THE TORIES DON'T OWN ENGLAND - THANK GOD

On the issue of the proposal for an English Grand Committee of MPs, a key fact which is being ignored by everyone involved is that the Tories do not have a majority of MPs in England. In fact they have nowhere near a majority. The numbers from the 2005 General Election are as follows

LABOUR 286
CONSERVATIVE 193
LIB DEM 47
OTHERS 2

That rather neatly reflects the national picture. While making all the right noises about a comprehensive constitutional settlement, we need to address the key issue over how long we intend to allow the anomaly of under-representation for England under the current system to continue.

Given the current variable form of the Tories generally, they are unlikely to secure a majority of English MPs any time soon so the potential for conflict between the British government and the English Grand Committee is unlikely to arise before there is time to introduce the comprehensive settlement we wish to see.

WHISPER IT: THE TORIES HAVE HAD A GOOD IDEA ON THE CONSTITUTION

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, one of those Tories who engages his brain before opening his mouth, has come up with a useful idea for addressing the democratic imbalance which has emerged since the creation of the Scottish parliament and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly. He has suggested that a type of ‘Grand Committee’ of English MPs could consider any business which relates solely to England, excluding Scottish MPs. Such a system would mean that the existing Parliamentary system could remain and the sitting MPs could perform the role, with no need to create a new English parliament.

Now, there is no denying that this is a ‘fudge’ but it does address a simmering issue which genuinely threatens this country. The longer there is an imbalance between the English and Scottish systems the spectre of English nationalism will continue to grow. The Tory proposal would offer a short-term solution to the current ill-feeling and it would allow for a longer term solution to be worked up. It might also stop the cancer of nationalism getting any stronger on this island.

Any politician who wants to ride the crazy horse of nationalism should be shot as soon as he or she opens their mouths on this subject. It is simply far too dangerous to be raised anywhere other than a sports field.

The Scottish-dominated Labour government has squealed that this would ‘endanger the Union’ and that the sky would fall on our heads, although they may not be too worried since they wheeled out the somewhat intellectually challenged Harriet Harman to opine on the subject. Whatever the cynical, self-serving Labour view is, it seems far more risky to continue with the status quo of one part of the country apparently getting preferential treatment over others.

LD proposals for a federal system are clearly far more sensible in the long term but such a massive change to our system would take years – decades - to introduce, during which time the Sun, the Daily Himmler [Mail] and all the other odious ‘commentators’ on this issue would seek to whip up more and more dissent – and nationalism.

Anyone in doubt about the potential issues we face with the current uneven constitutional set up would do well to look to Spain which, after Franco went to Hell, established a constitution which sought to address the various national identities therein. The problem with the constitution which emerged was that it gave different powers to different regions, causing resentment in other parts of the country. The problems thus created continue to be played out and Spanish national governments spend rather too much time playing one region/nation off against another to remain in power. Is this a good model for Britain or should we seek a longer term solution which diminishes such petty national disagreements?

It would be good for us to seek to take a lead on this issue since the Tories must be minutes away from their more rabid members hijacking the issue and seeking to whip up the very nationalist fervour the proposal from Rifkind seeks to address. It seems to me that this is a good starting point for debate.

NB: yes, I know about the oil issue; yes, I know about the Barnett Formula. What I am writing about is the perception of injustice, which is far more difficult to disprove since it is a feeling not a fact.

VINCE CHANGES PLANS FOR RED SEA HOLIDAY

Sometimes you hear something which makes you warm inside and proud of that little yellow card you carry around. Such was the case this morning when I read about Vince Cable’s decision not to attend the reception for Saudi King Abdullah. It seems we will not support the country which gave us Osama bin Laden, 19 of the September 11th bombers, extremist Islam and the continued oppression of women. Way to go Vince!

The comments reported by the BBC were also quite hilarious. The Saudi ambassador was quoted as saying: "We respect all the political parties in the UK" - which is a helluva lot more than they do their own opposition.

Also, Tory Liam Fox warned that Vince’s move would be seen as "juvenile gesture politics" and risked insulting one of Britain's main allies in the Gulf. So that’s the Tories implicitly supporting oppression, beheadings, the continued militarization of the Arabian Sea and, of course, the US version of Middle Eastern politics, which was for many decades that we needed the 'twin pillars' of a strong Iran – then Iraq when that country went belly up - and Saudi Arabia to keep the region and now Iran in check. The policy has been so successful to date so why not continue to support it? Er…

Full marks to Vince, as well as a gold star and an apple.

A SUPERIOR INTELLECT?

In response to my last posting the following excellent comment was made which deserves wider exposure. The author is Andy Mayer:

Q: How many disgruntled Lib Dem activists does it take to change a light bulb?

