Wow, stunningly crisp new front page to the party's website (www.libdems.org.uk) with perhaps slightly too big a picture of Nickers on it but a really dramatic change. I'm getting lost with all these innovations at once.
I wonder what Dave would do...
Thursday, 17 July 2008
NICKERS ON OUTSIDE HIS TROUSERS AND READY FOR ACTION
There's a short but interesting post from Nickers himself over on Libdemvoice in which he gives a brief pep talk about the party structure and says a General Election could come at any time in the next few months. Nickers has also been in the general media talking about how a LD government would cut taxes for those who need it nost (as mentioned in an earlier post).
There are reports that he plans to change the party structure to make it a bit more streamlined. Finally, in my inbox this morning there was a message about a series of 'real' commitments to sell to voters - and the list was good, Gruffalo fans!
The comments on many of the posts about this flurry of activity from on high have been critical, suspicious and generally negative. Well, I'm impressed. I voted for Nickers as I thought he had ambition and he is proving that to be the case.
He has been attacked on LDV for considering an election soon to be possible. No guys, that's just good leadership, whatever the prospects of such a contest, which most of us probably think unlikely.
I'd like to see a little less navel-gazing in general, particularly about the changes to the party structure - for after all, who gives a **** - and a bit more getting behind the leader who, let's be frank, has a bloody awful job but who has so far acquitted himself extremely ably.
There are reports that he plans to change the party structure to make it a bit more streamlined. Finally, in my inbox this morning there was a message about a series of 'real' commitments to sell to voters - and the list was good, Gruffalo fans!
The comments on many of the posts about this flurry of activity from on high have been critical, suspicious and generally negative. Well, I'm impressed. I voted for Nickers as I thought he had ambition and he is proving that to be the case.
He has been attacked on LDV for considering an election soon to be possible. No guys, that's just good leadership, whatever the prospects of such a contest, which most of us probably think unlikely.
I'd like to see a little less navel-gazing in general, particularly about the changes to the party structure - for after all, who gives a **** - and a bit more getting behind the leader who, let's be frank, has a bloody awful job but who has so far acquitted himself extremely ably.
AMERICA GROWS UP AND TALKS TO IRAN
Fantastic news that someone, somewhere in the US administration has come to their senses and realised that launching yet another war in the middle east (or west Asia if you want to be pedantic) will not achieve what they want it to achieve.
Instead they plan to talk to the Iranians in Geneva.
It's days like these that make you think it might just be all right after all. Well done the USA and please think about a little more of this.
Instead they plan to talk to the Iranians in Geneva.
It's days like these that make you think it might just be all right after all. Well done the USA and please think about a little more of this.
TORY TAX TERRITORY TAKEN
Nice one Nickers with the headline today about a future LD govcernment cutting taxes for those who need it.
The BBC report is at http://tinyurl.com/6b28k3 (sorry, still can't do links...)
I'm very impressed with this approach. More of the same please!
The BBC report is at http://tinyurl.com/6b28k3 (sorry, still can't do links...)
I'm very impressed with this approach. More of the same please!
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
PMQs, FURTHER REFLECTIONS FROM SOMEWHERE NEAR LARK RISE
The question from Nickers quoted the PM as promising to abolish boom and bust, but said we now have both, with energy and food prices up. He asked when the PM would act?
Gordon said employment at its highest level ever – 60,000 more in last 3 months, with lower inflation that Europe and the USA. He said his government was addressing the problems which exist.
Nickers then said the PM doesn’t understand the scale of this, with 5.5m people in fuel poverty, and more families with housing problems. The PM needs to step back and see the big picture and come up with some solutions to stop real misery in the winter. In response, predictably, Gordon reeled off a little list of all the fab things his government was doing. I fell asleep briefly.
Nickers was earnest and right on but he didn’t get any headlines with these questions, which is what the game is all about.
A foolish Tory asked ‘does the PM think the price of petrol and diesel is too high or too low’.
Sheesh, an open goal for Gordon, who said prices were too high and then launched into one of his more messianic speeches about what he has done to address the issue and save us all. He finished by lamenting that it is ‘just unfortunate the opposition won’t support these actions’.
Ken Clarke asked if the PM has decided how the unfortunate taxpayer is eventually going to pay for the mess he’s got us in. Is Ken looking towards a future Tory Cabinet, I wonder…Gordon reeled off his ‘how bad things were under the Tories’ list, to everyone’s utter delight.
Then Jo Swinson stood up, the sun dappling her brown hair and steadfast but feminine shoulders as she gazed earnestly at the Prime Minister and the assembled MPs gazing rapt as her cherry lips parted to speak (I was listening on the radio but creating a mental picture…). She asked about the problem of skin cancer, with 80,000 new cases each year, and asked how the government can justify taxing sun cream. Gordon told her the government has spent god knows how much to address cancer issues, and that waiting times for cancer treatment were much shorter now.
Norman Baker rose, the sun dappling his bald pate, his cherry lips…no, bad image. He asked about BMI flying empty planes to keep airport slots open. Given the emissions produced by the aviation industry, would the PM address this issue of ‘ghost flights’. Gordon agreed that such flights ‘would be’ bad – i.e. not accepting that they happen - and agreed to look into this and write to him, so nice one Norman. This question made the BBC news.
A Labour MP actually asked a good question about the threat of eviction for families in social housing if their children were involved in anti-social behaviour. He asked what would be done to families living in owner occupier properties, which I thought was rather clever. Gordon spoke on the contracts to be signed with problem families, neatly sidestepping the question but hopefully it will be asked again as it needs consideration.
I haven’t listened to PMQs for some time but |I was pleasantly surprised by today’s discussion. Slightly more light than heat was created for once.
[NB: profound apologies to Jo Swinson for any offence caused.]
Gordon said employment at its highest level ever – 60,000 more in last 3 months, with lower inflation that Europe and the USA. He said his government was addressing the problems which exist.
Nickers then said the PM doesn’t understand the scale of this, with 5.5m people in fuel poverty, and more families with housing problems. The PM needs to step back and see the big picture and come up with some solutions to stop real misery in the winter. In response, predictably, Gordon reeled off a little list of all the fab things his government was doing. I fell asleep briefly.
Nickers was earnest and right on but he didn’t get any headlines with these questions, which is what the game is all about.
A foolish Tory asked ‘does the PM think the price of petrol and diesel is too high or too low’.
Sheesh, an open goal for Gordon, who said prices were too high and then launched into one of his more messianic speeches about what he has done to address the issue and save us all. He finished by lamenting that it is ‘just unfortunate the opposition won’t support these actions’.
Ken Clarke asked if the PM has decided how the unfortunate taxpayer is eventually going to pay for the mess he’s got us in. Is Ken looking towards a future Tory Cabinet, I wonder…Gordon reeled off his ‘how bad things were under the Tories’ list, to everyone’s utter delight.
Then Jo Swinson stood up, the sun dappling her brown hair and steadfast but feminine shoulders as she gazed earnestly at the Prime Minister and the assembled MPs gazing rapt as her cherry lips parted to speak (I was listening on the radio but creating a mental picture…). She asked about the problem of skin cancer, with 80,000 new cases each year, and asked how the government can justify taxing sun cream. Gordon told her the government has spent god knows how much to address cancer issues, and that waiting times for cancer treatment were much shorter now.
Norman Baker rose, the sun dappling his bald pate, his cherry lips…no, bad image. He asked about BMI flying empty planes to keep airport slots open. Given the emissions produced by the aviation industry, would the PM address this issue of ‘ghost flights’. Gordon agreed that such flights ‘would be’ bad – i.e. not accepting that they happen - and agreed to look into this and write to him, so nice one Norman. This question made the BBC news.
A Labour MP actually asked a good question about the threat of eviction for families in social housing if their children were involved in anti-social behaviour. He asked what would be done to families living in owner occupier properties, which I thought was rather clever. Gordon spoke on the contracts to be signed with problem families, neatly sidestepping the question but hopefully it will be asked again as it needs consideration.
I haven’t listened to PMQs for some time but |I was pleasantly surprised by today’s discussion. Slightly more light than heat was created for once.
[NB: profound apologies to Jo Swinson for any offence caused.]
PMQs, THE VIEW FROM OXFORDSHIRE
Well, the last PMQs of the season offered a chance for Dave and Gordon (that always sounds like a sixties singing duo to me) to have one last pop at each other and they duly obliged
First off, a Labour MP asked a lengthy question and the Speaker eventually cut him off. Dave started his act with a comment about how it was good to see that you didn’t have to finish a planted question to get a planted answer
Dave’s assault was based on the idea of no one taking responsibility in government. He asked who thought up the knife policy to take those with knife convictions visit victims in A&E. Gordon failed to answer twice, simply telling the House about government policies like the ‘good conduct’ plans for families. Whatever he said, his resounding failure to answer was excruciating.
This is where Dave rather lost it. He decried the lack of an answer but moved on to car tax, pointing out that Gordon had previously said the majority of drivers would benefit from the proposed car tax changes. He changed the subject and thus lost his focus.
Gordon perked up. He hit home, pointing out that the Tories had previously supported tough choices for the environment and noted that Dave had said in 2007 that less polluting cars should pay less, more polluting cars should pay more. That’s not leadership, said Gordon. This was one of those rare occasions when Gordon got Dave square on the jaw.
