Trident and the Marquess of Salisbury

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

Try, try, Trident again !

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

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

Emergency Motion No.6

Conference notes that:

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

Conference calls on the Liberal Democrat ministers to:

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

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

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

Trident replacement to be postponed ?

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

Things you don't hear every day

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

Bankers or borrowers ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Rogers and the Rome restaurant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes I thank God I'm an atheist.

Season of mists

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

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

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

Two Beds

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

So, farewell then Jack Straw !

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

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

Hiroshima Day

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

Labour Gerrymandering

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

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

Microcosmographica Academica

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

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

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

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

Where do you stand on squirrels ?

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

Call Labour's bluff - split the bill !

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

Literary quiz

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

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

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

Sinography - enough already !

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

The police get away with it - again !

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

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

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

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

Trident- let's not talk about it !

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

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