A1: This is ridiculous, why must we only have one lightbulb, why not two or three? We will never break the mould of British politics by adopting the same tired unibulbism of our opponents. We must be distinctive. I'm setting up a Facebook group demanding more lightbulbs in the race.

A2: The Federal Lightbulb Committee stipulates that a lightbulb can only be changed after a free and fair selection race taking no less than 6 months to complete, in which diversity crtieria between lightbulbs of different luminosity are fully respected. There must be a balance between bulbs with screw-fitting and bayonet-caps. High wattage bulbs will be considered but are generally not considered sustainable in our party.

A3: The lightbulb would have never needed changing in the first place if the media/plotting MPs/unreasonable British public hadn't displayed an unreasonable level of discrimination against aging filaments.

A4: 4 - one to note the lightbulb is broken, one to issue a press release demanding the Labour/Conservative Council fix the lightbulb, and one to take a photograph next to the fixed lightbulb claiming credit for raising awareness of the issue. The fourth person writes an article a year later for Lib Dem News claiming that the lightbulb story proves the power of community politics to make a real difference to people's lives and take charge of their own public services.

A5: 6, one to read the letter of complaint from the resident that the lightbulb is broken, one to issue a letter of complaint to the housing officer responsible, one to react to the Labour/Conservative press release demanding action from the failing Liberal Democrat Council by pointing out how many more bulbs are fixed these days than under the previous Labour/Conservative Council, one to blog how unfair it is that Councillors who work hard all year round get attacked for not personally fixing every lightbulb, and one to write an article for Goldmine a year later stressing how difficult it is for us to defend incumbancy. Number six, in a fit of rage walks into the Housing Office after 6 months, grabs the housing officer by the collar and frog-marches them to the storage cupboard, then to the broken fitting, makes sure they've fixed it and tries to remain polite while fantasising about what they'd like to see done to the housing officer with the broken lightbulb.

That should cover it...

BUT IS IT FUNNY?

While I genuinely wish the two declared leadership candidates well, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the several weeks we have to run in this contest are going to become a little repetitive very quickly. It kind of makes you nostalgic for Oaten - but only for a nanosecond. I still have my fingers crossed that John Hemming has sufficient dirt on seven of his colleagues to coerce them into supporting him in his bid for glory.

My best attempts at very mild ridicule of Clegg/Huhne so far go thus:


How Many Nick Clegg supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
50: one to change the lightbulb and 49 to write articles explaining how the new lightbulb will transform the light fitting


How many Chris Huhne supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two: one to change the lightbulb and one to set up the ‘Lightbulbs for Chris Huhne’ Facebook group.

QUICK, HIDE! HERE COMES THE VICAR! OR WHY PMQs REMAINS A FARCE.

An article in the Grauniad by noted Tory blogger Iain Dale praises PMQs as a worthwhile element of our democracy (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_dale/2007/10/the_fine_art_of_pmqs.html). Apparently:

‘Many people - usually Liberal Democrats - complain about the combative nature of PMQs and how it often sheds more heat than light on political debate…Yes it can be a bearpit, yes it can be shrill and yes it can be unproductive.’

No sh*t! The article continues:

‘Few other democracies have a platform where, each week, political leaders can be asked anything at all, and can be held to account in this way…It's a wonderful way of exposing the political weaknesses of a politician’


This is, of course, complete nonsense. In the real world beyond the narrow confines of the streets and alleyways of Westminster, PMQs is a hopeless joke. Yes, us politicos love it. I tune in every week to see them all jumping up and down and shouting at each other, for it is clearly theatre but it cannot for a moment be described as sound political debate. Only on those rare occasions when Lembit stands up to ask about deaths at Deepcut Barracks or Ian Paisley speaks on a terrorist outrage does the event crawl, wheezing towards becoming a dignified spectacle.
Otherwise PMQs is abject in its failure to reveal anything about the political system in our country other than who can be wittiest or can shout the loudest. That’s not debate, that’s an argument, pure and simple.

It would be wonderful to see a future Speaker take hold of the event and firstly force MPs to shut up while someone else is talking, rather than braying like idiots. It would also be delicious if Mr or Madam Speaker required the Prime Minister to answer each question as it was put, not just to reel of statistics or weasel round it, as our good friend Gordon so ably does. Has Brown ever answered a question straight in his life? You can imagine him taking his wedding vows and equivocating for several minutes over the answer.

In a final paean to his party leader, the article lionises David Cameron’s performance at the despatch box, concluding:

‘David Cameron has shown huge resilience since his battering over the summer…If this continues and he bests Brown eight times out of 10, it's something that will start being noticed well outside the confines of the Westminster village.’

Which of course it won’t, because no one gives a stuff beyond Westminster.