Dave reminded Gordon that he had said he was useless a year ago and he hasn’t changed his mind since. Dave’s turn to land a blow and for every listening or watching to rejoice as it got interesting.
Dave asked about the government decision to halt the 2p fuel duty rise, which was announced today and whether it was related to the Glasgow east by-election, just as other decisions had been to do with other by-elections? Gordon quoted advice that the new car tax should be for second hand cars as well to be effective. He quoted the Tory slogan ‘vote blue go green’ and said it was meaningless
Dave got a good one in here. He said the slogan now is ‘vote blue, get rid of this lousy government’. He asked about Gordon’s failure to turn up to the vote on MPs’ expenses. Gordon intriguingly spoke of the actions of a few causing problems for all, a veiled attack on his own MPs it seems. He said there should be a cap on expenses.
Dave finished by saying there are tough times ahead and difficult decisions to be taken and asked, ‘shouldn’t the PM provide leadership and tell the truth?’ Gordon was able to strike home, saying that’s why he will continue to take tough decisions while Dave runs away from them. He mentioned several areas where Dave had ducked the issue and said he had no solution and no substance
The commentators in the Westminster bubble will doubtless read it differently but this was a points victory for Gordon. Dave attacked him but he ranged too widely. He lacked focus and Gordon was able to destroy his argument after a rocky start. The points this week go to Gordon. Does the fightback start here?
First off, a Labour MP asked a lengthy question and the Speaker eventually cut him off. Dave started his act with a comment about how it was good to see that you didn’t have to finish a planted question to get a planted answer
Dave’s assault was based on the idea of no one taking responsibility in government. He asked who thought up the knife policy to take those with knife convictions visit victims in A&E. Gordon failed to answer twice, simply telling the House about government policies like the ‘good conduct’ plans for families. Whatever he said, his resounding failure to answer was excruciating.
This is where Dave rather lost it. He decried the lack of an answer but moved on to car tax, pointing out that Gordon had previously said the majority of drivers would benefit from the proposed car tax changes. He changed the subject and thus lost his focus.
Gordon perked up. He hit home, pointing out that the Tories had previously supported tough choices for the environment and noted that Dave had said in 2007 that less polluting cars should pay less, more polluting cars should pay more. That’s not leadership, said Gordon. This was one of those rare occasions when Gordon got Dave square on the jaw.
Dave reminded Gordon that he had said he was useless a year ago and he hasn’t changed his mind since. Dave’s turn to land a blow and for every listening or watching to rejoice as it got interesting.
Dave asked about the government decision to halt the 2p fuel duty rise, which was announced today and whether it was related to the Glasgow east by-election, just as other decisions had been to do with other by-elections? Gordon quoted advice that the new car tax should be for second hand cars as well to be effective. He quoted the Tory slogan ‘vote blue go green’ and said it was meaningless
Dave got a good one in here. He said the slogan now is ‘vote blue, get rid of this lousy government’. He asked about Gordon’s failure to turn up to the vote on MPs’ expenses. Gordon intriguingly spoke of the actions of a few causing problems for all, a veiled attack on his own MPs it seems. He said there should be a cap on expenses.
Dave finished by saying there are tough times ahead and difficult decisions to be taken and asked, ‘shouldn’t the PM provide leadership and tell the truth?’ Gordon was able to strike home, saying that’s why he will continue to take tough decisions while Dave runs away from them. He mentioned several areas where Dave had ducked the issue and said he had no solution and no substance
The commentators in the Westminster bubble will doubtless read it differently but this was a points victory for Gordon. Dave attacked him but he ranged too widely. He lacked focus and Gordon was able to destroy his argument after a rocky start. The points this week go to Gordon. Does the fightback start here?
SPEED CAMERAS – TORIES TAKE A STAND
Clever Swindon Council says it wants to scrap speed cameras. Brilliant headline and great publicity for the Tory ruling Group. Apparently speed cameras are ‘a tax on motorists’.
Well, no. Speed cameras are a tax on motorists who drive too fast. If you speed you might get flashed. If you don’t, you won’t.
Now I know Tories are thick – they must be to vote Tory – but how difficult is that principle to understand. Its not speed cameras that are the problem, its people breaking the law.
NB: to avoid the charge of seeming too self-righteous I will admit that I once got a speeding fine, from a police radar gun. But you know what? I deserved it because I was speeding.
Well, no. Speed cameras are a tax on motorists who drive too fast. If you speed you might get flashed. If you don’t, you won’t.
Now I know Tories are thick – they must be to vote Tory – but how difficult is that principle to understand. Its not speed cameras that are the problem, its people breaking the law.
NB: to avoid the charge of seeming too self-righteous I will admit that I once got a speeding fine, from a police radar gun. But you know what? I deserved it because I was speeding.
Monday, 14 July 2008
MUTILATION IN THE NAME OF GOD. NICE...
Watching a fascinating documentary on the Qur’an, I was suddenly shocked by a gruesome scene of a young girl - probably about 9 or 10 years old - being mutilated by her family allegedly in the name of her religion. The young girl screamed for them to stop and told them she didn't want this but her family went ahead regardless.
This leads me to a question: if God/Allah/Yahweh created people, what right do clerics or other misguided zealots have to mutilate people in the name of their respective religions?
I suppose this is one of those questions which will never be answered so I’ll have to ask God if I ever meet her.
This leads me to a question: if God/Allah/Yahweh created people, what right do clerics or other misguided zealots have to mutilate people in the name of their respective religions?
I suppose this is one of those questions which will never be answered so I’ll have to ask God if I ever meet her.
Friday, 11 July 2008
I BOW TO EAT MY CRUNCHIE...
A couple of years ago I had an article published in Prospect (they had a space to fill...) about changing the national anthem to the beautiful, uplifting but non-triumphalist 'I vow to thee, my country'.
The BBC's Mark Easton recently commented on the website about how naff 'God save the Queen' is and asked for suggestions for a new national anthem. Today he published the results and it seems that 'I vow to thee...' came out fourth, although with 'God save Betty' first.
This is nonetheless heartening as the original idea - which I wouldn't claim as uniquely mine - was dismissed at the time but this informal poll suggests that it may yet have its day.
I may allow myself a tiny, but inclusive, cheer.
The BBC's Mark Easton recently commented on the website about how naff 'God save the Queen' is and asked for suggestions for a new national anthem. Today he published the results and it seems that 'I vow to thee...' came out fourth, although with 'God save Betty' first.
This is nonetheless heartening as the original idea - which I wouldn't claim as uniquely mine - was dismissed at the time but this informal poll suggests that it may yet have its day.
I may allow myself a tiny, but inclusive, cheer.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
VATICAN, SCHMATICAN!
Apparently the Vatican is 'angry' with the vote by the Church of England Synod to allow women bishops.
I don't like to over-react but I trust the Vatican and every cardinal will hold in their hearts an image of me raising a friendly salute in their direction in a gesture indicating how highly I value their opinion.
I understand the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem has had the good grace to not get involved in the internal politics of another religion.
If only the Archbishop of Canterbury had any resolve whatsoever, he would tell them where to stick their views as well. But then he went to Rome and, somehow overlooking 400 years of English history, kissed the Pope's ring so his ability to stand up for the Church of England is plain.
Blancmange in the sun comes to mind...
I don't like to over-react but I trust the Vatican and every cardinal will hold in their hearts an image of me raising a friendly salute in their direction in a gesture indicating how highly I value their opinion.
I understand the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem has had the good grace to not get involved in the internal politics of another religion.
If only the Archbishop of Canterbury had any resolve whatsoever, he would tell them where to stick their views as well. But then he went to Rome and, somehow overlooking 400 years of English history, kissed the Pope's ring so his ability to stand up for the Church of England is plain.
Blancmange in the sun comes to mind...
WHAT THE TORIES CAN TEACH US: IT’S THE IMAGE, STUPID!
You have to admire David Cameron. He took control of his party when it looked as vicious and unelectable as it ever has following the brief rule of the alarming Michael Howard. Dave hugged huskies, rode a bike, tried to buy a windmill (but failed), introduced a tree, got a blog and generally said lovely things to everyone.
Nearly three years down the line, having got the support of many more people, Dave is now moving cautiously back to the core Tory agenda, which is self help – selfishness, if you want to be uncharitable – a moral approach to society, a smaller state and lower taxes. At least that’s how they would like to be seen and this current post is not the place to demolish their key beliefs.
Dave has condemned knife crime – who doesn’t? He believes that society is ‘morally neutral’ and that people suffering from obesity or who drink or smoke bear some responsibility for their conditions: once again, I suspect that most of us share this view, regardless of the varying approaches we would take to dealing with these people, which would move between condemnation and a desire to offer help and support. On the environment, well, families need help so lets let the planet go hang to boost sales of people carriers.
In short, he is gently humming an old, familiar tune which others are picking up gradually, including those core Tories who must have been a bit fed up over the last few years as they saw this ‘liberal-lite’ apologist take over their beloved party. It is a brilliant strategy and deserves praise.
