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.