Now, credit must be given to Dave for clinging on to the wreckage of his leadership over the summer and then climbing out of the water to start punching the other occupant of the life raft in a desperate attempt to knock him overboard but PMQs has never been Dave’s strong point. It must become clear quite soon, even in the face of Brown’s bumbling outbursts. Dave was outclassed to the point of embarrassment by Tony Blair so he is at least on level terms now but what appears to have replaced Tone’s Muhammad Ali-like shimmies is the replacement of any pretence at debate with a weekly scene reminiscent of a playground shouting match, pure and simple.

This may pass for ‘debate’ in the Tory party but it sure as Hell ain’t serious politics as I’d like to see it and I get the feeling that view is shared by many more folks beyond the slums of Westminster who want a bit more gravitas and insight from their politicians. The contrast between Dave and Gordon bellowing and Vince Cable asking a proper question speaks volumes sufficient to fill the House of Commons library twice over.

PMQs is a farce and it should be enjoyed as such.

PASS ME THAT NAIL, I NEED TO STICK MY COLOURS UP HERE

Having read almost every article and interview which has come out in the last week about our two fine (but not yet formally) candidates - and, it must be said, in the absence of the two people I would favour most as candidates - I have decided to come down on the side of golden boy Nick Clegg. Aside from being an accomplished MP with lots of experience in key areas, there are numerous reasons to support him which fit in with the frivolous tenor of this blog:

1. David Cameron will be livid. His image as the new boy of politics will be blown clean out of the water. Any attempt to leap into the ‘liberal’ centre and to portray himself as a progressive Tory has now been completely cut off from Cameron. His only option now is to revert to the classic right wing stance to try to save his skin or to join us. I wonder which he’ll choose.
2. The Tories will be incandescent. Their new Messiah has already come rather unstuck of late in so many areas, lacking policies and gravitas. His bacon was only saved by Brown’s fumbling of the ball a few weeks ago. I still think Cameron is odds-on to go very soon.
3. Gordon Brown is showing increasing signs of weakness and drift and a new opposition party leader with (whisper it) charisma won’t help him at all.
4. The media seems to like him, which – let’s be cynical – is no bad thing.
5. Clegg doesn’t represent a southern constituency, which will tick a few more boxes with many voters. As an exile from London I found it quite a surprise just how metropolitan our media and politics actually are. A bit of a regional bias on our part would be no bad thing.

But the key reason to support him is that he seems to want to win elections. It’s funny but so do I.

SHHHH, DAVE, IT'S EUROPE...

Nice to see a proper battle in the Commons over Europe yesterday but it is always highly amusing to hear the Tories preach on this subject. The party which ducked referendums on the original accession treaties, on the Single European Act and on the Maastricht Treaty now champions their use.

The appropriate work for their approach ends in 'ocks'.

What is reassuring is to read that the rabid end of the Tories is calling for them to commit to a referendum on this treaty after the next General Election, regardless of the fact that even their own advisers admit it would be far too late to withdraw from the agreement. Also, the specific subject will no doubt have died a death by then, to be replaced by the next most urgent thing.

Why don't the bleating Tories simply join our call for a referendum on the whole subject of Europe? They appear to be marching merrily down a very short cul-de-sac on this issue.

Plus ca change...

IT'S HEALTH BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT

According to the Independent – so it must be true – the Chair of the humbly named ‘Health England’ has called for us all to be required to ‘opt out’ of healthy living, rather than going through life in a booze- and salt-fuelled death binge, or something similar. His plan is for smokers to have to buy a permit each year to allow them to buy cigarettes, for larger companies to introduce a daily ‘exercise hour’ which people would have to opt out of, for all salt to be removed from prepared foods and for alcohol to be a little more difficult to buy by taking it out of the main supermarket, for example.

These are all very noble ideas and they clearly have the very best of intentions. The problem is that most of the other proposals just aren’t liberal. They don’t allow people to have free choice over their lives. That doesn’t mean it’s not right to try some of the measures. For example, removing salt from prepared foods is so blindingly obvious that only a government in the pocket of food producers would avoid doing it.

Similarly, I am the classic consumer who picks up a couple of bottles of beer with the weekly shop because I can. I just might think twice if I had to make a special trip, so that suggestion survives the cut.

However, forcing anyone to do exercise, especially during work is a tad ‘Japanese’ and simply won’t work. I’m no fan of ‘company songs’…

My views on smokers are more or less unprintable but I doubt whether permits are the right way to go. The classic problem here is with tourists from Europe, most of whom seem to smoke from the age of three upwards. How do we enforce such a system for visitors to Britain, whom we really need to encourage? Also, what about the ubiquitous ‘booze ‘n’ fags cruise to France? Any permit system would simply dramatically increase the illegal sale of cigarettes, with all the potential tax money from legal sales going astray.