Of course, the truth is that an incoming Tory government (still a statement which causes me to shudder involuntarily) will do nothing, change nothing, keep taxes where they are and generally maintain the same course, with a few tweaks round the edges for effect but the mood music is beguiling and at the moment it looks like being successful.
The key question for us two years away from an election is what we can learn from Cameron’s remarkable reinvention of traditional Conservatism? I think there are some very good lessons.
Firstly, you don’t have to ditch your core values when you revamp your image. If we changed our name or logo we’d still be Liberal Democrats, with all the values that unite us. However, that’s perhaps a bit too radical an idea for the moment
Secondly, you can connect with the public and keep those same core values. It’s okay to be populist – and you can still keep your soul
Thirdly, a good idea will win people over if it is well presented. We often suffer from a ‘holier-than-thou’ approach which may cheese people off as no one likes to be lectured. However, we have some great policies which would be popular - if only voters knew about them.
The key message is that the Tories have not changed one iota under Dave’s leadership. What they have done is re-connected with the public and they are reaping the benefits. Perhaps its time for us to put the endless policy reviews and votes on goldfish on hold for a few years and do a bit more selling of the excellent policies we have. As any good company knows, R&D is all well and good but it has to be paid for by shifting your existing products off the shelf.
Let’s get a bit more shallow and start connecting with people.
Nearly three years down the line, having got the support of many more people, Dave is now moving cautiously back to the core Tory agenda, which is self help – selfishness, if you want to be uncharitable – a moral approach to society, a smaller state and lower taxes. At least that’s how they would like to be seen and this current post is not the place to demolish their key beliefs.
Dave has condemned knife crime – who doesn’t? He believes that society is ‘morally neutral’ and that people suffering from obesity or who drink or smoke bear some responsibility for their conditions: once again, I suspect that most of us share this view, regardless of the varying approaches we would take to dealing with these people, which would move between condemnation and a desire to offer help and support. On the environment, well, families need help so lets let the planet go hang to boost sales of people carriers.
In short, he is gently humming an old, familiar tune which others are picking up gradually, including those core Tories who must have been a bit fed up over the last few years as they saw this ‘liberal-lite’ apologist take over their beloved party. It is a brilliant strategy and deserves praise.
Of course, the truth is that an incoming Tory government (still a statement which causes me to shudder involuntarily) will do nothing, change nothing, keep taxes where they are and generally maintain the same course, with a few tweaks round the edges for effect but the mood music is beguiling and at the moment it looks like being successful.
The key question for us two years away from an election is what we can learn from Cameron’s remarkable reinvention of traditional Conservatism? I think there are some very good lessons.
Firstly, you don’t have to ditch your core values when you revamp your image. If we changed our name or logo we’d still be Liberal Democrats, with all the values that unite us. However, that’s perhaps a bit too radical an idea for the moment
Secondly, you can connect with the public and keep those same core values. It’s okay to be populist – and you can still keep your soul
Thirdly, a good idea will win people over if it is well presented. We often suffer from a ‘holier-than-thou’ approach which may cheese people off as no one likes to be lectured. However, we have some great policies which would be popular - if only voters knew about them.
The key message is that the Tories have not changed one iota under Dave’s leadership. What they have done is re-connected with the public and they are reaping the benefits. Perhaps its time for us to put the endless policy reviews and votes on goldfish on hold for a few years and do a bit more selling of the excellent policies we have. As any good company knows, R&D is all well and good but it has to be paid for by shifting your existing products off the shelf.
Let’s get a bit more shallow and start connecting with people.
Monday, 7 July 2008
REASONS TO SUPPORT GORDON BROWN AT ALL COSTS
Because it is reported that Harriet Harperson is campaigning to promote herself as a stand-in Prime Minister should he be forced out.
Talk about 'the devil you know'...
Talk about 'the devil you know'...
Thursday, 3 July 2008
IN PRAISE OF NICOLAS SARKOZY
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the French President for introducing me to a new sensation, to paraphrase Edmund Blackadder. He has made me warm to Peter Mandelson and his crusade to cut some of the cancerous French-led subsidy disease which continues to rot the heart of Europe.
Perhaps when Mr Sarkozy’s country stops taking half of all EU revenue, primarily for its pampered farmers, he can afford to criticise others.
Perhaps when Mr Sarkozy’s country stops taking half of all EU revenue, primarily for its pampered farmers, he can afford to criticise others.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
ENGLAND EXPECTS
Ken Clarke is that rare beast, a Tory people like and respect, rather like the Blessed Vince, whose popularity goes far beyond our party. Clarke has come up with an interesting idea to allow English MPs only to scrutinise English legislation with it ultimately being passed by the whole House of Commons but, crucially, with Scottish MPs (the piece didn’t mention Welsh MPs) not being able to reject any amendments English MPs have put into the bill.
This is a useful addition to the debate over the legendary West Lothian question, although it seems much too messy for me. The government put up a Scottish MP – bland Labour apparatchik whose name escaped me as soon as it was uttered – on the radio who pooh-poohed the idea as unworkable, pointing out that MPs from London, Wales and Northern Ireland would also have to be excluded and lionising the union. Basically he wasn ‘t having it.
This is dangerous because the constitutional anomaly of England remains and the government must address it. I’m against an English parliament unless we have really radical change but a solution to the greater powers given to Scots through their own parliament must be dealt with. Similarly, the Welsh should have a fully fledged Parliament. There is no earthly reason why they shouldn’t.
What is needed is a bit of leadership, perhaps similar to the Scottish Convention which formulated plans for the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s. The trouble is that New Labour wants the problem to go away, the Tories basically want a single British Parliament and we have far too ambitious plans for a federal system which will not be accepted by any other party at the moment.
English politicians are failing England in not grasping this nettle and the government is lying when it says this is not an issue. It is and it is a ripe subject for serious political leadership which, at the moment, is distinctly lacking.
So two cheers for Ken Clarke, a raspberry for the fumbling Labour government and a raised, questioning eyebrow towards our own English MPs
This is a useful addition to the debate over the legendary West Lothian question, although it seems much too messy for me. The government put up a Scottish MP – bland Labour apparatchik whose name escaped me as soon as it was uttered – on the radio who pooh-poohed the idea as unworkable, pointing out that MPs from London, Wales and Northern Ireland would also have to be excluded and lionising the union. Basically he wasn ‘t having it.
This is dangerous because the constitutional anomaly of England remains and the government must address it. I’m against an English parliament unless we have really radical change but a solution to the greater powers given to Scots through their own parliament must be dealt with. Similarly, the Welsh should have a fully fledged Parliament. There is no earthly reason why they shouldn’t.
What is needed is a bit of leadership, perhaps similar to the Scottish Convention which formulated plans for the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s. The trouble is that New Labour wants the problem to go away, the Tories basically want a single British Parliament and we have far too ambitious plans for a federal system which will not be accepted by any other party at the moment.
English politicians are failing England in not grasping this nettle and the government is lying when it says this is not an issue. It is and it is a ripe subject for serious political leadership which, at the moment, is distinctly lacking.
So two cheers for Ken Clarke, a raspberry for the fumbling Labour government and a raised, questioning eyebrow towards our own English MPs
THE YESTERDAY PROGRAMME ON RADIO 4
A ‘traditionalist’ Anglican priest was on the Today programme this morning spouting off about God’s ministry meaning that women must be treated as second class citizens in the church (I may be putting these particular words into his mouth…) and that there should not be women bishops. The point was made by the interviewer that it is because Jesus had 12 male apostles that the traditionalists believe that all priests should be men.
Well, my family vicar – buried my sister and my mother, christened me, my brother and my son, married me and my wife – is a lovely man and drives around in a huge Rover, his pride and joy. I’m not very good on the Bible but I seem to recall that none of the apostles had a car. Should vicars drive cars if the apostles didn’t?
Ah, but that’s different, I hear the cry go up. Society changes but God’s message is timeless. Well, society changes and so should the interpretation of God’s message by men to reflect that. We’ve given up stoning heretics and fallen women which I think is a step in the right direction (apologies to any passing Tories who find this difficult to comprehend).
My local vicar is a woman and she is respected by everyone in my community. When I call her by her first name my son gets mightily offended as she is ‘Mrs Knowles’ to him. My kids are therefore growing up with a woman vicar as normal and one day there will be women bishops. I do hope the traditionalists find a suitably pious rock to crawl under soon, so that the rest of us can get on with mumbling the Lord’s Prayer a couple of times a year and drunkenly celebrating Jesus’s official birthday at Christmas.
The moral of this particular offering? That we should stop trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, especially when it is being done in the name of 2,000 year old prejudice emerging from a fiercely patriarchal culture.
Well, my family vicar – buried my sister and my mother, christened me, my brother and my son, married me and my wife – is a lovely man and drives around in a huge Rover, his pride and joy. I’m not very good on the Bible but I seem to recall that none of the apostles had a car. Should vicars drive cars if the apostles didn’t?
Ah, but that’s different, I hear the cry go up. Society changes but God’s message is timeless. Well, society changes and so should the interpretation of God’s message by men to reflect that. We’ve given up stoning heretics and fallen women which I think is a step in the right direction (apologies to any passing Tories who find this difficult to comprehend).
