , if we do, then in a small way but of fundamental importance, the terrorists have won.

What's Liberal about this coalition ?

Don't tell me the usual shopping list which begins with increasing the personal allowance. So far in government we have abandoned Keynesian economics, our opposition to nuclear power, our commitment to higher education available on merit not wealth, our historic identification with Beveridge's welfare state and our long-held support for a united Europe but we're still the party that loves liberty, aren't we ? Well, actually, no. Today the coalition government publishes its plan, the draft Brighton declaration, to "reform" the European Convention of Human Rights or rather to re-nationalise it and undermine its ability to protect human rights. The BBC says "There is also the question of the Liberal Democrats. Many are very reluctant to question the role of the Strasbourg court and some may find these proposals hard to stomach."

Let's measure the government's performance against the declaration on my membership card.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of
liberty (see ECHR above),
equality (err, really ?)
and community ( The Localism Bill perhaps, the Big Society maybe ?)
and in which none shall be enslaved
by poverty (welfare cuts, public service cuts),
ignorance (tuition fees)
or conformity (Any ideas ? Anybody ?)

I am a Liberal so where else should I go ?

The plank in our eye

Today William Hague again joins the American condemnation of Iran. The inconsistency of the western position is breathtaking. Iran claims it is developing civil nuclear power; the West says it is developing nuclear weapons. Israel, on the other hand, actually has nuclear weapons but refuses to admit it. When do I hear the demands for Israel to let the IAEA inspect ? "Ah", reply the Western politicians, "but Iran threatens its neighbours. An Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilise the region". So the Israeli nukes don't threaten anyone ??? After all, Israel would never invade other people's land, would it ?

The British position is not merely inconsistent. It is hypocritical. The last Labour government and the Conservatives in this government are determined that whatever else we cut, we must spend billions renewing Trident. We live in one of the most peaceful parts of the world. Nobody's nuclear weapons are pointed at us. Our neighbours in France were not recently invaded by the most powerful country in the world with our help, as Iran's neighbours in Iraq were. We are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the bargain that says non-nuclear powers will not develop nukes if nuclear powers will junk theirs. Yet we say Iran is the problem.

When the Sun goes down...

Today's lesson is taken from Exodus Chapter 16 beginning to read at verse 21.

"And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted."

Murdoch, take note !

That's another fine mess you've got us into (2) !

Thanks to John Leston and Nigel Amor.

For Another Fine Mess no.1 see here.