A better alternative might be seen at the local authority I work for, whose Sports Development Team has introduced a range of voluntary activities for staff which have proven to be very popular. I have recently done two short ‘taster’ T’ai Chi courses and I am eagerly looking forward to joining a party which will go along to start weeding the new office allotment. They have also organised ‘health walks’ around the area, which all staff are encouraged – but not required to join in with.

The key is that I am not being marched to the allotment in corporate dungarees, I’m doing it because I choose to. The bad back and blisters will thus be entirely down to me.

LINES ON THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION TO BE PARTY LEADER OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

If you can keep your hair when all about are losing theirs
If you can shaft the Tories and the Reds
If you can go to conference and be welcomed
But not spend too long in the hotel bar

If you can say in earnest you've an ipod
And that your socks are from a high street chain
If you can ask a question in the Chamber
And ignore Dennis Skinner as he brays

If you can travel everywhere and nowhere
And glad-hand all the activists the same
And make out that you welcome an election
When Rennard tells you privately its in vain

If you can do all this and smile at Paxman
And endure Naughtie's drivel at 8.10
Then you, my son, can be a party leader
'Though you must be certifiably insane

WHOOSH! ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO REFORM EUROPE

It is reported that Gordon Brown will go to Lisbon today to tell fellow European heads of state that they should end the long debate about EU institutions and start addressing issues such as job creation and climate change which matter to ‘ordinary people’.

This is great news. It must mean that the new treaty, to be agreed tonight, has set out rules on discussions in the Council of Ministers being held in public, on the ability of the elected European Parliament to veto new proposals from the European Commission – and the individual members of the commission themselves. It must mean that the farce of the European parliament going to France once a month at huge expense to massage the famous French ego has ended, that the European Commission will be significantly more accountable to the Parliament and that the endemic corruption which is a feature of the French model of administration adopted in the European institutions way back in 1950 will be tackled head on by the new system.

It must also mean that national parliaments will have their scrutiny role over European legislation significantly beefed up.

How wonderful it will be to see these major strides to democracy in Europe. How surprising if these changes – and so many more which are so desperately needed to stop one of the best ideas ever in international politics sinking into impotent obscurity – were not part of the new treaty.

WHY I'M NOT BACKING CHRIS HUHNE - OR ANYONE YET

It is interesting to see the head of steam which is already building up behind Chris Huhne, which is not necessarily a bad thing: whoever wins the election needs to be popular among as wide a range of the membership as possible. While I remain open to persuasion on all the potential candidates I have two clear concerns about the apparent front runners – if there can be such a thing in a race which hasn’t even been formally declared.

Silver-tongued eco-warrior Chris Huhne has made a sensational impact in the area of environmental politics since the last leadership election – if you want a reason why it was good to have a contest so recently, Chris Huhne’s emergence is a pretty strong one. However, he may find that, if he were successful he would become locked into talking about the environment all the time, to the detriment of other more mainstream areas of politics, such as health and education. I hope he will take the opportunity he is given in the campaign to talk more about such issues, to demonstrate that he has the capacity to do so. I don’t doubt that he does but it would be good to see it.

As to poster-boy and poisoned-chalice supper Nick Clegg, my chief concern with him is that he has a superb image (the Cameroonies must be petrified) and he speaks extremely well on a whole range of subjects but he may not have had the opportunity to mark himself out as a distinct enough persona, which once again the forthcoming campaign would afford him the opportunity to address. It would be nice to see him developing a clear identity for himself during the hustings.

All that said, I am already leaning slightly in the direction of two other, as yet undeclared candidates. It seems we have the exquisite problem of too much talent to choose from. Contrast that with the Tories (Davis, Osbourne, er…). Then laugh.

PMQs: SAME OLD, SAME OLD...

Having had Gordon on the back foot last week, Dave decided to go try an attack on the NHS, always a dodgy decision for the Tories. Dave asked about targets and quoted various people who considered them to be limiting their work, Gordon defended targets and quoted other people. This went on for four questions as their voices increased in volume and nothing new was learned. Dave asked why Gordon wouldn’t listen to the people who worked in the NHS, Gordon responded that it was precisely because he listened to the British people that….and then I lost consciousness.

Then Dave moved on to Europe, asking about a referendum. Cue the left hook, as Gordon simply stated that Dave had decided to move on from the NHS. Gordon’s approach is simply to repeat, repeat, repeat which is crushingly dull but it stops Dave from landing any blows at all.

David Cameron is a lightweight.

Vince Cable stood up and seemed uncannily popular today, with everyone cheering, which must have pleased him. He asked about married people benefiting from the tax system. Gordon answered with a fulsome tribute to Ming and then a crushingly dull response on the tax system. Vince then asked about inheritance tax which penalises unmarried couples. By this time there was audible snoring from all around.