My local vicar is a woman and she is respected by everyone in my community. When I call her by her first name my son gets mightily offended as she is ‘Mrs Knowles’ to him. My kids are therefore growing up with a woman vicar as normal and one day there will be women bishops. I do hope the traditionalists find a suitably pious rock to crawl under soon, so that the rest of us can get on with mumbling the Lord’s Prayer a couple of times a year and drunkenly celebrating Jesus’s official birthday at Christmas.
The moral of this particular offering? That we should stop trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, especially when it is being done in the name of 2,000 year old prejudice emerging from a fiercely patriarchal culture.
Friday, 27 June 2008
MOVING FORWARD FROM HENLEY
The Henley by-election needs to be a moment to stop and reflect on a number of really fundamental issues. Most immediately I'd like to consider:
(i) why we did not get a much better result after all the effort which went in
(ii) why the usual campaign plan of throwing paper at an electorate until they raise their hands in surrender seems increasingly to be stuttering
(iii) why much of the tenor of the campaign was attacking the Tories rather than presenting what we stand for
(iv) why we got a candidate - lovely man, very able, clearly - in from Plymouth when there was a perhaps less charismatic but perfectly able local candidate to allow us to add that line of attack to our campaign
(v) how we can challenge the empty but strangely compelling Tory juggernaut before it gathers too much speed to be stopped
More strategically, it would be worth reflecting on a number of issues, including:
(i) whether the current party image, which is now quite old, could reasonably be revamped just as the other main parties have done in recent years with much success
(ii) what are our key messages, our 'unique selling points'. We're all for freedom, justice, liberty, kindness to goldfish and apple pie but any fule kno that people vote on bread and butter issues. That may grate with many of our idealistic members (who I am not seeking to fault here: I, too, honestly subscribe to the ideology at the heart of who we are, wonderfully demonstrated by the number of volunteers who came to Henley) but it would be worth considering very seriously what Joe and Josephine Public think of when they think 'Lib Dem'.
(iii) how we win a future General Election. I remain mindlessly ambitious because I think it's the only way for a serious party to operate. St Paddy aimed for the stars when we were so low in the opinion polls that special numbers had to be created for us, which inspired us and made voters take us seriously. That remains compelling.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Henley campaign. It was nice to feel a special sense of involvement for a campaign local to me, although I put in only a fraction of the time and effort of many others, to whom I doff my imaginary hat.
However, I cannot conceal my crushing disappointment at the result. My fundamental question is how many more such disappointments must occur before we start to look at our historically successful but now faltering campaign machine.
(i) why we did not get a much better result after all the effort which went in
(ii) why the usual campaign plan of throwing paper at an electorate until they raise their hands in surrender seems increasingly to be stuttering
(iii) why much of the tenor of the campaign was attacking the Tories rather than presenting what we stand for
(iv) why we got a candidate - lovely man, very able, clearly - in from Plymouth when there was a perhaps less charismatic but perfectly able local candidate to allow us to add that line of attack to our campaign
(v) how we can challenge the empty but strangely compelling Tory juggernaut before it gathers too much speed to be stopped
More strategically, it would be worth reflecting on a number of issues, including:
(i) whether the current party image, which is now quite old, could reasonably be revamped just as the other main parties have done in recent years with much success
(ii) what are our key messages, our 'unique selling points'. We're all for freedom, justice, liberty, kindness to goldfish and apple pie but any fule kno that people vote on bread and butter issues. That may grate with many of our idealistic members (who I am not seeking to fault here: I, too, honestly subscribe to the ideology at the heart of who we are, wonderfully demonstrated by the number of volunteers who came to Henley) but it would be worth considering very seriously what Joe and Josephine Public think of when they think 'Lib Dem'.
(iii) how we win a future General Election. I remain mindlessly ambitious because I think it's the only way for a serious party to operate. St Paddy aimed for the stars when we were so low in the opinion polls that special numbers had to be created for us, which inspired us and made voters take us seriously. That remains compelling.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Henley campaign. It was nice to feel a special sense of involvement for a campaign local to me, although I put in only a fraction of the time and effort of many others, to whom I doff my imaginary hat.
However, I cannot conceal my crushing disappointment at the result. My fundamental question is how many more such disappointments must occur before we start to look at our historically successful but now faltering campaign machine.
Monday, 23 June 2008
EUROPE GETS INTERESTING
There is an excellent piece on libdemvoice from Thomas Hemsley on the future of the EU and I posted the following comments (amended) which I would like to place here to see if anyone has anything to add:
I am not 100% in agreement over the ideas for institutions which others have written about. And there, in a nutshell, lies the fundamental problem with Europe - all 350m of us have slightly varying views.
Rather than an overarching higher authority to govern our lives in detail, what we Europeans need is an underlying set of principles to bring us together to help us build a new, significantly less interfering European edifice, which would be akin to the US constitution. The statement of principles - let's call it a 'constitution' for clarity - would need to be brief, flexible (within reason) and it would need to reflect the many variations on political systems which exist in Europe.
Philosophically, Europe emerged as a Napoleonic (essentially Roman), French-led system of formal commissioners, 'cabinets', councils and such like whereas the new, enlarged Europe needs a more anglo-saxon model which allows for differences to co-exist within a unified system based more on co-operation than on conformity.
The many discussions on this subject are fascinating as most seem to be coming down to the simple view that a radical reinvention of Europe is needed, one I wholeheartedly subscribe to.
Here's a radical suggestion then: why not get someone in from outside Europe to draft the new document. An American, perhaps..?
I am not 100% in agreement over the ideas for institutions which others have written about. And there, in a nutshell, lies the fundamental problem with Europe - all 350m of us have slightly varying views.
Rather than an overarching higher authority to govern our lives in detail, what we Europeans need is an underlying set of principles to bring us together to help us build a new, significantly less interfering European edifice, which would be akin to the US constitution. The statement of principles - let's call it a 'constitution' for clarity - would need to be brief, flexible (within reason) and it would need to reflect the many variations on political systems which exist in Europe.
Philosophically, Europe emerged as a Napoleonic (essentially Roman), French-led system of formal commissioners, 'cabinets', councils and such like whereas the new, enlarged Europe needs a more anglo-saxon model which allows for differences to co-exist within a unified system based more on co-operation than on conformity.
The many discussions on this subject are fascinating as most seem to be coming down to the simple view that a radical reinvention of Europe is needed, one I wholeheartedly subscribe to.
Here's a radical suggestion then: why not get someone in from outside Europe to draft the new document. An American, perhaps..?
Monday, 16 June 2008
LET'S ABOLISH THE EU.
So British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thinks the EU should forge ahead with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty despite the Irish 'no' in their recent referendum. Is this the moment the EU cracks?
When in the early 1990s Danish voters similarly opposed the Maastricht Treaty, EC commissioner Jacques Delors said the rest of Europe should forge ahead and our Prime Minister, John Major (remember him?) said no, we all move forward together or not at all. I was told by an old lecturer of mine that that was a good evening to be British in the bars of Copenhagen...
Once upon a time British governments had a reasonably principled approach to Europe.
Britain has always been crap over Europe but we have also always been absolutely clear than the EU is an inclusive club. Britain has long championed a wider Europe to embrace more states. We have also been very collegiate in our approach to Europe, in quite stark contrast to some other major European states (nobody say France, as they'll sulk in their Gallic way).
So to hear Brown coming out with this kind of Euro-tosh once again demonstrates that British governments are supremely idiotic about the whole edifice. We don't seem to have a set of core guiding principles for our relationship with the EU. We don't seem to know what we want from the EU or where we think it should go. We lack a 'big idea' for Europe. Given that the genesis of Europe was out of the destruction of the Second World War and that it was an inspired - and successful - attempt to stop the various European wars, this is extremely sad.
I am a ridiculously enthusiastic Europhile but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the current model needs to be completely thrown out, to be replaced with an entirely new system.
I fervently believe in the 'ever closer union', freedom of movement and in the previously warring states of Europe being tied into working together by a higher authority, as Europe's patron saint, Jean Monnet, had it originally. But perhaps we need to have a 'declaration of independence' moment for Europe where we try to put down the essence of what Europe should be, rather than just tweaking the system endlessly and badly.
You could do this with a few easy ground rules. I would suggest the following:
1. the new 'constitution' should be brief - lets say two sides of A4, max. (NB: any Tories/UKIP reading this, countries have constitutions, it's true, but so do golf clubs)
2. the new rules must entrench proper democracy, not rule by government cliques and unelected Eurocrats.
3. The citizens of each country should be required to agree to the new rules in national referenda. Any changes to this basic set of rules should require similar votes.
4. The new rules should NOT specify religion, geographical area or anything else that such an institution has no role in. If the French demand this, the French should be poilitely requested to f*** off and form their own petty union with French Guyana and Mururoa.
5. A new European administration should have no role - none, zero, zilch - in agriculture or fisheries, other than working with states to set standards for environmental protection. If the French want subsidies for their farmers, let the French pay for them.
As for Britain, well, we need to decide just what we want to achieve from Europe. If our governments continue to be so abysmally useless with regard to what remains one of the most pioneering international institutions, perhaps we should consider our position as well. We were given the chance to lead Europe after 1945 and we blew it. We can still play a very positive role, but in the hands of functionaries like Brown and David Miliband, that's never going to happen. David Cameron certainly won't do anything positive on Europe as his party remains riven over the subject. Plus he has no policies.
We need someone to think big on Europe. I suggest Paddy Ashdown
When in the early 1990s Danish voters similarly opposed the Maastricht Treaty, EC commissioner Jacques Delors said the rest of Europe should forge ahead and our Prime Minister, John Major (remember him?) said no, we all move forward together or not at all. I was told by an old lecturer of mine that that was a good evening to be British in the bars of Copenhagen...
Once upon a time British governments had a reasonably principled approach to Europe.
Britain has always been crap over Europe but we have also always been absolutely clear than the EU is an inclusive club. Britain has long championed a wider Europe to embrace more states. We have also been very collegiate in our approach to Europe, in quite stark contrast to some other major European states (nobody say France, as they'll sulk in their Gallic way).
So to hear Brown coming out with this kind of Euro-tosh once again demonstrates that British governments are supremely idiotic about the whole edifice. We don't seem to have a set of core guiding principles for our relationship with the EU. We don't seem to know what we want from the EU or where we think it should go. We lack a 'big idea' for Europe. Given that the genesis of Europe was out of the destruction of the Second World War and that it was an inspired - and successful - attempt to stop the various European wars, this is extremely sad.
I am a ridiculously enthusiastic Europhile but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the current model needs to be completely thrown out, to be replaced with an entirely new system.
I fervently believe in the 'ever closer union', freedom of movement and in the previously warring states of Europe being tied into working together by a higher authority, as Europe's patron saint, Jean Monnet, had it originally. But perhaps we need to have a 'declaration of independence' moment for Europe where we try to put down the essence of what Europe should be, rather than just tweaking the system endlessly and badly.
You could do this with a few easy ground rules. I would suggest the following:
1. the new 'constitution' should be brief - lets say two sides of A4, max. (NB: any Tories/UKIP reading this, countries have constitutions, it's true, but so do golf clubs)
2. the new rules must entrench proper democracy, not rule by government cliques and unelected Eurocrats.
3. The citizens of each country should be required to agree to the new rules in national referenda. Any changes to this basic set of rules should require similar votes.
4. The new rules should NOT specify religion, geographical area or anything else that such an institution has no role in. If the French demand this, the French should be poilitely requested to f*** off and form their own petty union with French Guyana and Mururoa.
5. A new European administration should have no role - none, zero, zilch - in agriculture or fisheries, other than working with states to set standards for environmental protection. If the French want subsidies for their farmers, let the French pay for them.
As for Britain, well, we need to decide just what we want to achieve from Europe. If our governments continue to be so abysmally useless with regard to what remains one of the most pioneering international institutions, perhaps we should consider our position as well. We were given the chance to lead Europe after 1945 and we blew it. We can still play a very positive role, but in the hands of functionaries like Brown and David Miliband, that's never going to happen. David Cameron certainly won't do anything positive on Europe as his party remains riven over the subject. Plus he has no policies.
We need someone to think big on Europe. I suggest Paddy Ashdown
Thursday, 12 June 2008
DAVID DAVIS, MAN OF PRINCIPLE. Or...
So David Davis has resigned and will stand again for his seat. He will stand on a ticket of the Tory Party not committing to repeal the 42 day limit if it gets elected and he will be elected. Golly, what a statement!
Two possible disasters for the Tories could occur: (i)if he is unopposed he will be elected without a vote. The result, an utterly pointless display (ii) if he is opposed but the good voters of Haltemprice and Howden decide that this really is just a gimmick and don't bother to turn out, he could have a lower number of votes than he did in 2005. The result of this would be that he would just look foolish.
And why aren't the LDs, the real party of civil liberties, of repealing draconiam legislation, of opposing ID cards not putting up a candidate? Come on Nickersoff, this doesn't 'transcend party politics'. The Tories are posturing with no substance and we could show them up as doing so.
Missed opportunity di tutti missed opportunities...
Can I suggest that everyone comes to Henley where grown up politics are taking place?
Two possible disasters for the Tories could occur: (i)if he is unopposed he will be elected without a vote. The result, an utterly pointless display (ii) if he is opposed but the good voters of Haltemprice and Howden decide that this really is just a gimmick and don't bother to turn out, he could have a lower number of votes than he did in 2005. The result of this would be that he would just look foolish.
And why aren't the LDs, the real party of civil liberties, of repealing draconiam legislation, of opposing ID cards not putting up a candidate? Come on Nickersoff, this doesn't 'transcend party politics'. The Tories are posturing with no substance and we could show them up as doing so.
Missed opportunity di tutti missed opportunities...
Can I suggest that everyone comes to Henley where grown up politics are taking place?
HENLEY: GUESS WHAT? IT'S A TWO HORSE RACE!
From the local Herald newspaper today:
'Liberal Democrat Stephen Kearney is the only candidate likely to beat the Conservatives in the race to succeed Tory Boris Johnson as Henley MP, according to Ladbrokes bookmakers.
'They have put the parliamentary hopeful at 6-1 to win the by-election on Thursday, June 26. The Liberal Democrats came second at the General Election in 2005...Ladbrokes see Mr Kearney 49 as the clear challenger to Conservative John Howell, and have rated Labour candidate Richard McKenzie's chances at 100-1.'
'Liberal Democrat Stephen Kearney is the only candidate likely to beat the Conservatives in the race to succeed Tory Boris Johnson as Henley MP, according to Ladbrokes bookmakers.
'They have put the parliamentary hopeful at 6-1 to win the by-election on Thursday, June 26. The Liberal Democrats came second at the General Election in 2005...Ladbrokes see Mr Kearney 49 as the clear challenger to Conservative John Howell, and have rated Labour candidate Richard McKenzie's chances at 100-1.'
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
CRUCIAL ISSUE RE TORY SLEAZE PART 94
The MEP 'Den Dover' must be a made up character from a Jilly Cooper novel, surely...
Muscular Tory MEP, Den Dover, threw down his briefcase and tore off his regimental tie. His wife gasped at her husband who, despite his advanced years and his creative approach to financial matters, still managed to excite and inspire her in equal measure. Breathlessly she asked:
"Would you like a drink, darling?"
"Yes, thanks. I'm sorry Dorothea, its just this damned Parliamentary sleaze allegation business. Don't those foreigners realise that we Tories do things differently? That's the trouble with John Frenchman. He's too corrupt himself to realise that we Tories have always been creative with our accounts."
"Oh darling, your feeble attempts to weasel out of these allegations make me go weak."
Dorothea Dover loved her man, corrupt or not.
Muscular Tory MEP, Den Dover, threw down his briefcase and tore off his regimental tie. His wife gasped at her husband who, despite his advanced years and his creative approach to financial matters, still managed to excite and inspire her in equal measure. Breathlessly she asked:
"Would you like a drink, darling?"
"Yes, thanks. I'm sorry Dorothea, its just this damned Parliamentary sleaze allegation business. Don't those foreigners realise that we Tories do things differently? That's the trouble with John Frenchman. He's too corrupt himself to realise that we Tories have always been creative with our accounts."
"Oh darling, your feeble attempts to weasel out of these allegations make me go weak."
Dorothea Dover loved her man, corrupt or not.
Friday, 6 June 2008
THE WIND IS UP IN OXFORDSHIRE
Oxfordshire now has its first wind farm (when is a new name going to be given to these facilities?). The Westmill Wind Farm near Shrivenham in the LD controlled Vale has just gone live and the five 1.3mw turbines are expected to generate enough energy for 2,500 homes.
A useful point was made by the Chief Exec of the co-operative to challenge those who complain that wind turbines only work when the wind blows. Coal fired power stations only use about 40% of the energy in coal: most of the rest goes up in smoke quite literally.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that the windmills are actually attractive. I'd love one or two in my village, which is very high up and very windy almost every day of the year. For aesthetic value, the five new wind turbines beat the alternative power supplier for the county, the charming Didcot Power Station, which is visible from muich of the area.
A useful point was made by the Chief Exec of the co-operative to challenge those who complain that wind turbines only work when the wind blows. Coal fired power stations only use about 40% of the energy in coal: most of the rest goes up in smoke quite literally.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that the windmills are actually attractive. I'd love one or two in my village, which is very high up and very windy almost every day of the year. For aesthetic value, the five new wind turbines beat the alternative power supplier for the county, the charming Didcot Power Station, which is visible from muich of the area.
NOT WAVING BUT DROWNING
So the government wants to introduce free swimming for everyone, starting with pensioners. Let's consider this a little further.
The government introduced free bus travel for the over 60s. Its a nice idea and it is of course popular among that age group but as many people have pointed out there are many more groups in our country who could benefit from free bus travel. Young people; people on benefits the government desperately wants to get into work; less well off people; how about the families of foreign soldiers serving abroad who may be cut off in a strange country in a dull barracks. Instead many older couples will now have the option of leaving the Mercedes in the garage for their jaunt into Oxford or wherever. Free bus travel is a good idea in principle but as a general benefit for everyone it is just daft.