At this point I fell to my knees and prayed, sobbing, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the new LD leader to have some sense of what is interesting to people watching on this one occasion each week when we could get some headlines AND stuff the Tories, and to forget being steadfastly serious. I wonder if the Almighty FSM will grant my wish…

IT'S THE IMAGE, STUPID!

The Independent’s Andrew Grice (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3067226.ece) – one of the few commentators to say anything original - is not the first to suggest that we need better policies to engage with the electorate. His recommendation that we should choose whichever leadership candidate can set out good ideas in these areas is sound, even if it is a little wide of the mark.

We have loads of great policies. Tons of them. Oodles. God knows, we are so policy-heavy that one wonders how any of our candidates and MPs has the time to read a newspaper, since they must spend their lives swotting up on our fairground goldfish policy. Good policies are not the problem. Even in the areas of health and education, we say good things, i.e. Whitehall, leave them alone.

It is surely true that the next party leader will need to have good ideas about policy and be able to develop ideas for us. However, far, far more important than that is the fact that they need more oomph, pure and simple. We need a leader to get voters jumping up and down.

We need more simplicity in our message, however much that offends our alarmingly cerebral MPs (Hemming and Oaten notwithstanding, you understand). All the great dictators knew this: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Blair…Margaret Thatcher kept her message simple to the point of idiocy and won election after election. The ex-Council Houses of Britain ran to the polls to support her.

The crux of this posting is that we can do this, as we have proven. ‘Freedom, fairness, trust’ was a damned good slogan, as was ‘It’s about freedom’. How about Freedom, Lower Taxes, Local Control as three core ideas we espouse for a start? Hands up who outside of Millbank would disagree with any of those aspirations…

Let the Freedom Party stride out!

NO, PAXMAN, NO

It was wonderful to watch Steve Webb and Jeremy Browne on Newsnight last night agreeing on 99% of what Paxman blurted out at them, desperate for an argument in that lazy BBC way. Sadly for TV’s greatest ego, the two MPs were content to hear each other out and when they did disagree, it was entirely amicable.

AMBITION IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD

The next leader of our party might consider looking backwards for their key inspiration after they are elected. When we were significantly worse off in the polls, Paddy Ashdown nevertheless stated his ambition as winning the General Election. Sure it was outlandish, but it got the blood pumping.

Putting aside all our thoroughly principled talk about green taxes, Europe, sensible immigration policies and the rest, wouldn’t it be wonderful to hear our next leader coming out with a bold statement of intent, such as their desire to double the number of our MPs at the next election or to push the Tories into third place.

The new leader needs more bovine compost, not just sound policies and I am inclined to offer my currently completely open mind to whoever persuades me that they intend to wow the electorate, not just try to politely persuade them that we’re really sensible and ready for coalition.

I don’t want a coalition with either of the other main parties – I wouldn’t trust their members an inch - and it seems to me that most people share that view. I want us to win and I will vote for any leadership candidate who sets out such a clear ambition.

‘TIS A FAR, FAR BETTER THING…

The media has been scurrying over the body looking for intrigue but it does appear that Ming decided on his departure of his own volition – albeit in the face of endless rumours about his appeal to voters and his ability to hold the position until a possible 2010 election. The truth will come out over the ensuing months, years and decades but if Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and David Laws – last night’s media sacrifices – are to be believed it does seem to be the truth.
Which makes Ming one of the most courageous and honourable politicians in the country.

One piece of nonsense doing the rounds last night and no doubt in the papers today was that Charles Kennedy was shafted and that Ming could have taken a role as acting leader for six months while Kennedy sorted himself out. That could have happened. After all, the British public is always so forgiving of politicians with character flaws so naturally he would have bounced back…Or is there a flaw in this argument that I am missing?

In the real world, the party was right to get rid of Kennedy, nice guy though he clearly is, but our MPs made a shambles of the process since they’re not in the habit of knifing our leaders in the back like the experienced Tories.

And that’s the only real problem here. Dave now has an escape route. His party will be rubbing its collective oily hands together at the sight of our travails and he will have time to convince them that he really can win an election. He’ll have months to woo support with no prospect of a coup. That said, if he doesn’t manage to discover some real substance during his ‘remission’ he will still be shafted at some point.

It will be good to see the ovation Ming receives at the next party conference, which he will richly deserve.

IF IT WORKS IN AMERICA...

So charismatic Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has told the Commons Home Affairs Committee that the police need to be able to detain terror suspects for longer than 28 days. You can almost imagine the lights being dimmed and the gutsy police chief putting a torch under his chin to make him look more sinister as he told MPs that the number of terror plots in the UK is mounting.