Second, the free bus travel has been woefully underfunded. The government did the equivalent of throwing some coins to the children following a carriage and then expected them to live off this. The calculations behind the funding have been so simplistic and wide of the mark as to be pointless. Free bus travel has hobbled most local authorities who still don't know the full cost and won't until a year has passed at least. Free swimming will have similar consequences, regardless of any vague blandishments from 'Mascara' Burnham and his colleagues.
The third point to note link in with this earlier one. Swimming pools are a discretionary service provided by local authorities. Few people will realise that: Councils don't need to provide public baths. So, assume similar funding pressures for local authorities from free swimming in future years, aggravated by the pisspoor Council Tax system and what is going to happen? That's right, the bright faced, make-up wearing nipper in Westminster: swimming pools up and down the land will start to close.
Once again, the Labour government has had a reasonably good idea, to get more people active. But once again they have given it only the most cursory consideration before foisting it on to others to implement.
I have long taken the view that people don't fully value free services so a nominal charge would be good to simply avoid people taking advantage. If bus travel for the over 60s was £1 a trip that would still represent a significant benefit to them and it would ensure that only those people who needed to use the service did so.
Similarly, charging a nominal rate for swimming - again, £1 springs to mind as reasonable - would still make it eminently more affordable for everyone while still ensuring that people weren't going along to their local pool to keep warm or to wash their clothes in the showers (okay, I'm getting a little UKIP with this one...).
The government introduced free bus travel for the over 60s. Its a nice idea and it is of course popular among that age group but as many people have pointed out there are many more groups in our country who could benefit from free bus travel. Young people; people on benefits the government desperately wants to get into work; less well off people; how about the families of foreign soldiers serving abroad who may be cut off in a strange country in a dull barracks. Instead many older couples will now have the option of leaving the Mercedes in the garage for their jaunt into Oxford or wherever. Free bus travel is a good idea in principle but as a general benefit for everyone it is just daft.
Second, the free bus travel has been woefully underfunded. The government did the equivalent of throwing some coins to the children following a carriage and then expected them to live off this. The calculations behind the funding have been so simplistic and wide of the mark as to be pointless. Free bus travel has hobbled most local authorities who still don't know the full cost and won't until a year has passed at least. Free swimming will have similar consequences, regardless of any vague blandishments from 'Mascara' Burnham and his colleagues.
The third point to note link in with this earlier one. Swimming pools are a discretionary service provided by local authorities. Few people will realise that: Councils don't need to provide public baths. So, assume similar funding pressures for local authorities from free swimming in future years, aggravated by the pisspoor Council Tax system and what is going to happen? That's right, the bright faced, make-up wearing nipper in Westminster: swimming pools up and down the land will start to close.
Once again, the Labour government has had a reasonably good idea, to get more people active. But once again they have given it only the most cursory consideration before foisting it on to others to implement.
I have long taken the view that people don't fully value free services so a nominal charge would be good to simply avoid people taking advantage. If bus travel for the over 60s was £1 a trip that would still represent a significant benefit to them and it would ensure that only those people who needed to use the service did so.
Similarly, charging a nominal rate for swimming - again, £1 springs to mind as reasonable - would still make it eminently more affordable for everyone while still ensuring that people weren't going along to their local pool to keep warm or to wash their clothes in the showers (okay, I'm getting a little UKIP with this one...).
Thursday, 5 June 2008
GREEN? MOI?
Well stap me vitals and call me a Frenchman. Dave has gone back on his support for higher road tax for bigger cars. Dave’s party says this is the wrong time to ‘clobber the motorist’. And he is of course right, except he’s a Tory and the middle name of every Tory politician is ‘cynical’.
The Tories steadfastly reject that they are abandoning their ‘green agenda’ and who would doubt their sincerity?
There is one point where I coincide with our blue adversaries on this. I share the view that backdating the higher car tax for bigger cars to those bought between 2001 and 2006 is wrong as I was always brought up to understand that the rule of law should not be retrospective. A higher tax for new cars is therefore entirely legitimate, a tax for cars people already own is not.
Still, it remains to be seen just how far John and Jennifer Tory row back on their planet hugging tendencies. I reckon all the way back to the boat house and into their 4x4s would be a pretty good guess…
The Tories steadfastly reject that they are abandoning their ‘green agenda’ and who would doubt their sincerity?
There is one point where I coincide with our blue adversaries on this. I share the view that backdating the higher car tax for bigger cars to those bought between 2001 and 2006 is wrong as I was always brought up to understand that the rule of law should not be retrospective. A higher tax for new cars is therefore entirely legitimate, a tax for cars people already own is not.
Still, it remains to be seen just how far John and Jennifer Tory row back on their planet hugging tendencies. I reckon all the way back to the boat house and into their 4x4s would be a pretty good guess…
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST TOUJOURS THE BLOOMING SAME
'Breaking news' from the BBC is that US Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has pledged to support Israel, protect its security and to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
While all these pledges are fundamentally decent - and he was speaking to the rabid AIPAC - you feel he could have maybe been a bit more even handed in his first foreign policy statement. How about justice for the Palestinians? Or dialogue with Iran, perhaps circumventing loony President Ahmedinejad, rather than just a bald threat? What about telling Israel to butt out of its regular incursions into Lebanon to help give that ever crippled country some stability? Golan Heights returned to Syria, perhaps?
No chance of any of that. With a single bound, any hint that Obama might be something different flies out of the window and heads fall across the Middle East. But then, what did anyone expect. The American political system is in many ways more sclerotic than even the most repressive old communist regime.
I suppose the best we can hope for is Bush pulling a comprehensive peace deal out of the bag before he is turfed out next January. Sheesh...
[Looking forward to the anonymous posts telling me I'm all sorts of b*st*rd...]
While all these pledges are fundamentally decent - and he was speaking to the rabid AIPAC - you feel he could have maybe been a bit more even handed in his first foreign policy statement. How about justice for the Palestinians? Or dialogue with Iran, perhaps circumventing loony President Ahmedinejad, rather than just a bald threat? What about telling Israel to butt out of its regular incursions into Lebanon to help give that ever crippled country some stability? Golan Heights returned to Syria, perhaps?
No chance of any of that. With a single bound, any hint that Obama might be something different flies out of the window and heads fall across the Middle East. But then, what did anyone expect. The American political system is in many ways more sclerotic than even the most repressive old communist regime.
I suppose the best we can hope for is Bush pulling a comprehensive peace deal out of the bag before he is turfed out next January. Sheesh...
[Looking forward to the anonymous posts telling me I'm all sorts of b*st*rd...]
A TRANSPORT POLICY TO SHOUT ABOUT
The latest announcement from the LDs is on a transport policy which includes a lot of good stuff.
Road pricing is fine if it replaces fuel duty and road tax, rather than being an additional tax. Why not have 'oyster cards' in every car, van and lorry? The technology exists and, having paid even more this morning to fill up my car, I can see the value in cutting fuel duty.
The other side to my personal experience is that I drive 46 miles a day to and from work. Alternatives are difficult but available and if driving this distance becomes a greater cost per mile than just the obvious cost of petrol [yes, I know there are others on top] I will have to consider them. I am already mulling over dragging my unfit carcass to work on a bike, since the rise in fuel duty has made it a much more sensible prospect.
As for taking buses back under the control of local authorities, the only word, to be repeated until exhaustion overtakes me, is 'hallelujah'. The day Stagecoach goes out of business will be one for a 24 hour party. The day local buses become frequent, affordable and not driven by manic depressive sociopaths will be a major inducement to people to use buses more.
I have to say that the proposal for a high speed rail network wil be more problematic as there is so much resistance in Whitehall to any such improvements. The Channel Tunnel link through Kent was a joke that most French people still chuckle about and the crossrail project in London has been talked about since I was in short pants. I still doubt it will ever happen.
The new fund for rural transport hints at subsidies which might not be the best way to go. In my area it is difficult to make bus services user friendly and profitable. Only a handful of routes in Oxfordshire make money, the rest are paid for by the taxpayer. We need to be careful on this one.
However, two and a half cheers for a comprehensive policy which promises action. I wonder what Dave thinks?
But then, so does everyone...
Road pricing is fine if it replaces fuel duty and road tax, rather than being an additional tax. Why not have 'oyster cards' in every car, van and lorry? The technology exists and, having paid even more this morning to fill up my car, I can see the value in cutting fuel duty.
The other side to my personal experience is that I drive 46 miles a day to and from work. Alternatives are difficult but available and if driving this distance becomes a greater cost per mile than just the obvious cost of petrol [yes, I know there are others on top] I will have to consider them. I am already mulling over dragging my unfit carcass to work on a bike, since the rise in fuel duty has made it a much more sensible prospect.
As for taking buses back under the control of local authorities, the only word, to be repeated until exhaustion overtakes me, is 'hallelujah'. The day Stagecoach goes out of business will be one for a 24 hour party. The day local buses become frequent, affordable and not driven by manic depressive sociopaths will be a major inducement to people to use buses more.
I have to say that the proposal for a high speed rail network wil be more problematic as there is so much resistance in Whitehall to any such improvements. The Channel Tunnel link through Kent was a joke that most French people still chuckle about and the crossrail project in London has been talked about since I was in short pants. I still doubt it will ever happen.