Apparently, said the other Mr Blair, "the number of the conspiracies, the number of conspirators within those conspiracies and the magnitude of the ambition, in terms of destruction and loss of life, is mounting, has continued to mount year by year," he said. Woooooooooooooh!

He went on: ‘given that increase in threat "a pragmatic inference can be drawn that at some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient"’. That is undeniably true. We all know that the risk from terrorism has increased significantly since we decided to fight an illegal war four years ago and to destroy another country. However, there are a range of risks out there which we need to watch for but not necessarily to change our whole way of life to address.

Never forget Lembit’s endless search of the skies for signs of our Armageddon. Should we all go and live in subterranean caverns, just top be on the safe side?

If the Tory/UKIP axis succeeds in destroying Europe, we might end up in another European war so perhaps we should put in place a Propaganda Act now just to be sure. We might also set up a Ministry of Supply, just to be sure. What about reintroducing conscription, just to be sure.

The simple, undeniable truth underlying this endless call for a longer detention period for terror suspects is that no police force in this country has yet needed even the full 28 days to build a case against a terror suspect or – crucially – to realise that there is no case to answer and then to release them. They might need this power at some indeterminate time in future but that’s really not a good reason to go scurrying off to Parliament again, just two years after our Parliamentarians – whatever our views of them – discussed and decided on the current limit. Surely 28 days is long enough.

I wonder that the other Mr Blair finds time for policing these days, since he seems to spend his whole life telling politicians what to do.

WHY WE SHOULD SUPPORT A REFERENDUM ON THE EU TREATY

Because its what the voters want.

THICK FOG MARS CONFERENCE

Conference seems to get better each year and its always a boost when the venue is as good as Brighton. It was a shame that the evenings were marred by thick fog around the main hotels.

It is incredible to find that in the most enlightened party in the country so many of our members still feel the need to puff away endlessly, so much so that entry or exit from any hotel in Brighton was a game of Russian Roulette with the level of toxins in the air equivalent to those of a poorly maintained Trabant queuing in heavy traffic along Unter den Linden.

Here’s a money-spinning idea for the conference committee which you can have for free. Why not set up a tobacco stall in the fringe to subsidise entry for the rest of us? It could generate significant extra income and make the price of registration much lower for everyone. Also, I wonder if ALDC training could diversify into stopping smoking courses, perhaps, in true LD style, majoring on the tax included in the price of every packet of fags and the long-term problem of dying hackers clogging up the NHS and costing us millions in their maintenance.

Or am I getting too puritanical to be a true ‘liberal’…?

LOOK OUT ANT AND DEC, HERE COMES MING

In the face of Gordon's humbling and Dave clawing his way back from the brink, some serious attention is now being paid to Ming's public persona - and not before time.

He is universally recognised to be extremely able and he is always impeccably presented but he has never had what us plebs still call the common touch. How nice therefore to see two excellent examples last week of his image being addressed.

First on Question Time he spoke well on a range of topics and, after a bit of a stilted start, during which is hand seldome left his face, he really seemed to warm to the event and to (New Labour word alert!) engage with the audience.

Then on Sunday he was interviewed - shock, horror - without a tie on! No feathers were available in my house at the time but if there had been someone could have knocked me over with one.

I hope this continues - with the crucial rider that his advisers musn't lose sight of the real man behind the image, i.e. no baseball caps or dancing. Just make him a bit more approachable.

LINES ON THE COWARDICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER – AND A MOVIE PROPOSAL

Gordon Brown’s decision not to call the election is a major disappointment and a humiliation for the ghastly Labour spin machine. It would be lovely to think that lessons would be learned and their approach to politics would change but that’s about as likely as the Tories getting a decent leader any time soon.

The true nature of the Brown government is now far clearer. He will do his utmost to maintain an aura of quiet competence by avoiding any difficult decisions, instead leaving it to his lieutenants to carefully gauge every decision for popularity. This presents a fascinating opportunity to praise Blair, who at least had the courage of his convictions, even if he was sometimes so wide of the mark as to be criminal. Mercifully I have the strength of will to avoid praising him for anything in the light of the carnage which he has instigated in Iraq.

The biggest disappointment is that Dave has been inexplicably strengthened by the whole sorry affair. This is initially a very bad outcome but the longer term view is more positive. It is now highly likely that Tory woes will continue well into 2008 as the right wing gradually chew off their muzzles and prepare for aggro. Dave got out of jail with recent events but he can’t rely on events like this to save his skin for long. Bizarrely, the odds on William Hague getting another go on the merry-go-round are currently by far the shortest of all the contenders.