The new fund for rural transport hints at subsidies which might not be the best way to go. In my area it is difficult to make bus services user friendly and profitable. Only a handful of routes in Oxfordshire make money, the rest are paid for by the taxpayer. We need to be careful on this one.
However, two and a half cheers for a comprehensive policy which promises action. I wonder what Dave thinks?
But then, so does everyone...
Friday, 30 May 2008
CONTRACEPTION: THE PRACTICAL APPROACH
Having recently staggered down the stairs after dispatching two crotchety kids to dreamland, a thought occurred to me.
Rather than the clever, clever ads with lots of sexy youths involved in various acts with the names of STDs on their clothing, the government could probably reduce the teenage infection and pregnancy rate significantly by the simple expedient of having video screens in the toilets of clubs and bars where the poor innocents gather which show looped short clips of patient but frazzled parents negotiating with their respective darlings/terrors as they throw their food across the room/refuse to go to bed/refuse to get dressed/decide that beating their sibling with a plastic toy is a good idea etc etc.
I reckon the chances of that kind of video nasty making sex-obsessed young'uns think twice is far higher than the nonsense dreamed up in the boardrooms of adland.
Now where's the bottle opener...
Rather than the clever, clever ads with lots of sexy youths involved in various acts with the names of STDs on their clothing, the government could probably reduce the teenage infection and pregnancy rate significantly by the simple expedient of having video screens in the toilets of clubs and bars where the poor innocents gather which show looped short clips of patient but frazzled parents negotiating with their respective darlings/terrors as they throw their food across the room/refuse to go to bed/refuse to get dressed/decide that beating their sibling with a plastic toy is a good idea etc etc.
I reckon the chances of that kind of video nasty making sex-obsessed young'uns think twice is far higher than the nonsense dreamed up in the boardrooms of adland.
Now where's the bottle opener...
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
HAULIERS PROTEST - BUT MISS THE UNDERLYING ISSUE
I posted this on another blog discussing the fuel protests today but I wanted to give others the opportunity to dismiss and damn my somewhat controversial comments...
On the question of fuel costs, can’t hauliers simply increase their prices, forcing their users to pass on the cost to consumers? That would surely be a more sustainable and market driven way to address demand while still addressing the urgent problem of climate change.
It’s clear that the oil companies are coining it in - they can as they have something we all want and there is insatiable demand globally. However, it’s hard to see what any government can do to address this, beyond starting now to think about a post-oil world. If they did that and assured people that the extra money raised from fuel would go into this project it might sweeten the pill a little.
Simple cuts in fuel duty are going to do very little and are a demand the hauliers are hiding behind to avoid the real question of how their industry modernises and responds to reduced oil supplies.
There is also the blindingly obvious need to use the railways - and a rejuvenated canal system - to transport the great majority of our goods, relying on smaller 7.5t lorries and vans to deliver them at each end. There could be a lot of jobs and investment across the country in setting up regional supply centres around rail (and canal) hubs but it would require a bit of initiative and investment from government and major businesses, such as supermarket leviathans.
We can’t just cut fuel taxes short term, we need to think about the consequences - and that thinking will need increasingly to be 'outside the box'.
To provide a personal context, I run a car and I wince at the pump when I fill up. I drive 46 miles a day to and from work so I am fully aware of the issue of petrol and diesel costs, particularly for companies whose business is transport but I also recognise that there is a 'bigger picture' to be considered as well.
Finally, it is always worth reflecting on what John Tory is proposing to do to alleviate the current problems. No doubt there will be promises of jam tomorrow fdrom Dave and George Osborne but I wonder if they will offer any concrete guarantees about future action...
On the question of fuel costs, can’t hauliers simply increase their prices, forcing their users to pass on the cost to consumers? That would surely be a more sustainable and market driven way to address demand while still addressing the urgent problem of climate change.
It’s clear that the oil companies are coining it in - they can as they have something we all want and there is insatiable demand globally. However, it’s hard to see what any government can do to address this, beyond starting now to think about a post-oil world. If they did that and assured people that the extra money raised from fuel would go into this project it might sweeten the pill a little.
Simple cuts in fuel duty are going to do very little and are a demand the hauliers are hiding behind to avoid the real question of how their industry modernises and responds to reduced oil supplies.
There is also the blindingly obvious need to use the railways - and a rejuvenated canal system - to transport the great majority of our goods, relying on smaller 7.5t lorries and vans to deliver them at each end. There could be a lot of jobs and investment across the country in setting up regional supply centres around rail (and canal) hubs but it would require a bit of initiative and investment from government and major businesses, such as supermarket leviathans.
We can’t just cut fuel taxes short term, we need to think about the consequences - and that thinking will need increasingly to be 'outside the box'.
To provide a personal context, I run a car and I wince at the pump when I fill up. I drive 46 miles a day to and from work so I am fully aware of the issue of petrol and diesel costs, particularly for companies whose business is transport but I also recognise that there is a 'bigger picture' to be considered as well.
Finally, it is always worth reflecting on what John Tory is proposing to do to alleviate the current problems. No doubt there will be promises of jam tomorrow fdrom Dave and George Osborne but I wonder if they will offer any concrete guarantees about future action...
Friday, 23 May 2008
FROM DEPRESSION, HOPE EMERGES
Having been in despair about the Tories apparent march back to power, this article by James Graham - http://tinyurl.com/67llkd [I still can't do hyperlinks I'm afraid...] - gives me more confidence.
He makes two excellent points. First, there is all to play for in Henley and the Tories are going to have to give it everything to hold on to the Blond Bombshell's seat. Second, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that the Tories remain a largely mindless, divided bunch with about as much to unite them as a room full of Frenchmen discussing cheese.
If Dave manages to steer the Tories to victory in 2010 his main task will begin on day 1 in office as the Nasty Party comes out of the closet once more in the proverbial stockings brandishing a whip and sporting a strap-on to remind people just how odious they were before.
My advice to Brown is to get a European argument going. That normally causes the Tories to self-destruct.
He makes two excellent points. First, there is all to play for in Henley and the Tories are going to have to give it everything to hold on to the Blond Bombshell's seat. Second, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that the Tories remain a largely mindless, divided bunch with about as much to unite them as a room full of Frenchmen discussing cheese.
If Dave manages to steer the Tories to victory in 2010 his main task will begin on day 1 in office as the Nasty Party comes out of the closet once more in the proverbial stockings brandishing a whip and sporting a strap-on to remind people just how odious they were before.
My advice to Brown is to get a European argument going. That normally causes the Tories to self-destruct.
JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES! THE TORIES ARE BACK!
Seeing a Tory win a by-election is somewhat akin to drinking from a cup of slurry. It leaves a very nasty taste in your mouth and promises worse to come, as the animal waste works its way through your system. A long night perched on the edge of the toilet bowl of destiny looms.
Perhaps the old New Labour joke can be revisited: How many Tories does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: the Tories won't change anything.
Perhaps the old New Labour joke can be revisited: How many Tories does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: the Tories won't change anything.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
WHY I'M REALLY, REALLY GLAD TO BE MONGREL ENGLISH
The US election continues to throw up jaw dropping stories. Fresh from trying to woo the 'white working class' in Mulligatawny, New Mexico, or some such place, the headline has it that Barack Obama 'arrives in Florida hoping to win over Hispanics and Jews'.
Quite how racially divided the 'land of the free' still is, astonishes me. Imagine if a British party leader went to Peckham to woo the 'Black Working Classes', or to Hampshire to win over the 'chinless Audi drivers'.
My advice to anyone with a gripe about England is to bring on the critism of this country - it is after all what we do best and there is always much to criticise - but then fall to your knees, whatever their class, gender or ethnic group, and thank your lucky stars you live somnewhere where such considerations are not the first thing to define you.
Quite how racially divided the 'land of the free' still is, astonishes me. Imagine if a British party leader went to Peckham to woo the 'Black Working Classes', or to Hampshire to win over the 'chinless Audi drivers'.
My advice to anyone with a gripe about England is to bring on the critism of this country - it is after all what we do best and there is always much to criticise - but then fall to your knees, whatever their class, gender or ethnic group, and thank your lucky stars you live somnewhere where such considerations are not the first thing to define you.
Friday, 16 May 2008
DAVE DOES HOMELESSNESS - DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP
David Cameron has announced a new Homelessness Foundation on which the heads of many national homelessness charities will sit. He spoke of looking at the root causes of homelessness, including poverty, mental illness, employment and housing shortages. In response, Labour minister Caroline Flint has said the Tories were not serious as they had opposed the government’s laughable house-building targets.
This is an interesting exchange since Dave has hit the nail on the head by identifying the need to look more widely than simply a roof over someone’s head. Caroline Flint’s response suggests that the Labour government’s approach is rather one-dimensional along precisely these lines.
If John Tory is going to be in government some time in the future it is good that the party is developing some sense of society again, although I, like many others no doubt, remain deeply sceptical of any practical ideas coming from their camp.
What this has brought into focus for me is the completely disjointed nature of public services, which I’d say lies at the heart of numerous issues. The BBC ran a programme on the NHS last year in which a management guru (whose name escapes me) marvelled at how different departments in a major hospital simply didn’t communicate with each other or among senior and junior staff. By simply improving communications between staff he helped them to improve efficiency massively. It was an eye opener.