So there we have it, the future movie. A cowardly ‘hero’ remains out of danger by avoiding a fight, having caused months of grief to desperate townsfolk who have been looking for clues about his arrival to rid the town of the inept baddie, Dave. His arch enemy is thus saved from the brink by this unlikely intervention, only to face murder by one of his own supporters at some indeterminate time in the future. Meanwhile our ‘hero’ must decide when to ride into town to claim the girl and the sheriff’s badge but he’s so hopelessly indecisive he’s bound to wait until the last minute of the movie, leading to two hours of talking and speculation and a massive anti-climax at the end as he sneaks in under cover of darkness to steal what he wants with the minimum of fuss.

Did Terence Davies ever make a cowboy movie? If he did, it would be as dull as this.

HMM, NOT BAD, BUT THEN…

As a good Liberal Democrat – and therefore the friend to all - let me begin by giving credit where due. Dave spoke well. His speechwriters set out the plan and he worked to it, occasionally getting a bit too wordy but fundamentally he did well. He was clearly well received by the party faithful and it seems even the unfortunate use of a mild swear word didn’t p*ss off the crowd too much.

However, what he said should be the key and everything he said ticked all the usual Tory boxes. It doesn’t matter how much he jokes about the internet or mentions their very laudable aims to get more female candidates, the basics remain the right wing policies which the Tories have espoused for years.

To use a Cameronesque construction, the blunt, simple fact is that they haven’t changed. Not one jot.

He supports the family. So do we all. Heck, I’ve got one and I’m quite fond of it but that doesn’t mean that all other models should be ditched. Single mums vote too, Dave and their kids need just as much help as everyone else’s.

He supports our armed forces. Yep, we do too. The difference is that we didn’t want them to go and get shot at in Iraq and our MPs seem to have been raising uncomfortable issues like the need for good quality housing for the armed forces for some time.

He thinks that if people on benefits won’t work they should lose their benefits. Absolutely but what happens to them then? You can almost hear the brayed ‘Who Cares?!’

He lauded the future 18th Baronet Osbourne (George, to his friends) for his proposals to help first time buyers. Great, the Stamp Duty gimmick would help some people but it can hardly be dressed up as a policy. What about the people higher up the ladder who might reasonably be helped to move on by further changes to the laughable house buying system, which would free up more housing at the lower end of the market, for example.

The speech could be over-analysed but there seems little need. After all, the same proposals have been picked over for ten years or more. So much for the new Tories. Expect elbows to be sharpened as the jostling to replace Dave commences.

THE MARCH OF IDS

In a touching display from the normally callous Tories, attendees gave Ian Duncan Smith a rousing ovation at their conference this week after he had spoken on social justice as the key challenge for them.

There was clearly much affection for him in the conference hall but you have to wonder if this also betrays a certain sense of unease at the treatment meted out to him when he was ditched in favour of Michael Howard. With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that getting rid of IDS so unceremoniously did precisely nothing for the Tories and it has simply led to them looking more rudderless than ever, as they face their sixth new leader in a decade.

Surprisingly, the coup against him seems to have benefitted him most of all as he has been able to go off in all sorts of novel directions for a Tory MP and, uniquely among them, his reports into the area of social justice do seem to throw up genuinely interesting conclusions.

Could the ‘quiet man’ come back shouting?

FUTURE WELSH VOTERS RESPOND TO TORY INITIATIVE ON EDUCATION

Following Michael Gove's policy announcement on the mandatory introduction of blazers to stop the rot in our society, a group of clearly Trotskyite children in Wales decided to respond in kind by burning their blazers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485337&in_page_id=1770

Now here's a quandary for Gove: should we hug the little darlings or should they be birched and sent to fill the new prison places the Tories will build if they win the election? Or - and here's a radical idea - should we not overreact and let the school deal with the problem rather than plastering it over the esteemed pages of the Daily Himmler?

TORY PROMISES ON EUROPE – ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH

William Hague, the only Tory with a licensed sense of humour, has had ‘em rolling in the aisles once again in Blackpool. He has called for the original Accession Treaty by which Britain joined the then European Community to be amended so that any new treaty which ‘signed away’ powers to Europe would have to be subject to a referendum.

Well this just about beggars belief. Not only did a Tory Prime Minister sign that same accession treaty in 1972, supported by his Cabinet colleagues, including one M. Thatcher but at the time he didn’t seem to think that a referendum was necessary. So Hague’s pretty much accepting that Ted Heath AND the Blessed Margaret were both wrong in agreeing to the original treaty.

Of course he would deny this in his strained Yorkshire tones. He would declare that we didn’t know what we were letting ourselves in for back then, which may well be true. ‘Events, dear boy’, after all, do come along.

Unfortunately, this argument becomes a little more tenuous when you move forward three years to the referendum on European membership called by a Labour government, which proved very clearly that such a vote was entirely feasible and practicable. Luckily for us, the good people of Britain recognised that it was better to be in than out and overwhelmingly supported continued membership.

Then we shudder forward in the TARDIS of Tory Tendentiousness to 1985, when Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister signed the Single European Act which, among other things, pledged this country to join a Single European Currency. Now there have been several big issues surrounding Europe but none was surely as big as the genesis of the Euro, which at the time of course, no one quite knew that we would or would not join. Still, the saintly Margaret signed up and unfortunately she forgot to ask the rest of us what we thought (though, being 16 at the time, she wouldn’t have listened to me anyway…). Must have been an oversight on her part.

Back to the time cruiser, bolt the doors and whiz forward, lurching around for dramatic effect, to 1992, when the estimable John Major signed up to the Treaty on European Union, better known as the Maastricht Treaty, which, among other things, signed us up to a common foreign and security policy and more majority voting. Gosh, that’s quite a big issue as well, isn’t it?

A tremendous shame, then, that John Major was too busy putting his Cones Hotline into place to arrange for a referendum of the British people on this new ‘signing away’ of powers to Europe.

Back to the TARDIS to spring forward to a golden new dawn on Blackpool’s sands, where William Hague tells us all will be well in future if only we support the Tories. No more ‘signing away’ our powers to Europe without a referendum because he assures us it won’t happen again without us being asked what we think.

I have a nagging doubt myself…

The final word on this must be the obvious point – even to a Tory – that even if the unthinkable happened on November 1st they would never introduce such a change because they couldn’t. The other European governments would not agree to it. So the whole speech is (searching for a polite word) bunkum.

QUICK, GRAB ALL THE POLICIES YOU CAN. WE’RE LEAVING!

According to the Independent, the future 18th Baronet Osbourne (George to his friends), tasked with preparing the Tories’ manifesto for the impending contest on November 1st, has decided that it will be much shorter and less specific than last time. A single sheet of A4 printed in 14 point on one side might just suffice, given the sheer poverty of their ideas.

He made this announcement at a fringe meeting entitled ‘How do the Conservatives win next time?’ Well, you can imagine the tumbleweed which must have swept through that Blackpool meeting room as they all sat round looking bemused and quizzical.

Their latest stunning statement is that they would take the money from the cancellation of ID cards and use it to build 1,200 extra prison places. So that’s two months’ sentencing dealt with. I expect they’ll worry about the others in due course. They will also lift the threshold for Stamp Duty to £250,000. Oh, and increase the starting point for inheritance tax to £1m. Er…

That’s the key: their announcements simply don’t fit together. Some of them have merit. The proposal to change inheritance tax is valid as it affects increasing numbers of people on fairly standard incomes. Similarly, Stamp Duty needs reviewing, possibly with a view to increasing the starting threshold and the limit at which the 1% level moves to 3% but this should surely not be done by the Honourable George on the back of an envelope in Brighton.

Other proposals, such as the laughable plan to build their way out of the prisons crisis – carrying on the wonderfully successful Tory policy of the 1980s and 1990s – reveal them to be precisely the same philosophically bankrupt party which fell apart in 1997 and which has struggled since them to reinvent itself, apparently because every time it looks inward at itself it is revolted by what it sees.

Well, that’s understandable. So are the rest of us.

I reckon the key comes from Dave’s latest interview on the BBC when he was asked if the Tories thought they could win an election, he responded: ‘We believe we can.’ Now you can read too much into statements in an interview but that’s hardly a ringing statement of ambition.

The issue for Gordon Brown, as a commentator (one of many) said this morning on Radio 4, is that he is now subject to a force of his own creation but which he cannot alter or resist any longer. If he does not announce this election he will be pilloried for it and he will lose a lot of support. More than ever, his decision would save Dave and open the door to the Tories for the Spring. That would be disastrous for everyone, including the Tories, perversely.

TORIES TAKE FIRM ACTION ON EDUCATION

In a blizzard of new and rehashed policies, the Tories' key weapon for improving our schools may have been lost, so it is worth restating.

Tory Shadow Education Secretary, Michael Gove, believes that requiring children to wear blazers will contribute 'to having an ethos where people when they go to school are there to work, not to bunk off, not to play around, but to study, learn and to acquire opportunities'.

A truly splendid idea and one which could perhaps be extended to other areas of life. Perhaps if football supporters were required to wear striped blazers and boaters there would be less aggression at football matches. Perhaps if prisoners were required to wear hacking jackets and chinos they would be more conerned with their appearances than with the crisis of 3 to a cell and the imminent explosion of the system.

It is so blindingly obvious that this policy is sheer genius that one must only marvel that David Cameron is not already Prime Minister in whichever parallel universe his party occupies.

What a shame they are stuck here in this strange world of normal people, no doubt desperate to get home to their own dimension, where the Daily Mail is the only report Civil Servants need to set national policy and where all children up to the age of 18 walk around smartly in shorts, ties and sensible shoes.