Working in local government, I always smile at the fact that, in my part of the world, the District Council collects household rubbish and recycling while the County Council disposes of it. Now the two sides work well together but this kind of divide between two organisations is frankly stupid. I always imagine that there is some kind of border at which the District Council’s contractor hands over the rubbish to a County Council representative with a formal handshake and a brass band playing.
Another classic tension in this part of the world is between the John Radcliffe Hospital behemoth and the various community hospitals which are part of the trust. They have a mutually dependant relationship, with the community hospitals relieving the pressure on the JR and helping to deal with elderly patients who may need longer care. However, there is mistrust and suspicion on both sides as the trust desperately tries to cut costs, save money and ‘rationalise’ the services it provides, threatening the existence of community hospitals. The result is that fewer patients are dealt with effectively while the number of meetings and arguments multiplies.
It has long struck me that local government does not necessarily need to provide any services directly – and many services have of course been contracted out since the days of the Tories in the 1980s. That was a classic example of a good idea being driven by ideology so that it simply went too far. A market approach to service provision and good value is sensible but it should not be the overriding concern. Public service should have equal weight, not just the bottom line. In my LD authority we manage to achieve good value and good services with external contractors, proving that it can be done - and done well.
What local government could perhaps evolve more into doing is providing a comprehensive bridging service between all the various local bodies, such as hospitals, day centres, hostels, social workers, the police and the armed forces, for example (since a disturbingly large number of homeless people, to return to the original theme, come from the armed forces) without necessarily having to provide the services directly. Councils could become co-ordinators rather than service providers primarily and thus seek the best outcomes alongside the best value.
Perhaps the key to improved public services is not the usual root and branch review and pledge to change everything, bringing in internal markets and instigating deep cleans. The key may simply be to improve communciations and understanding between all the various agencies so that they all speak to each other and they all know what the others are doing – and perhaps to provide a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels – perhaps with a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels, natch. Eventual savings would doubtless more than offset the investment.
Finally, a prediction about the Tories’ Homelessness Foundation. It will work well and produce a series of thoughtful recommendations. The recommendations will be spoken of warmly by Dave and by the homelessness charities until the moment (should that moment ever arise) when Dave wins power. He will then launch a ‘further review’ of the review and the majority of the recommendations will be watered down, resulting in the Homelessness Foundation breaking up in acrimony and mutual recrimination. Its work will then be quietly forgotten until, some years later, the opposition decides to launch a further review.
Thus does politics work.
This is an interesting exchange since Dave has hit the nail on the head by identifying the need to look more widely than simply a roof over someone’s head. Caroline Flint’s response suggests that the Labour government’s approach is rather one-dimensional along precisely these lines.
If John Tory is going to be in government some time in the future it is good that the party is developing some sense of society again, although I, like many others no doubt, remain deeply sceptical of any practical ideas coming from their camp.
What this has brought into focus for me is the completely disjointed nature of public services, which I’d say lies at the heart of numerous issues. The BBC ran a programme on the NHS last year in which a management guru (whose name escapes me) marvelled at how different departments in a major hospital simply didn’t communicate with each other or among senior and junior staff. By simply improving communications between staff he helped them to improve efficiency massively. It was an eye opener.
Working in local government, I always smile at the fact that, in my part of the world, the District Council collects household rubbish and recycling while the County Council disposes of it. Now the two sides work well together but this kind of divide between two organisations is frankly stupid. I always imagine that there is some kind of border at which the District Council’s contractor hands over the rubbish to a County Council representative with a formal handshake and a brass band playing.
Another classic tension in this part of the world is between the John Radcliffe Hospital behemoth and the various community hospitals which are part of the trust. They have a mutually dependant relationship, with the community hospitals relieving the pressure on the JR and helping to deal with elderly patients who may need longer care. However, there is mistrust and suspicion on both sides as the trust desperately tries to cut costs, save money and ‘rationalise’ the services it provides, threatening the existence of community hospitals. The result is that fewer patients are dealt with effectively while the number of meetings and arguments multiplies.
It has long struck me that local government does not necessarily need to provide any services directly – and many services have of course been contracted out since the days of the Tories in the 1980s. That was a classic example of a good idea being driven by ideology so that it simply went too far. A market approach to service provision and good value is sensible but it should not be the overriding concern. Public service should have equal weight, not just the bottom line. In my LD authority we manage to achieve good value and good services with external contractors, proving that it can be done - and done well.
What local government could perhaps evolve more into doing is providing a comprehensive bridging service between all the various local bodies, such as hospitals, day centres, hostels, social workers, the police and the armed forces, for example (since a disturbingly large number of homeless people, to return to the original theme, come from the armed forces) without necessarily having to provide the services directly. Councils could become co-ordinators rather than service providers primarily and thus seek the best outcomes alongside the best value.
Perhaps the key to improved public services is not the usual root and branch review and pledge to change everything, bringing in internal markets and instigating deep cleans. The key may simply be to improve communciations and understanding between all the various agencies so that they all speak to each other and they all know what the others are doing – and perhaps to provide a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels – perhaps with a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels, natch. Eventual savings would doubtless more than offset the investment.
Finally, a prediction about the Tories’ Homelessness Foundation. It will work well and produce a series of thoughtful recommendations. The recommendations will be spoken of warmly by Dave and by the homelessness charities until the moment (should that moment ever arise) when Dave wins power. He will then launch a ‘further review’ of the review and the majority of the recommendations will be watered down, resulting in the Homelessness Foundation breaking up in acrimony and mutual recrimination. Its work will then be quietly forgotten until, some years later, the opposition decides to launch a further review.
Thus does politics work.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
TORIES IN SENSATIONAL NEW IDEAS SHOCK
The news today is full of Tory ‘initiatives’ such as ‘cutting red tape for police officers’, ‘giving head teachers powers to smarten up teachers’, opposing a ‘bin tax’. What is telling from all these ideas is firstly that they are about as novel as the gramophone, secondly that they demonstrate a shocking absence of a ‘big picture’ for the Tories.
Hasn’t every Tory Home Secretary since the Ark said they would ‘cut red tape for police officers’? Didn’t crime rise exponentially under the Tories between 1979 and 1997? Hasn’t every Tory Education Secretary wanted to smarten up teachers, go back to basics or some such jargon? And wasn’t education simply fantastic in the 1980s and 1990s? (I know: I endured it.) As for the ‘bin tax’, which party introduced the laughable Council Tax which is at the very heart of local government’s financial problems which require a bin tax to be considered?
Now its true that the Tories have never claimed to have a strong philosophical basis for their approach: they simply want to win power but it is surprising that the blessed Dave is content with this. Having started off with ‘Vote Blue, Go Green’, which is a bit naff but which works quite well, he has now abandoned any desire to hug the planet or any passing huskies thereon.
Numerous questions still need to be asked therefore: what would a Tory government actually do? What would it be for? What would it believe in? The answers currently seem to be little; itself and disgruntled voters; nothing beyond gaining and holding on to power.
Inspiring? Er…
Unfortunately the real story is perhaps that all these ‘initiatives’ have once again got the press rolling over to have its collective tummy tickled while we are once again pushed to the sidelines. We have proper ideas for government, the Tories get fulsome media coverage for blather. We have intelligent, pro-active MPs, the Tories have George Osborne and Boris Johnson. We have a good image but the Tories have a core of mindless voters who would support them even if they planned to invade Estonia and ban cheese.
What's a political party got to do to get noticed?
Hasn’t every Tory Home Secretary since the Ark said they would ‘cut red tape for police officers’? Didn’t crime rise exponentially under the Tories between 1979 and 1997? Hasn’t every Tory Education Secretary wanted to smarten up teachers, go back to basics or some such jargon? And wasn’t education simply fantastic in the 1980s and 1990s? (I know: I endured it.) As for the ‘bin tax’, which party introduced the laughable Council Tax which is at the very heart of local government’s financial problems which require a bin tax to be considered?
Now its true that the Tories have never claimed to have a strong philosophical basis for their approach: they simply want to win power but it is surprising that the blessed Dave is content with this. Having started off with ‘Vote Blue, Go Green’, which is a bit naff but which works quite well, he has now abandoned any desire to hug the planet or any passing huskies thereon.
Numerous questions still need to be asked therefore: what would a Tory government actually do? What would it be for? What would it believe in? The answers currently seem to be little; itself and disgruntled voters; nothing beyond gaining and holding on to power.
Inspiring? Er…
Unfortunately the real story is perhaps that all these ‘initiatives’ have once again got the press rolling over to have its collective tummy tickled while we are once again pushed to the sidelines. We have proper ideas for government, the Tories get fulsome media coverage for blather. We have intelligent, pro-active MPs, the Tories have George Osborne and Boris Johnson. We have a good image but the Tories have a core of mindless voters who would support them even if they planned to invade Estonia and ban cheese.
What's a political party got to do to get noticed?
Monday, 12 May 2008
FOOD FOR THOUGHT OR A GENERAL RAMBLE - YOU DECIDE
I am currently listening to Andrew Marr's 'History of Britain' in the car on my way to work and it is very good: informative but not too laden with details abo